Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by M.Chapman

  1. If you can't get a copy let me know and I'll post you our copy as we've now finished with it. Mark
  2. You're right. Looking at my last change according to the BHZ test it was 25/11/2017. Other measures (including rolling average of views/week expressed as a percentage of my portfolio) also indicate that nothing significant has changed for me since around Jan 2018 (slight lag due to the rolling average). Mark
  3. Which, if true, means that the green discoverability bar could be useful after all, as there will be NO penalty for keyword spamming. Extra keywords will generate extra views and may generate a slightly increased chance of selling. The click through rate (CTR%) will fall but, if re-ranks aren't happening, the contributor's rank will never suffer so their images won't get demoted. Similarly - Contributors who currently have a low rank have no chance to improve it. If their current rank is below average, their best tactic maybe to create a new pseudo (which will have average rank) and move their images over to it. It's simple to try that test. My main pseudo has above average rank (last re-rank I can see was around Jan 2018). If I create a new pseudo and move an image to it, then its position tends to drop in search results (assuming those searches create lots of hits). If I move it back, then its position is restored. NB. Alamy can change their algorithms at any time... Mark
  4. OIC, thanks for clarifying. There are certainly quite a few wildlife images that haven't been shot on a mobile which come up in your search link above with 48MB filter added. Mark
  5. What do you base that on? The pricing seems to be the same? Mark
  6. I agree it seems illogical to accept mobile phone images into the same image collection (with no clear labelling) whilst rejecting DSLR images for a hint of noise or CA etc.. I'd like to see QC maintained and consistent standards applied to ALL submitted images and/or clearer information supplied to customer. But, for many usages (smaller reproduction size especially on a web-page), newer mobile phone images have perfectly acceptable IQ, and that part of the market is significant. The problem with mobile images is often only revealed when viewing at 1:1 when it becomes clearer that the IQ doesn't match the MP count. Here's a suggestion. Alamy could apply the same QC to all images (including mobile phone images), but the image size requirement (17MB approx 6MP) is perhaps reduced further to reflect the fact that there is a significant market demand for small images. Mobile phone images would then need to be downsized (possibly automatically by the app?) accordingly in order to pass QC when viewed at 100%. The customer would then see more realistic information about the 300DPI reproduction size below an image (on the image preview page) as the current information perhaps gives an unrealistic expectation of the quality that is available from a mobile phone image. For example, this is the information that can appear with a mobile phone image at the moment. Image ID: S***** File size: 58.5 MB (2.1 MB Compressed download) Dimensions: 3613 x 5660 px | 30.6 x 47.9 cm | 12 x 18.9 inches | 300dpi Releases: Model - no | Property - no Do I need a release? Curiously there seem to be quite a few mobile phone images on Alamy (which aren't panoramas) with more than 12MP (~36MB). I thought the highest spec iPhone camera was currently 12M? Are mobile phone images being upsized?? Or are images from other cameras being uploaded via the S****** app to bypass QC? Try repeating the search in Matt's post above with a 48MB image size filter... Mark
  7. You're welcome. I find both Exiftool and ExifToolGui very useful. Mark
  8. Maybe they've got stuck or lost in the system? Why not try submitting again? Sometimes that seems to dislodge something. Mark
  9. Does anyone know when the last re-rank was? I haven't noticed any evidence of a re-rank since the new AIM and data structures were introduced (about 2 years ago?). I’ve asked James Allsworth at Alamy about this but haven't received a clear answer. If re-ranks aren’t happening then I worry that this undermines one of the basic mechanisms I've long believed can be used to improve the position of my images in search results. i.e. maximise CTR% by tight and accurate keywording, thereby reducing the chance of getting unwanted views and increasing zooms as a proportion. I also worry that if re-ranks (in which CTR% is one of the ingredients) aren’t being carried out, then there’s no penalty for keyword spamming and customers will see more irrelevant images, and there's less potential of reward to contributors who work hard to improve their CTR%.
  10. Falling commissions for loyal contributors whilst offering 100% to new contributors in The Guild of Photographers for 6 months... How much does it cost to be a member of the Guild and are there any special entry requirements? However, with sales taking so long to occur, and then to report, most new contributors won't get 100% on many actual sales anyway. Mark
  11. Right click works on a thumbnail of your images in AIM or in Alamy search results. Mark
  12. Landscape Magazine June 2020 Page 113 PEYMG3 Ian Hubball An attractive middle aged woman sat on a bench in sunlight enjoying views of Wasdale, Cumbria, Lake District National Park (flipped left to right). Marb, Let me know if you want a tear-strip. You can contact me directly via my Fine Art America page. Mark
  13. Hi Marb, By chance I've just found a usage of your image PEYMG3. I was looking through a copy of Landscape Magazine June 2020 and it's on Page 113. It's been flipped left to right. Let me know if you want a tear-strip. You can contact me directly via my Fine Art America page. Mark
  14. Alamy 4 sales for $61.24 gross, $27.87 net from 5,150 images equivalent to a return of $0.065 net/image/year. Disappointing. Return elsewhere (per image) 5 x better last month. Mark
  15. It was cropped so much that the original context has gone, much like using a telephoto lens.😀 Mark
  16. I've now solved the vibration problem and so can use the mechanical shutter for copying. I wanted to do this because the E-Shutter on Lumix G7 (and possibly other cameras) causes extra noise in the image (see my earlier posts in this thread here and here ). The solution to the problem was two-fold. Firstly, I found that there's a setting hidden deep in the camera's menu system that allows a timed delay to be set between the mechanical shutter closing (ready to make the exposure) and reopening to make the exposure. This reduces the vibration, but didn't eliminate it as the shutter still has to snap open to start the exposure. Secondly, after prodding at various points on my setup, whilst watching the live view image of the slide, I found that the rubber insert in my Manfrotto quick release plate was just not rigid enough. So I removed the rubber insert and am now clamping metal edges of the quick release plate directly onto the metal base of the camera. This has almost totally eliminated the vibration. My setup looks like this. The lightbox is an LED B&Q downlighter (£8) set into a "Tuppaware" box with a weight inside and non-slip feet. The slide is raised off the LED diffuser surface (so that the diffuser and any dust on it is out of focus. The slide locates against 3 pins to make it quick to swap slides. A small mirror is used for alignment. Stray light is masked with card and I usually copy in a dimly lit room. The 35mm slide mount flips out of the way to allow medium format to be copied. When I was encountering vibration problems I considered swapping to using an ES-1 with extension tube adaptors. But, I wasn't if sure this would fix it (as I suspect the vibration maybe affecting the "floating" imaging stabiliser lens element inside my Lumix 45mm macro lens). Also my current setup can be used to copy medium format transparencies by simply raising the centre column and swapping the slide mount. Mark
  17. Thanks. I've finally solved the vibration problem (see next post) so I'm copying three test slides now. Mark
  18. Good point. It's the cropping of a small part from much larger scene that removes the information about how far away the "crowded" people actually are. But then using a telephoto does force the selection of only a small part of the scene and discards the context.... No different to a ruthless crop on a wide angle shot. Mark
  19. BPPA - "The misconception that telephoto lenses in some way give a distorted and more crowded view of a scene is as bizarre as it is ill-informed." What a strange statement. Telephoto lenses cause depth compression which makes items that lie generally along the direction of view look closer together (or crowded). It has no effect on items that lie generally along a line at 90 degrees to the direction of view. Mark
  20. Unfortunately it's becoming a bit Catch-22 vicious circle. The images used in the media have sometimes been used to show the rules being broken with clearly identifiable faces. So now some folks don't like being photographed and will direct abuse at the photographer, so now a long lens has to be used which may distort the scene... Mark
  21. That people are breaking the social distancing rules when they perhaps aren’t, because that’s a more saleable image/story.. The use of such images and video is widespread at the moment. Mark
  22. The photographer (not the editor) is the one who was actually there, and they should be well aware of the compression effect of using a long lens on the scene they are photographing. Ideally press photographers would always produce images that accurately reflect the scene rather than a distorted view of it, but then those images might not sell newspapers... Mark
  23. This "exercise" has been useful already. I've been determined to take the best shot of the one or two test slides I can before posting them, and so have been rechecking all my settings on my setup. As a result I've discovered two settings buried deep in my Lumix G7 camera's overly complex menu system. 1) Switch to extended ISO allows me to set a lower ISO of 100ASA (previously the minimum was 200ASA) , hopefully 100ASA will be lower noise 2) There's a "shutter delay" setting. I'd never understood this before, I thought it was just another self-timer, but it's more subtle, I've set it to 2 seconds. In mechanical shutter mode the sequence is now as follows Press shutter button Aperture closes down to F/8 and shutter closes to block out light to sensor 2 second delay (to allow vibration to die down) Shutter opens to take shot (hopefully this makes less vibration than closing the shutter) Shutter closes I'll be doing some more tests tomorrow to see if these changes have further reduced the noise I was seeing in shadows, and removed/reduced vibration blur in mechanical shutter mode. Hopefully I'll complete this tomorrow and can then post the slide(s) the day after. Mark
  24. Hi Harry, still waiting for you to let me know your postal address and email for swapping slides. You can contact me using the contact button on my Fine Art America page here. Maybe you've already tried and there's a glitch in the system? 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.