Chris Burrows

Looks to me that OP has pictures on just about every microstock site I am aware of, certainly some duplicates have not checked them all. This does seem to me to be happening a lot on this forum especially the portfolio critique section.

Interesting to see yet another microstock photographer trying out Alamy to see if they can get a better return on their pictures. My advice would be to put original work on Alamy rather than stuff available elsewhere at lower price.

Possibly Wigandia urens?

Not a lot of help but I do not think this is a Solanum; the anthers do not look right to me for Solanum.

In fact it appears that they are available on just about every other royalty free site that I can think of. The OPs main competition seems to be himself.

Just being a bit pedantic but 'Bees' Ruby' is actually the name of a specific cultivar of Armeria rather than a common name for all of them.

How about Glebionis coronaria https://www.first-nature.com/flowers/glebionys-coronaria.php

My guess would be some form of annual chrysanthemum for the flower.

I would suggest also doing this for your plant pictures. For the caption scientific name followed by cultivar if it applies (in single quotes) then common names. So for example Digitalis purpurea 'Pam's Choice'. Foxglove If you want to add anything else eg growing beside a river put that at the end but only if you can see the river in the picture. Then repeat these in the keywords. Then other keywords that relate to the picture. You also need to learn a bit more about the plants that you are photographing, many of your plant pictures are captioned and keyworded somewhat vaguely and of

I see that this magazine is published by Bauer media. I know that Alamy have licenced pictures of mine to Bauer with free re-uses for the next five years, so this might be the reason nothing showing yet.

Thanks for this. Been using this for over four months and never noticed the text search. Found over a dozen uses for my ISSN list.

Yes you're right I have got a bit mixed up here,

Looking at the sizes quoted you appear to me to be cropping your pictures so that your camera may well be taking pictures over the 17MB size but you are then cropping them to under 17MB. Your largest picture quoted was 2701 * 2182 this is 5,896,283 pixels and comes out as 16.8 MB Apologies to Shareece I got a bit mixed up here.

Found one of mine and also one that had been wrongly captioned, slightly annoying as I had several there that were correctly captioned.

Only occasionally when doing a very small flower, most of the time just the macro is enough. I do seem to struggle with focus when the macro is combined with an extension tube, usually end up with focus in the wrong place more often than not.