Jump to content

M.Chapman

Verified
  • Content Count

    2,790
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by M.Chapman

  1. No they can't be removed. Try using FTP (e.g. Filezilla) to upload to Alamy or use the uploader on Alamy's website. Mark
  2. I think the terms however or wherever merit clarification. The customer is bound by the terms and conditions of their Alamy License Agreement (“LA”) In Sections 3.1 and 7.1 (which apply to all licence types) it states the following; 3. Grant of Rights and restrictions 3.1 For all licences 3.1.12 Not all of Alamy Limited’s Image(s)/Footage have Releases. It is your responsibility to check that all necessary Releases have been secured (see clause 7.3 below). 7.3 You must satisfy yourself that all Releases as may be required for Reproduction of the Image(s)/Footage have been secured and are appropriate for your intended use. You are solely responsible for obtaining all such Releases and the Licence is conditional in each case on your obtaining them. If you are unsure as to whether any Releases are needed for your Image(s)/Footage usage, then it is your responsibility to consult with relevant parties. You shall not rely upon any representation or warranty given by Alamy employees or representatives save as set out in this Agreement. There are also other restrictions in Section 3.1 So RF isn't however and wherever... Mark
  3. You should only send 3 images for your first submission. https://www.alamy.com/contributor/how-to-sell-images/alamy-quality-control/?section=5 They don't need tags and keywords. Mark
  4. You can search for image tags in Alamy Image manager. However, if you add a new tag to an image you will typically have to wait until the next day before you can search for it in AIM (you have to wait for the search database to update overnight). I’m not sure if images with tags that aren’t on sale yet are ever searcheable as they may not transfer across to the search database until they go on sale. Mark
  5. Maybe policy has changed since PA Media took over. Or maybe he has a good CV? Mark
  6. I ended up reverting back my Adobe Photoshop Camera RAW from 12.3 to 12.2.1 as I decided that I prefer the old interface. Primarily because when resizing before export to Photoshop the preview image is altered to suit in 12.2.1 whereas it isn't in 12.3. I also prefer the tabbed controls, even though they are different from LR. Reversion was easy (on a Mac anyway). I downloaded ACR 12.2.1 from here https://helpx.adobe.com/camera-raw/kb/camera-raw-plug-in-installer.html#12_x and installed. It simply replaced/overwrote the newer version. There's some discussion about it here https://community.adobe.com/t5/camera-raw/need-a-download-link-to-acr-12-2-1-previous-version/td-p/11215775?page=1 I'm not sure what the problems are with 12.3. I didn't notice any bugs, it's just different. Although some have reported problems with the crop tool in ACR 12.3. Mark
  7. Agree. Please only give notifications when somebody writes a reply to a post, but not when they just give a vote (like/dislike/etc.) to a post. Mark
  8. 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
  9. 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
  10. 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
  11. 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
  12. 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
  13. 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
  14. 🤣🤣 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
  15. Using embedded or sidecar is faster still on my machine. But I do shoot RAW + JPG (=sidecar). Mark
  16. 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
  17. 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
  18. 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
  19. 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
  20. 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
  21. 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
  22. 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
  23. My disk synchronisation program does this and there are others that monitor folders for any changes - it's not rocket science. But that's not really the point. Maybe I should call my system "rudimentary", rather than simple and it's certainly not advanced. But it's closely aligned to how most other documents are managed on a computer (including yours I suspect) by using intelligent filenames and then use system search for when you need something. Like I said, if I was starting again I would probably do it differently, but my system is independent of the OS or subscription to Adobe and I have about 26,000 images stored in it, so quite an inertia to change I'm afraid. Agreed, if it's only a few files. But not when LR looses track of 100s of files. Then it becomes tedious. Mark
  24. It doesn't seem to work if an image file is renamed or just moved between two sub-folders (that both exist in LR catalog) using an external application. It simply offers to delete the original entry for the image (presumably loosing any adjustments) and imports what it sees as a new image. Or have I missed something? 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.