Jump to content

M.Chapman

Verified
  • Content Count

    2,782
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,380 Forum reputation = excellent

About M.Chapman

  • Rank
    Forum regular

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Alamy

  • Alamy URL
    https://www.alamy.com/contrib-browse.asp?cid={72CEF26C-BD33-43B9-830D-8FE28CE464C7}&name=Mark+Chapman
  • Images
    5250
  • Joined Alamy
    12 Jan 2010

Recent Profile Visitors

5,471 profile views
  1. Yes, it's curious. So did I. Why the sudden increase in non-subs sales? Was the old system failing to categorise sales correctly, or (as meanderingemu said) were some sales "held back"? Or maybe there's been some changes in the pricing structure? But I haven't noticed that. Mark
  2. A second reasonable month for me 8 sales for $211 gross, $105 net. 🙂 Number of sales in first half 2020 now 52% of 2019 (full year) but revenue only 41%. Zooms and views not looking good at the moment 😞 Mark
  3. I also did better following the commission structure change (roughly double any month so far this year). Only a small portfolio so not statistically that significant. I think depends on what type of customer buys your images. If you only sell to big corporates on high volume subscription deals then you loose out. But otherwise, you may gain. Mark
  4. I see, so you're saying it's not that RM is pretty much dead, it's that the original tightly restricted RM usage/terms are "morphing" towards the freedoms of RF. If comments from other contributors are anything to go by, it doesn't matter whether images are sold as RM or RF on Alamy, the revenue per image is similar. However, selling as RM provides the useful info for DACS claims and can be useful when identifying infringements. This, for me, still tips the balance in favour of RM. So for me RM isn't dead.... yet.... Mark
  5. But it seems most contributors here tend to prefer RM, and those that have experimented with RF report little benefit in sales. Are we missing something? Mark
  6. Currently MacBook Pro 2012 16GB RAM + 1TB SSD + HP23xi display.... So no possibility of internal graphics card upgrade and I suspect if I tried external graphics card the USB3 ports might be a major limitation.. Seriously considering a 27" iMac... Mark
  7. 🤣🤣 If only fixing the subscription only model was as easy. But seriously, it has moved me another step towards LR. But first pass culling is still faster in BreezeBrowser so that will stay, for now. A faster computer might move me another step as LR adjustments and panning aren't as smooth as in PS on my machine. Not sure why. Mark
  8. Using embedded or sidecar is faster still on my machine. But I do shoot RAW + JPG (=sidecar). Mark
  9. Found it. Many years ago I must have set Downloader Pro to carry out lossless auto-rotation of jpgs during import. This leads to an inconsistency when LR imports the RAW and builds a Preview from the (rotated) sidecar jpg. The RAW file says rotation is needed, but the sidecar jpg has already been rotated. Based on the RAW file information, LR rotates the preview it generates from the already rotated sidecar jpg. It's not a bug in LR, it's just not been programmed to handle an inconsistency which wouldn't normally exist. I've turned off Auto-rotate in Downloader Pro and everything is now fine. DownloaderPro is a Windows app, but wasn't written or tested by Microsoft... Although they may have a hand in why I originally set jpgs to be rotated?? Maybe, back in the days of Windows XP, Windows preview ignored the rotate flag in jpg files? Mark
  10. I'll do some more tests to try and understand what's happening. I'll try importing direct from the cameras' (Lumix G5 and RX100) SD cards (instead of importing files I already have on disk, just to be sure) Mmm.. need to investigate further. If I import directly into LR from the SD card, then the "sidecar" previews are fine. But, if I import from SD card to hard-disk first using DownloaderPro (which I usually use) the problem occurs with the LR previews. Maybe Downloader Pro is changing the rotate flag, or maybe LR behaves differently when importing from hard-disk? Mark
  11. Thanks!! - That's loads faster (56 files in a few seconds) and seems to be a great way of speeding up the culling process. I have one quirk though... Any portrait format images haven't been rotated. Is it just me? It's happening whenever LR uses a portrait format sidecar jpg for the preview. When it uses the embedded jpg from the RAW it's fine. It's happening on Lumix G5 and Sony RX100 files. Bug in LR? Mark
  12. For a test I just tried comparing the LR culling with BreezeBrowser. I had a folder of 86 RAW images, about 2GB in total. I imported into LR with my default import preset with generate 100% previews set to ON. Import was fast (seconds), but it took a further 10 minutes to import and generate the previews. (Is my computer way too slow?) With BreezeBrowser review of the jpgs there is no delay. I know I'm not comparing Apples with Apples because LR is processing RAWs whereas BreezeBrowser is using the jpg "sidecar" files. So this is NOT a criticism of LR, just a comparison of two workflows on my hardware. OK I thought, perhaps I can start culling before all the 100% previews have all been built, so I tried again. But I found that the 100% previews didn't seem to be created in the same sequence as the images in the folder (is that normal?), so it was better to wait for it to finish before starting to review. I'd be half finished in my culling in BreezeBrowser before LR has even finished the import, and BreezeBrowser allows 100% view side be side comparison or 2, 3 or 4 images at a time with synchronised pan and zoom. With LR import being relatively slow (on my computer) I find it useful to do most of the culling before importing. Why waste time generating 100% LR previews when many are going to be discarded anyway? Mark
  13. Try BreezeBrowser 🙂 ?? Seriously though, it does seem to handle RAWs and JPGs (at the culling stage) rather well... Then, after the dross has been removed, import the remaining images into LR. Mark
  14. I must admit that I "cheat" slightly on that one. My camera is set to shoot RAW + full size JPG. BreezeBrowser treats them as a linked pair and displays the jpg, but will tag, rate or delete them as a pair. This works fine for me as most my culling is based on focus and composition or gross exposure errors for which the jpg is fine. I then either edit the remaining raws individually in PS, or import the batch into LR if I need to batch process for any reason. Your method has the benefit of allowing culling on images that have some adjustments applied. But on my current computer it's just too slow to import and generate previews for side by side comparison in LR. On BreezeBrowser I can load a 100% view with a synchronised pan and zoom on up to 4 images in 2 or 3 seconds. A side by side compare of 2 images loads in just over a second. Mark
  15. I admire your persistence 😀 I'm sure if I was starting again I would probably do it all differently, and LR is currently the best overall combined image editing and DAM package out there (if one is happy to pay the Adobe subscription and largely adhere to their editing and file management "protocols"). But I'm also sure you recognise that "there are far easier ways of working" is an opinion, and doesn't necessarily apply to those who don't have the same level of knowledge and confidence in LR as you have, and who like to be able to operate on their files using a wider variety of packages (some of which do a better job at specific tasks than LR). Is my approach easier than LR? Maybe not, but it sure is more flexible (IMHO), and has stood the test of time for me. So yes, I'm happy with my way. Mark
×
×
  • 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.