• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by M.Chapman

  1. #infringement team!

    Seems very logical...
  2. 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
  3. Keyword agency

    What's their typical price per image?
  4. #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
  5. 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
  6. 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.
  7. 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...
  8. 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.
  9. Calendar publication and DACs

    Are publications in UK calendars eligible for DACs claims? Mark
  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. #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
  12. 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
  13. 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
  14. 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
  15. Excellent. That will help a lot. Mark
  16. This may be of interest to Fuji and LR users. Pete Bridgwood - Sharpening X-Trans Files in Adobe Lightroom It should be noted that he's sharpening for printing (not for Alamy submission), and there are no 100% crops to see, but I found the sharpening workflow description interesting. Mark
  17. Adobe's new LR "strategy"??

    Interesting article and following debate here. Adobe unveils all-new cloud-based Lightroom CC, rebrands old application 'Lightroom Classic' Mark
  18. +1 I've tried using what should be the most favourable combination of tags and supertags for the best image in a set, but it doesn't seem to reliably place it first. I have a feeling that images which have sold previously (possibly against different search criteria) are given a bit extra "magic sauce" and tend to be placed earlier than those that haven't, but it's hard to know for sure. Mark
  19. Please remove panel in AIM

    Doesn't it disappear altogether when you click "Got It"
  20. Adobe's new LR "strategy"??

    Has to be one of the least informative promo videos ever... But whatever it is, I feel I must have it! Mark
  21. Adobe's new LR "strategy"??

    Thanks. That helps clarify. Mark
  22. Adobe's new LR "strategy"??

    Oops sorry, link now fixed
  23. In the green

    3% in green for me. But this is largely due to duplication when Alamy converted the old keywords from main essential and comprehensive field into tags and some phrases seem to have been split. IMHO it's usually a bad idea to "get into the green" by adding 50 tags for 2 reasons. 1) Too many tags will result in irrelevant views without zooms, driving down Alamy rank 2) It makes subsequent editing of tags very difficult as the dreaded "one of your images contains 50 tags" error message will keep popping up. With 3% in the green my sales revenue graph looks like this, so I'm happy to leave my discoverability where it is. In fact I'm baffled as to why Alamy added this measure of "discoverability" in the first place. I'd much prefer it if it simply indicated whether I'd remembered to enter a caption, at least one tag, one supertag and entered something on the optional page. Mark
  24. In the green

    Probably depends if they search for "Sightseer in Trafalgar Square" or Sightseer in Trafalgar Square (i.e. without quotes). If they use quotes the image with the exact matching phrase should come out much higher. If they don't use quotes, then I'm not sure. Should be easy to test though. However, in my experience most buyers don't use very sophisticated searches (e.g. using quotes or additional terms like NOT in their searches). Mark
  25. alternative ALT text

    Not sure I've understood your question. But you might want to Google Exiftool and ExifToolGui which allow you to view and edit pretty much any of the metadata in image files. I've run them on both Windows and Mac to do intricate editing of metadata (e.g. turning lens distortion correction on and off). Hope that helps. Mark