I would transfer again in case something went wrong there. Maybe the camera was low on battery during transfer.

If that doesn't work try duplicating the photo in camera in some way, there are filter options which do not delete the original but make copies with the filter, maybe this works.

For example use the trim effect which crops your image this will not crop the original but it makes a duplicate in your memory card with the cropped version.

Hi Spooner,
i use corel although i'm not submitting vectors but i made a couple and what i did was i saved from corel as illustrator format and the opened in illustrator to save as eps. Maybe you can also do the same with some freeware vector soft - you cant save the eps they want for stock directly from corel.
Hope this helps.

I'll try to explain why this photo is good and why it is worth (big) money.

Compositional Aspect: The composition becomes conceptual by the blending of the subject with the surroundings. This is a favorite subject explored by many other classical photographers. The way the skirt blends with the texture and shape of the tiles and the way the blushed face matches the color of the floor. On the contrary to what we would do in stock photography which is to try and make the subject pop-out here the key is blending in. Again there is a sort of mystery like an old film to all her work and a strong body of work is more important than a single great photo.

Artistic background: Of course she is not a random photographer and her name gives value to the work - there's no denying that. Of course the hype around the name and vanity of the collector wanting to own but usually just invest in art raises the prices. Apart from that though she is one of the names considered as an influence to what became known as "heroin-chic" during the 90s in fashion photography (actually they copied her style) and was around in the 80s to be part of the no-wave and "cinema of transgression".

Like Sharpshot said whether someone likes her work or not we should be pleased that a photographer is making this sort of money. It's hard for an artist to be starving for decades - (slapping and rubbing his face to make it blend with the floor for a selfportrait) - and few are those that are finally recognized and cash-in while alive.

About the point made that microstock photographers wouldn't get accepted in the art crowd - i must agree to this at least for all the work submitted as stock and all similar series. However for example there are musicians who do music for commercials for a living (like we do stock) and still produce their own music (art).

Edit: I just saw on the other thread that this was commissioned work for a magazine that didn't get accepted. If it had been used commercially and printed in the magazine i'm pretty sure that it wouldn't sell at this price today so this i think solidifies Badricks point about stock or commercial work being excluded or devalued in the art market.

It's only fair that european sites like fotolia and dreamstime start paying in euros.

Art Student Nadia Plesner's Giant Louis Vuitton Copyright Suit:

http://nymag.com/daily/fashion/2008/05/art_student_nadia_pelsners_gia.html

and a link to her page with the original art:

http://www.nadiaplesner.com/Website/darfurnica.php

Thanks Sue,
that's what i thought about Alamy. Would it be ok then to submit the same editorial image as RF in istock and RM in Alamy? I see agencies like Zoonar for example selling the images as RF or/and RM according to use.

This is sickening but it's no surprise.  I have to sell a lot more just to get back to the commission I'm unhappy with now.  Looks like microstock is going to be unsustainable for me, unless something drastic happens and we all leave the sites that pay ridiculously low commissions.  I just can't see that happening, the vast majority will continue to accept more and more commission cuts.  Now I'm even more motivated to find another way to make a living.

Maybe it's a temporary thing because of the economic crisis, things should get back to normal at some point. The last couple of days i've noticed in horror that almost every single site i upload to has some sort of problem. Be it uploads not working, be it files missing, not showing up, uploaded but not showing, no views, disappearing sales, sites down for repair, delayed earnings, etc, etc. I don't remember this sort of mess in the past.

About fotolia, the main problem is that they don't know what files they want in the collection, they only now how many they can accept each month.
This year they accept a lot of landscapes for example where in the past they were known for not accepting them. In the end the have accepted less of my files from the big4 and so they are making me less money than any of the big4. I don't think it's irrelevant.

thanks, i feel better i'm not alone in this!

Nice stuff, thanks for the link. Her work is really good, reminded me a bit of Robert Frank and Diane Arbus.

I also have some nice photos i found thrown on the street. What are the rules about posting such photos to stock sites, is it possible depending on how old they are or something? Like stamps or is it out of the question for found photos?

I knew i had a book somewhere that had credit from istock and i just found it:

http://cd.pbsstatic.com/xl/07/1107/9780753821107.jpg

Clearly states in the back cover " cover photograph : (c) GlennBristol/iStockphoto - Design: Sue Michniewicz"

Maybe it's the subscription sites that don't require to credit photographers.

I searched the forum but couldn't find an answer, are we supposed to be credited if our image is used in book covers?

Just found a new book today published in November 2010 with a detail from one of my photos on the cover, but only the designer is credited, no photographer credit. The cover design is a white box and line over my photo with the author name and book title. Should we be credited for this use?

Thanks!

I have to agree there's no consistency in reviews and it's not just istock.

Last night a reviewer approved 6 of my files in a row - no rejections. This morning another reviewer rejected 6 files in a row - no approvals.

Same photographer - different reviewer!