Jump to content

M.Chapman

Verified
  • Content Count

    2,265
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by M.Chapman

  1. In the days when Alamy used to do regular reranks I found my performance oscillated with a roughly 6 month period (reranks nominally every 180 days). If my rank rose then I received more views (as a result of less specific matches appearing higher in search results) but without a corresponding increase in zooms. So my CTR suffered. Then, when the next re-rank happened, my rank would drop back again and views would fall back too. Mark
  2. Over the last 12 months I had 47,530 views and 64 sales giving a ratio of 743 views/sale, which I imagine is not particularly good. NB. I had to manually exclude some refunded sales which My Alamy Measures was still counting as sales. Anyone else care to share their numbers? Given that Alamy is running a business where it costs to host every image and revenue is more important than unit sales, I'd argue that an even more sensible measure, from Alamy's perspective, would be to take the annual sales revenue divided by the number of image in a contributor's portfolio. Although the lag between uploading images and sales occurring would make it hard for new contributors to get a good rank. But then that applies to views/sale too. Mark
  3. From my posting in the other thread. In 2017 I asked Alamy how many of my sales Alamy had the ISBN nos for and whether they would make a claim for the "distinct royalty pot" and they replied as follows. As we are not claiming DACS on your behalf this year we don’t know any of the ISBN numbers so we can’t tell you how many we would have claimed for but it is likely to have been the same if not more than you claimed for. It is a lot of extra work for us to find out this information which is why we take a cut. We did submit claims for the ‘distinct royalty pot’ for all contributors eligible and we claimed for all sales where we had the ISBN numbers. Mark
  4. 6 sales for $99.27 gross, $49.65 net. 6 sales is about average for me, but the revenue/sale continues to decline I made the almost same net sum from a 10x smaller test portfolio which I setup elsewhere following Alamy's commission cut. On the bright side, Alamy zooms are going well with CTR 0.84% last month and I received a slightly larger direct claim DACs payout (£158) than last year. So overall not a bad month at all. Mark
  5. I sometimes use the term “deserted” , e.g deserted beach. But I’ve never noticed it in a search that resulted in a view of one of my images... Mark
  6. Congratulations . I wonder if you'd let us know which image it was to illustrate what type of "dull" sells? Mark
  7. Have you seen the instructions and videos mentioned here? https://discussion.alamy.com/topic/7028-instructions-help-video-and-links-for-new-alamy-image-manager/ Mark
  8. Just so this one line quote doesn't end up causing confusion - it's useful to include the text that appears immediately before in the blog... 2. When do I need a release? Releases are only needed if you are going to use the image commercially – if an image or clip is being used to sell a product, promote something or raise money for a cause. You don’t normally need a release for editorial use, which is when you’re using the image to illustrate an article or story, or in educational text – there are a couple of exceptions to this which we explain on our releases page. It's also useful to note that this blog is targeted at users of images (i.e. Alamy's customers) and not directly at contributors. So although the principles are useful to understand, "you" and "you're" in the clause above are referring to the user of the image and not (directly) to the contributor. If an image contains property Alamy contributors should mark it as such and then answer the question as to whether they have a property release or not. If an image contains property, but there's no release the image can still be used editorially. Mark
  9. Some of your pictures will be more saleable with some localised adjustments. It only takes a moments in PS to apply a gradient filter (for example your image 2A0NJTT). The original (left 1/3) is unlikely to sell, but after adjustment (right 2/3) it might. ). Mark
  10. That's an Otter. I've spent many hours watching otters (and the occasional mink) in Scotland, that's definitely an otter. I've often been surprised how far up cliffs/hills or away from water they will venture when foraging for food. Mark
  11. Yes it would be good to see this and would possibly help me decide if I should ask Alamy to claim for me in the future, especially with respect to their fees. In 2017 I asked Alamy how many of my sales Alamy had the ISBN nos for and whether they would make a claim for the "distinct royalty pot" and they replied as follows. As we are not claiming DACS on your behalf this year we don’t know any of the ISBN numbers so we can’t tell you how many we would have claimed for but it is likely to have been the same if not more than you claimed for. It is a lot of extra work for us to find out this information which is why we take a cut. We did submit claims for the ‘distinct royalty pot’ for all contributors eligible and we claimed for all sales where we had the ISBN numbers. Mark
  12. tip 4. Don't forget to check your camera's clock too Mark
  13. I find it can take several months (up to 6) for payment. If the sale is via an Alamy distributor then the delay often seems to be longer as the customer has to pay distributor, then distributor has to pay Alamy. If you feel the delay is excessive you could try contacting contributors@alamy.com, but they will probably just tell you they are already chasing and you just need to be patient. Mark
  14. It could be but Alamy choose not to (which is a shame). However images where the customer search only matches a single word from a phrase are supposed to appear lower down in search results, reducing (but not eliminating) unwanted views. Mark
  15. It seems Alamy needed to clarify the situation with respect to the loan to Many Thing (now called Videoloft) The effect on net profit seems the same, it still turns a £1M profit into a £1.3M loss. Presumably this lowers next year's tax bill, but I still find the large increase in dividend payout to the Directors hard to understand given the underlying flat performance and the realisation that they may have made a rather poor investment of £2.3M. Mark
  16. Glad you got it sorted. It's not vey impressive that Microsoft still seem to be struggling with colour management... Mark
  17. You my find this interesting. https://social.technet.microsoft.com/Forums/Lync/en-US/dacd4cf2-56cb-4089-8f2d-834420754a91/windows-photo-viewer-and-icc-profiles?forum=w7itproperf Mark
  18. One of the problems I saw with the Windows Photos application in Windows 7 was that it was incompatible with Version 4 ICC profiles. I had to set my monitor calibration software to generate Version 2 profiles then the rendering was correct. No idea whether Microsoft have fixed that yet. Mark
  19. If your Internet browser, and Windows Photo browser are both colour managed applications, and set to use the same (monitor) profile as LR then they should look reasonably similar. Check what profile Windows is using (Settings - Color Calibration), hopefully it's your calibrated monitor profile? Try soft proofing in LR using the same profile. If you want to make critical judgements of your own photos it's essential you have a calibrated monitor and colour managed workflow. Discerning/Professional customers should be using calibrated monitors and a colour managed viewing/editing app. Goodness knows what PU customer might be using though. Mark
  20. Thanks - Must be an artefact from jpg compression of the screenshot and the rendering in the forum posting. I've just updated my posting to use a PNG version of the composite which seems to avoid (reduce) the problem with the edges and makes the banding clearer. It's still best to look at the individual jpgs in the gallery here. Suggest downloading them and then stepping through them at 100% size in whatever image browser you use. Mark
  21. When I recently purchased a couple of my own images from Alamy (to check if they really were converting AdobeRGB to sRGB) they were supplied as jpgs with level 12 quality. The images I uploaded were at Level 10. The previews I downloaded were also at quality level 12. But, I believe the thumbnails and preview images Alamy display on screen are at a significantly lower quality level (I guess around 7). To see the effect of differing levels of jpg compression on a blue sky took a 1000 x 100 pixel crop from the blue sky in one of my RAW files and saved at jpg levels 0 to 12. Those 13 files can be found here. Stepping through them shows the progressive appearance of banding as the jpg level level is decreased. I also created a composite image by opening the 13 files in PS and tiling them vertically and taking a screenshot which is below. (Although it's better to view the file directly as the rendering in the forum posting isn't as clear (on my system anyway). The composite file is also in the gallery. Note: I tried similar tests with red and green gradients and saw similar progressive increases in banding. This suggests it's not really a "blue" issue, although that's probably were it's noticed most often because of the frequent occurrence of blue skies with subtle gradients in photos. Mark
  22. QC don’t look at the over-compressed jpgs that Alamy are using to display our image thumbnails and previews. They inspect the original jpgs we upload (which they will fail if they show obvious banding). If you want to see what’s going on take an image with nice (no banding visible) blue sky with gradient and save at a range of jpg quality levels. My guess is Alamy are using level 7 or similar. Mark
  23. It certainly makes a difference as to whether the search term matches tags, supertags, or captions of individual images (as you would expect). Whether an an individual image has been zoomed using the same search term seems to also make a difference. I didn’t spot any effect of a sale on an individual image but I imagine total sales could affect contributor rank. But that’s just my testing a while ago, and things change. 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.