Richard Tadman

My last three sales (all August 2019) in 3 months time or so, will net me a total of $6.09. One sale is for a print run of 500,000. Q: What is the difference between a stock photographer and a pizza? A: You can provide a meal for your family with a pizza. Richard

MDM - No; I only ever shoot in RAW and currently aRGB never jpegs, but this thread has made me doubt the "practical" benefits of aRGB v sRGB although as you will see from my original posts, those more knowledgeable than me still advocate aRGB as do you. I guess I'm struggling to see the real as opposed to the theoretical difference. For the record I keep all my RAW files 'as shot' and save processed 16 bit TIFFS. I also use Bridge CC and PS CC for editing.

As I set this particular hare running with the original post and in light of the above clarification from Alamy as quoted by Mark (thank you) I'm struggling to see any benefit in continuing with aRGB. You may recall I originally posted: - "This morning I submitted an image to a large and reputable lab' who advised me that they have converted my colour profile to sRGB to avoid producing "undesirable results"? In fairness they may have converted previous images I have sent to them without my knowledge." As all my Canon menus only require a quick flick of the colour space switch to convert all future new images to sRGB together with both the above revelations, is anyone else sufficiently wedded to aRGB that they would be reluctant to change? and if so could you explain why. Thanks

Given that I started this thread and have been incredibly intrigued by the complexity of analysis and discussion that it has generated, would it be disingenuous to conclude that while there is clearly a 'real' if minimal (to the user) difference between the colour spaces under discussion, that to all intents and purpose the reality is that this is fairly insignificant to all but the most discerning or pedantic? I don't mean this to sound in any way disparaging, just suggesting that in the real world it may not be of the magnitude we are affording it. There is much fascinating and technical debate which in truth has been very educational but goes largely above my head, although I have tried quite hard to follow it. Many of you are obviously far more proficient in the technicalities than I am. That said, standing back, I conclude that as photographers we could get obsessively engrossed in the minutiae of colour space, but with the best will in the world Alamy has been selling perfectly acceptable images to the world at large for a long time and my aRGB submission have apparently resulted in sales, with no customer detriment that I can detect. Please don't think I am in any way being critical of the comments from very knowledgeable contributors, it has been a revelation, but with the best will in the world, I am still struggling to get clear in my mind if this is a real issue to customers or an esoteric topic that in the cold light of day is very interesting but of little practical significance.

Thanks Marianne I think that you have encapsulated my experience and come to more or less the same conclusion. The evidence among experienced professional photographers, of which I am not one, seems to be predominantly in favour of shooting aRGB. The issue seems to be among the various printers who drive the agency/magazine/designers etc. to seek the different colour spaces. Since my original post I have now received the print that I ordered and it looks fine in terms of colour, at least to my eyes and that was after they automatically converted it to sRGB. Thank you to everyone who has contributed to this thread. I'm not sure I'm any wiser but arguably better informed!

Yes Niels - good point

Yes; thanks for the clarification Niels

I appear to have inadvertently provoked a somewhat heated debate. To rewind; I have always been told on good authority by internationally renowned professional photographers far more knowledgeable than me, that Adobe 1998 colour space has a larger range and is more universally used by those who make a living out of these things. I also understand that in Photoshop for example you can use Edit>Convert to Profile> in the Destination Space select sRGB and convert the output. My query, possibly badly expressed was based on trying to understand the science behind the two options and whether there really was a significant difference, and if so what were the merits and detriments of each. Thank you for all your contributions. I guess at the moment I'd summarise this as "no wiser but better informed."

Thank you MDM. I was genuinely interested in Space Cadet's understanding of this issue. Seemingly he is not prepared to share his wisdom, however I appreciate your contribution.

Here's a "You Tube" video that purports to clarify the difference. If I am to believe this it recommends using Adobe RGB for prints! I also wasn't aware that sRGB preceded Adobe RGB as a colour space. Confused? I am - but the reality seems to be that it could be a futile argument (unless you know otherwise) along the lines of the Canon v Nikon debate.

Are you prepared to share this as you will see from the thread that there appears to be a variety of opinions?

Thanks Niels and Reimar for your responses. It made me wonder how all (joke) my prospective purchasers will handle the printing of my Adobe 1998 images if it's such an issue. Those I have been fortunate enough to see in print look fine.

In fairness the lab didn't have a problem but just alerted me. Your point about MS is interesting. Thanks.

I have always shot using Adobe 1998 colour space, having been told some years ago by two (still) well renowned and much published photographers that Adobe was preferable, having a larger colour palette than sRGB. I've never had a problem with Alamy QC on this issue or getting a faithful rendition of colours when comparing my (calibrated) monitor images to reproductions. That said I rarely print out images for my own use. This morning I submitted an image to a large and reputable lab' who advised me that they have converted my colour profile to sRGB to avoid producing "undesirable results"? In fairness they may have converted previous images I have sent to them without my knowledge. This caused me to try and research the difference and possible detriment they referred to. What do other contributors do? and does anyone have a definitive view on the relative merits. Thanks Richard

I too am no fan of the NT. I visited the Farne Islands in June 2010 and the NT levied a charge of £1 to land on 'their' islands. Last Saturday I visited again and the charge was £34.80 !

Thanks for the kind words Nicola. In truth, many of my images are also static because I was cautious about motion blur, but in truth I haven't had any problems with Alamy QC. The above for example illustrates my point I hope that motion and movement can add appeal to potential buyers. You've cracked the hardest part so keep submitting.

Hi Nicola Just my opinion and you clearly have no issue with the quality of your images. What struck me was the large number of "similars" where for example as a prospective buyer I would be hard pressed to spot any discernible difference in terms of say images T483RA and T483RE both images of an ostrich which even on close scrutiny look pretty identical. This also applies to some of the Rhino and Giraffe images where unless the prospective buyer is very particular or specific, I would imagine that any of several similar images might fit the bill for their needs. As a result your 563 images would be considerably reduced in terms of the effective marketable images in your portfolio. If say the ostrich was looking first left and then right in 2 different images, this could be significant in terms of balancing the page layout for printing, but otherwise I'd be inclined to be a little more strict with yourself and choose just one. It may be that your zoom and view numbers reflect this. The other thing that struck me and again a purely personal opinion is that being wildlife the images are generally very static. There isn't a lot of movement evident, although you have got impalas running, but that is very much the exception. It was a criticism levelled at me that I had too many "birds on sticks" It's not a precise science and others may have differing views. 563 is a small portfolio in the Alamy scheme of things, so keep at it and good luck.

Thanks Gen - I appreciate the comprehensive feedback. I don't have any problems with successful sales but strive hard to keep my keywording relevant. I understood that my CTR and position in Alamy searches could be detrimentally affected by attracting spurious searches and therefore should shy away from say "foliage" to quote your example. I chose the sparrow example carefully to try and demonstrate that having covered ID, gender, scientific name and perch, perching, sitting etc. there is little to further differentiate it. Location I suspect would be entirely academic since the bird is in close up and similarly with feeding calling singing etc. I obviously include terms such as small, popular passerine etc. and for say a Marabou stork it would be an entirely different keywording exercise. All that said I appreciate your input. Many thanks. Richard

It is really quite a challenge to keyword say a picture of a sparrow on a tree branch and still keep the keywords relevant to the image. I'm conscious that associated words such as singing; flying; nesting etc. are misleading if the bird is simply perching. I struggle to get much past 20 relevant words for anyone searching, including bird; wildlife; avian etc. Similarly an abandoned boat on the shore is pretty much just that! If you're submitting an image of holiday makers on Blackpool beach for example, the scope could be almost endless so I have given up trying to achieve high discoverability some time ago.

"and there I was thinking odious, personal attacks were a thing of the past.in this forum." dustydingo - you are quite right to rebuke me for my comments. I apologise unreservedly to Spacecadet for comments that on reflection were both ill-advised and inappropriate.

" Please note that all photographs may be used by the society for any purpose it chooses." ......and you don't think that's draconian? You're obviously more wealthy than me, but I do note a consistent pattern that you seem to persistently glorify in taking a contrary position to most comments on this forum to provoke attention on almost every topic. 8,066 post ? Pretty much says it all - "agent provocateur" springs to mind.

I have an inherent dislike of terms like this. I suspect that most of the time the organisers of these competitions have sought poor advice or copied legal terms from other similar societies without understanding their legal implication or simply because it sounds professional or official. I would never enter any competition on principal which seeks carte blanche to use my image/s for any purpose or in perpetuity without recourse to me. Who do these people think they are? A case in point is the BBC who unashamedly flatter photographers for their weather pictures or the "Countryfile" calendar with appallingly restrictive terms which grant them exclusive rights in perpetuity to use images for any purposes free of charge. A simple agreement to allow them to reproduce your image while acknowledging you as the originator should be ample recompense. If you feel happy to surrender all your rights for the possibility of a credit or vanity publication then fine. I cannot imagine why a local photographic society would feel it necessary to impose such draconian terms on photographers who should be entitled to retain full copyright in their work. A local and very worthwhile charity who I wholeheartedly support recently sought images for their Christmas calendar. Their T&C's however were so restrictive that I refused point blank to submit images which I would otherwise have supported to the hilt. Sadly the vast majority are seduced by the flattery of seeing their name in print or the prestige of being 'chosen' and thereby diminishing the value of those of us who are more commercially astute.

That's good to hear and thanks for the feedback. However this is a forum and not a private messaging system so many others including me would have been grateful for your guidance.

Forgive me but that is hardly a helpful reply. I struggled to find the answer to this too. It might have been equally time effective for you to answer the question rather than rebuke the poster. Unlike you I only use the forum for specific help and information, so you have the advantage on us.

Without perpetuating a somewhat incidental topic, you are confusing two issues. s21 prescribes what means constitute valid notification to a contributor. Thus any of the means listed are deemed to have been received by you. i.e. it wouldn't be a defence to say you didn't receive it. This is not the same as you agreeing to the contents of the notification which amounts to a contract amendment and effectively a new or counter-offer which you need to accept explicitly to incorporate it into the agreement. I'll go and get 'me' coat!