Jump to content

M.Chapman

Verified
  • Content Count

    2,812
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by M.Chapman

  1. 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
  2. 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
  3. Maybe policy has changed since PA Media took over. Or maybe he has a good CV? Mark
  4. 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
  5. 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
  6. 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
  7. 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
  8. 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
  9. 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
  10. 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
  11. 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
  12. 🤣🤣 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
  13. Using embedded or sidecar is faster still on my machine. But I do shoot RAW + JPG (=sidecar). Mark
  14. 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
  15. 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
  16. 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
  17. 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
  18. 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
  19. 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
  20. 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
  21. 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
  22. 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
  23. I use filenames of the form YYYY-MM-DD plus short caption. Images are stored in folders by Year taken, with Subfolders for month taken. I do some limited local keywording of images that have sold, and where, and of shots of family members. Search in MacOS and Smart folders does the rest allowing me to quickly make collections of images that have sold or of family etc. It works for my entire image collection that goes back to 1980. If I was starting all over again, I'd almost probably do it differently and would probably use a DAM and would definitely make more use of tags and keywords. But... the simple system I use has survived numerous incarnations of Windows, Linux and a swap to MacOS. Images can be moved between devices easily and accessed in a consistent way on my backup server too. I know Adobe have said the LR catalog will still work if the subscription stops being paid. But what happens to all the develop settings stored in there? The develop module is presumably crippled? Can the develop settings still be exported to xmp files? I'm just wary about making LR the heart of my workflow and image library when I have to keep paying a monthly fee to be able to continue using it. As I've said before, if Adobe allowed me to keep using the latest version I have (only after paying at least 2 year's subscriptions for example) it would be different. I didn't mean to suggest PS adjustment layers are overly complex. What I meant is using them is not quite as easy as LR which builds in the ability to turn adjustments on and off or refine them automatically (no need to create layers). I run BreezeBrowser on my Mac using Parallels VM (it also runs in Crossover but not as well). It's not an ideal solution, but BreezeBrowser is still the fastest and best image review and culling software I've found to date. I'm still looking for a native Mac alternative. LR (*on my computer) is just too slow. (*As you know I'm considering an upgrade on that shortly, which could make me change my mind). Mark
  24. A big difference with LR versus PS is the editing is non-destructive in LR. It's possible to achieve similar in PS by using adjustment layers, but it's more complex. I use both LR and PS because they each have their strengths. I don't LR use for culling - I much prefer BreezeBrowser for culling as it's so much faster (no need to import and I can do instant 4x side by side views at 100%) and then I'll (*temporarily) import only the remaining images into LR if I need to do any kind of batch processing. *I've never really got on with the LR catalog because it doesn't automatically track any renaming or moving of image files done in other apps (e.g. finder/file explorer). But if you can live with doing those operations within LR you'll have less problems. I think it's a "Marmite" thing. Some love the LR catalog and all the benefits it brings for DAM. But others, like me, dislike the constraints it imposes, including increasing the reliance on the Adobe subscription). A great thing that's has happened with recent releases of LR/PS is the unification of some of the stuff that goes on behind the scenes. For example, develop presets are now common across both packages. The latest revision of PS ACR also uses develop panels that are more similar to those in LR. This makes swapping between LR and PS much easier. Mark
  25. Lots of Apple announcements here https://www.apple.com/apple-events/june-2020/ Scub to the last section for info on the new Mac processors and demos of LR and PS already running on them. Backwards compatibility is also claimed to be very good. I imagine there will be some issues, but the signs are good. You’ll also be able to run iPad OS apps on a Mac. This processor change could bring significant performance benefits. 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.