geogphotos

Verified
  • Content count

    886
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

458 Forum reputation = good

About geogphotos

  • Rank
    Forum regular

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    www.geographyphotos.com

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Suffolk, England

Alamy

  • Alamy URL
    http://www.alamy.com/contrib-browse.asp?cid={95B42DF3-1E9B-4C8F-A843-DA54AD10C8AA}&name=ian+murray
  • Images
    55517
  • Joined Alamy
    19 Dec 2002

Recent Profile Visitors

1,647 profile views
  1. Puzzled

    How very odd. Some weird people around Don't let it discourage you from posting.
  2. RM vs RF usage...again!

    Bill you should have provided Alamy with released images if you wanted them to be RF. RF means that images are available for all Creative and Editorial Uses. That was the case until one of the micros invented Editorial RF and that was long after 2004. Surely if you wanted to shoot for RF you knew that releases were needed?
  3. RM vs RF usage...again!

    That is my view. We need a new combination licence that meets the needs of buyers and gets rid of this outdated legacy RF/RM nonsense. It already exists on the world's major stock site when it comes to their Editorial section. Pics are simply referred to as Editorial and the buyer has an option of the Standard Licence or a Custom one.
  4. RM vs RF usage...again!

    Wrong assumption.
  5. RM vs RF usage...again!

    Graham, I very much doubt that any buyer wants just any image of the museum/carnival subject matter you mentioned. They will more likely want the right one to match their purpose. Images are not widgets, they are each unique in some way. I'm tempted to suggest that if an image is so generic that thousands of near identical ones already exist that the question arises whether it is worth producing eyt another one?
  6. RM vs RF usage...again!

    RM images are quite likely less expensive that RF. It depends on the intended use. Traditionally RF is priced by file size, and RM by the actual use ie) small use= low fee Most editorial users only want one-use. Again, traditionally RF has been popular with Creative users who intend to use an image over and over, especially because RF came with model and property releases. These days the whole thing is much more blurred. You see so-called RM licences with perpetuity, and so-called RF images price for use not file size, That is why I think the whole RM/RF licence thing needs to be scrapped and redesigned.
  7. RM vs RF usage...again!

    I agree. It is time to get rid of this increasingly meaningless distinction. Offer images for sale, find out what use/s the buyer wants, and negotiate a deal.
  8. RM vs RF usage...again!

    Not only the faith of the recent convert but also the miracle cures.
  9. RM vs RF usage...again!

    So you don't actually follow your own advice ( see above) about what should be RF and what should be RM. Not sure why you are advising newbies to put everything as RF when you aren't doing so.
  10. RM vs RF usage...again!

    I thought that you had been converted to RM editorial for Alamy and leaving RF micro behind. I guess you have lapsed a little
  11. RM vs RF usage...again!

    There is nothing as devout as a recent convert who has found the faith and true cause. The beauty is that we are all entitled to think and do what we want. The trouble always seems to come when others want to proselytise about their religion.
  12. RM vs RF usage...again!

    This is inevitable if photographers convince themselves that they should offer RF. It is entirely self-fullfilling. I suppose that is why I dislike these sort of statements from Brasilnut that basically God has decided that everything except miracles must be RF.
  13. RM vs RF usage...again!

    I avoid any agonising by staying with RM for all images.
  14. Adobe's new LR "strategy"??

    I don't use Lightroom so unless they up the subs for the whole package which includes Photoshop I'm not effected directly. I don't use any of the Adobe Cloud storage. I remember when the software that was incorporated into Lightroom was FREE - was it a Dutch company? And then Adobe bought them out - I guess that was what they were aiming for. Probably good to keep alternatives in mind. ie) Canon RAW processing and Elements would do me if the CC subscription package gets too expensive.
  15. Adobe's new LR "strategy"??

    Maybe I misunderstand the new Lightroom but from what I read it will be almost compulsory to rent extensive online storage if you use it.