Jump to content

Craig Joiner

Verified
  • Content Count

    38
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

19 Forum reputation = neutral

About Craig Joiner

  • Rank
    Forum newbie

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://craigjoiner.com

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Bristol, UK

Alamy

  • Alamy URL
    https://www.alamy.com/contrib-browse.asp?cid={9BBAC2B1-762A-426A-B194-5DC017D2FB0E}&name=Craig+Joiner
  • Images
    6990
  • Joined Alamy
    26 Jun 2006
  1. Someone who has an image they want to use and they don’t know who the owner is? Wasn't that what the Orphan Works was all about? I’m not expecting GIS to become a stock library and make us all rich of course, but this does make Google Images a slightly less hostile place for our images IMO. If it means a perspective buyer can find the image owner (or acting agent/library) with the click of a button and ultimately license the image then that has to be a good thing, right?
  2. Exactly right Harry. Sorry I should have been clearer (trying to multi task is never a good idea!) Just add the required details to one image then while that image is still selected create a preset (sorry I mistakenly said template originally) and you can add the Licensor metadata to your preset. And thanks for the v6.14 update. I see now that Licensor URL has been around since 2008 after the PLUS coalition got it added so relatively new but not new new. It's been in beta for several months so although officially only became standard from 31st Aug when the Google Images change went live, it was agreed some time ago and has been in use during the beta. Indeed, a pain. But you can just simply point every image to the same generic page giving details of how to license your images rather than separate URLs for each image. This is the approach I took. I would prefer individual URLs to each image's 'home page' but I didn’t have the time to update every image individually. I may do this as a later project if I see any sign it would be worth my while. Craig
  3. Lightroom Classic does support Licensor URL but I might have read somewhere it was a relatively recent metadata field so possibly only available in later Creative Cloud versions. It's under 'IPTC Extension'. Scroll down to 'Rights' and 'Licensor' is there. Click on that and it'll open up with a number of fields including the Licensor URL field. Relatively easy to create a preset in LR and then apply it to all existing images and on import. More info at: https://iptc.org/standards/photo-metadata/quick-guide-to-iptc-photo-metadata-and-google-images/ Edit: You cannot add the licensor details directly to a preset Lightroom. You have to first add it to an image in Lightroom and then create (or modify) a template based on the metadata for that image. Craig
  4. Try the 'Embedded & Sidecar' option. With this LR just pulls the full size preview your camera embedded in the RAW file and is much faster. It won’t match what you eventually see in the develop module, but useful for checking critical focus at 100% etc. during initial culling. Craig
  5. The current system doesn't do this either. It does, however, minimise the risk to an acceptable level as the image is immediately removed from sale and not subject to further downloads/sales until it is removed from public view. Waiting months for a deletion while still visibly on sale is asking for trouble, not to mention difficult to explain should the publisher stumble across it. In any case, Wim was suggesting the kill switch should kill anything in the pipeline too & I agree.
  6. +1 for a kill switch. I sometimes license images direct to magazines that still demand the same images are not used in rival magazines for 6 months or more. Personally I thought the current restrictions were too blunt an instrument but I've come to live with them. However, if Alamy remove the editorial block I'm stuck. Deleting the image completely isn't an option because takes 6 months. A simple kill switch in addition to the proposed options seems like a reasonable compromise to me and would cover all eventualities. Craig
  7. Steve, You don't say which version of Windows you are using but as you refer to Microsoft "Photos" I'm assuming you're using windows 10. The default photos app in Windows 10 is not colour managed and images look very over saturated on wide gamut screens (as do desktop wallpapers 🙄). The old windows photo viewer can be reinstated however, see https://www.ghacks.net/2018/07/16/how-to-restore-the-windows-photo-viewer-on-windows-10/. This seems to be compatible with version 4 colour profiles. Craig
  8. Good point! Last time I did that, that feature of plugin wasn't working correctly and it kept reverting back so I'd forgotten about it. It was quickly fixed I hasten to add.
  9. The same happens if you submit a new updated version of an image. Have you tried clearing the Alamy data for the affected images in Lightroom? That often works but it depends on your matching criteria as to whether it will correctly match the newer images on Alamy. I match by filename only and when stuck have found that renaming the files in lightroom to match the version of my filename Alamy have applied to the newer image works (usually they append _1 from memory). You still need to clear the Alamy data in Lightroom for those images before re-syncing but once matched you can rename the images back to their correct filename in lightroom and the images remain linked. Hope that is of use. Craig
  10. Not necessarily. The key here is ‘Any information supplied for display...’ If this personal info is added to the caption or keywords then yes, that is a breach. If it’s the standard IPTC contact & copyright sections then, as that is deleted / replaced by Alamy, it’s really only a waste of his time. Of course, if he supplies images direct to buyers or puts them on his own website it’s still a worthwhile thing to do.
  11. Double click on the 'Scale to Megabytes' option in Post-Process Actions in the bottom left of the Export dialogue in Lightroom to add it to the export options. Then it's just a matter of adjusting the max % value until you get the required megapixels. It's a bit of a fiddle and I never really understood why the max sixe is 33.33MP allowed by the plugin as Alamy accept much larger.
  12. The key is getting your file names to match the ones you used when you sent the images to Alamy. If there are consistent differences (such as a simple prefix or suffix) then the plugin can be set-up to account for that. If, like me, you radically changed your file naming along the way and lots of your images with Alamy have filenames significantly different to your current filenames in LR, then this is a bit more tricky. They way I handled this was ask Alamy to send me their metadata spreadsheet of my images and this contained the filenames I originally supplied. It was then a simple case of identifying the images with my old filenames and modifying the spreadsheet so these matched the filenames in LR. I then sent the spreadsheet back to Alamy who uploaded it to their system and updated all my filenames so they now matched LR. Craig
  13. +1 The Sony appears to be a fine camera (but no better than any of its peers), but the system (ergonomics, menu, button location etc.) is very different to the Nikon system (and arguably not as mature). Running two very different systems side by side seems counterproductive. I get that people have switched to Sony in the past because they wanted the advantages of full frame mirrorless, but with the Z6 and Z7 pretty much matching the two Sonys, unless you didn’t like the Nikon system, there is no need. If it were me, and given the OP's previous regretted switch to Sony, I would not do anything until the Z6 was out, fully tested and I’d handled both cameras. It's worth pointing out that with the shortest flange distance of any of the full frame mirrorless cameras, the Z mount promises some very high image quality from its lenses. Indeed, the MTF charts for the modest 24-70mm f4 Z-mount kit lens suggest it could have better image quality than the 24-70mm f2.8 F-mount lens with unheard of corner to corner sharpness for a zoom lens. If this proves to be the case in the real world then I could be tempted back to zoom lenses when I come to replace my current DSLR. Even if the Z6/Z7 fall slightly behind the Sonys in other areas in the real world, investment in the Z mount is likely to be worth it in the long run IMHO.
  14. Why not wait for the Nikon Z6 to arrive in a couple of months before jumping? Seems to me that this camera has all the advantages you are looking for in the Sony but retains the Nikon system (button locations, menu system etc.) that you know plus with the FTZ lens adapter you can keep all your existing F mount glass (unless you have the older screw type AF lenses of course). The Sony system is very different to the Nikon system and I wonder if you were frustrated by these differences when you previously moved to Sony? if so then perhaps the A7III will be no different? If it were me I'd try them both out in a shop side by side with your existing bodies as Colin suggests, and then decide. If there's no decisive winner then I'd personally not change. I've not used the A7III but by all accounts it's a fine camera, but is its image quality significantly better or worse than your existing bodies or the Z6? Probably not.
×
×
  • 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.