Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Marianne

  1. Little girl rooting on her dad in the NYC Marathon:
  2. Agree with both of you that price often has very little to do with the quality of the image, and often it does not even reflect the rarity of the image nor its use. Some of my highest value sales were taken with 6 or 12MP cameras, and I've had one of my best 42MP files licensed for advertising for only $50. My experience with European content vs US content, however, is surprisingly lopsided, and not in favor of US sales as one might expect given that I am from New York. European images make up only 6% of my portfolio. My European images, however, account for 12% of m
  3. My microstock portfolios are about 25-30% the size of my portfolio on Alamy and they nearly always beat what I make here - nevertheless, I upload much more here knowing that I can earn more on one sale, yet my best earner was a microstock license (one year exclusive) for $750 ($325 to me), ironically an image rejected everywhere else, hence left exclusive at the one site that took it, and which has gone on to earn me hundreds more - and I've had others for $80 or so - two different micro sites - so it's not all peanuts, but those 38 cent micro subscriptions do hurt, even if they can add up to
  4. Thanks for getting the info Mark. My feeling is to keep working in AdobeRGB. I have three reasons. The first is that I send files to editorial clients who print them (presumably in CMYK so it gives them more info to tweak and it's the color profile they request). Second, to future-proof them as there will be printers that can print that gamut at some point - in fact, one fine art printer I use requests aRGB files (presumably because they can make a better print). It's the same reason I shoot in RAW. I remember reworking some images I took in 2007 in Edinburgh (in RAW with
  5. It could be worse, you could be living in a country where the president is openly hostile to the press and other freedoms promised by the Constitution ... but, yes, I sympathize with your frustration, we earn less and we have to work harder and longer, and we have to worry about whether we can publish our images even as editorial and we have to jump through hoops to get permission to sell photos that are actually beneficial to those who are making us jump through those hoops.
  6. LOL, John, our generation is not too old...if you can master Photoshop you can master social media ... but in terms of our generation, I get where you're coming from on the social media front...I think that's why I'm more comfortable on twitter ... it's more impersonal...I don't use Facebook as much because my friends (who are not photographers or other artists trying to sell their work too) are on there and I don't want to seem like I'm pushing too hard.
  7. I know that AdobeRGB has a larger & richer color space in actuality, but I was commenting on how, after the AdobeRGB is rendered as sRGB, the original sRGB appears to have richer colors. Because of that, I'm wondering if it would be better to upload sRGB.
  8. I don't hawk my Alamy images on social media - but I do use twitter (where I have just over 7K followers) and my FB page (just over 1K) to publicize my POD images and I find that I can attribute sales directly to that (per google analytics). Part of that effort includes regularly sharing others' work and them sharing mine, so I get the benefit of several other thousands of potential viewers' eyes on my work too. My POD sales net me and average of $$$ per sale, but even then it's a lot of effort for the return, although the cumulative result over a few years has left me with regular sales even
  9. Not sure I have the "art" down but I'm getting there. Glad my second explanation was clearer and more helpful 😎
  10. I wish I had just opened the correct image for my test (the unedited download) and saved myself and everyone else much of this long discussion, but many of the questions asked and observations are very helpful, so not a total waste, I hope. After your observations, there is a part of me that is considering keeping AdobeRGB tiffs (with zip compression) and then sRGB jpegs for upload. It's weird, some of the micros provide AdobeRGB Tiffs (as extended licenses) and one site actually even provides RAW files, so it surprises me that Alamy, with so many publishing clients (who, in my exp
  11. No Sung, I'm not referring to Alamy in the highlighted text. Everyplace is different and I was commenting on how some sites differ from Alamy, especially as there are some new people here who may have started out elsewhere. I started with Alamy in 2008 and I'm still learning to master their keywording, but they are no harder nor easier than anywhere else. At Alamy, if you keyword "1965 Ford Mustang", the image may well show up in searches for "1965 Ford," "Ford Mustang," "1965 Mustang," "1965," "Ford," and "Mustang," so you do not need to come up with every possible permutation.
  12. I agree with Joseph. It can be a dilemma trying to come up with the most common variations such as "Ford Mustang" and "1965 Ford Mustang," "red mustang," etc. without overdoing it, but at least you don't have to worry about finding every keyword combination. While I find it frustrating that you can end up with your images showing up in searches for single word keywords that you have purposely avoided, on the other hand, when you keyword for agencies that won't show your "1965 Ford Mustang" file when someone searches for "Ford" or "1965 Ford," unless you have those exact words or phrases, it m
  13. I was so careful to check the color profile properly, but that doesn't help if you're checking the wrong file LOL. It will be interesting to see what your experiment shows. This has me wondering if Alamy's leaving images untagged is preferable for some reason? I have to think that Alamy is doing what is best for their clients and as they are still aimed primarily at the editorial market, I'm guessing that converting the images to sRGB would not be a good choice for print clients. I assume that sRGB thumbnails look best online, however, the colors I see online on my MA
  14. It will be interesting to view them side by side online and see if they look different, and which looks better. Thanks for the info.
  15. I believe that if you layer photos with two different color profiles into a Photoshop document, you will get a warning that there is a profile mismatch for one of them, no matter what color space you choose. So, I believe it would make more sense to open each in the color space it is tagged with, however, as it appears that the files will be untagged ... my suggestion would be to assign AdobeRGB to the AdobeRGB file and assign sRGB to the sRGB file and then look at them side by side, as two separate images. I assume you realize that even if your working space is AdobeRGB, you can
  16. Well, I just realized that I was mistaken when it came to the "client" file that I downloaded from Alamy. Egg on my face. I edited my earlier post to reflect this. I checked the wrong file. Here's what happened. I downloaded a full resolution file about a month ago when the original and the backup were both damaged. Then, the other day, I downloaded some previews of zoomed images to do a google images search. When I saw this thread, I figured I'd open them and respond to the questions asked. When I went to open the full resolution image to check it out for this thread, I now reali
  17. No worries - I did not take offense. It was a very good question. I just wanted you to understand that I was aware of how it all works and that I did not make that mistake. I'm way too busy too and shouldn't be wasting time here but I'm procrastinating from work I'm just not in the mood to do ... better get back to work myself.
  18. Just to clarify further, on my MAC, before I open an image in Photoshop, I can highlight it and see whether or not it has a color profile assigned. When I highlight an image that is untagged in Photoshop, it shows (RGB) as the color space, but it is missing a color profile, which is listed below the color space when an image has a color profile imbedded. What we are really talking about here are color profiles (AdobeRGB vs sRGB) and not color spaces, which for both of these would be RGB. I believe I used the two terms - color space and color profile - interchangeably.
  19. No need to apologize, I realize that I was assuming you'd all know that I had checked the color space properly since I mentioned that the "client" download was AdobeRGB and the preview image was untagged, without providing my bona fides by setting out how I have Photoshop set up vis a vis color management. I don't have any sRGB images uploaded to Alamy to test because, as Allan notes, early on we were told to upload AdobeRGB and that has always been my practice.
  20. I have been using Photoshop for over a decade, and shortly after I began working as a photographer, I spent two years working as a digital tech doing color correction for a food photographer, so I understand how it all works. While I currently have AdobeRGB set as the working profile, since I have been processing stock photos, Photoshop is set to warn me if image is not in that profile and then gives me the option to preserve the profile or convert it to the working space. So, I did not just assume the profile was AdobeRGB because it opened in AdobeRGB. Hope that clarifies things. The
  21. EDIT: Last month, I downloaded a file as a "client" would from Alamy and that is the file I thought that I was checking. It had AdobeRGB as the imbedded color profile. Unfortunately, it turns out that while I checked the color profile correctly, the image that I checked was the edited file which I had saved with the Alamy file name, but it was not the original that I downloaded from Alamy. The file that is in my downloads folder, which has not been edited, is, in fact, untagged. I thought I was checking the unedited file. So, it appears that the files are untagged. It still looked fine and s
  22. It would be helpful to see the full caption of the image Wim posted, but, as noted, it has been pulled. You would think that even the small amount of context in the photo would have been sufficient to alert a photo editor to the fact that they should investigate who shot the image, and the caption may well have credited the original photographer. We can't be sure that the google image that showed up hasn't cropped out more of the context, but even if it hasn't, it is certainly troubling that a photograph of a photograph was used on a magazine cover, when the magazine could and should hav
  • 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.