Well, I seem to be the minority in this, but I can't be bothered to resize images for various sites.  It makes more work for me and I don't get paid any extra for it.   

In fact, uploading low-res to sub sites may cost me sales because if a buyer gets a XL from one of those sites and it turns out to be a lousy uprezzed image instead of high quality, they probably won't buy my images again. 

Yes, it rankles to get those sub sales.  It does and I won't deny it.  But if people object so much to subscriptions that they are willing to expend their uncompensated time and energy just to give customers the lowest quality possible, maybe microstock is not the place for them?

- regular job
+ travelling throughout Europe, funded by microstock (breaking even is enough since I would have travelled anyway, but I have hopes to earn something too)

Waiting for the electricity to come back or FD to come back...

Photos made with (smart) phones look cool on those small oversaturated displays, but really ugly once downloaded to a proper computer. I like new technologies but I will never exchange quality for convenience. Even p&s are already a trade-off compared to a proper dSLR - except perhaps a few "bridge" cameras which are quite expensive and not so small in the end. It's still a long way before they can squeeze good optics inside a small lens imo, although theoretically possible thinking at how our human eyes work.

Just my guess, FWIW. If those who are still waiting had high acceptance at StockXpert, and have high acceptance rates at other agencies, then I'm obviously barking up the wrong tree.

Hey everyone,

We're experiencing a massive increase in submissions. Hence, our reviewers are working as fast as they can to approve your images.

Please be patient and bear with us. Your cooperation is much appreciated. Thank you.

If you need someone to talk to, or a direct line, here's my email: [email protected]


Many thanks,
Anglee

Quote from: nosaya on September 06, 2010, 11:05

My trusty and dead-on accurate Samsung CRT monitor finally got to the point where I could no longer perform an accurate hardware color calibration 
The blue gun was dying.

While I really, really was in love with the idea of a 30" monitor, the cost was too high to justify.
I finally decided on the NEC MultiSync LCD 2690WUXi(2).
The almost 26" screen is wonderful and I have a 20" Dell LCD set to the side to in profile mode for my Photoshop tools.
That leaves me the entire NEC screen for my image!

The NEC has a built in 12 bit color look up table (LUT) and this monitor's color gamut has 97.8% coverage of the Adobe RGB color space.
If you get the NEC Spectraview software with it; hardware color calibration is a total no brainer. It utilizes the built in LUT for calibration.
Just set up the puck, hit go and the monitor calibrates itself without any human intervention.
In addition, this monitor's color gamut has 97.8% coverage of the Adobe RGB color space.

I have used Eizo monitors and I find this NEC to be equal or better.

Here's a link:  http://www.necdisplay.com/Products/Product/?product=8899a96d-28dc-484f-a4de-14309a636738

It looks like a gorgeous monitor, but I'm not sure I want to spend that much. I think I paid around $800 for the Samsung 244T. Patrick's HP monitor sounds good, but I'm leery of HP, and the price sounds too good to be true. Decisions, decisions....