Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by spacecadet

  1. Alamy's only criterion is technical. Other agencies may select for content, or whatever. But it remains perfectly possible to convert an image to that sort of contrasty b/w style and pass QC- some of the contributors here could probably help you achieve that. Most of us have b/w conversions here, if not quite that style. Even I have a couple, but no sales yet.
  2. Sure, there's "detail", it's just not image detail. Until you accept that this image is a country mile away from being technically suitable, and accept that there is something very wrong with your processing, I don't think we can help you. You clearly can produce acceptable images- you have in the past- you just need to figure out what's gone wrong here.
  3. We wish. My tiny late 70s b/w archive out-performs my main collection by an embarrassing margin. 10 or 20 to 1.
  4. Yes. That was my point. The CDPA exception wouldn't help. But a CLA licence probably would.
  5. An abstract of text may be, but, to quote, copying the whole work would not generally be considered fair dealing. I assume a lot of uses would be covered by a CLA or similar licence.
  6. Yes, he has rather put himself in harm's way. Though QC is very fair. It's just what they see at 100%- nothing else matters. OP just has to get things straight.
  7. Although punctuation is usually ignored, I seem to remember Alamy saying that they do recognise some special cases. That would suggest "D.C." is one of them. One could think of a few others- there's Westward Ho! in Devon, with punctuation in its official name, probably uniquely. No difference in search, though.😕 "Repent, Harlequin!" Said the Ticktockman
  8. I don't think you're right about that- I think Alamy know how to post a 100% crop as it's always been the basis of QC, but it's still falling to pieces at half the size.
  9. No.. I make 100% about 140cm across on my monitor. That's about right for 5000px But it isn't anywhere near acceptable. If you are seeing it as sharp, either there's something wrong with your viewing environment or your definition of "sharp" is very different from ours- or more importantly, Alamy's. The original may be in focus, but the real problem is the processing. You're losing a great deal of detail somewhere.
  10. In LR, no, the changes are kept in a separate file. Something, something, something dark side catalogue. You just click on the first item your editing history in Develop and you're back to the original. But in PS I think that if you re-save a jpeg with the same filename, the changes are baked in. That is your jpeg now.
  11. Spanish PU, pretty cheap too. Somebody wasn't in church. Still, nice to licence my favourite modern architecture. That's OH in front.
  12. They were only interested in the internal shell on its back.
  13. I was surprised to learn that he only shot whole plate (that's 8.5"x6.5" for you youngsters, 21.5x16.5cm for the toddlers)- some of those guys were doing 16x12 contact prints! Breathtaking.
  14. They're certainly supposed to be and I assume that's the basis on which most of us operate.
  15. I searched the blog and couldn't find anything in particular- could you link it?
  16. On a strict reading of the contract I'm with Jan. s28 refers to an image being exclusive unless it's available "via any third party licensing, sales or (where the Image is not supplied by Alamy) distribution channel, including without limitation another stock agency or image site but excluding the Contributor’s personal website and print sales,another stock agency or image site" So offering an image via a sharing site that offered a CC, or whatever, licence, even free, would make it non-exclusive.
  17. Such detailed recollection.!. Perhaps I just got the hang of it. Hope I haven't demeaned too much.
  18. Hyphens are ignored in search, and the words truncated, so fool-hardy would search as foolhardy. If you need two words separated but kept together as one tag, use a space. A comma will separate them into two.
  19. You answered: "I don't know where you get this idea but it doesn't. It just stops. I have nothing in my additional info field unless I put it there deliberately." This is what I am responding to. Your answer is completely incorrect. I know you're resisting keywording prior to upload, using long wielded methods, which is totally crazy to me, but each to their own... If it works for you, then fine. Whatever, I don't care too much about being right, but if you cared to follow the whole sub-thread you would see that Jan Brown said "it just stops allowing me to type" so it's clear she was talking about AIM. Hence my "it just stops", which is completely correct. It wasn't clear that the poster to whom she responded was referring to your method. Anyway it doesn't really affect the gist of the thread, which is that you can only display 150 characters. I'm not "resisting" tagging in advance- I haven't mentioned it, or even thought about it. Since I don't submit elsewhere I lose nothing, and if I wanted to Alamy would send me all the annotations anyway.
  20. Whatever you do, just don't google "flog frog".
  21. Maybe if you import captions, but not if typing into AIM, which was what was being discussed.
  22. So few of my sales are zoomed I don't even bother checking anymore.
  23. I don't know where you get this idea but it doesn't. It just stops. I have nothing in my additional info field unless I put it there deliberately.
  24. A cuttlefish. In FF I get the caption if I mouseover the image. More a European thing fishmonger-wise although you see more squid.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.