Sally Robertson

Image ID: 2T6RAWR Shelley Beach Park Jetty, Canning River, Western Australia. Image ID: 2RWWNW5 Point Walter Jetty, Swan River, Western Australia. Image ID: 2RWWPDT Como Jetty, Swan River, Western Australia. Image ID: 2RWWPTE Coogee Jetty, Coogee Beach, Western Australia. Image ID: 2RWWR4X Applecross Jetty, Swan River, Western Australia. Image ID: 2RWWR9C Deep Water Point Jetty, Canning River, Western Australia. Image ID: 2WAK20B Val Street Jetty, Rockingham, Western Australia. Image ID: 2T6RD0C Jurien Bay Jetty, Western Australia Image ID: 2RWWRTX Princess Royal Harbour, Albany, Western Australia. Image ID: 2T3P0PD Lake Gwelup, Western Australia. Image ID: 2RY2PHK Lake Yealering, Western Australia. Image ID: 2T2FY5W Jetty ruins at Hamelin Bay, Western Australia. Image ID: 2WYWAY3 Old Town Jetty, Augusta, Western Australia. Image ID: 2WYWB2K Old Town Jetty, Augusta, Western Australia. Image ID: 2XEYKTA Mends Street Jetty, Swan River, South Perth, Western Australia. Image ID: 2X42RD7 The jetty train on Busselton Jetty, Western Australia. Image ID: 2XH0PN0 Busselton Jetty, Western Australia.

I like this autumn shot Betty and I can actually see how it could be used in something like a magazine. It's the sort of image where some text could be overlaid on a darker part of the image while still retaining the gist of the scene. If everything was bright and the colours vibrant, in this particular case it may actually be a distraction from text. So it kind of gives a subdued, atmospheric effect where the viewer gets a sense of the scene but also can process the easy to read text. But even on its own, it conveys something of the scene in a nice way from the backlit position in which you saw it which has a kind of gentle feeling. I can see why someone like a magazine editor would choose this image.

Good point Mr Standfast! I've had a look at images under "motion blur" on Alamy in which the subject is indeed sharp, so I imagine the two are often used interchangeably or keyworded as such to cover all bases. My first camera, a Nikon D3000, had a CCD sensor. I found panned images as well as motion blur images came out very differently than they have on subsequent cameras with CMOS sensors. I really missed the look from the CCD. I read somewhere that it is to do with the way the image lays down on the CCD sensor at the time of capture, creating an effect more similar to a panned shot from a film camera. Sorry, that probably doesn't add to the proceedings either! Just trivia that I find interesting. I'll go now too...

I have one horizontal and one vertical brick wall image that are close-ups of the weathering on the bricks. The one of pipes is also close-up detail of weathering, corrosion, limescale etc. So I was thinking along the lines of an example of weathering damage for editorial purposes when I uploaded them. They were really test shots that I was trying out yesterday with a new lens and then I thought I may as well upload them. They may sit there and do nothing but unexpected sales do occur sometimes too.

Yes, I did wonder about a commercial purpose requiring a background with a rustic look. From previous experience I found backgrounds sold quite readily on microstock, but don’t seem to as much here. But they could.

Thanks space cadet and Steve! Yes, I don’t think my bricks are special or unique in any way 😂 I also don’t think they are likely to be licensed commercially either.

Yesterday I took some photos outside my home of the detail in the bricks and an exterior pipe on my home, all which are old and have sustained significant weathering (exciting images, I know). They are in QC now. What I am wondering is there a point to preparing and indicating a property release for such images that are close-ups of detail but the property is not recognisable as such? I can obviously easily provide a release as I own the property but wondered if it is even necessary. I have also wondered about such images when they are not my property. For example, I photographed the detail of a corrugated metal wall of a building with a kind of faux rustic look in a country town. I marked it as property and that it had no release as that is factually true. But, again, as it does not identify the building is it essential to mark it as property? The reason this comes up for me is I remember being with a microstock agency where such images of walls, backgrounds etc are accepted as commercial images because they are not recognisable as specific property. So just wondering if I am being too literal with property details that are not recognisable? It would be different if, for example, the property detail is some kind of identifiable patented design or if the building as a whole is identifiable. I’m a very literal person but I sometimes wonder if I am too literal? Edit: Rereading Alamy’s info it says “recognisable property” requires a release to be available commercially, so I think I am being too literal!

1 for $22. Aiming to keep improving.

Hi Ed, I've sent one on her way with instructions on how to get to Liverpool. Willie Wagtails do sing, especially at night. Even when I lived in the city I'd hear them singing away at night time. They also dance wonderfully with that swishy tail of theirs. They swish their tail to dislodge insects around them and then leap into the air to catch them. They often like to be around people's feet too because as people walk, more insects fly up into the air to catch. So it sometimes feels like they are following you. If you have any problems with mosquitos where you are, she will take care of it for you and gobble them up.

Jeff, there seem to be lots of panned shots with motion blur on Alamy (e.g. do searches on 'motorbike' and 'motion blur'). Seeing what's there now may give an idea of what has got through QC before (granted that not all may have been inspected by QC). I was with another stock agency previously who were strict about it and one contributor was disappointed their panned image was rejected. But Alamy seem to have lots of them. I have a panned photo of an ibis landing at a lake which I have hesitated to upload in case it is deemed SOLD. But doing as Steve suggests and putting it in a large batch and hoping for the best may be the way to go.

Australian Geographic 30 August 2024 https://www.australiangeographic.com.au/travel/2024/08/a-complete-guide-to-mataranka-nt/ Contributor: Tillman Schlageter / Alamy Stock Photo Image ID: PPDPC7

Mix of modern and heritage architectural detail.

Absolutely wonderful image! I was thinking some sort of co-operative relationship was going on between fish and shrimp as the shrimp doesn't look too worried. That's amazing they clean human teeth as well!

Hi Lars, I too think your images are lovely. I love so many of the nature ones - butterflies, beetles, birds etc. I really hope you get can get back to gold soon. I am about to go to silver in a couple of weeks unless a bunch of sales come in and save me at the last minute. I think if you love doing photography it helps keep the motivation going.

It's possible what I am doing with Editorial Only is overkill but I just feel better ensuring I have done everything at my end to ensure an image is not used as it shouldn't be. Best of luck for more sales soon 🙂