Jump to content

C S Wimsey

Verified
  • Content Count

    15
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

3 Forum reputation = neutral

About C S Wimsey

  • Rank
    Forum newbie

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://www.cswimsey.com

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Female
  • Location
    York, England
  • Interests
    Photography, Music, History, Animals, Cinema, Writing, Fiction, Red Wine, Great Food, Different Cultures, Travel, Humour, New Things, Old Things, Warmth on all meanings of the word

Alamy

  • Alamy URL
    http://www.alamy.com/contrib-browse.asp?cid={2056EEF0-EB75-4E28-A737-910E0E0FB04E}&name=Christina+Cook
  • Images
    83
  • Joined Alamy
    07 Jan 2015
  1. Thanks guys. Really not comfortable with Royalty Free for all the reasons you say and more. It's just that I got told today that's where the market was headed - and it really didn't feel right for me. It frightens me that you're making piracy really easy too. You sell to person A, who then posts the pic on his website with no watermark, and the next thing you know is it's all over the place, and you can't trace and check against everyone you've sold RF to due to the practicalities... And you might have blown that exclusive magazine deal for peanuts... Most helpful you feel the same. C
  2. Hi Guys. I've been placing my images mainly rights managed, and sales are not great. I know I need to get a few thousand more images on the site, but moving forward I think I need to make a decision over rights managed v Royalty free. The sector that I'll most want to work in is probably editorial - magazines etc. With that in mind I thought that Rights Managed would be the way to go. However I've been looking at the likes of a Royalty Free Agency whose name begins with S with another S for it's second word, which I'm told is taking over the world. I'm concerned that if I want to make any money is Royalty free the way to go? And if I've sold Royalty free - I can't then give a magazine an exclusive deal on a particular picture... Any advice/experience welcome. You may be able to help a fellow photographer out of spontaneous combustion... Thanks :-)
  3. Interesting question. I own the D800 and the D7200 (which has superseded the D7100 in a very similar way that the D810 has superseded the D800 and D800E). I have had focussing issues with the D800 - and it has just come back from Nikon (Repairs cost £220 - focus re-calibrated in addition to some sensor adjustments). Since it came back I've played around with it with various different lenses - and I have had to use the focus fine tuning to each lens as it is either front or back focusing somewhat still. I'll let you know with further use - but from what I've seen the focus fine tune available on both the D800 and the D7200 (and most likely D7100) is going to fix it. You can move the focus point nearer or farther away from your camera depending whether it is front focussing or back focussing. It remembers each lens you have calibrated for automatically. You can adjust between plus or minus 20. For my 150-500 zoom lens I needed to calibrate minus 12. While my D800 was away I needed another camera to shoot with (I was missing appointments) so I got hold of a D7200. They are very different beasts. The D800 should always give better image quality - but I still opted for a D7200 instead of a second hand D800E. The reason? I shoot wildlife and you are almost always going to need to crop anyway. If you crop the D800 to the same size as the D7200 sensor you actually have more megapixels in your image (I did see the mathematic equation but do not pretend to understand it). For wildlife if you are cropping anyway a cropped sensor like the D7200 can actually be an advantage. Other situations I would always stick to my full frame D800. Incidentally I've only really used the D7200 with my 600mm prime as yet - and it DID need some focus fine tuning. I used in on one shoot with my 150 - 500 but was using larger f stops so issues of fine tuning wouldn't really have come out - the depth of field was wide enough to mask it). It was an excellent shoot - but I was hankering after my full frame D800 while shooting because I couldn't get far away enough to get all the shots I wanted in frame. Very different beasts - both excellent. Before you make any radical decisions I'd certainly recommend looking at the focus fine tuning and see if that makes a difference. With the 36mp your focus really gets shown up if you miss it slightly. I know from painful experience. Given the improvements the D810 has made I'd certainly recommend it over the D800E if you can afford it - I wish I could! It has an improved processor, and is sharper. If has a better frame per second high speed shoot, and various. That said I didn't think it was worth upgrading for me as I don't shoot that much video - which is where the improvements really kick in, I'm told. I can't see that the D800E is going to make a massive difference over the D800 for you - not even sure the D810 would hugely although it is a better camera? Hope this helps. Feel free to pm me as I'm not on here that much.
  4. Really glad I asked you guys - and thanks for your honesty. I've learned much; There's a tendency to "hold onto those favourite images" even if you know in your heart they're not technically there. Guilty m'lud. Best to take more images knowing the specifications needed than to try and ram an old square peg into a round hole where you know it doesn't belong. Time is finite - spend it wisely. I'm going to enjoy taking plenty more images with an eye to their sharpness. What a penance... I hate photography ;-) I'm feeling a lot better now as I've now had around 50 images passed by QC in 3 batches and believe I've learned so much from that experience and by listening to you guys on here. Thank you all so much.
  5. If that link doesn't work try this https://www.flickr.com/gp/120450234@N07/81A163/
  6. Well, that's interesting. Reading Jeff Greenberg's post I had another look at the goose on eggs. at 100%. It looked awful - but yes the grass was definitely in focus (if a tad soft maybe). I then remembered you guys had spotted sharpening which I must have done a while ago when I first took the pic. I took it out - and Mmmm. Way better - maybe still a bit borderline, but hey. Tempting. It's a little soft because of the glass and the camera sensor being a little soft too - I'll have to have a think about that.. I've uploaded the amended image to the original flickr link https://www.flickr.c...234@N07/1x003D/ It may be that Alamy isn't the right place for it (borderline), but I think I might be able to do something with it. I have my sights not set on some more prime lenses, This was taken on the sigma 150-500 zoom, at 500mm - but - cardinal sin - 2x teleconverter - so I was on 1kmm (yes I was using a tripod...). It's that money thing... or lack of it...
  7. Thanks guys. This is all really helpful. I'm only likely to make minor amendments which would not affect the integrity of the image, but from what I've read here (especially the guidelines posted by Julie Edwards) I wouldn't be comfortable making such amendments and not referencing exactly what has been done. I'm not shooting news, but I need to be morally comfortable with what I do.
  8. I have some images taken on nature reserves (e.g. RSPB Yorkshire Wildlife Trust). The images are of wildlife with no identifying features to tie the image to that particular property (Alamy guidelines for unidentifiable private property is that no release is needed). But the fact remains I was on that property when I took the shot. When I've spoken to representatives (even at the head office) of the relevant authorities who run the reserve they said that they had no problem with commercial photography on their sites "it happens all the time - everyone does it". My question - how do I go about placing the image on Alamy release wise. Do I say a property release is required and name the reserve where it was taken. Do I summarise my conversation with the reserve in the description field? From speaking to the RSPB for example, my understanding is that they do not prevent commercial photography on their sites - there is no restriction on commercial photography on their licence to enter the land.
  9. To be fair John I'm key-wording some D200 shots myself which have also passed QC, so agree it isn't just the camera. I moved away from the D200 mainly because of noise even at medium ISO. Used sensibly I can't knock the D200 - and you're right about the glass :-)
  10. LOL :-) Poor dogs... To clarify - for example - if there is a distracting human leg in the background I'd choose to take it out as the focus of the image is the dog... Those legs always get in on the better shots of the dog... I'll have others with no stray legs in the background but the image of the dog may be inferior... It's kind of spotting. Big spotting, but still - you're taking out something that shouldn't be there, rather than something which is a permanent fixture.
  11. Thanks guys. You all confirmed my gut feelings on these pictures. I think the issue is more the camera body than the lens because I have used the same lens at 500mm with my new camera body with far better results (which have passed QC). Undoubtedly though a 500mm prime would be sharper. I'll be picky which photos from my backlog portfolio go in, and enjoy taking many new pics :-)
  12. I have some pictures of dogs in a park. On some of the images I may have photo-shopped out a leg that got in the way, a tree or debris attached to the dog which wasn't supposed to be there. I may have warmed the grass up from the blue scale towards the yellow scale. The result - an image which could still have been taken naturally quite easily. The location has no identifiable features - it's just a park - it could be any park. It's not like it is an identifiable place and someone could go there and wonder why the sky wasn't purple or something. Do I need to say that image was digitally altered? If I photo-shop out debris in a street (e.g. chewing gum, litter, cigarette butts) do I need to say the image was digitally altered?
  13. Thank you all for your answers. I guess you have to consider who the final buyer of the image might be. For example editorial, greetings/post card buyers or calendar buyers wouldn't be buying Royalty free - although a generic item for an advertising campaign, or website would be RF?
  14. I have an couple of images which if they had been taken with my current camera body I think they would pass QC. Unfortunately these were some of my last photos taken on my old D200. When the images is are smaller they are fairly sharp, but because the D200's sensor can be a bit "soft" at 100% I'm not confident they will pass QC. I'm really worried that if I submit these photos I might be placed in the sin-bin of doom which I have read about in this forum. Is it right that I could be frozen for 28 days? Do you think these images are worth risking through QC? This is the link to the images on the Flickr Album https://www.flickr.com/gp/120450234@N07/1x003D/
  15. I'm a newbie to stock photography, so please excuse the naivety of this question. Having read into the differences between rights managed, and royalty free images I'd thought it best to set my default licence to rights managed. I happened to be in a dialogue with a really helpful lady at Alamy member services who mentioned as I had the relevant releases for a particular image that RF might be the best option. What are your experiences of royalty free v rights managed? Do you usually get the volume of RF sales on Alamy to justify the lower prices? I'm now really confused. I have another 18 images awaiting key-wording etc, and am not sure what to do with them licence wise. I have far more images that I'll be uploading over the next few days. I have the property release forms for these images. Any advice would be welcome.
×
×
  • 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.