DDoug

I'm out also, and thanks to all on this forum for the information and insights. It's probably assumed by the PA management that what with the thousands of contributors and millions of images, they can easily stand the loss of a few. That's no doubt true. However, there will be small instances of loss. Today I got a zoom on an image where five of the six results from a keyword search were mine. No doubt all of us have subjects like that where there really isn't a lot of competition. In the case mentioned, they were shot with my first serious camera, an East German Ikoflex twin-lens

My gross has been above $250 since my first licenses were sold in 2015. That includes this year, but a couple of licenses were for $3. If that low amount were to become the average, it would take 83 sales to reach $250. I haven't had that many total sales in any year so far, so dropping down to silver looks like it would be quite possible based on declining license fees. Lately my CTR has been fairly good and I wonder what happens if there are sales reported after my contract terminates at the end of this month. If I accept payment, am I by default also accepting the new contract t

Country: Worldwide ($27) Usage: Single company, editorial magazine, print and or web, multiple use 5 years Industry sector: Media, design & publishing Start: 11 June 2021 End: 11 June 2026 This was shot a few weeks back and was easy enough to do, since the rhododendrons in the back yard suffer from bud blast. However, I don't think anyone is going to hang a print of a diseased plant on their wall. If not shooting for stock, I wouldn't shoot it at all. That change in mindset is probably for the best.

An outfit that has the wherewithal to buy Alamy certainly could afford a liability policy that would cover any lawsuits, frivolous or otherwise. Instead they chose to palm off the responsibility to their contributors, some of whom are retirees who don't have two nickels to rub together. An outfit that can let contributors opt into or out of distribution on a region-by-region basis certainly could manage to allow them to opt into or out of the UK Newspaper Scheme. But since those schemers were the ones who bought Alamy, that option's just a little too much trouble. In mo

I clicked on the "new contract" link in the dashboard. The text seems to be tightened up. It reads: Indemnities "You will indemnify, defend (at the request of Alamy) and hold Alamy and its affiliates, Customers, Distributors, sub-licensees and assigns (the “Indemnified Parties”) harmless against any and all claims, damages, liabilities, losses, costs and expenses (including reasonable legal expenses) which any of the Indemnified Parties incur arising from or in in relation to: (i) any claim that the Content infringes any third party’s copyright; (ii) any breach of any your rep

I've chosen to drop out. Many years ago, going on half a century, I put lap-dissolved slides into a TV promotion for my employer, a radio broadcasting company. I thought the free-lance associate who arranged for the model got the signed release, and he thought I did. In any case, the model was clothed up to her neck and no one was defamed or damaged in any way, but that didn't prevent the nuisance suit. Even though I've been careful when it comes to photos that have people or property in them — marking them as lacking releases and avoiding shooting things I shouldn't, such as mural

Presumably, an agency looks out for the interests of its contributors when dealing with buyers of image licenses. In practice, it appears that agencies look out for themselves exclusively and only treat contributors just enough better than other agencies to keep them from leaving in droves, if only by a whisker. After all, 30 percent is still better than 20 percent. I wonder if it might not be like buying coffee or bananas. When the commodity is labeled “Fair Trade” lots of people buy it in preference to other brands because they want to see the banana and coffee farmers treated fa

Thanks, Joseph. It's a fairly ordinary botanical shot, so the healthy fee for commercial use is pretty much blind luck.* *on my part. Kudos to Alamy for negotiating a fair fee.

First 10 $619 11 Months (29 May 2015 to 28 April 2016) Last 10 $573 <8 months (19 August 2020 to present) The recent 10 would have looked much more bleak but for a $300 sale that came through last night.

I made my earlier comments regarding slide digitizing based on some initial positive results. After further testing with other originals, I have to agree that any improvements with slides are slight at best. As for results on digital capture (using Fuji cameras with X-Trans sensors in my case), I think it's a leap forward.

I do downsize to the original or even smaller size, as I said. However, the increase in detail gained by the upsizing appears to be preserved after the image is reduced and management of noise appears to work better at the larger (interim) size.

I switched from Silkypix to ACR a few years ago. I still use SP to modify the color of some images, such as putting Astia skin tones in a Velvia environment, after the initial raw processing is done in ACR. Yes, ACR has improved with updates, but most other changes seem incremental to me. Adding layers was huge. Other than raw processing, though, I don't see a lot of improvement in the various iterations after CS4. ACR is the reason I subscribe to Lightroom and Photoshop rather than simply using an older version of PS. Perhaps I use the term “scans” too loosely. I sold my Canon fil

I have a number of film images that qualify as archival because the same thing could not be photographed on digital, presumably in better quality, today. There are hundreds or more other images that don't meet that criterion. They were shot on film only because that's what I had at the time. When I first submitted a set of four images to Alamy, three passed: a couple of digital captures and a medium-format film image. The fourth, a 35mm slide, failed. Since then, I've only submitted 35mm slide scans as archival. Lately, I've been using the Super Resolution feature, which they claim

I've been using the new Super Resolution feature in Adobe Camera Raw. Most of their “upgrades” have been minor, but, in my view, this is the biggest thing since they added layers a quarter of a century ago. So far, I haven't submittet a scanned 35mm slide as anything other than archival, but there's a good chance that this Photoshop upgrade is just what's needed to bring old film images up to snuff.

Coincidentally, I was thinking about this question when I saw your post. The following sale came through a couple of days ago: Country: Worldwide Usage: Personal use, Personal prints, cards and gifts. Non-commercial use only, not for resale. Media: Non-commercial, one time, personal/home use Start: 23 February 2021 End: 23 February 2026 $ 15.99 23 February 2021 alamy Commission 2E2RP88 43.50% 6.96 23 February 2021 Affiliate Commission 2E2RP88 13% 2.08 ...which leaves 6.95 for me, as opposed to eight bucks if there were no affiliate. I

The X-T200 has copper wires and a Bayer sensor. https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilm-x-t200-review/2

If you have Photoshop, LAB color separates the color information from the tonal information. Convert to LAB and select Lightness channel, which is the B&W element only. Copy that and paste in a new window and convert that back to RGB. (Tried to insert a sample from URL, but the system wouldn't accept it.)

deleted

$11 PU sale of an archival photo:

Who needs charges when you have a bogus exchange rate?

One for $105 gross plus DACS ($42 via Alamy)

Ditto the verticals, a holdover from when clients used to say "shoot more verticals" along with reminding me to have more shots with people in them. I don't carry the vertical battery grip much because of weight, but do like the vertical controls on occasion. On the other subject, I figure I'll finally start to become a European when I come to understand why a country the size of Sacramento County needs its own language. Till then I'll stick to the opinion that Lëtzebuergesch is more of a secret code than a language, something the Luxemburgers speak among themselves when they don't want to

I also used a Fuji 645. A photographer I knew referred to it as my "point and shoot Hasselblad." I also used mostly 220 in that and a Pentax 645 I once had. Given that 35mm had the emulsion spread out over sprocket holes, leader and tail, with all of it packaged in a can within a can, it was quite wasteful. Using 220, which has a paper leader and tail and is packaged in foil, the cost worked about the same per frame as mounted 35mm for around 3X the film area.

Not only for surfers (photo of Ansel Adams by Beaumont Newhall).