Jump to content

John Mitchell

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by John Mitchell

  1. Looking back at my recent Web use sales, they are almost all horizontals. Thanks, David, for pointing this out. However, yesterday a vertical $168 postcard company sale popped up, while most of my Web use sales are for peanuts. So I'll definitely keep shooting both formats when possible.
  2. The statue is 100% sharp, while the background is about 75% sharp. But you might be correct. My caption only identifies the statue, not the hotel, so it seems ridiculous to me that I should have to worry about this. However, Alamy's QC apparently doesn't read captions.
  3. After a recent confusing (to me) QC failure (soft and lacking def), I'm totally paranoid about shallow depth of field. Alamy claims that shallow DOF is OK if there is a clear center of focus. In the image below, I focused on the statue -- which is sharp -- while the hotel sign and balustrade in the background are slightly fuzzy. Is this image going to get me in QC hot water? Opinions appreciated. I don't want to spend another month twiddling my thumbs. http://cdn.c.photoshelter.com/img-get/I0000aMRnFj8UZbw/s/860/860/Merida130033.jpg
  4. Not sure when your bank holiday was, but I re-submitted a batch on Tuesday night (Vancouver time) after a month-long wait in the "sin bin" and they passed QC in about 36 hours.
  5. I try to shoot a mixture of horizontals and verticals of the same subject if it lends itself to both formats. Why? Having both formats opens up more usage possibilities. Also, verticals tend to be more popular for covers of books and magazines, so it's good to have them available.
  6. All my sales -- such as they are -- have been in the US. The big challenge on FAA, I find, is getting your work noticed -- i.e. attracting visitors who actually might buy a print. I've yet to figure that one out. The FAA search engine is pretty basic, so I assume that most potential customers arrive via Google image searches. But who knows?
  7. Yes, horses, flowers, and cute pets also seem to be big sellers. Nothing wrong with that, of course. They are all legitimate photographic subjects. Many of the paintings for sale on FAA look godawful to me. I too never got into the "liking" thing on FAA. Facebook is bad enough. Still, I've sold images on FAA that I haven't managed to sell anywhere else. Also, at only $30/year the FAA website is a sweet deal IMO.
  8. Hopefully those won't be sour grapes.
  9. Jeff, I don't think that you will get any replies to this question. FAA is basically a place to try selling some of those "artier" shots that might not do so well on Alamy. Best to upload selectively to FAA and not expect big returns. I think that most photographers only make the occasional sale on FAA. That's certainly the case with me. However, there are no doubt notable exceptions. Nature/landscape specialists seem to do well.
  10. Thanks, Ed. It's always interesting to read another perspective. The NEX-6 is still on my wishlist. Perhaps we should all get together and make a B-movie: "RETURN OF THE NEX PEOPLE."
  11. I got the same impression. Photo buyers already have a mind-boggling number of images, agencies, portals, etc. to choose from on the Web.
  12. That's encouraging to hear, Rosemary. The thought of going back sharpening several hundred images doesn't exactly thrill me. Think I'll just leave things the way they are and hope for the best.
  13. Interesting. Thanks for telling us about this. So I guess that "Your images should be ready for printing" means that they shouldn't be sharpened. Personally, I think that content is much more important than super-sharpness to most people buying prints. Your making the sale seems to support that. Digital images don't require sharpening usually, although I do a little when I print myself to allow for dot gain. Scanned film images, especially 35 mm, do require it and, after my experience, I now do it as a matter of course on FAA submissions. True, scans are generally not nearly as sharp as digital images. Interestingly enough, though, almost all my FAA sales so far have been unsharpened scans of 35mm slides. Also, my only image to have sold twice on FAA (20'' prints both times) is one that would never have passed Alamy's QC.
  14. I would be careful. If you submit the photo to live news and it is deemed to be "not newsworthy," it will be sent to the regular QC queue where it will be subjected to the same scrutiny as regular stock photos. If it subsequently fails QC, you will probably have to sit around for at least a month waiting to hear about it. During that time, you also won't be able to upload and new stock images. This happened to me last year. So no more live news for me unless Alamy changes this inconsistent policy.
  15. Interesting. Thanks for telling us about this. So I guess that "Your images should be ready for printing" means that they shouldn't be sharpened. Personally, I think that content is much more important than super-sharpness to most people buying prints. Your making the sale seems to support that.
  16. But would anyone notice it other than photographers looking for CA?
  17. I use the "T-word" because I can't think of a good reason not to. Also, I used to submit to another agency that asked contributors to include "travel" in their keywords (probably for the purpose of creating galleries), so I just got into the habit of doing so. Doesn't seem like a big deal to me.
  18. Perhaps FAA's resizing software automatically adds a bit of sharpening to thumbs and previews.
  19. I do the same small amount of sharpening. I have made occasional sales with both FAA and ARTFLAKES. The people who answer the mail are not techies, and the techies do not answer mail. Glad to hear you're making some print sales, Ed. I've made a few this year thru FAA. Never had any luck at all with ARTFLAKES. You would think that the non-techies at FAA could ask the techies to put together some decent submission guidelines that the non-techies could then share with the rest of us. This never seems to happen though. I guess the non-techies like to keep not-answering the same questions over and over again. It probably helps them justify their paychecks.
  20. Good point about not knowing the output size. My experience with FAA is that the people who answer e-mailed questions don't know much about the printing end of the business -- i.e. there doesn't seem to be much communication between those who run the FAA website and whoever does the actual printing. FAA doesn't even have a proper set of submission guidelines posted on their website. As mentioned, I don't apply sharpening, and I've only had one sale refunded. No reason was given; however, it was a small print, and I suspect that someone might have bought it to scan. FAA has a 30-day return policy.
  21. Don't think so. 92,906 / 5 = 18,518.2 uploading sessions. Have fun!
  22. I don't like the looks of the new power zoom either. When I eventually buy the NEX-6, I'm planning on getting the body only and keeping the 18-55 (think I got a good one). Maybe at some point Sigma will come out with a stabilized mid-range zoom that doesn't cost the earth.
  23. Yes, the 55-210 is a good lens IMO. I find the Sony lenses fine with the 14MP NEX-3.
  24. I always leave mine unsharpened (for FAA and Alamy) on the assumption that the printer will do some sharpening if necessary. This hopefully avoids a possible double dose of sharpening that would degrade the image.
  25. All the 55-210 images that I've submitted have passed QC. Here's one taken at 210mm that I was a bit worried about, but it went through: http://c8.alamy.com/comp/8/%7B2F664A46-B082-43B4-9FB8-0B1315679146%7D/CWFJEB.jpg
  • 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.