Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by M.Chapman

  1. That’s good news. Congratulations on passing QC and good luck. Mark
  2. That’s unusual. Try waiting another day to see if the problem clears. Perhaps try a different browser or clear your browser cache? If nothing works try emailing contributor services. contributors@alamy.com Mark
  3. You can’t. Deletion takes 6 months. The only way to partially “hide” them from search results is to remove cation and most tags, but that is against Alamy rules And they can still be located by Alamy Ref no. You could try emailing contributor services and asking them to delete them immediately (if you have a good reason for this) but at the moment they may not respond due to impact of Covid-19. Mark
  4. As a rough guide, images should contain at least 6 million pixels. Mark
  5. But that's all we would expect to recover (i.e. only the tax originally paid and not the full amount of the refund). The system in the UK is the same. Mark
  6. Reasonable month for me. 6 sales for $244 gross, $116 net. 🙂 Net sales revenue at the "other place" continues to rise in spite of major change to their commission structure and not adding any new images. Mark
  7. I never said you were. I didn't say that either. Sorry if I caused offence. I didn't mean any. Agreed. The old Alamy Image Manager used to ask if images contained property that needed a release. With the new AIM Alamy have simplified it, which makes life easier. But you're right there's a limit somewhere and your method of leaving the boxes blank avoids the need to think about it. But, there maybe some downsides. I suspect such images are excluded from search results where the customer has ticked that they require model released or property released images. If the customer ticks the "Property Released" box, I believe the search results will include images that contain property with releases and also images that are marked as not containing property. It not a big deal, just something to be aware of. In my case I rarely see searches with [MR] or [PR], although that's probably got more to do with my portfolio which contains very few shots with people in. More significantly though, not filling in the optional "Number of people" box will presumably exclude those images from any search results where the customer has specified the number of people they want to in the image. I see quite a few searches where [WOP] has been selected. So whilst there maybe advantages to leaving those optional boxes blank, there may also be downsides. Mark
  8. It's really simple on Alamy. The questions asked in AIM are not "Does you image contain people or property which require releases". The question is simply "Does your image contain any property or people?" You don't need to make any complex judgements about whether the people or property need releases (which can vary from one country to another depending on local laws). If there are people (or even parts of people) or property, then simply answer yes and say you don't have releases. I only tick the "Editorial only" if I specifically want to prevent an image from being used commercially. Mark
  9. Fine Art America? https://fineartamerica.com Mark
  10. For your first submission of 3 images- Use a good digital camera with a sensor that is APSC size or above, and a good lens. Pick something relatively large (i.e. not a macro shot) and flat to photograph which contains clear sharp features (not a sketch) and a range of colour and contrast. Shoot in good light with medium aperture f/8 to f/11, ISO of around 200. Be careful to ensure accurate focussing and to avoid camera shake. The camera will automatically include the meta data with the image that Alamy need for your first submission. Don't try submitting scanner images of sketches for your first submission. Mark
  11. Alamy may not be for you until you have learnt some more... Mark
  12. Have you read this? https://www.alamy.com/contributors/alamy-how-to-pass-qc.pdf Mark
  13. You need to be patient. Sales take a while to be reported. The customer may have download an image and be preparing an article or book but they won't declare use until article is published (or even later if newspaper/magazine). This is very different to SS where sales appear as soon as the image is downloaded. Quick comment on your portfolio, I think you have too many similars and some images would benefit from lightening the shadows. If you are getting views and zooms, then hopefully sales will follow. Mark
  14. GDPR turns a model release form into a 6 page document... Mark
  15. The screen calibration tools I have allow the contrast to be adjusted if needed, although I must admit I leave the target contrast range as native as I'm not producing prints. You and me both. But that's the way it is. It seems that PS have decided that when it comes to the image display, the native resolution (physical pixels) of the monitor is what they will use to determine what constitutes 100% rendering of the image. i.e. 1 image pixel is shown using 1 physical display pixel. The "artificial" 200% pixel doubling that Apple apply to Retina displays is ignored by PS, apart from when they draw the user interface elements (menus etc.). The Adobe forum post I mentioned by Pete Green here gives some insight into what's going on behind the scenes. The key thing is it's not a bug and I have a simple workaround (view at 200%) Two monitors Mark
  16. Yes, that's exactly what I thought, but it turns out to be wrong when viewing in PS on an iMac Retina display. You have to set 200% and set 2,560 x 1,440 (which is the default setting). Strange world... I think the same is true in LR, I'll double-check and post the result. Mark Update: I can confirm that LR CC, PS CC (and ACR), Affinity Photo and Capture One all perform the same way. i.e. images need to be viewed at 200% / 2:1 with Display Resolution set to 2,560 x 1,440 on iMac with 27" Retina display. This will give the same size rendering as viewing the same image at 100% / 1:1 on a 27" 2,560 x 1,440 non-retina display.
  17. Interesting disparity of views 😀. I'm just stating the observations that I've arrived at through testing and discussion on the Adobe forum. To view images at exactly the same size on a 27 inch 2,560 x 1,440 standard resolution monitor and on a iMac 27 inch 5,120 x 2,880 Retina display in Mojave (and possibly other Mac OS versions) it's necessary to check that Apple System Display preferences are set to a resolution of 2,560 x 1,440 and to view the image at 200% in PS on the iMac. I post this here because, to me, that's somewhat counter-intuitive. I originally thought it must be a bug, but it seems the behaviour is deliberate (eee * below). Once this is done I can inspect images on an iMac with an equal level of "100%" scrutiny, as required by Alamy, because my eyes can just resolve the individual image pixels on both displays, and there's no problem using the iMac display. Indeed I find it to be an excellent display with no contrast problems, it calibrates just fine. I also really like the flat AR coated glass which gives a clearer view of the image than my previous matt finish monitor. No problems seeing image noise or details, at 200% 🙂, or with screen reflections in my work area. Although I must say I'm suitably underwhelmed by the difference between correctly rendered versions of real world saturated landscape sRGB and AdobeRGB images which I can now see on the P3 Gamut iMac display. I'd say it's more important to have a calibrated sRGB display than an uncalibrated wide gamut display in terms of ensuring image quality. As a result I'll continue to work in sRGB for Alamy and the other libraries I contribute to, and for my own image library. *There's a useful post on how Adobe PS and Apple's display settings interact here. See the answer from Pete Green (Adobe Employee). There is another way to achieve the same size image which is to open PS in Low Res Mode (right click on File Info setting for the App) and view at 100%, but the end result is less sharp. Banging my head against a brick wall as nothing will change... I wondered why I had a headache.... 😀 I was initially concerned that by simply migrating my apps and settings (including PS CC) from a non-retina system onto a retina system that some system settings/preferences might be incorrect, and then I could easily fix them. Failing that I could raise a bug report if there was an identified problem. But I'm now happy I understand what's going on and I can inspect my images with confidence. (Oh the headache has gone... 😀 ) Thanks for the reminder about your Benq display. As you've probably deduced I've gone with a 27" iMac (I got a nearly new one S/H on Tuesday) as it addressed all three of my requirements in one hit (upgrade to larger monitor, ability to work in wide gamut if needed, and more processing power). So the Benq is no longer an option. Mark
  18. Excellent, thanks. So it's not just me, you're seeing the same. So, to inspect images at the same effective magnification I was using on my previous (non-retina) display in PS at 100% when using new 27" iMac 5,120 x 2,880 display, I have to set Apple display scaling to 2,560 x 1,440 and also view at 200% in Photoshop. It shouldn't be necessary to do both of these (which in theory should apply a factor of 4x magnification when only 2x is needed to handle the smaller pixels in the retina display), there's clearly a bug somewhere. I've been on the Adobe forum about this, but they just think I'm an idiot. Mark
  19. I'm running Mojave and the latest PS CC (21.2) on a 27" iMac with Retina Display. I expected images in PS to appear about 1/2 size (linear dimensions) on the iMac than they did on my previous non-retina system, because the pixels are half as big. But I'm seeing images that are 1/4 of the size. I'm trying to find out if it's just me (due to a setting gone wrong somewhere during the migration process) or if there's a bug. Is there anyone here with a 27" iMac with a retina display who can try a simple test? Set the Display resolution in Apple System settings to 2,560 x 1,440 (the default) Open Photoshop in normal mode (not low res) and create a 1,000 x 1,000 image Measure the width of the image in cm when viewed in the PS edit window at 100% The 1,000 x 1,000 image I see on screen is only 11.5cm across on a screen that is 59.5cm wide. 11.5/59.5 x 2,560 = approx 500 pixels (instead of 1,000) At first I thought this must be because the true display resolution of the 27" iMac is 5,180 x 2,880 and PS is simply not respecting the scaling set in Apple System Display settings. So I changed the setting and proved the PS is taking this setting into account. For example, if I change the display to 1,600 x 900, the size of my 1,000 x 1,000 image increases to 18.5cm. 18.5/59.5 x 1,600 = approx 500 pixels (instead of 1,000). Whatever setting I choose, the image is 1/2 the size (linear dims) it should be. The only way around it is to start PS in "low res mode", but that makes things "fuzzy". Mark
  20. I see this too sometimes in Alamy Image Manager (AIM). I suspect it's my web-browser's AutoFill that remembers previous entries and nothing to do with AIM. It can be quite useful sometimes, especially on the location field, but most times the autofill suggestions aren't relevant. Mark
  21. 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
  22. 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
  • 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.