Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Marianne

  1. Wow - tough choice! All excellent! I could have voted for any of them but forced myself to make a choice so I would not forget to come back and vote. Congrats to all the finalists.
  2. Adie, I've been watching the British crime drama Vera where this statue appears in the opening credits. I've been intrigued by it and kept thinking I should do a google search to figure out what it is. Well now, thanks to you, I know. Gave you a greenie. Well-deserved as you always work hard to find so many photos.
  3. I've seen my keywords here copied including misspelled keywords - but your name - wow! It would be nice if people could think for themselves.
  4. I haven't done much still life, but one of my best selling shoots was copied on another site years ago, back in the day when they would share top sellers via twitter and facebook every day. I would guess that with travel photography it is less likely, although if someone lives near a place you've shot or is traveling there, it certainly could happen. I had work in a show once with a photographer friend who told me he had been fighting with a large reputable site because he was convinced that the rather prosaic shot he had in the show of a building in Ireland had been stolen. I suspected that it wasn't even a copycat, but that someone else had been there around the same time he was and took the shot. It was beautiful, but the framing wasn't unusual. There is always the fear someone will steal your unusual angle, but I don't really know how you prevent it. I've been in the same position as Bill a couple of times, doing a double-take thinking a photo is mine and then realizing it's just very similar. It's funny, back in 2011 I traveled around Scandinavia with a former member of this forum. She and I spent much of the 9 days of that trip together. One day we spent the entire day together, first on a tour boat and then on Gamla Stan, the old town. We both shot so many images and yet none of our photos look alike. It's really surprising that more travel photos don't look the same, but I don't think either of us had any preconceived ideas about what to shot there. On the other hand. I shoot many lighthouses and there are a few famous ones where I will sometimes do a double-take when seeing a shot similar to one of mine taken from the most obvious angle. I think you're more likely to see something similar when it's a well-known landmark, perhaps because there are so many thousands of photos that it is bound to happen or perhaps because people have seen it in photographs and it colors the way they shoot the scene, whether subconsciously or consciously, maybe a little of both.
  5. I bought an $11 rubber housing at a sporting goods store for my iPhone last year summer (it's a 6S and I was and still am overdue for a new phone - our carrier gives us a break on cost every two years - so I figured I could risk it). Specifically got it for kayaking. Got some beautiful images and some footage that would be suitable for S. Not the quality you're looking for I'm sure, but fun and inexpensive. It floats and has a tie you can attach to your wrist or the kayak so it doesn't get lost. I wouldn't chance it with a new phone but it was good enough that I'd keep my old phone and use it. I'd love to find something better specifically for photos taken on a kayak or floating around in the water. Underwater photography is an entirely different art, though I'd love to learn deep sea diving. The deepest I've done was snorkeling off catamarans in Puerto Rico and Mexico, though once as a teenager a friend let me try his tank diving off a pier in Connecticut - way too sandy to take photos but so much more sea life in the water I'd been swimming in than I'd imagined. As a kid I always dreamed of diving off the Great Barrier Reef.
  6. At our town's Memorial Day parade back in 2016, something I've covered for a local magazine many times since 2006, one of her people was attempting to chase me out of the press enclosure, since I'd decided that marching along the route with my mirrorless Olympus made more sense than carting one of my big Nikons. Another member of her press contingent saw what was happening and quickly came by and explained that I was supposed to be there. Sometimes a small camera helps you be incognito, but it can also cause problems. You just never know. But it's certainly hard to decide which cameras are "professional" these days. Thank goodness it hasn't gotten to that point here, although I fear that our president would be more than happy to be able to round up his detractors and put them in prison. It's a scary world we live in.
  7. Perhaps a number, then a letter? 2A....(since 1 and I are easily confused)? Then 2B.... or 3A.... I'd think they'd stay with 6 letters/digits but I don't know enough about databases Live News are already at W so we'll find out very soon. The explosive growth is really obvious when you track by letter. When I started in July 2008 with my 4 test images they started with B1.... Everything from 2008, 2009, and 2010 is also B. So it took around 2 1/2 years to get through one letter at that time. The C images started in February 2011. My D images start in Feb 2013 so it took two years to get through one letter at that point. My E images start with E6 in August 2014 - Not totally scientific for the transition from D to E since Jan 2014 was still D but didn't upload again until Aug ...so guess around 1 1/2/ years F was a year later - Aug 2015 (July I had EY...) G1....May 2016, so less than a year (last before that I had was FY in April) H2....the end of Sept 2016 (mid Aug was GK....) so less than 6 months to get through a letter Not sure if I missed I or if it would be confused with 1 and again a bit of a gap, I had HE...in Dec 2016 and then J2...Apr 2017 (no uploads earlier that year) (so 3 months or less) KF...Oct 2017 (still J in June, then a gap - was sick a lot in 2017 so very few uploads) In January 2018, they were still at K, but now they have gone from T to W in a month! KY.... Jan 15, 2018 KY.... M05... Jan 18 , 2018, still M.... in March then I have a gap and .... PK.....Sept 2018 RT....by my next upload in Feb 2019 R's through part of March but T1....by March 24, 2019 TT...the last time I uploaded in June, now we are at W....
  8. I agree that if Alamy bend their own rules, while a few month's grace period might arguably be reasonable, after 10 month Alamy should absorb the loss , not us. Most magazines that commission an article and/or photos pay a "kill fee" of 50% (sometimes more) of the agreed-upon price if it does not go to press. We should be able to rely on the terms of the contract, as written. If Alamy want to waive those terms and refund a sale which has already cleared and been paid to the photographer, giving clients an unlimited grace period, then there should be a "kill fee" equal to at least our portion of the contract price, letting Alamy refund only their share to the client and letting us keep our portion of the fee. If they want to give the client back more than their share of the fee after the time for a refund has expired, then they should absorb that loss. If we want to license images through Alamy, we must unilaterally agree to their contract terms. When they seek to take back funds rightfully paid to us under the written contract with the buyer because they have chosen to waive the terms of the contract, then they are not living up to their side of the bargain. The red arrows hurt the person trying to simply explain Alamy's rationale. If you disagree with the rationale, then say so, but don't shoot the messenger.
  9. Boy riding his bike home after a parade:
  10. Little girl rooting on her dad in the NYC Marathon:
  11. 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 my sales (2% of my pix are from the UK but they account for 7% of my total sales). More striking is the fact that half of my licenses were sold to European clients, and 24% of all sales were to the UK. The remaining 50% were licensed in the US. About 75% of my images are US travel and/or nature shots (the rest are studio shots or other non-site-specific concepts), About 65% of my sales are US travel distributed pretty evenly between US and European clients. US sales do seem to have higher average prices. All of my sales >$100 were to US clients. Interestingly, most of those higher priced sales were photos taken in Massachusetts (your home state, Chuck), with the rest from out west, or else they were from my small number of studio shots. In fact, photos from Massachusetts account for 37% of my sales here, although they account for <10% of my portfolio.
  12. 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 a tidy sum. My best license here was $450, back when I got 50% so $225 to me, but I've had many more $$$ licenses here than I've ever had on the micros. And I like being able to license some files as RM. I just don't understand how Alamy manages to license our work for $$$ while at the same time licensing images - sometimes the exact same ones - for such a pittance. That's the real head scratcher. My first $250 license many years ago was from the same shoot as one licensed a week later by Alamy for under $1.00 back when NU started (this was a studio concept image, so the shots were fairly similar) . I have a few that have gone for $250 or thereabouts here and then for $6-30 a month or so later. And RM shots where it was in a book twice so I got $$$ for a cover or full page and then low $$ for inside, but then the book came out a few years later in a new edition and when I asked Alamy about it they said notwithstanding the "single use" in the license I saw, that the client could use it in subsequent editions (4 at last count), so that's discouraging, but it's no different elsewhere with G licensing images for pennies. I have one is a book that S sold earning me a $26 "extended license" it's at 9 subsequent editions, so Alamy's (pseudo)RM license has still earned me more. It's a conundrum, deciding how to make the most with your work and also feeling like you're not being ripped off. I like that $$$ licenses are possible and while I don't see them monthly, I see them often enough that when I get close to despairing that I won't see another, one pops up.
  13. 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 a 6MP camera) where I had knocked the +/- wheel without realizing it and ended up with a bunch of images that were way too dark but had amazing clouds and sky. I hadn't tossed the rejected RAW file and years later as LR got better I was able to recover the shadows even though they were over a stop too dark. If you keep RAW files you can rework them of course, but if you have aRGB you won't have to as printing gets better. Third, as monitors get better and better and can see more color gradations they may well be required by stock sites just as low res images for the web used to be 500px across and now they usually want at least 1200px - Even on my laptop, a MacBookPro Retina screen, I can see the clipping when I convert certain images especially in the red/pink/magenta family (bright pinks and reds can look painfully bright in a generic sRGB space unless you tweak them, whereas they are gorgeous and true to life in aRGB). If I compare the way my screen can render the colors in an image seen on the web to an older PC, I realize how much better screens have gotten and this is a laptop, not a high end stand-alone monitor. So, at some point all agencies will probably want AdobeRGB and perhaps even ProPhotoRGB at some point. Other than with certain reds and greens, in most cases, Alamy's conversion won't make much difference, so I don't see a reason to create two versions unless I'm sending something to a printer who requires them. My images seem to be rendered properly, although I know that the setting on my screen even when I'm on the web show a much broader gamut than a generic PC but I figure those with a generic PC screen buying images for their businesses aren't as discerning as the photo editor or art director with a high end monitor, the kind of client I'd like to be aiming for. Discouraged that Alamy, who have licensed my images to some high end publishers - both book and magazine - are now sending out sRGB. But I'm not going to add to my workflow.
  14. 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.
  15. 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.
  16. 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.
  17. 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 when I'm not active, and better sales when I am active. I have a very small instagram, still skittish sharing my work there. Back in the early days, one of the micro sites used to automatically tweet and show on FB one of the images that I sold each day (You could set it up that way). Back then, whatever image it automatically chose to show would inevitably sell at least once again the next day. I don't know why they stopped that but I did see a drop in sales after that. It was some years ago and that site still licenses images from my tiny port daily, but the landscape for stock images has changed dramatically, and the social media landscape is also far more crowded than it was then (I think the auto posting stopped back in 2012), so I'm not sure it's relevant. Most of my efforts are organic (posting myself) Twice I tried paid ads on FB for my POD images around the holidays. Once I broke even & once spent more than I made. Worse, once my small budget ran out my organic reach dropped dramatically; it took months to recover (they want you to keep buying ads) If I had a larger budget it might have been different and again, it wasn't stock I was publicizing. My conclusion is that having your work out in the social media sphere does help sales build up over time, but like anything today in an oversaturated market, it takes a lot of effort to be seen.
  18. Not sure I have the "art" down but I'm getting there. Glad my second explanation was clearer and more helpful 😎
  19. 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 experience, prefer Adobe RGB, often for conversion to CMYK for printing), would reduce the color space. This can wreak havoc on color crucial things such as skin tones (which often have a lot of both red and olive tones); it also is a nightmare for certain illustrations if you are using large blocks of color, especially in the green tones. I did not have the original of the full resolution image I tested for comparison, so I think that the image chosen here, with the large solid blocks of color where you can actually read the RGB numbers with an eyedropper - not to mention see the wide variation in the examples posted - was an ideal choice. It has left me more confused than ever. The sRGB images seem to have a richer color, and I am hoping Alamy can provide guidance. Meanwhile, I'm preparing images for a magazine and calendars, all AdobeRGB, and I'll check back here before uploading those that I can to Alamy to decide what to do next.
  20. 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. Every search algorithm has its quirks and they are well-kept secrets but in general terms Alamy's search draws from any of the words you use, even single words in a phrase (which can be good or bad for your rank depending upon how relevant each word in a phrase is). While this can be frustrating, some other site's searches will not show an image for a single word if it is only keyed as part of a phrase, which can help or hinder the search depending on the relevance of those words, other sites only let you use single words so that a phrase is not even possible, which can be good or bad depending on the words you are using. There is no perfect search. Each type of search has its strengths and weaknesses, and the weight given to single words over phrases, a photographer's rank, how new an image is, etc. are all anyone's guess, and some sites change how these are weighted from time to time to bring undiscovered images to light. So, trying to think like a buyer, keeping your keywords relevant, and not keywording for extraneous things in an image all help, as these are the things that are within your control. Irrelevant keywords hurt your search position no matter what site you are on.
  21. 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 means that you have to add all the single keywords and all the possible phrases, which can be difficult to do without appearing to be keyword spamming. It is really an art. Sometimes I think that when I first started out I was better at it because I thought like an average naive customer and not like a stock photographer, LOL. Honestly, I sometimes see articles about how to keyword, and I just can't imagine that any real person searches using some of the stock phrases suggested. Searching my Pseudonym Summary and AoA and also looking at the keywords that clients have used to find my images elsewhere gives me a much better sense of which keywords are really important. I do much prefer the new tags now that I've gotten used to it, and the ability to easily pick out the most important keywords as supertags, especially since my tags are alphabetized by LR.
  22. 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 MAC are sometimes different than the colors I see on my husband's PC - so perhaps leaving them untagged lets the browser render the images in a manner that works well in any browser and on any platform since the browser is doing the rendering? Am I wrong? I wish Alamy would pop in here and give us some guidance, especially if their advice has changed. Perhaps when I have time I'll do some research into why you would tick "don't color manage." Don't get me wrong. This doesn't mean that I think I should upload untagged images - I'm still going with AdobeRGB - but I'm wondering why Alamy leaves them untagged.
  23. 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.
  • 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.