Jump to content

Phil Robinson

Verified+
  • Content Count

    1,779
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Phil Robinson


  1. One thing certainly worth doing is checking which of your images have been zoomed in Alamy Measures every day - and checking whether they are exclusive.

    Those have a slightly higher chance of selling and it's worth making sure they are exclusive before they get invoiced.

    I've had a few decent sales recently where the difference between 40 and 50% made the work worthwhile.

    I've also started adding a keyword code to those that aren't exclusive, so I don't to check them again.

    • Like 1

  2. 23 hours ago, Inchiquin said:

    I always ask myself this question: could I have taken the same shot at another time without the objects that spoil it? If the answer is yes, e.g. birds, bits of rubbish, traffic cones, blurred people in the background, then it's fair game. If not then it's usually digital manipulation. In the case of a lamp post I would submit the pic as is, but I would also strive to find an angle or a detail without the lamp post.

     

    Alan

     

    Exactly my approach. Something that might not have been there on another day or five minutes earlier - pigeons, litter, (which you could pick up before taking the photo if you are very public-spirited) cigarette ends, people - can be edited out. Stuff that is always there - street furniture, littler bins, signposts - I leave. 

    I have been known to remove bits lampposts and things creeping into the corner or edge of a frame that I could conceivably have avoided by changing my lens / position.


  3. 4 hours ago, Joseph Clemson said:

    I'm all for competitors culling their portfolios, especially where they have images which compete directly with mine. ;)

     

    In all honesty, apart from removing similars which pull down one's CTR, I can't see any downside in a competent photographer retaining images which may eventually sell. There is no obvious cost to doing so. 

    I think this is about right. I know I have loads (thousands) of images that will never sell - the problem is knowing which ones they are.

    I know for a fact that if I had decided a year ago to cull 10% of my images, I would have got rid of some that have since sold.

    Culling similars is useful. I now have too many pics of some politicians and tennis players and I am trying to cut each individual to the best ten (maybe 15, possibly 20?) If I can't think of a reason why an image should be chosen rather than one one of the others, I will delete it. But I'm not doing it enough yet.


  4. On 12/07/2019 at 23:16, Chuck Nacke said:

     

    I will add that if you do not like "micro prices" don't take "micro pictures."  pretty simple.

     

    If only it were that simple.

    Most of the images I had licenced as NU for 91c had previously sold for two and three figure sums.

    They are not microfodder, they are the same editorial images I rely on for my income, being sold in bulk for nothing to people who should be charged 'proper' (whatever that means these days) fees. .

    • Like 1

  5. On 12/07/2019 at 11:15, Pearl said:

    I opted out of NU last April as I hadn't signed up for those pathetic prices. No regrets so far.

     

    Pearl

    Me too. Originally NU was proposed as a way for people to use an image for a purpose that wasn't covered by the standard licenses - to put on a mug or a fridge magnet etc - and I was (reluctantly) OK with that, but it is now being used for sales that fit perfectly within existing licenses - use on a website with thousands of pages and millions of views is NOT 'novel use'. 

    • Like 1
    • Upvote 2

  6. I understand that some system is necessary, but why can't somebody develop one that works? If getting through the system that requires us to recognise a traffic light or a fire hydrant, is it too much to expect the system itself to know what they look like? And it's difficult to know whether a collection of bricks and a bit of a window are part of a shopfront. 

     

    Have a security feature, fine, but one that can at least do what it is asking us to do, and can be used on a mobile phone without use of a magnifying glass.

    • Upvote 2

  7. On 14/06/2019 at 10:14, spacecadet said:

    I'm not sure but such a policy might fall foul of the consumer rights act in the UK- it's not usually possible to refuse a refund of an item bought at a distance.

    You may have a point there.


  8. My most useful pseduo is the default I use exclusively for all new uploads and news images. When image manager changed (a long time ago now) I had trouble finding the newly uploaded images that needed keywording etc. 

    Now everything I upload has the same pseudo - news and new stock - and only when I am happy with captions, keywords and annotating, do I assign the images to their relevant pseudo. Live News images remain there, until and I decide to chose to properly annotate them or go back to the RAW file and produce a better quality version of an image for stock, when I can delete the first upload.

     


  9. 10 hours ago, Marianne said:

     

    Phil, I just had a 🤦‍♀️ moment.

    Yesterday, I uploaded a little over a dozen images, and only had one vertical that I shot and was happy with. I was wishing I had more. I know buyers can and do crop that way (I've had a few horizontals of 16MP shots cropped to verticals for 1/4 page magazine shots), but hadn't thought about doing it myself to make sure I had all my bases covered. With 42MP, I can double my shots when I forget to turn the camera on its side. And I can fill out that shoot. Duh! 🤦‍♀️ Thanks!

    I try to take vertical shots that way in the first place, but I do often end up 'finding' a better vertical composition with a landscape shot, so it's useful if you have enough pixels to cut the ends off.


  10. On 26/05/2019 at 01:31, Matt Ashmore said:

     

    I know the website.. they have bought a number of my images. But I notice that they also buy from a certain big microstock agency. So I wouldn't be surprised if they approached Alamy and said something along the lines of "we like your images, we will buy several hundred of your images but you have to match the other guy's prices.. else we get all images from the other guy." If you are Alamy, what are you to do?

    I agree, I'm sure that's what happened. I just don't want my images used for that little.

    I know people who have opted out of the newspaper scheme or distribution for the same reason - those sales are bigger and a serious part of my income, even if I don't always like the fees.

     


  11. On 17/05/2019 at 01:05, Matt Ashmore said:

    There is the argument that if you don’t like NU prices then you should opt out... but then that probably means that you don’t get the sale at all. And I have noticed that site also buys from microstock. so it comes down to whether you are in the ‘something is better than nothing’ or the ‘I refuse to sell my images for pennies’ camp.

    In the past, regarding distributor sales and the newspaper scheme, I have always taken the 'something is better than nothing' view, thinking that my opting in or out is not going to cause tremors in the stock photography world.

    I have drawn the line at the Novel Abuse scheme and opted out last month. The sales I was getting were to a huge, very well-funded website with thousands of articles and $1 or less for use until the end of time was just wrong. 

    When the Novel Use scheme was launched it was said to cover licenses that didn't fit any of the normal patterns - I think use on a fridge magnet or a single mug were the examples given. The sales I have had recently could very easily be covered by an existing licensing model - website use - and the prices were unacceptable. 

     

    On the plus side, I have been happier with average prices recently - I've seen more of the 40-50 rather than 20-30, and a few more $$$ than in the past. 

    • Upvote 1
×
×
  • 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.