Jump to content

Kenny J

Verified
  • Content Count

    21
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Kenny J

  1. Ok, so back to the drawing board. These tomato shots are all on small glass dinner plates, some by themselves, some with other things like a pepper or garlic. I originally made these as possible use on a web site, which fell through, and secondarily as wall art candidates. Whiting them out would not be that difficult, I have gotten good at that. I already resubmitted them but can delete them all again if I decide to. I assume whited out images are used by customers to make their own composites or add their own BG. Would alamy accept the same image twice, one whited out and one not? The shots I have are named varieties, and some quite beautiful, not just a generic tomato on a plate.
  2. I notice that many that show as cutouts still have shading around the bottom, and some even the in the upper areas that didn't go even white, so I think mine are good. Not many are pure white. So I will re-edit to get a whiter white, sans the blue tint, but not worry about the shadows that I do like. Thanx.
  3. Well, Robert, that is a part of my question I guess. What sells best, cut-out ready or naturally shaded? Brings up another point. Is there anyway on Alamy to tell how well a photo has sold, would help to know what works for others.
  4. These images are not yet key worded, and not on sale. On the keywording page there is a delete button. Wondering if it would be easier to just delete, re-edit, and submit anew. Is there a standard for whiteness that customers prefer? Would a blue white discourage sales? These shots are of heirloom tomatoes, and as I adjust color differently depending on image, it affects the BG tint. So I added a touch of blue to over warm shots.
  5. In the process of keywording some light-tent shots and notice many of my BG's have a slight bluish tint. I remember doing that on purpose, but after looking on Alamy, I wonder if this is a mistake. What shade of white should one use? I never want an all white, I like having a touch of shading. Is there anyway to exchange a re-edited image, or should one just delete and resubmit?
  6. And doing more searches I see a lot of arted up images, using textures, overlays, and composites, most listed as digitally altered. So I have to conclude it's all good
  7. I have answered my own question on autos. Alamy has a slew of auto shots. I guess it is only under RF licensing where autos are not allowed due to trademark issues. By arted up: I do a lot of processing that makes a photo look like a painting. I realize Alamy is not the place for the more extreme of those. BUT, I have found that when done very subtly it can really make an image pop. So I will submit a few of those and see how they are received. My first try last year passed QC easily, but I will review their criteria before I submit for a refresher.
  8. Starting a new thread cause I have a ton of questions, and I will keep them all here. A couple years ago I ventured in to the stock area. Put 10 images with one of the smaller RF agencies. A year ago I put 4 images with Alamy, 2 RM, 2 RF, then decided to wait and consider further options and build a PF. I am happy to say I made my first RM sale a month ago, and now am ready to upload more to Alamy. So many of the questions will pertain to that. The 10 images all RF at the competitor have had around 10 sales, netting me $13 and change in 2 years. 1 RM Alamy sale with only 4 images uploaded, netted me $25 in 11 months. It's a no brainer. The last year or so I have built a nice PF and will start uploading today. First question, I have a lot of nice shots taken at a local car show for older cars. In view of auto industry trademark issues, can I upload these as RM editorial? A second question is what constitutes an altered image, and does Alamy accept work that is arted up a bit, if done well. TIA for all answers, and I will have more questions as I progess.
  9. My initial worry as someone very new to the whole licensing arena, was the conflict between FB RF license and images I want to or have already listed as RM with Alamy. I sent an e-mail off to Alamy about my concerns, and they didn't act like it was a big deal, especially since I have deleted all salable images from FB. Of course they more or less threw it all back on me in the closing sentence that I am responsible for any conflicts arising. Everybody CTOA right on down the line. Ain't life grand, LOL. And I do say that with a huge smile on my face. My pockets are pretty shallow, so not really worried about the legal system coming after me. I obey all laws to the best of my understanding, and that is all anyone can do.
  10. Here is where I am at, right now with all of this. The last year or so I have been trying to gear up for joining Alamy, and other sites where I can try to sell my work. I got better cameras and equipment, and have about 50 images of very high quality, both in terms of technical and aesthetics. At one time or another they have all been on FB, unknown to me that I was ceding them an RF license. Many of these I was planning on uploading to Alamy as RM. Now I am screwed. I need to talk with Alamy and find out what their take on all this is. In the meantime I see no sense in loading anymore images til this is sorted out. They may have to all be listed RF, which is NOT what I had in mind coming here a few weeks back. Anybody that has used an online service to get a print made for themselves, may have the same problems. S#$^%!!!!
  11. Did some sleuthing today, and many, many sites have similar wording to FB. Even Wallgreens (corner pharmacy/drugstore) photo printing site has the uploader giving up the same type of royalty free license, though without the words 'transferable, sub-licensable and worldwide'. WTF. And of course it is all laid back on the uploader to make sure they own the copyright. So if my wife sends one of my images in for prints, my only recourse is to sue her!!!! What a crock of crap. Lawyers and legalese will be the downfall of America!!!!
  12. Here is the exact wording of the license any user agrees to by accepting the TOU. "You grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, world wide license." Sounds like they can do anything they want with an image under those conditions, including resale. From what little experience I have in these matters there are no standardizations and any license can be crafted to fit a variety of situations, and of course FB is trying to cover all bases with this all encompassing wording. For me the only solution is to never again post anything on FB. Which is a shame, I have only a handful of friends and family on FB, and many enjoy the pics I have posted in the past. Most social websites over time fall by the wayside, and I can see a case where FB could branch off into stock sales, or wall art sales, and have millions of images to sell with no revenue shared to the copyright holder.
  13. Any body have any idea how this affects sharing to FB from sites like Fine Arts America? I am a member at FAA, and I know many there share to FB, they even have their own app set up if you select it to share. I have never shared, but if I do, or some one else shares my image, does that assign rights to FB?? Just too many unknowns to consider. It all seems just another case of very low and underhanded, but legal, behavior by corporate America to enrich the already wealthy off the sweat and hard work of others. I will never, ever upload anything to FB.
  14. Lack of a large number of quality salable images is the problem. I have been doing photography for over 40 years, used to do weddings many years ago, and have submitted transparencies in the past to various magazines, but mostly what I have done is family stuff, for myself and friends. The few specialists I know of require a couple hundred images for an initial evaluative submission. I do plan on continuing this, so Alamy will get the best as RM. When I get to the point of building a large enough portfolio I hope to find a specialist. Hope to always be with Alamy, because I do other stuff as well, and will be submitting some model release stuff a bit at a time. Just catching up with the digital age the last few years. I do have a lot of transparencies I need to go through and think about getting them scanned.
  15. Jill, I am aware since joining that I cannot list, or ever have listed, an image as RF and then list as RM with Alamy. Since I have yet to find another RM agency that would work for me, Alamy RM is my sole representative for these images in terms of licensing. My plan was to list my very best as RM, and lesser stuff as RF. And hopefully find a couple good agents for each avenue to give me more sales exposure. So my best work will be with Alamy, not contractually exclusive, but exclusive none the less. If my style and what I shoot does not sell here, then my best never gets licensed. I know everyone faces the same issues, but when your new at this it seems tougher. I have always shot to capture the beauty of what I see, and stock is a bit of a different game I know. I am not going to change my approach much for the sake of stock, so don't figure to ever have the large library that many here have. All I really want to do is generate a bit of income to pay for my equipment, but I refuse to sell my best for 1$ per license.
  16. Yes space cadet, thank you. My passion is wildlife photography, and I am not sure how well they sell with Alamy, but Alamy seems to be my only option for RM. Most of the RM wildlife agents are either not easily accessible, or require a larger initial portfolio than what I have. I have no idea of the type of fee possible with RM. I also have some things listed RF with an agent that pays much higher than micro or standard RF, but it remains to be seen if things sell there. I do NOT have Alamy RM listed anywhere else, but they can be viewed by prospective buyers along with my entire portfolio, and offers of all types can be made through the agent. With my inexperience in selling I am not sure of anything. Thankful to everyone for their guidance.
  17. I am new to Alamy and with very little experience in stock. I came here because it was the best place I had access to to sell RM images. Of course my thinking was RM offered the best outcome for me financially, especially with my very best work. My question is, if I get an offer I can't refuse for an image that is listed RM at Alamy, how do I proceed? Will Alamy pull a file if I notify them of an exclusive sale? How about a high priced offer for less than exclusive? I do not want to run afoul contractually to anyone, not sure how these things are handled. I haven't uploaded anymore images since my original 4, trying to figure out how all of this works, selling thru several agencies at the same time, plus my own on line portfolio.
  18. Thanx Dusty. I have read that several times. I goy my 4 set up and they are officially for sale, tho not sure if they are searchable yet. Two I went RM with, the other 2 RF because I made the mistake of listing those elsewhere as RF already, which is a bummer because they are definitely RM quality. I've taken a lot of deer shots this fall, so I have several more pretty good ones to put up. I looked at recent uploads and I see a bunch of average lookers ( I have plenty of those!!) have been uploaded as RF, many with a very similar look, which I thought was frowned upon, it just plugs up the search catalogue I would think. So some of my lesser shots will go as RF I guess, but then I think do I really want to show inferior stuff? for the slight chance of selling a few??? From what limited experience I have had with RF ( a dozen images at one lesser agency and none until now with RM) junk doesn't sell, even at the lesser agencies. An image seems to have to have some composure and eye appeal plus the technicals, at least for the type of stuff I shoot anyway. One thing that did surprise me was that once I selected RM, I could not undo it. Fortunately I paid attention and got it right. I did do that last in the process.
  19. Thanx, Stokie. I haven't keyworded or done anything yet, so I may do that. It only looks bothersome when blown up to larger sizes. Adding: Looked at it with fresh eyes this morning, It only looks bothersome viewed at 100% on my small computer screen. I think I did get it right, just prone to being too self critical and second guessing myself.
  20. That is a very profound answer Martin, I like it. My first submission was accepted, so now I have to choose. Another question here is, and I hate to admit this, I found something in one of the submitted and accepted photos I don't like, minor but an annoyance to me. What is the procedure for correcting this photo? Delete and resubmit? It is the highlight in the eye of a deer, too bright when viewed at a larger size. I had toned it down, now not sure if it wasn't enough or it didn't get saved. They are not up for viewing yet. Very proud and happy to be accepted by Alamy.
  21. New to Alamy, and getting ready to submit my first photos. I have done a lot of research about this topic but still no sure. The best I have come up with is if an image is unique, RM. Less than unique, RF. I am shooting mostly nature and things that don't require a release. This past month I have gotten some really good whitetail deer shots, a few magazine cover quality I think. Should I list my best stuff as RM, or do all RF? Does Alamy ever help with this decision? I have next to no experience in this realm. If I list some as RM can I eventually move them to RF if they don't sell? Trying to get this right before I submit. Thanx,
×
×
  • 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.