Graham

Try Chillblast. They have machines configured for various purposes as standard, and they can be customised as required. They will discuss specs over the phone if you need it. My last 3 PCs have all been from Chillblast.

It depends on the subject and how you process them. I have 9 at ISO 25,600, one at ISO 20,000 and 9 at ISO 16,000 (mostly one series of images of the same subject). After that, there are many more: 654 at ISO 12,800, for example. In aggregate, I have 240 at ISO 6,400 and above. High ISO images tend to be either night shots or wildlife, with a few interiors. I have sold several of these. Graham

Not exactly on topic, but here goes. I was recently in Brazil, photographing wildlife, using Canon cameras. Both are high end models, the 5DIV and R5, supposedly weather sealed. Ok, Canon have never said they are waterproof, but they are supposed to be rain resistant. We were caught in a tropical storm in an open boat for a couple of hours. The cameras got pretty wet, but they were in a camera bag and a rucksack (neither of which was waterproof): they did get wet, but were out of the rain and not exposed to direct rainwater over the 2 hour period. It was humid and not particularly warm, making subsequent drying problematic, beyond towelling them off. The 5DIV died and did not recover - repair bill on return (via Fixation) £1,000. The R5 spluttered to life after a couple of days, but only without the battery grip. A couple of days later, the battery grip sort of worked, although sometimes it thought it only had one battery. The R5, although working, gave spurious start-up messages and I thought it prudent to have it checked over. Fixation could not do the repair because Canon will not give them R5 parts (it is out of warranty, which is why I sent it to Fixation). Canon will not even look at repairing the battery grip, they just want to sell you a new one. Canon's quote for the R5 check and repair is nearly £600, which with the cost of a new grip takes the total up to nearly £1,000. Thankfully the trip leader very kindly loaned me some of his Nikon gear until I could get the R5 working again, alleviating the worst of what would have been a disaster for the rest of the trip. I still had a M6ii as a backup, brought on the trip only to snap landscapes, which looked pretty ridiculous on the end of my large telephotos; it is no wildlife camera, but at least it survived unscathed in its own little case. Pretty expensive for a pair of supposedly weather sealed cameras getting a bit wet in a rainstorm. Do not take Canon's claims of weather sealing too seriously.

When I bought my first film SLR in about 1980, I found tiny bugs walking around, which I could see in the viewfinder. No sensor to affect then! The dealer suggested putting the camera in the freezer, to kill them off. I stood my ground and insisted on a replacement, so never got to try it out, but may be worth a try if there is no other way to get rid of the spider. Graham

All my images are RM, but notwithstanding this, recently one of my RM images was explicitly licensed on RF terms. This was the licence summary: Country: WorldwideUsage: Advertising and promotion, Royalty Free, all media, in perpetuityMedia: Promotional brochures/ leaflets/insertsImage Size: Any sizeStart: 28 March 2022Duration: Unlimited I complained to Alamy. Their response was to the effect that they are entitled to do that under the Novel Use terms. I disagree, but it’s not worth arguing over one image the net receipts of which were under $1, even with the RF licence terms. It confirmed, however, that I should opt out of NU, which I did as soon as I could in April. Graham

Some distribution licences can be at reasonable fees. I am assuming that the main culprit as regards low fees is Novel Use. I have recently opted out, and will be interested to see what difference that makes. Graham

They do have the right to give them away. See clause 8.3 of the contributor contract, and clause 9.1 if you are opted into the Novel Use scheme. Graham

I wish we could. I have opted out of Novel Use (which can only be done in April if previously opted in). Nowadays the licences do not report whether or not the image was licensed under the Novel Use scheme, but I am hoping the opt out will at least reduce the amount of near zero dollar sales. I recently had a Rights Managed designated image licensed for Royalty Free use, and for less than one dollar. Alamy think they can grant RF licences under Novel Use, even if the image has been designated as RM by the contributor, which is another reason for having opted out of Novel Use. Graham

I think Alamy want more monochromes. One of my monochromes has twice been used on the Alamy home page (before it changed to the “own the blank” nonsense). You are not paid for this, or even notified, which meant I only saw these by chance, but it was nice to see. Graham

Clause 8.3 of the contributor contract allows Alamy to offer complimentary Content, that is, give away your images. If you have opted into Novel Use, Clause 9.1 also permits Alamy to grant “high volume low unit price licences. Where Alamy does not make a charge to these third parties, you will not receive payment.” I have opted out of Novel Use this year, because there are simply too many sub micro stock priced licences being granted, which I find demotivating. In days gone by, the licence used to state Novel Use, but nowadays it does not, and one can only make assumptions that the low figures correlate to Novel Use: I will discover the truth or otherwise of that this coming year. Graham

All my images, without exception, are marked Rights Managed. A few days ago, a sale appeared with the following licence details: Country: WorldwideUsage: Advertising and promotion, Royalty Free, all media, in perpetuityMedia: Promotional brochures/ leaflets/insertsImage Size: Any sizeStart: 28 March 2022Duration: Unlimited I complained to Alamy that my image being set for Rights Managed licensing, it should not have been licenced on Royalty Free terms. Strangely, the Licence column in the Sales History says "Rights Managed". I cannot see how a RM licence can include a Royalty Free licence: RF is not a sub-set of RM, it is a completely different concept. Alamy replied to the effect that this had been licensed under the Novel Use scheme, and that they considered that they had the right to grant a RF licence, despite my having marked it as RM in image manager. I replied giving Alamy my reasons why I do not consider that they have the right under the terms of the contributor contract (which applies both ways) to grant RF licences in respect of images which contributors have specified as RM, even under the Novel Use scheme, but I have not received a reply to those further comments. I guess we will just have to agree to differ on that one. It can also be seen that although Media is specified as "Promotional brochures/ leaflets/inserts", Usage expands this to include "all media". In other words, Alamy has granted a Royalty Free licence under the guise of RM, for all media advertising and promotion, in perpetuity. And all this for just $0.52 gross. When the commission rate changed, I removed exclusivity from all my images. I believe that Alamy's FAQ used to say that exclusivity (and therefore the previous higher commission rate) could not be granted if the image had previously been licensed RF (perhaps it still does, I have not checked). Despite marking this image for Alamy to license on a RM basis, were I ever to wish to put this image with another agency on an exclusive basis, I probably could not do so because it has now been licensed on RF terms. In other words, I have lost all future control over the use of this image, and for a net return after commission of $0.21. I had assumed that marking my images as RM in image manager would mean that they could only ever be licensed on RM terms, but apparently Alamy has other ideas under the Novel Use scheme. I happened to be awake at midnight on 31 March. At 00.01am on 1st April I opted out of Novel Use. Graham

Some venues have changed their policies over the years. If I take a photo today when there are no restrictions, the venue putting a restriction on its website tomorrow cannot prevent my use of the photo taken today. in order to know whether or not an image is permitted for a particular use, one needs to know both the date on which it was taken and the restrictions (if any) applicable at that date. Moreover, contractual limitations are only effective if brought to the attention of the customer at the time the contract is entered into. It is not necessarily the case that a restriction published on a website but not referred to on the ticketed conditions of entry forms a term of the contract of entry. Graham

Cannot upload via FTP tonight - "Could not connect to server" and Connection attempt failed with "EACCES - Permission denied"". Never had a problem with FTP before. Uploader worked ok though. Graham

There is a live seminar on this subject, which I plan to attend. The link I have is: https://register.gotowebinar.com/rt/8134947203268478476?source=Campaign-Feb-MTD-1 Graham

There has been a great deal of comment about the low level of certain fees, netting only a few cents. My broad understanding is that these result from bulk sales to commercial clients or newspapers, in other words, commercial usage by corporate clients. I have not disabled Personal Use licensing. While the odd probably cynical reversal of PU sales annoys me, overall at $10 or so a time, there is still a benefit and, to my mind, worth having. I had a sale reported yesterday for $0.50 gross. I thought that it was another of those bulk miniscule licence fee sales, but on checking today, I see it was not, it was a Personal Use licence, The exact licence was: "Country: Worldwide. Usage: Personal use, Non-commercial projects such as teaching materials, essays, dissertations, theses and presentations." Why on earth is Alamy selling PU licences at less than a dollar, less than microstock prices from well known players (I hesitate, despite the temptation to do so, to refer to the microstock agencies as competitors). Surely there can be no justification for virtually giving away our images for Personal Use. If anyone is buying bulk packages (if that is the reason for this level of fee), does anyone really believe the images are for personal use? Surely personal use licensing should be available only for single images, without bulk discounts. Is this going to become the new norm for PU? If so, I will disable PU licensing and sell the images myself for better figures on POD sites. It's a crazy situation if people can download images from Alamy almost free for personal use, to print much more cheaply than buying from a POD site. Graham

That is exactly their modus operandi, coupled with their commercial clout to get image hosts to delete images. Graham

The NT's reliance on their bylaws to prevent publication of photographs of NT properties is fundamentally flawed, in many respects. The power conferred by bylaws regulates behaviour on site, for the NT's management of the properties. The NT, however, purports to extend the prohibition on the activity of commercial photography on its land, to the later commercial use of photographs taken on its land, irrespective of the reasons for which they were originally taken. That is not what the bylaw governs, they are not necessarily the same thing at all. The bylaw deals with behaviour while at the property. It does not confer rights to restrict the later use of photographs, even their commercial use. I have been a life member of the NT for decades. I have literally thousands of photographs taken at NT properties over very many years, including while I was working full time and before the idea of selling my photos or stock photography had even occurred to me. I took the photographs for personal pleasure and use, as a hobbyist and for memories. I did not take them for commercial purposes, they were not at that time commercial photography. My subsequent use of images that I later decided to sell for commercial purposes, after I had decided to enter into the world of selling my images and stock photography, which were not taken for commercial purposes at the point in time at which they were taken, is not governed by the bylaw, and the NT does not have any powers to restrict their use. They were not taken using behaviour that was at that time in breach of the bylaw, and once the site has been left, nothing can change that. I did not take the pictures for commercial purposes: their later use is therefore not controlled by the bylaw. There is nothing that the NT can do to prevent their subsequent commercial use. The NT has no power to re-characterise a later commercial use of a photograph which was not originally taken for commercial purposes, even if it is later used for commercial purposes. If the bylaw is enforceable at all (as to which there are other issues), it can only apply to images which, at the point in time at which they were taken, were taken for specifically commercial purposes. It is even arguable that pictures taken today, which are taken primarily for pleasure and personal use (which is what I still do) but with the possibility of some being used for stock photography, are not taken for commercial purposes (i.e. they were at the point in time at which they were taken not photographs taken for a commercial purpose, and thus not within the prohibition on commercial photography), but that is a separate argument. Graham

I find these very annoying. Today I had 8 image sales reported, 4 of which were each for net amounts of less than the $6.18 “other fees”. Pathetically small net sales fees after the increased Alamy commission take, coupled with the new, unattributable “other fees” deductions (which, so far as I know were never a feature in pre PA days - why only since then, one wonders?) continue to decrease motivation. Graham

My wife, who knows a lot about these things, confirms it is a cotoneaster. She cannot tell the variety from this picture - she suggests that more of its habit would help, and that the best place to check is the RHS website. Hope this helps. Graham

Yep, just had one of my own today. My net: $0.07. Probably not enough to pay for the electricity consumed by my computer while composing this message.

I had a QC fail 2 or 3 years ago, which was a picture taken outdoors in good light at ISO 100, high enough shutter speed, mid-range aperture: one of those where nothing could possibly go wrong. It was quite a bright day with fairly harsh shadows. It failed for noise, but I could not see any, even in the deepest shadow areas, however hard I looked. I checked the rest of the batch, reprocessed the failed image then re-uploaded them all, which then passed (this was in the days of every upload going through QC). Maybe someone in QC had had a bad day...

Cannot get to my dashboard at all.

I now have the licence details for the $0.18 sale. Here they are. Country: United KingdomUsage: Editorial, Use in syndicated editorial news features, single context only. Includes archive rights in-perpetuity.Media: Newspaper - nationalPrint run: UnlimitedInsert: more than 25Placement: NationalImage Size: up to full areaStart: 22 November 2021Duration: In perpetuity it is for a national newspaper, full area, unlimited print run, in perpetuity. Many of my sales are for newspaper editorial, but these are for a few dollars, sometimes just about creeping into double figures if I am lucky. But here is a national newspaper editorial sale unlimited print run for a small fraction of a dollar. What on earth is going on here? Graham

I also had a $0.18 gross, $0.07 net sale today. I will be interested to see if this is Novel Use when the details are available tomorrow. If it is, I am going to opt out: it is just insulting that my images are being sold at these rates. As far as I am concerned, they can Novel Use off. There is another thread about what would make you more productive. Certainly these figures are demotivating, and every time I get a sale like this (even if there are also more reasonable $$ sales in the month) I slow down my work on stock images and concentrate instead on POD uploads, and enjoy taking the time to produce a more artistic look. What would make me more productive is an end to these demotivating ridiculously small fees: I would prefer to have nothing at all over my raised blood pressure whenever one comes in. Graham

Really do not like it at all. But it is presumably aimed at buyers, not contributors, and doubtless someone has been paid a lot of money to advise that this is what will bring the buyers flooding in, so what do I know?