M.Chapman

Thanks. I'll try setting up a preset with some settings based on an "average" slide and then applying at as a starting point for others. Mark

I ran a quick test too, and also couldn't see any difference. Mark

I'm currently digitising a large quantity of slides (500) containing what can largely be described as "my family and holiday snaps", the objective being to make them available for viewing on our devices. As such speed is taking priority over absolute quality. Hence the in camera jpeg & WB route. I'll then be selecting a much smaller number of them for "enhanced treatment" where the image or content merits it. I'll do this in by shooting in RAW followed by LR and PS CC processing. It's remotely possible some of them might be submitted to Alamy, although the IQ of the (mostly zoom) lenses I was using at the time probably won't make the grade, even if downsized to 3000x2000. Judging WB by eye is difficult for me (I'm red/green colour deficient) so I tend to rely heavily on hardware and software tools. Mark

That's interesting, I'm in the middle of copying a whole pile of 35mm transparencies at the moment using a lightbox + DSLR + macro lens. I'll try turning some slides over to see if it makes any noticeable difference. While we're on the subject, does anyone have any suggestions for the LR settings to get the best from 35mm Velvia slides copied using the above method? Velvia is very contrasty and saturated. How would you handle white balance in LR? At the moment I'm shooting in camera jpgs with contrast and saturation turned down and a custom white balance taken from the light source, but I'd rather shoot raw. Ideally I'd have taken a photo of a colour test chart when I still had a film camera and some Velvia, then I could have built a profile for Velvia, the light-box and camera in combination. Mark

I've just made my DACS submission. I noticed on the publication history webform that DACS didn't "find" the Titles for about 1/3rd of the ISBN and ISSNs I entered and so I had to fill the title in manually. It was the same last last year. I'm pretty sure I've got the right/valid ISSN/ISBNs but it seems they aren't in the DACS database. Is anyone else seeing this behaviour? Mark

I think the graph shows the zooms (CTR) calculated over the current month (not a rolling month) . So for January, only New Year's day affects the data. My zooms are up at the moment. But in recent months my CTR has become much more unstable. Something's going on? Mark

3900 x 1997 should be fine for Alamy as it contains more than Alamy's 17MB (17 Megabyte) minimum requirement. In your example there will be 3 bytes per pixel x 3900 x 1997 = 23,364,900 bytes (over 23 MB). The 3000 x 2000 guide applies if your image has a 3:2 aspect ratio. If your image is 6:1 (for example) then 6000 x 1000 pixels would also pass Alamy's size requirement Mark

Que? Mark

It looks to me like Alamy is blurring two issues here. When I mark images as "only available on Alamy" it means that I am not offering licences for this particular image via any other agency. That's straightforward. But what Alamy seem to be trying to do is to interpret "only available on Alamy" as indicating that there's something "exclusive" about the content of the image, hence the clause about artwork and copyright... The Contributor acknowledges and accepts that Images of artworks, or that are not protected by copyright, or that are in the public domain or for which copyright ownership is unknown must never be marked as “Only available on Alamy” This is causing some confusion. If Alamy are hoping to use "only available on Alamy" as a way of indicating to customer that an image contains exclusive content, they could run into problems. There are so many almost identical pictures of many common views or items on Alamy from different contributors. Even if they are all marked as only available on Alamy there's no way no way exclusive content could claimed... I think Alamy should keep it simple. "Only available on Alamy" should simply indicate the contributor is not offering licences for this image via any other agency. Simples... Easier to understand and enforce. Mark

Indeed, and if a contributor gets it wrong, Alamy has the option of terminating their contract immediately... (according to Clause 2.7) Probably a good idea to make the rules as clear as possible and include in the contract methinks? Mark

Even if you could disable right-click, it won't stop a screen grab. A watermark is probably your best option even though you've said it would take some effort. Alternatively choose a website/host that allows you to add a watermark you are happy with even after you've uploaded them. Unfortunately the less intrusive the watermark is, the less effective it is at deterring abuse of your images. If you're not selling images directly from your website, you could use the new Alamy portfolio option page to showcase your images? Mark

In my experience the slowest payments tend to come from the overseas distributors where the rules may not be the same. Chasing payment always costs in time and admin. Yes it's a pain, but the fees in general per image sold are higher than elsewhere. Mark

Many thanks Alamy. I trust these important clarifications will either be added into the definitions section of the contract or included in the contributor help section on Alamy.com (as appropriate), so they're easier to find than a "buried" forum posting. Mark

Agreed, if it's straightforward to produce one image from the other (e.g. convert to black and white, or to crop for example) then exclusivity can't be claimed, at least one way around. The colour or full frame original could perhaps be still made available exclusively, but the black and white or cropped derivative could not? I agree with Bill's point that it might be wise not to make the contract too prescriptive. Maybe Alamy need to produce some "guidance" documents on how they expect contributors to interpret exclusivity, similars and availability on POD sites. But the current lack of clarity is open to abuse (potentially inadvertently), especially as Alamy is keen to attract new contributors who may not have the experience of industry terminology and practice to make the correct decisions. The range of questions and views expressed on this matter on the forum (some from long-standing contributors) suggests clarification is absolutely required and ad-hoc emails to Alamy CS is not the answer. Mark

I note there's also no clarification on the topic of similars.... Here's a few examples 1) I take 2 shots of the same scene, one in landscape format the other in portrait. If I put one on Alamy and the other on another agency. 2) I take one shot and upload the "natural" version to Alamy. I then extensively photoshop the image to massively increase saturation, contrast etc. and upload that to another agency. 3) I take 2 shots at the same location a short time apart such that significant elements have changed (position of clouds, people etc.). I upload one to Alamy and the other to another agency Can any any of the images uploaded to Alamy be deemed exclusive? Sorry if that's a dumb question, but IMHO it needs stating explicitly in the contract. What commission will be paid on Live News images? With the current system these images will not have been marked as exclusive or not when they enter the news stream. This is crucial for Alamy's news contributors. It's disappointing IMHO, given all the discussion there's been on the forum thread about whether sales POD sites would be allowed for exclusive images, the discussions about similars, and news images, that the wording of the contract does not make these items absolutely clear. As an aside - I still think Alamy is making a huge mistake with this change to contract. They have added significant complexity both for the contributor and themselves whilst reducing the fees payable. Sure Alamy will gain a bit extra cash themselves, but I believe the benefit will be short-lived and I suspect they have seriously damaged the relationship with some of their best contributors. I'm only a small contributor, but after 9 years with almost 100% exclusivity I've already started investigating other options. Mark