Jump to content

Charles Stirling

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

77 Forum reputation = neutral

About Charles Stirling

  • Rank
    Forum regular


  • Alamy URL
  • Images
  • Joined Alamy
    16 Jan 2004

Recent Profile Visitors

508 profile views
  1. Stop and question when taking photos of the ministry of defence buildings at Abbey Wood. Didn't have me delete any but suggested I move on and not take any more.
  2. I had the same email giving me a number not marked as exclusive. I had removed images from another agency and thought I had found all my non exclusive and the email was a heads up that I hadn't. Did a search with the filter and changed the remainder. Worth doing.
  3. Mine is 5 star, hadn't noticed before the mention. Photos in the past would come through as passed late afternoon, now anytime and much quicker.
  4. Bit poor, 12 sales for $663 which was up on revenue. Sales had been a bit better earlier in year.
  5. I don't have a problem with this generally. I do wonder about the personal use at times as a few seem unlikely but a size limit would at least help on that. I can accept a student using a photo in essay isn't interested in paying much.
  6. I have taken a photo of a sign with beach and cliffs behind in Wales thinking no one else would bother with this and after putting it up had a look and about 4 or 5 of the same sign and view were already up by other photographers. At times wonder if anything exists which hasn't been photographed.
  7. I've had one pop up on Windows 10 random splash screen of Sydney credited to Taras Vyshnya/Alamy but I can't find it.
  8. I asked members services about possible changes in what was acceptable with reference to part being sharp with parts being out of focus. They responded that criteria haven't changed. They went back and looked at my recent fails on these grounds and decided had been too harsh and reinstated them. My guess is that its a very overworked team checking and with a quick glance they see out of focus aspects the whole image isn't checked but instead a quick reject happens. Anyway thanks to QC team for reviewing.
  9. I had gone years without a failure but recently have had a number for “Soft or lacking definition” when the main part of the image was sharp but part was out of focus as is often the case with close-ups. In the past I thought these would have passed so wondering if the QC methods have changed. The criteria don't really address this well, but I get the impression now images found in search like C6CT1N, T3YG4R or RKBEF5 might fail maybe because of automated processing.
  10. I also have found the doubling up of keywords in many of my older images. I haven't downloaded the CSV file yet so not sure what that may show. I have manually gone through some older images and removed the doubling but too many to do this.
  11. I have two businesses on the insistence of HMRC, photography plus a tool business. Some aspects of the two overlap and HMRC accepted that I put all the small overlapping expenses under one or the other but to do it consistently. Travel in UK is by car and not a huge expense so do a percent for personal and business which was approved by HMRC and stopped trying to keep mileage (1 mile here, 4 miles their, 60 miles somewhere, etc.) which has been accepted in an audit. Overseas generally goes as a photo expense as most of the time taking photographs.
  12. Starsphinxm commented on my suggestion that instead of resubmitting a live news photos as stock just to move it into standard QC. My thought was that sometimes a good live news photo might not be up to the quality that you would want for stock. If it is up to stock quality maybe even submitting at the same time with standard stock keywords etc. could work. Not having it automaticly go into stock might prevent any misuse of Live News as a way of bypassing QC.
  • 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.