Jump to content

Marianne

Verified
  • Content Count

    1,392
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Marianne

  1. I knew this was coming since I wrote the article. Hope you don't mind my sharing it here since it's my own photo, but wanted to share my writing with you too. Okay? https://www.greatescapepublishing.com/light-and-quiet-mirrorless-cameras-are-perfect-for-shooting-stock/
  2. Good point. I've found the same thing. But getting a download report would sure help determine which images to search on google & tineye
  3. I worked as a part-time assistant for an incredibly talented food photographer for 3 years and I never got the hang of it. It's an art. Here's one cookbook project I worked on. If you click through to Amazon and "look inside" you'll see why I could never hold my own work up to such a high standard. Not to say I haven't licensed a couple shots popped off in my kitchen - but it has two huge windows with southern exposure and a door with light flowing in as well. I do like that diffuser in the window idea. I'm much more of a get out and travel walk in nature shoot natural light kind of photographer. I can sit for hours with bug spray waiting for the blue hour and beyond, but my studio shooting is not up to the same caliber. Even though I learned from one of the best. I think some things just can't be taught unless you already have the right inclination.
  4. I'm making more from print sales. ...and that's not counting the PU sales I've made here over the past several months... I'd upload a lot more RF images if I could opt them out of PU. Edit: I'm not kidding.
  5. Geoff, I think we are all on the same page on this. spacecadet seemed to intimate that while he agreed, it could be a problem for Alamy because disclosures would "contain licensee information" - I should have quoted him to be clear to whom I was responding. Alamy should be able to give us a download report as part of Measures with no licensee info. They must be keeping track and I assume also checking those sites/publications regularly. They've collected on unpaid uses for me on their own which I didn't find so I know they are out there looking. With hundreds of thousands of files and so many media outlets especially online today, not to mention all the commercial uses, it's got to be a nightmare keeping track and finding every misuse. Even with my smallish portfolio it's hard. Giving us download information would benefit everyone - us and Alamy.
  6. We don't need them to tell us who downloaded our photos, obviously that's their proprietary client information, but if we knew which images were downloaded (courtesy copies, etc.) then at least we could search online and it helps us and Alamy if we find unreported uses.
  7. Congrats on the sales Geoff! For both Geoff and Colin and any other hay fever sufferers: I used to get it really bad. 20 years ago I tried acupuncture. Now I go for it once every three or four years (for hay fever - more often for back & neck) and it works like a charm. A couple treatments and I'm good for a few years. I'm super squeamish but I find acupuncture relaxing. Try it!
  8. Makes sense. Better to get new stuff online. I just hated finding photos that couldn't be licensed because the wrong things were ticked but you're right, so much else to do, revising old stuff seems like it should be at the bottom of the priority list.
  9. I've got bookmarks for each, easiest way especially if you want to check your stats or something to reply to a question in the forum. I find the new forum itself very annoying to use. When I click on new content I get it in order of comments rather than seeing each discussion - it seems disorganized to me but getting used to it. Between having my image use parameters - e.g. editorial only set the wrong way - some set so they can't be licensed at all - odd keywords clumped together - triples from phrases - weird choices sometimes for supertags - I'm feeling curmudgeonly about all these changes - they're ok for adding new stuff but the fact that I need to go back through 9 years of photos to check and revise - after many other times having done this - adding quotes around phrases, then deleting them, etc. With about 950 images it seems like a royal pain - how you all can mange with thousands I can't imagine.
  10. Did you use a cable release or remote trigger? At longer exposures, you can get camera shake on a tripod without one of those options.
  11. Agreed - those files had to be super-sharp. And I'm sure the large size probably helps them to keep selling, when I think of it. But it also makes me think I should upload those files that were sharp at their original size, but not sufficiently so at (4x?) their size.
  12. Slightly more than 50% of my sales in from the past year are A B and C images. 40% of them have sold one or more times before. Many are of places I have returned to and taken new images. In one instance I searched by location and most of my new ones from return trips in the fall of 2015 and late summer 2016, uploaded shortly after those trips, landed on page one, while I couldn't find the one that sold most recently, which I shot in 2006 (and uploaded in 2008 or 2009) after several pages (I didn't search all 16). When I did a more specific search, it landed at the bottom of page one, after all my new ones that fit the same more narrow parameters (but there were only 2 pages of results at that point). Interestingly, for another location with images from 2010 that keep selling regularly, nearly all of those that I uploaded right after the trip show up on page 1 (out of 7) but a few that I went back and processed and uploaded over a year later landed on page 2. The images sold in that case were all on the page 1 search. I have not returned to that location, accessible only by boat or small airplane, so I'm glad those oldies are holding their position. Annoyingly, I found a lot of images with the location tagged which were actually taken elsewhere. I wish there was some way to report these kinds of errors. I'm glad that the internet doesn't required huge files, since I really like some of the stuff I shot with my old Nikon D-70 and kit lens (of course back in 2008-2009 we had to uprez those 6MP files to 48MB).
  13. I had 125 images and had been with Alamy a little over a year when I made my first sale. That was in November 2009. I was new to stock and started as soon as I learned about the concept. Sales really picked up for me in early 2010. They have ebbed and flowed since then, but became pretty steady once I hit 400 images. It's so variable but a rule of thumb I've heard is to expect one sale per month per 1,000 images. I average more than that or I would have left by now, but Philippe is right, it is better to have a good base before you start. I'm hoping to upload a significant number of new images in the coming months as I continue to process a large backlog of files. Good luck! Stock is a long game, not get-rich-quick. When I started back in 2008, I was told to expect to wait two years before seeing sales and while my first sale here was sooner than that, it took about that long to start getting more regular sales here. Many don't have the patience for it, and they complain they don't have sales after a few months and walk away. It's very different than microstock where I had multiple sales from day one. I started here first, and later experimented with a different portfolio on a few micros. Alamy tends to license a lot of travel for me, both popular destinations and those off the beaten track, but my first sale was a barbed wire fence and they also license concept images, secondary editorial, and nature images identified with the species and scientific (Latin) name. Good keywords are important and I think the time I've spent keywording and then later refining those keywords has paid off. I've learned a lot about the natural world from doing this work, and have amassed a small library of botanical books and books about birds, insects and various animals and guidebooks from around the world. Online research also helps. You need to enjoy research if you are going to successfully license your nature or travel images, especially if they are taken without a well developed shoot list ahead of time (which also requires research). A love of learning makes it fun rather than a chore. And be open to it if someone points out a mistake. I once identified a jail in Scotland as a castle when I started out - luckily a fellow photographer put me straight. I'm very grateful.
  14. Haven't added many new images in the last two years, and actually deleted quite a few. So, for the first time, not surprisingly, I'm seeing a downward trend in revenue, but a spike in number of sales, so I'm not completely discouraged. For Jan-June 16, 2016 I had an average number of sales (compared to 2015), with revenue to match the old days, the average gross per sale being $108, and that includes averaging in gross sales as low as $7.01. That continued a trend I saw in 2015, with average gross sales actually increasing for the first time since around 2011-2012. For the second half of that year, however, a decline in average gross revenue per sale set in and the trend continues. So, although my sales increased in number for July-Dec 2016 over the first half of the year, revenue was less and my average gross per sale dropped to $35. 2016 was the first year that overall income from sales was down, but adding in the amounts collected from several misuses Alamy followed up, brought it back up to 2015 levels (those don't show on the graph). This year, from Jan-Jun 16, 2017, my number of sales has continued to increase. It is up 140% from the same period in 2016, a promising trend, but revenue is just 35% of what it was for this period last year, and my average gross per sale is just $27, so sales numbers need to increase 300% for me to stay even with last year. 300% seems daunting but I'm not completely discouraged by this, because the upward trend in number of sales has steadily increased for the past 18 months to the point that half-way through the year, I am now 1 sale shy of the total number of sales I made in 2016, without feeding the beast. With just 956 images online, and many thousands waiting to be uploaded, it is conceivable that I can grow my portfolio significantly before I hit another plateau. I haven't added anything new this year (still fighting vertigo so my computer time is limited particularly in front of the big 28" screen I need for reviewing/processing images, which is more problematic than working on my 13" laptop). Hoping that once the vertigo goes into remission again I'll be able to add many new images and get sales in numbers up enough that my revenue graph goes up too. The lower average per sale, while troubling, is not unusual with a string of presentation and PU sales in the mix, and since I'm still seeing some in the $100-250 range, all is not lost. Also encouraging: Views are up and zooms are way up When I repeat two-word searches that I've seen in measures, a lot of my images end up on page one of "Creative." Waiting for some of the many zooms where mine were the only images, to show up as sales later this year (fingers cross for us Betty). You have to feed the beast and I'm hopeful that being able to do so will make both of my graphs show that nice upward trend, not just the one showing sales numbers. On the lookout for new outlets too, but I need to get better first. I'm just glad my images are working for me while I recuperate.
  15. New interface wasn't letting me add another 2 photos on Chrome. Trying Safari - 2 from the OpSail 2012 festival: Glad I looked at this last image - apparently it and many of my quickly uploaded news images for that festival are not available for sale except for personal use instead being marked for editorial use only. More work ahead ...
  16. From the Edinburgh Festival Fringe: It seems the new interface (?) or is it just that I'm on Chrome? is only letting me do one at a time
  17. Oh no! My go to solution - so quick and easy for stock - and invaluable if I'm working on my fine art work. Worth having bought the bundle years ago before google gave them away - which made me nervous this day would come. Had this piece printed 2 feet x 3 feet on aluminum for a show that opened last night and it was a show-stopper. Not suitable for Alamy so here's my Photoshelter link. Without a mix of the Nik filters I'd have never gotten these effects. And Silver effex pro is my go-to for black and whites which made up much of the show as well all of those in a gallery show in April and May. Petition signed! Thanks for the head's up. Is there any kind of program similar to Silver Effex out there?
  18. On the bright side, maybe I'll do well with the infringement claims when the "PU" sales show up on the web? (I'll send my buddy the ninja after them)
  19. 2 for $30 and change. I really need a big "no PU" button. When I look at sales over the past two years in the $50-400 range of the exact same images as those that have sold as "PU" in the past few months , I just feel especially since most were zoomed. (And do we get a cut of the art.com pie once they take their PU license over there for a bargain framed print, assuming it's a legitimate license)? I guess the only good thing is they're not interfering with my sales on POD sites since they aren't photos I'd put up for sale on those sites. In some, May here was a disappointment. Que sera sera
  20. They've been good about sending me an email that I've used for accreditation in the past, when I've needed it. As others have said, they may be overwhelmed at the moment given the horribly tragic event in Manchester and the election, so give them 24-48 hours' time. I'm sure you'll hear back before you need the letter for your event.
  21. Mine too - they all also show up as sales in measures which means it's a regular client. I need to keep looking online.
  22. It looks like it's a Canadian site with a premise something like Kindle Unlimited. So, the DK Gardening book that your image is in would be part of that online library. No idea if it's legitimate or not. Here's the page with their TOS I t is odd that you can't see what they offer unless yo sign up. I got a Kindle Fire for Christmas and love the convenience, but I would still rather be looking up flowers in one of my big botanical books rather than in some tiny ebook.
  23. I have taken many photos of Hillary Clinton since 2006 when I did a cover for a local magazine. Several of Bill too. Having met them both several times over the years, I've always been a supporter. Anyway, many have been licensed since then. However, all is not rosy. One that I really like of the two of them (which was licensed for positive and/or neutral stories in the past) ended up in a book where I netted $200 for an 1/8th page limited run (one of my better licenses for an editorial photo that was nearly a decade old by then), but not thrilled to see the photo used in a book about some conspiracy theory. Additionally, several of my 2015-2016 images were licensed during the campaign, some in articles favorable to her, which is what I envisioned when I took them, but many others, to my dismay, were used by some conservative and even some of those awful alt-news sites in stories supporting that other guy. Once your photos are available to be licensed, it's really out of your hands. That is always the risk you take with editorial photos. The sad part is, some of the respectable publications didn't credit them using my name, but many of the less savory sites did (those are the times I wish they'd just use the agency's name). At least I was paid for the many uses and none of them turned into memes.
  24. Nice to see this thread become so active again and with some nice larger sales - congrats to all. Vincent that $900+ especially must have been a good feeling. Nice to know the $ is in your bank!
×
×
  • 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.