Alan Gallery

They gave up the duty of care to contributors when they stopped calling themselves an agency.

If it is not clear that this other site is a sub-distributer check with Alamy. This is where the Hotel California effect kicks in where Alamy will continue to licence images after one has left if it is a renewal or extension to an existing image after one has checked out.

Sorry, which BETRAYAL is that? This is the dirty, underhanded, slimesucking side of Disaster Capitalism. I will bet the first excuse will be about how hard it was to keep the business going during Covid while they will have help from the government and moved more jobs off shore and we photographers got nothing. But to these people any disaster is an opportunity to reset the economic landscape (literally in some cases) to grab power resources and advantage.

If Alamy self destructs that would be a result. It would reset the business to an extent. The current owners do not have a clue what Alamy's USP is and while it could coast along for a some time it will suffer through lack of new input and pulled collections. (note to self - put Alamy ref. number in keywords).

Alamy has alienated just about all of their suppliers except the agencies. I am so glad that I stopped supplying Alamy years ago. I was at the meeting where Alamy slashed the photographer cut from 60% to 50% with the excuse that it would help expand the market in North America which they claimed would be good for everyone. Alamy management went away with our anger ringing in their ears and have never really tried to connect since. They never did get it that, to us, our photographs are expression, we have pride in the making of them and that they are not just information.

As the percentage to photographer goes down and never up why would anyone starting out bother supplying Alamy with the prospect that the cut they get will go down from the already low levels.

I have been reporting Infringements to Alamy for some time and can confirm that Alamy claim back the usual fee which is pitiful. There should be a mark up of 100% for flagrancy and the same for lack of credit (This means Alamy would have to insist on Photographer credit at all times going forward), plus an administration fee added to cover the cost to Alamy to chase infringers. The low hanging fruit are customers who will licence for print and online and reuse multiple times on line and they can manage that internally.

In the last year more than 30% of my income from Alamy came from infringements I reported to Alamy. This was mostly due to one particular publication using an image multiple times.

Sorry I have not checked in. I am currently printing face shield frames for the NHS through this crowd source group: www.3dcrowd.uk So have been at it full tilt. I think I can work out from Ian's photos without filter what to reduce the length to. Anyone with the same lens who wants to be a test subject and who has a P mount to suit let me know. I think that I may have a gap in production while I wait for more plastic I need for them. UK only please for now.

Thanks I will try to calculate what needs to be reduced to give more area of usable image with a reasonable margin.

That might do it but a bit of a redesign in order. Because it is a lot longer than the one I use on the 30mm oly micro small errors are magnified 3x.

Ian try pushing the side of the P ring opposite the thumbscrew inward and listen for a click. That might seat it properly.

I think that the P adaptor is not seated properly on the thing. The only thing different between my test for alignment and your result is the 67mm P adaptor. It may be slightly thinner and not wedging in totally square as it should.

Full frame uncropped photo of any slide please

Full frame uncropped photo of any slide please