Jump to content

Craig Joiner

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

18 Forum reputation = neutral

About Craig Joiner

  • Rank
    Forum newbie

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Bristol, UK


  • Alamy URL
  • Images
  • Joined Alamy
    26 Jun 2006
  1. 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
  2. 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.
  3. +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
  4. 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
  5. 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.
  6. 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
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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
  10. +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.
  11. 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.
  12. In my experience disabling right click has no effect as the majority of infringers simply lift the images from Google where they found the image and never visit the originating site.
  13. Indeed. Edit -> Catalog Settings Then in the Metadata tab check ‘Automatically write changes to XMP' Make sure you also uncheck ‘Include Develop settings in metadata inside JPEG, PNG, and PSD files’ otherwise every edit you make in the Develop module is also written to the file on the fly which can cause Lightroom to slow down, unless you want need all your edits also stored in the files. I’d personally not recommend writing any data to images. With this setting on, Lightroom will be making lots of writes to your precious image files which increases the risk of corruption. I understand why people might prefer to do this however, but just be sure to understand the risks and adjust your backup strategy accordingly. In other words, make sure you have a backup of all your images before Lightroom touches them and keep that separate from subsequent backups of the images Lightroom has altered. Oh, and of course keep lots of backups of the Lightroom catalogue too. I hope that makes sense. Craig
  14. By default Lightroom only stores the metadata in it's database and unless you tell it to save the data to the original file, it doesn't make any changes to the image file on your hard disk. I would always advocate using the same workflow for all image types as it reduces the chance of human error and unexpected consequences such as you have found. So, I will always export from Lightroom as I know all my metadata will be correct and any image edits (no matter where made) will be in the exported images. I never use the original files on my hard drives and I never write changes to images from Lightroom either. I learned the hard way a long time ago that this introduces a small but very possible chance of image corruption. That said, if you want to write your metadata to the jpeg files, right click the image in Lightroom, select 'Metadata' and then 'Save Metadata to File'. However, depending on how your have your keywords set-up in Lightroom, this may not do what you expect. For instance it will save ALL keywords, including any you have marked not to export (such as keywords you might use to identify images sent to Alamy etc.) Another reason to always export from Lightroom. Craig
  • 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.