Jump to content

*User closed forum account*

Verified
  • Content Count

    1,142
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

569 Forum reputation = excellent

About *User closed forum account*

  • Rank
    Forum regular

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Alamy

  • Alamy URL
    http://www.alamy.com/contrib-browse.asp?cid={8C3E50FE-419A-4734-AC62-1E3E74B15081}&name=Geoffrey+Kidd
  • Images
    3469
  • Joined Alamy
    25 Jan 2006

Recent Profile Visitors

702 profile views
  1. Well I agree. I wouldn't dream of putting anything larger than a thumbnail online without a watermark. Alan Completely disagree. Clients, especially prospective ones, don't like obvious watermarks - it also makes the image 'untidy'. I put 1000 pixel images without watermarks on my site and if anyone wants to nick them...well that's a smaller issue than making the site less attractive to paying clients. For stock based websites, there's less requirement for not having visual interference but I can't offhand think of any commercial (photographer) sites that have watermarks. I find images get nicked from agency pages (often via image search engines) rather than from home sites. They are my own images, and if someone wants to buy a license to use them, they obviously won't have watermarks on. It doesn't matter how a watermark makes an image look if it isn't an image you own or have purchased a license to use, and I'm sure anyone can see what it will look like without one. I struggle to understand why any potential client would be put off an image just because of a watermark, and why the subject seems to wind up photographers so much. I agree that images are stolen via search engines, and I've had many stolen that way, and my own images on a portfolio website will also be searchable. Not using watermarks is like a shop having an open till, or products outside the shop with nothing to stop people taken them. Why make it even easier than it already is to steal something? I didn't want this to be a discussion about watermarking as I know people have strong feelings on the subject. It was just a "by the way" comment to explain why I haven't yet put my portfolio online. I may not agree with not having watermarks, but at the same time, I have to consider what may or may not put people off - Even if I don't understand why it puts them off. Geoff. The point is that if you are looking for clients, real paying for services clients, you need to have a clean site with minimal visual interference. Stock photographers trawling for clients, by all means it may make sense to have watermarks because it's not going to make much difference - try finding anyone who sells a decent amount, say £1000 a month off their own site without driving customers to it. Otherwise the price you pay is far too high. A better analogy is putting products behind bars, sure you get nobody stealing them....mainly because nobody will come in to the shop to look at the products in the first places. I suggest looking at the site of Colin Anderson, one of the top commercial stock shooters around...... a tiny little watermark in one corner is all he bothers with....and he does produce images that are widely known. Chris Clor is another example amongst many. Personally I accept a little theft as a CODB..
  2. Well I agree. I wouldn't dream of putting anything larger than a thumbnail online without a watermark. Alan Completely disagree. Clients, especially prospective ones, don't like obvious watermarks - it also makes the image 'untidy'. I put 1000 pixel images without watermarks on my site and if anyone wants to nick them...well that's a smaller issue than making the site less attractive to paying clients. For stock based websites, there's less requirement for not having visual interference but I can't offhand think of any commercial (photographer) sites that have watermarks. I find images get nicked from agency pages (often via image search engines) rather than from home sites.
  3. No. If there was a demand then top aggregators who supply a lot of the commercial iamges used would be calling for larger file sizes....they're not. Billboards are printed at 8dpi or so..... you don't need a big file. When you start shooting editorial fashion then you will need larger file sizes, until then.... they just get in the way. Hosting of large images is the question, doesn't matter how big your retina screens shows at if the bandwidth is such that files are only max 2000 pixels wide.
  4. I would use a template, the best are fairly customisable so should cater for fussy. Clean and easy to read are the most important i.e quick loading and with easy to navigate features. Not such a fan of Wordpress with third party templates these days, too often they become incompatible with each other. Went back to Photodeck and it just works, which is the single most important factor. It's very important to make your website mobile friendly as it affects the ranking with Google.
  5. just looking at your images, I would be hard pressed to see editorial clients being able to use many of them. Too many are more FAA styled than regular stock... you seem to be shooting more for POD sites than for Alamy. Sheer numbers of images doesn't matter as much as some think, content is king and content has to be geared towards clients. It's not 2008 so yes, sales here are not what they used to be but there are still plenty of sales around..
  6. If you look in your balance of account the breakdown of this distributor sale is there for you.
  7. True there's no definitive listing but these are the guidelines that work for the most widely distributed collections in stock, i.e. they are used/accepted on all the majors. All private homes require property releases......... (you are in someone's home and/or on their property and photographing said property). Exteriors of most individual buildings are acceptable without a release if taken from a public place, excluding TMs/logos etc i.e. intellectual property rights or other actual rights. There's (were?) is a list of exceptions for this on Alamy (borrowed from a big microstock) - the list has some errors but it's a stay away from job for RF/commercial Interiors of buildings require a property release if the photograph makes the business or building recognizable..... often a moot point since you often would want to have something different/recognisable about the building but otherwise this point holds Some countries have different legal issues and others like USA, specifically CA, have had this tested in court and no grounds for stopping commercial use without a property release. Alamy errs on the side of caution because most people are not getting legal advice or having work run through legal QCs at other agencies, therefore it's advice is 'dumbed' down in terms of absolute caution. Property releases also need to be obtained, if required, by end-users regardless of the license model. RF is not a free for all, the EULA has caveats.
  8. I think you well know the OP has images at other places His excessive keywording was what Alamy asked for originally and it worked very well, top five contrib? maybe top 10 at one point. It doesn't work these days but that's no reason for the slightly uncouth replies earlier in the thread from others.
  9. DMacD, Well I think you already know my answer from another forum, the best person to ask would be Brian Y (rekeyworded whole? collection). I hold to minimal keywording to keep rank high and it's worked since 2006. In terms of effort, I would say it's well worthwhile to work on your keywording in terms of rank which does make such a difference to sales.......something to do on your next cruise. As to pseudos, I don't have a' crap' pseudo, if your images are of equal stock potential then it's not needed. I redid the whole collection twice in lieu of stemming and some other Alamy tweak. It was only a 1000 images and didn't take too long. HTH, P.S. Quite funny to see people commenting on your sales...........
  10. both here and elsewhere Country: Nigeria Usage: Editorial Media: Internal newsletter Industry sector: Non Profit/ Education Sub-Industry: Charities Print run: up to 10,000 Placement: Inside Image Size: 1/8 page Start: 28 January 2008 End: 04 February 2008
  11. The problem before was restrictions being honoured by third parties, it makes sense that there are some restrictions which are less important if they are not adhered to, as opposed to those that could have legal implications - sort of 'restrictions-lite'.
  12. Problem is - as Jill rightfully mentioned - that you have to put that restriction on all your images. If you do, then none of your images will be available through distributors. Cheers, Philippe That may be changing, the new contract has changed the wording of the clause 11.2 to imply that restrictions may not preclude distribution. It may be that some restrictions are less worthy of keeping one out of distribution than others.... it might just be a typo!!
  13. Quite a few, try this one since you are looking at a DJI http://www.phantompilots.com/ Different types of UAV and events http://uavcommunity.com/
  14. Which obviously needed a bit of help. Or is this too cynical? wim Cynical and probably wrong. The Trust commissioned photographers when I was shooting NT property for local estate managers in the 90s and I'm sure long before. They have their own publications and so have long needed photography. In the 90s there was concern over articles about gardens which couldn't cope with influxes of visitors, the one I mainly shot was one example (though parking facilites are now well improved). I fail to see the relevance of that comment, Geoff. Wim was undoubtedly referring to the fact that the NT may have needed help selling on Alamy - by removing competing images. If they believe they have their own excellent photography, then they shouldn't be concerned about competition - the client will license the best image for his/her purpose. Imposing a monopoly isn't the way to go about it and it ultimately reduces customer choice. Ian D Perhaps they are concerned about the photographers who they support via the Trust commissions and the NTPL who have followed their rules....as opposed, one might say cynically, to those who want to earn money off the backs of the Trust's work and commercial rights. The Trust produces commercial products which help to fund their work - calendars etc etc, is it ok to have others benefit from the work they do without putting back some renummeration? I used to be irritated at the Trust's stance on this but since the permit scheme was introduced, I really don't see that photographers have too much of a case any more. If I were shooting that type of work these days, I would use the scheme...much in the same way I used the RHS scheme and various others.
  15. Which obviously needed a bit of help. Or is this too cynical? wim Cynical and probably wrong. The Trust commissioned photographers when I was shooting NT property for local estate managers in the 90s and I'm sure long before. They have their own publications and so have long needed photography. In the 90s there was concern over articles about gardens which couldn't cope with influxes of visitors, the one I mainly shot was one example (though parking facilites are now well improved).
×
×
  • 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.