• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

577 Forum reputation = excellent

About M.Chapman

  • Rank
    Forum regular

Profile Information

  • Gender


  • Alamy URL
  • Images
  • Joined Alamy
    12 Jan 2010
  1. Canon g9x?

    In my experience the lens on the G9X is not as good as the lens on the RX100 Mk3. Watch out for CA/fringing/softness in the corners. IMHO the RX100 will pass QC more reliably. With the G9X there's a higher risk of QC problems, depending on subject matter. I've processed RAW images from both and I much prefer my RX100 Mk III. Mark
  2. #infringement team!

    Seems very logical...
  3. MyAlamy Net Revenue changes

    Anyone noticed sales clearing in advance in downloaded CSV??? I just looked at my sales report and saw I've sold an image today. So I downloaded a CSV for my records and the CSV shows the sale has already cleared with a date of 04/01/2018. However, the on screen sales report shows this field as empty... Are there some gremlins in the csv downloads from the new sales report? Just looked at the downloaded report for some other recent sales and they are showing as cleared in the future too. Mark
  4. Keyword agency

    What's their typical price per image?
  5. #infringement team!

    I wonder if they will no longer pursue such cases? If they still do, why include the exception? "Has been reproduced on another website as a direct copy of an original article which has a license". I've also had Alamy chase an "indirect usage" by another publication of a photo published in a magazine using an Alamy licence. But it was several years ago now. One thing I find frustrating is the online newspaper usage sometimes allows you to click on the image and view/copy much larger version of the image than is displayed in the article. Why?? I often find illegal higher res copies of my images elsewhere on line after a newspaper usage. Couldn't Alamy, as part of the preferential T&Cs given to newspapers, include some sort of of restrictions? Mmmm.... Given that Newspapers often fail to include a credit line anyway, which is presumably already the T&Cs, I guess it wouldn't be followed/couldn't be enforced. Mark
  6. I use PSE 7 (on Windows) or PSE 8 (on Mac). They do just the things I need and they run fast. I've briefly tried pretty much every version since on a trial basis and found them really slow and clunky in comparison and the user interface wasn't as good (light colour screens and too many dumbed down options that I had no use for). Mark
  7. That makes perfect sense when converting from RAW and using PSE. My workflow is 1) RAW -> LR -> 16 bit TIFF 2) 16 Bit TIFF -> PSE -> make brightness/levels/contrast etc adjustments in 16 bit mode then convert to 8 bit 3) Make final cloning etc. adjustments in 8 bit mode (PSE won't do these in 16 bit mode) -> Save as 8 bit Jpeg What makes little sense to me is why taking an 8 bit file and then converting to 16 bit should provide a benefit. I suppose it increases the precision of any maths (by a factor of 2) when smoothing / blending etc. so rounding errors might not accumulate quite so readily? So the histogram looks smoother?? I can't try the test described as I only have PSE.
  8. CA on Alamy front page yet again

    Quite significant amount too. Obviously most images aren't checked by QC, but I'd expect 100% of the images they use on the home page to be checked...
  9. Calendar publication and DACs

    OK thanks. I was in a shop earlier saw one of my pictures in a 2018 calendar. Sale already reported. Yipee! Shame it's not eligible for DACs, I took down all the details and took a phone snapshot just in case. Second time I've found one of my images in the same shop.
  10. +1 Agreed. There's no point in going to a 16 bit TIFF. You can't add back information you've already lost. The 16 bit file produced from an 8 bit file will just have RGB values that use only the even intensity numbers. An 8 bit value of 2 (for example) will convert to a 16 bit value of 4. An 8 bit value of 3 will convert to 6 etc.
  11. Calendar publication and DACs

    Are publications in UK calendars eligible for DACs claims? Mark
  12. #infringement team!

    Good to see that Alamy are encouraging us to inform them about infringements. The exceptions appear quite limiting, but sensible (from Alamy's perspective). My interpretation is that Alamy will only pursue infringements where the following is evident The published image must have been downloaded (or copied) directly from Alamy's (or their distributors?) website AND A licence has not been purchased from Alamy for the usage OR the usage breaks the terms of any Alamy licence that was purchased. If the image has ever been displayed/published elsewhere previously* they won't pursue potential infringements (even if the previous display/publication was using a legitimate Alamy licence). Or have I misunderstood? Mark
  13. Lightroom Perpetual Licence Version Installers & Upgrades

    Excellent thanks. I've taken a copy of 6.0 and the 6.13 update in both Windows and Mac formats. I never know when they might be needed, but Adobe have a habit of hiding links to the old stuff now they are pushing the subscription version (which I will never use). Mark
  14. Lightroom Perpetual Licence Version Installers & Upgrades

    On the web page mentioned above the updates can't be the complete programs - they're too small. There are complete versions of 4, 5 and then 6.0 and then a series of patches for 6.0 up to 6.13 that get bigger and bigger. I presume that the downloads for 4 and 5 are the final updated versions of those, but to reach 6.13 it looks like its needs 6.0 then the 6.13 update Mark
  15. Lightroom Perpetual Licence Version Installers & Upgrades

    I note that the update files get progressively bigger. Does this mean that each update is a "roll-up" of all the previous updates? i.e. to install 6.13 on a new PC do I just need to install LR6.0 and then install the 6.13 update? Mark