Jump to content

Marianne

Verified
  • Content Count

    1,704
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Marianne

  1. 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
  2. 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
  3. 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
  4. 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
  5. 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
  6. 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
  7. 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.
  8. 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
  9. 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.
  10. Still in QC - thanks for waiting for midnight EST rather than GMT Michael. If only it was a leap year, LOL.
  11. 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:
  12. Thanks Michael! Had to give you a 💙 for that. I always get caught out by the UK being so many hours ahead of us, and as I uploaded the new photos around 2 AM EST, I figured I need as many hours as possible for them to clear. When I realized you were from the US, I thought perhaps I might sneak in under the gun. PS Wim - loved 💕 your keywording suggestion!
  13. Hoping I have until midnight NY time since you're in DC to see if my new image has uploaded. Love this topic 💕
  14. I'm waiting for the one I really want to post to clear QC. It should be RT6NYA. Here are 3 meantime, but I'll probably replace one if my new one clears in time. Great theme. Liked January's toot never got new stuff online.
  15. After a slow month, had another sale as the month ends: (It's after midnight here so figured it's okay to post again) A mill pond on Cape Cod. Unlike the last one, which was an RF image licensed as RM for low $$, this one is for high $$ and is a straight RF license: 46 MB4608 x 3456 pixels 3 MB compressed I thought this was RM but I guess it must gone in under the default RF license. Not that it matters much since licensing seems to be whatever the client is seeking. Of course the low $$ image came in before the royalty cut, and this one a
  16. Link to image ERY0BK Country: WorldwideUsage: Presentation and/or webinars, Use in a presentation/talk and/or webinars. In-context video library use included. Worldwide 5 yearsMedia: Use in a presentation/talk and/or webinars. In-context video library use included. Worldwide 5 years39 MB4552 x 3012 pixels 1 MB compressedStart: 19 February 2019End: 19 February 2024 RF image. Low $$ I get bored sitting in the car when I'm not driving, and often end up with something worthwhile. Simple and useful grab shots often end up doing well. I've had a lot of signs
  17. I had one a couple of years ago for $950 - it was a simple, nicely shot, image of a herring gull - one never licensed before. I said yes, but nothing came of it. A few years ago one of those sites we don't mention offered me $750 ($375 to me) for a one-year exclusive of a simple background image. I"d made a bit over $100 on it in the two years prior, so I said yes. The restriction seems pretty narrow and I'd guess that you could put the restrictions in the caption and that Alamy would be aware of them since they are handling the license. If you're not making over $100
  18. I thought this didn't post but when I reposted both showed up. So duplicate.
  19. LOL - you gave me a good laugh on a gray sleeting and snowy day...I don't mean to be critical since I agree with everything you've said. Gotta love spellcheck. It's like the doddering old uncle who doesn't realize his malapropisms.
  20. I know, I'm a real pixel peeper too, but I'd love to have a light backup with acceptable quality that doesn't require carrying two full bodies and assorted lenses - which I guess would be where a good zoom comes in, except that if something goes wrong with a camera then you are in trouble without a backup, although I suppose that if a camera died on a trip away from home, I'd be really bummed if my second camera option was a point and shoot, however good. I agree with your assessment of old primes. My Nikon 50mm f/1.4 that I bought on ebay for $40 back in 2006 when I got my first N
  21. Interesting thread. Bryan, it's hard to beat good prime lenses but, to save my back, I keep thinking about a zoom for my Sony A7rii - my favorite lens on it is my Nikon 20mm f/2.8 that I use with a manual adapter - perfect edge to edge - the 35mm Zeiss is lighter but nowhere near as crisp although it is a great carry around everywhere lens as it's reasonably wide (since my camera is FF) and can also get in close. Good to know the 28-70 f/4 is reasonably light - I assumed it would be heavy and I've heard the 28-70 f/2.8 master lens is a beast. Of course, even primes can
  22. For me, it's been exactly what every site says they have too much of - travel near the beach! I have straight shots of the beach that have sold here for $$$ as do all types of nautical scenes - boats, lighthouses, etc. These have been my highest $$$ sales and highest number of sales by far. It is the kind of work that I would shoot for pleasure and I never thought it would do so well for me, but I've had my nautical images in magazines such as Smithsonian and Coastal Living, in numerous calendars and guidebooks, and all over the web. These are my best sellers here on Alamy, on every other si
×
×
  • 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.