Jump to content

Keith Douglas

Verified
  • Content Count

    441
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Keith Douglas

  1. I see Alan's closing comment in his follow up blog: "Thanks again to everyone who is taking part in this exciting project". But, Alamy, you're shutting out all those with Android phones! Can we have some commitment to allowing those contributors in? Surely it can't be that difficult to create an equivalent Android App?
  2. Perhaps Alamy want to create a curated collection of contempory, up to date and unusual images. Maybe they don't want it filled up with non QC compliant images from everyone's back catalogue going back to the dawn of digital photography and earlier!
  3. BUT, the customer does need to know what the image is, whether the technical quality will meet their needs, and how much it's going to cost. It's no good purchasing a licence for a great iPhone photo if its just not up to the technical quality required for that use. And Technical QC is one thing that distinguishes the core Alamy Collection from Stockimo You can't judge the quality from a LR thumbnail. As it is now, you have to look at the "S" in the image code to know you're looking at a phone shot. How many customers know that ....??????? Where's that information displayed for customers. Are they all reading this forum? All it needs is a few very unhappy customers returning the dross they received to ruin Alamy's reputation. The word spreads quickly in those cases. Is that what Alamy wants? Again, it can be avoided if they place their snapshots in a separate section. Then, at least, you know what you might get (it may be sharp, or maybe not) Cheers, Philippe As I said in my earlier post: Why not have a prominent 'Technical Quality Control' mark against images that have been through the QC process? If the customer needs the technical quality that the mark indicates then they will know to select pictures with that mark, and in doing so they will have the assurance that the image will meet a certain technical standard. Alternatively, they can select a non-quality checked image knowing that it may have some technical limitations, but it could be OK for their use.
  4. I think that having a seperate stockimo page misses the point. In existing, core Alamy does a customer know (or care) whether an image was taken with a Nikon D3100, a Canon 1D, a Sony RX100 or any other camera on the approved list? There's a danger that we focus too much on the technology used to take the picture and, as we have seen, technology developments are changing this space constantly. I don't see many customers thinking 'I *must* have an iPhone image'. iPhone image may be used in some customer's minds as a proxy for immediate, edgy, unusual, capturing the moment, opportunistic, real life etc. But there may be better images in the Alamy collection that meet those criteria taken with a DSLR or a compact camera. BUT, the customer does need to know what the image is, whether the technical quality will meet their needs, and how much it's going to cost. It's no good purchasing a licence for a great iPhone photo if its just not up to the technical quality required for that use. And Technical QC is one thing that distinguishes the core Alamy Collection from Stockimo
  5. I think that it's good that Alamy are doing something in this area. However, I think that their implementation (yet again) is lacking, and diminishing the opportunity. I'm a great believer in letting the customer decide, so what I'd like to see is much better and clearer, up front information being given about the technical quality of each image. Why not have a prominent 'Technical Quality Control' mark against images that have been through the QC process? If the customer needs the technical quality that the mark indicates then they will know to select pictures with that mark, and in doing so they will have the assurance that the image will meet a certain technical standard. Alternatively, they can select a non-quality checked image knowing that it may have some technical limitations, but it could be OK for their use. I'd also have some way for the customer to select 'QC Mark', 'non QC Mark images' or both when searching. I don't see that it is necessary to create this as an entirely seperate 'mobile' collection, so I support Alamy in that respect. In fact, creating a seperate mobile collection would be very limiting, as advances in technology are only going to narrow the differences between what a mobile phone can achieve and what a DSLR can achieve. Finally, I wouldn't limit this new category to iPhone only. Why not accept any images that meet a lower minimum in terms of size and inherent technical quality? But make it clear to the customer what they are getting with each image. PS: can we have an Android App as soon as possible.
  6. Posted on another topic, but may be worth repeating here to settle people's nerves! Missed the Saturday morning club this week but my last batch submitted on Monday 10th Feb just passed this afternoon, Monday 17th.
  7. No Saturday morning club for me this week either, but I'm hoping it's just due to a general backlog.
  8. BBC filming the news coverage of the winter floods in streets of Shepperton, DT54N8, Jeff Gilbert/Alamy http://www.telegraph.co.uk/topics/weather/10627606/UK-weather-flooding-crisis-set-to-deepen.html
  9. The USB connector on my RX100 is quite tight, and about half the metal from the connector is still visible when the connector is inserted. I've had no problems with it making a connection though, either for charging the battery or downloading photos. I'm quite careful about putting sideways strain on the connector though as it seems to me that it could get damaged easily. I'm very pleased with my RX100, by the way, and almost all my photos submitted to Alamy over the last 6 months have been from that camera.
  10. I have the opposite problem. Trying to work out why zooms have suddenly increased! Up until December last year, I was averaging 3 or 4 zooms a month. December 2013: 8; January 2014: 18 ! I have increased the number of images fairly significantly over the last 6 to 8 months, but despite that my views have gone down. Here's a snapshot of my stats: Oct: 734 views, 2 zooms Nov: 600 views, 4 zooms Dec: 530 views, 8 zooms Jan: 486 views, 18 zooms (up to 22 Jan) I haven't significantly changed what I've been uploading, and about half of the zooms this month are on images that were uploaded many months ago. As a consequence, from hovering just below the monthly CTR of 0.46 for ages, I find myself in the dizzy heights of a CTR of 3.0+ ! Let's hope that Sales will reflect this upturn.
  11. I've started downsizing most of my images which have been taken on a Sony RX100. On exporting them from Lightroom I set the longest side to 3600 pixels. I think it improves the technical quality of the images, and reduces the chances of me getting a QC failure. How many customers need a larger size image anyway?
  12. I've used Vistaprint as well, and the quality and service has been good. I'd recommend paying the extra for the heavier weight paper. Keith
  13. I'd be over the moon if I had 3 sales from 300 images in less than a year!!
  14. Clearly there's no point in selling images of buildings when the photos can't be used for any purpose whatsoever. But the problem is that when taking the photograph, or making it available for sale, the photographer has no idea what the image is going to be used for. Isn't it down to the publisher who uses the image to decide whether they are covered for the particular use they are making of it, whether they can use it for that purpose, and whether they need a property release? I don't know whether a specific building doesn't require a property release (note the negative logic here), so, by the path of ticking Yes it requires a release and No, I don't have one, the vast majority of my photos end up as RM. But that wouldn't stop someone licensing the image and using it for a purpose where a property release is required.
  15. Thanks Danny I agree, I've found the QC process works very well too once the photos get to that stage, which has been 99% of the time for me. I will see what happens this time, but it's just a bit frustrating because i) There seems to be nothing that can be done to move things on ii) There's nothing that I can do to prevent it happening and iii) The feedback to contributors from the upload process is not very informative. Actually, there are a couple of things I could do. I could submit much smaller batches (<10) so that I 'lose' less photos in the process if it happens. Or, I could resubmit the batch of 23 as soon as it goes to "average wait time 24 hours". But I'm reluctant to do either. Hopefully Alamy will take a look at this and make some changes to reduce this annoyance. Keith
  16. I recently submitted two batches of photos to Alamy. One batch passed QC within a couple of days. The second batch is now at the dreaded "Processing - average wait time 24 hours" status, which last time meant that it took 7 days for the batch to get into QC and then pass with a partial failure on one image. Apparently a partial failure means that something went wrong in the upload or processing, even though everything was reported as OK. It is not an indication of any fault in the image itself. It will be interesting to see whether a third batch, which I have just submitted, overtakes batch 2! Would it not be simpler, and fairer to contributors, for any 'partial failure' photos to be removed from the batch and QC to proceed as normal on the remainder? It's easy enough then for the contributor to resubmit any photos that have been removed, and we don't have to endure extra unnecessary delay in getting images on sale. Has anybody else encountered this issue? Keith
  17. I got on the 24 hour queue just recently, the first time in over a 100 uploads. A batch that I had uploaded before the troublesome one, and two that I had uploaded after it then passed QC. After another 3 or 4 days I got a "partial failure" on the outstanding batch with a processing error on one image. Apparently such an error does not affect QC history. So, it's worthwhile just continuing to upload images while waiting for a batch to eventually find its way to QC.
  18. This gives some useful insights: http://www.danheller.com/model-release-copyrights.html#1
  19. The other thing (perhaps for future reference) is that the numbers in the filter list don't change unless you change to a different filter. So if you filter on 'Not Ready' to start with (the default), change to filter on 'Ready' (or another selection) and the numbers in the drop down list will then change.
  20. That's the one change I would like to see as well.I can't see that it would be that difficult technically, after all they must hold a status of "Failed QC, but photographer not yet told" which they could display.
  21. I assume that the entry point is the same for either stream, and the choice of stream is solely down to the AlamyNews team?
  22. Still waiting, after a year of uploading fairly steadily. Just passed 1000 images, and have had a few zooms, but no sales yet. Any advice appreciated!
×
×
  • 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.