Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Marianne

  1. I have never been able to fully embrace the RF nor the microstock model either John, but though I hate to admit it, the micro model seems to work, and that is why many traditional shooters and not just hobbyists jumped on board, although it was much more lucrative in the past than it is now. There's a part of me that wishes I'd taken advantage of it then, but I couldn't wrap my head around it either, except to experiment with a very small portfolio. I don't know how much longer it will be sustainable - the companies are making money but the competition keeps growing. The fact that I sell phot
  2. New York Times magazine, March 10, 2019, Print - Cover Rosalia - Christian Bertrand/Alamy It's a collage of 25 singers. Congrats on making the cover of the NYTimes! Hope the fee was good.
  3. I know. The irony is not lost on me. Everyone is looking for greener pastures. Of course he's laughing all the way to the bank. I bought some stock after the IPO and selling half of it financed some nice equipment. Or if you mean the other guy whose agency was bought by the big guys and then started his boutique agency...I know folks who are doing very well there. The self-proclaimed "top micronselling photographer" also switched to a macrostock agency. But yes, when our income stops growing as much as we anticipate, we all look for other ways to ea
  4. Every time I take photos down, or plan to, I find one I planned to delete has been zoomed. Hard to know what will sell. If you really want criticism, I guess I'd say spend more time taking the kinds of photos where you've shown people at work or other actions shots. The posed images are nice and if they have model releases I'd keep taking them but if not perhaps put up fewer of them in future, unless they sell - only you know best what is working in your portfolio. In terms of deleting some live news shots, after shooting several live news shots once the event is old
  5. Thanks Dominic. Working hard to improve my work. I'm always in awe of wildlife photographers. I'm much better with subjects that don't move. 😎
  6. You're welcome. Always reassuring to know others feel the way we do. Your honesty is refreshing.
  7. You're welcome. ...and LOL ... on another forum I have a pseudonym and people often assume I'm a guy... that old boys' club, I guess.
  8. First, I will say I don't think Alamy is becoming a microstock site and I hate what the industry has done to reduce the price photographers receive for their work, but Chuck & others, I feel I have to defend Starshpinx analyses' - to the extent he is talking about the current market, and to the extent that you dismiss him as not understanding the market so harshly. You are looking at it from your experience but you fail to recognize that those of us who joined this industry when it had already become democratized and overcrowded have had a very different experience from you. T
  9. Love that baby elephant photo - lucky we don't have to compete with that! Some great stuff so far. I'll have to search my archives and see if anything pops up - I love that these challenges get me to take a look at what I have and encourage me to get them online. I learned long ago that it was unBritish to vote for oneself, after I initially did so once long ago when I had a photo in the running, assuming that of course everyone would vote for their photo since there was no rule saying those with photos in the running could not vote...until I saw a discussion on the subject and sw
  10. Good eye for news and storytelling. I particularly like your photos of people at work - nice mix of closeup and bigger picture shots. I can see why you sell a lot.
  11. A few years ago I had a statue in LA removed - and it was in context but possibly on private property. Meanwhile, also some years back, I had a $$$ sale of graffiti (also in a wide context and also in LA) so go figure. I thought that public art taken in context was okay, but people can sue for anything and here in the US you don't get your legal fees covered even if you win, so you can win and still lose
  12. With agencies sending out their images to 80 distribution partners or more, it seems that true exclusivity isn't possible. But if an agency wants you to place your images exclusively with them, they need to produce results via high image prices and quantity as well. RM seems to have no meaning here anymore, you can't even restrict things by industry, so if you license an image directly for an use that's exclusive to a particular industry, you need to remove the image from here completely even though in most instances the licenses would not conflict. If the images the OP refers to
  13. I've been with Alamy since 2008. I forgot that when they went from 60% to 50% they promised us they wouldn't drop our commissions again. . We should be grandfathered in. But in reality, that's not going to happen. After giving it some real thought, I have to say Alamy's concession that if we tick off our images as "exclusive," then we can get the commission that they agreed to pay us in the first instance, isn't really a concession at all. It's a way to stop us all from running off and putting our images elsewhere, where those images will compete with Alamy. I will pr
  14. Regular new Duracell batteries (AAA) exploded in my iMac keyboard and destroyed it. A week before some exploded in my TV remote (but that I was able to open and clean - the defective batteries sealed my keyboard shut). Personally, I'll never buy a Duracell battery of any sort ever again. Just my two cents. (I bought them at one of the major office supply stores, so they should not have been the counterfeit ones which I've heard can be a big problem). I'd stick with the manufacturer or a reputable third party brand. I have two Sony batteries that die out in hours and bought RAVpowe
  15. I completely agree John. I was just agreeing with what I though Chuck was saying, that there should be some assurance that Alamy will negotiate for better prices for particularly for exclusive images - but I think they should be negotiating better prices for all - they have licensed some of my images to a particular national magazine for web and print use for $50-100 and yet when that same magazine downloads directly from my site they pay $200 for the same use ( a few times now, starting in 2010 before Alamy ever licensed one of my images to them, and as recently as 2018). Even on the micro s
  16. I like the idea of a higher-priced exclusive group of images. I don't think Chuck suggested micro prices, just the usual Alamy mid-to-lower prices we're seeing now. I think Alamy has to realize that thanks to their unique non-edited collection, they have a lot of unique images that you can't find anywhere else and that people are willing to pay for those images. I've licensed work myself from my site from out of the way places - e.g. small towns that are suddenly getting "hot" - and spoken to web designers who said that my photos were the only good ones they could find from that lo
  17. You have a lot of great images like this one but the keywords are very general and you are missing obvious ones such as Tejate, traditional drink, cacao, corn, (what god is this drink for?- add that to caption and to keywords), Tlacolula market, Oaxaca Mexico, traditional Mexican market, woman serving drink, Latina woman, (what State in Mexico? - add that), authentic, real people, food stall, food stand, street food, indigenous, latin, Central America, Mexican food. I'm sure there are a few more. Check out this site: http://microstockgroup.com/tools/keyword.php I know it says micro but
  18. If they did this I would certainly put a large selection of my images here as exclusive. I think it's a great idea. Perhaps we should all get together and send a letter to Alamy suggesting this. Anyone know how to set up an online petition we can all sign? Seriously, this could be game-changer. Maybe it's time for them to do this and perhaps even edit/curate that part of the collection.
  19. I have done my best to keep my two portfolios separate, and only have 100-300 photos on four of those other sites. I was going to remove them and just stick with Alamy but my RPI on those other sites is still over $1 per image per site (and it went down a lot this year) - at one time it was as high as $5 per image on each of two of them and around $3 on the others - so I kept images there. I haven't added new files in a few years other than the occasional illustration - most of them are from 2008-2010 - but I have added new ones here. I hate the thought of getting a 38 cent download (or even a
  20. Agreed - loved that "Forest Couple" - as well as the whimsical carrots - so many good ones to choose from, I'm not quite sure which to vote for. Great job everyone.
  21. Still in QC - thanks for waiting for midnight EST rather than GMT Michael. If only it was a leap year, LOL.
  22. 2 Sales, Average monthly revenue. Views, CTR and Zooms were way down until the last week of the month. Zooms spiked up to 40% above average, Views up 25% and CTR back to normal - 0.63 in my main pseudo (my name) and to 1.61 in an actual pseudonym that I would delete except its CTR is often above 1.0 I hate seeing the pseudonym in travel book credits under my photos, not that anyone except we photographers read those credits pages. (When I was editor of my college paper we did a spoof paper for April Fool's Day and my brilliant photo editor credited about half the photos thusly:
  • 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.