Jump to content

Phil Robinson

Verified+
  • Content Count

    2,003
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Phil Robinson

  1. I know the amounts are tiny, but the interesting thing is that, with a couple of exceptions, the images that have sold for novel use haven't sold otherwise, suggesting that it really is a different market. Though looking at what has sold NU, I really can't see a pattern to why certain pictures do and others don't. I've made $120 (net) from novel use over the years - that's the equivalent of quite a few regular sales these days.
  2. Well, it does look like some sort of accounting operation - sales duplicating previous ones, each for about twice the original fee.
  3. I like it. yes, it took a while to find the forum and Net Revenue, but I especially like the fact that you can see whether there are any images passed and waiting to be keyworded, without having to go to the submissions screen. Though I must say, being faced with the sales graph every time I log on is a bit depressing. Edit: Just noticed a mistake. Looking at the sales figures for 6mths and 1 year, the figures up the side of the graph go - $500; $1K; $2K; $2K; $3K.......
  4. The weird thing is, they are all images that have sold for NU before, and a couple that sold twice today had sold twice in the past.
  5. I was under the impression that Novel Use was either on its way out or gone altogether. I haven't had any NU sales for months. Until today. I just checked net revenue and 14 of them have popped up - 3 of them for $3 so it almost adds up to a sale. I was wondering if it was a] last minute accounting before winding up the scheme b] a new surge in NU sales c] pure coincidence. Has anyone else experienced something similar?
  6. I caption my images before uploading. If the caption is too long for Alamy, it will go into the description field automatically. I then leave it there, putting an edited version in the Caption field. It does sometimes if I include dates, architects' names, historical notes etc. I never add things to the description after uploading
  7. Hi. I'd agree with what was said above about quantity of images and information. I would add that I started supplying another agent at the beginning of last year. My first sales came seven months after the first submission. Later sales have all come at least seven months after the relevant images were submitted. Admittedly, that agent reports sales only after the money has cleared, unlike Alamy, who report sooner, but it does show that there is a quite predictable wait before sales start coming in. Keep submitting.
  8. I have just seen one of my images used by the Mail Online. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2637725/Catholic-family-branded-bigoted-social-workers-not-wanting-children-adopted-gay-couple.html At the bottom right of the image - and all the other images - is a little camera symbol. Click on this and it gives you the opportunity to 'share' the image on Facebook, Twitter, Pinterest and Google. Should we - and Alamy - be encouraging this kind of free re-distribution of our images?
  9. Thanks Craig. Just noticed, looking at the Daily Mail page this is on, there is a little camera symbol, bottom right, which lets you 'share' the image on Facebook, Pinterest, Twitter and Google. Should we, and Alamy, be encouraging this kind of free distribution of our images? (don't comment here - new thread started)
  10. I've just checked two images I've uploaded - the same photo, twice, once at JPEG level 12, the other at level 11. Absolutely no difference, in the thumbnail or the zoomed image. Must be something to do with the news feed.
  11. I agree that buying a new piece of equipment is a rather expensive way of overcoming a block. However, going out with equipment you don't use much can have the same effect. Go for a walk with a camera and ONLY a fisheye lens, or only a close-up lens - or a long telephoto. Then you have to look for things to photograph, rather than photograph the things you see.
  12. I know what you mean about investing in equipment. However, I bought the lens a couple of years ago for c£600. I have made just short of £100 from images taken with it. That's more than I would have made in interest if I'd put the £600 in the bank. (Though, of course, I would still have the £600 in the bank). Edit: (In fact I've sold 5) CYKW56 sold last month C8Y1H5 sold today CYP0G3 last October On reflection, it seems it's fisheye images of Prague that are wanted
  13. A sale just popped up today. I think that brings the total to four. They are all of subjects where the lens was essential due to the lack of space rather than arty fish-eye effect shots - two of them with the verticals sorted with help of Image Trends fisheye filter. Still a long way to go to pay for the £600 lens though....
  14. I got a similar one in London today! I thought I was being so original....
  15. Sales a bit slow, but I did get lots of good pictures on May Day.
  16. Here's an example: E07JR0 - News upload E08J7H - Normal route If you zoom both and view them side by side, the first looks noticeably sharper. Not 'over-sharpened' just like a better, sharper, more in-focus image. I may have made one slightly lighter, but the face and the accordion are clearly sharper. Or am I imagining it?
  17. I really feel Alamygators should be a word. We need to find a meaning for it...
  18. One vote again. At least I'm consistent, and I promise it isn't me. I'll try again: London Also London Graffiti in Ljubljana
  19. That's what I was wondering. But if so, they should do it to the stock as well - the results are much clearer.
  20. Nope - all done from the same RAW files. There isn't any visible difference in the finished images, sharpness-wise, just in the Alamy thumbnails. Weird.
  21. I have just been going through my latest submission to pass QC. They include some images I uploaded on Monday to the news feed and more carefully processed versions of some of the same images I sent today. As I was viewing the different versions of the same pictures I was struck by how much sharper the thumbnails were of those I sent on Monday. As they were live news, I did the processing less carefully than for general stock - just a bit of tweaking for lighting and colour. I think I uploaded Monday's batch at JPEG level 11, whereas today's were level 12. Both the thumbnails and the zoo
  22. If you are doing landscapes of static subjects you could try stitching together two or more photos.
  23. I have just found the following unfortunate mistake following the sad announcement of Elena Baltacha's death: http://www.france24.com/en/20140505-british-tennis-player-elena-baltacha-dies-cancer-aged-30/ Her obituary accompanied by a picture of Maria Kirilenko. It turns out it is from a match in which they were both playing, so both in the keywords. Unfortunate result of a combination of unnecessary keywords and a very lazy picture editor.
×
×
  • 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.