Jump to content

Phil Robinson

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Phil Robinson

  1. Use the old Manage Images 1.0

    Choose any spell checker you like in your browser options.



    Thanks Wim - I didn't know about that. Then you can check using both and add both sets of missing variants. Brilliant.

    • Upvote 1




    In fact, I like it the ways it is. When I see "harbour" or "mollusc" underlined in red, then it should ring a bell that there's also another spelling "(harbor" "mollusk"). When it would recognise both British English and American English spellings, I would miss a lot.




    Good point, so can I request that it is changed from American to British ONLY, so we can pick up the US spellings!

    Fine by me ;)




    You're right - that wouldn't work. I got confused. Best left as it is.....

  3. In fact, I like it the ways it is. When I see "harbour" or "mollusc" underlined in red, then it should ring a bell that there's also another spelling "(harbor" "mollusk"). When it would recognise both British English and American English spellings, I would miss a lot.





    Good point, so can I request that it is changed from American to British ONLY, so we can pick up the US spellings!

  4. http://www.scribd.com/doc/141391187/Bavaria-Magazine-2013-The-Real-Bavaria-An-original-kind-of-holiday


    I found one of mine in here and there seem to be A LOT of pictures of Bavaria credited to Alamy.

    I really admire the dedication of those here who manage to find all the pics in the Alamy archives and list the details, but I'm afraid it's getting late and I can't quite summon the effort just now.

    If you have images of Bavaria, it might be worth a look.

    Mine came through on 5th June and was over $60, so check your sales first and happy hunting.


    Country: United Kingdom
    Usage: Editorial
    Media: Magazine - Print and App
    Print run: up to 250,000
    Placement: Inside
    Image Size: 1 page
    Start: 05 June 2013
    End: 05 July 2013

  5. Despite what I said above, schools these days do have a need for photos - websites, prospectuses and so on - which tend to have images of unidentifiable kids bent over a book or computer keyboard. I suppose there might be a possibility of approaching a school with an offer to do this kind of coverage and an agreement to use the photos yourself, once OKed by the school. Just going in and saying 'can I come in and take photos of your kids to make me some money' is unlikely to work.

  6. Until February I was working in a school, and acted as school photographer. I took pictures of kids at sports days, in school productions, and sometimes in classroom settings.

    The paranoia surrounding child photography is staggering. All photos I took had to be checked by the head of Child Protection, any pictures I took were supposed to be edited only on school computers and saving anything onto a personal hard drive was out off the question, in theory, and anything intended for any use that might be seen by the general public had to have written permission from the parents.

    Photographing children in a recognisable school uniform is covered by the Data Protection Act (as it makes public where they go to school).

    Even though I am still in touch with many teachers there and have a CRB check, I wouldn't attempt to go in and do commercial photography which includes identifiable students. 

  7. "I even deleted three myself - not happy with the noise. Who needs QC, when I can be my own taskmaster?!"


    This is an interesting point. It would save Alamy a lot of time if they removed the QC requirement for longtime -- say over two years -- contributors with good pass records.

    Hmm, not so sure. I suspect I would get a lot less careful with my submissions if I knew they weren't going to be looked at. Perhaps the compromise would be to stop checking the most reliable contributors, but not telling them.

  8. In my experience of retail (Waterstones, funnily enough) the markup on cards by the shop is huge. The shops probably get 60% of the retail price (unless things have changed a lot) leaving 40% for the supplier, who has to cover production, marketing and distribution costs. 

    Book authors get around 10% - and it takes a bit longer to write a book.

    • Upvote 1

  9. I'm thinking of creating a pseudo for shots of sheep's rear ends. But I do have a serious -- if a bit off-topic -- question.  Does anyone know if  it is possible to change the name of an existing pseudonym without having to remove the images, delete the pseudo, and then start all over again? There doesn't seem to be a way of changing pseudo names in "Manage Your Images."

    I'm pretty sure there isn't. I think I looked into this a while ago.

    Long before that, however, I got a call from Alamy asking me to change my pseudo (I only had one back then) as it had a  .com at the end, and that was against the rules. I told them what I wanted it changed to and they did it for me. That, however, was no doubt an exception and I doubt they'll start doing it on demand, (especially if it's to a pun on the rear ends of sheep).

  10. I have four different pseudos, according to subject matter, with very different Alamyrank ratings. I find that subjects with a lot of competition on Alamy, like travel, understandably get a lot of views but few zooms. My other subjects, however, which face a lot less competition, have a much better CTR, better sales and therefore a better rank. 

    Deciding how to split your work up really depends on whether you see lumping all your subjects together as pulling up the rank of your less popular images or dragging down the most successful. 

  11. Just to be clear on what I meant, I was only referring to images such as straightforward architectural shots or scenes with buildings where it is a simple matter to correct the verticals in software. I am not frowning on shots like the one above, which is a perfectly good shot, could not be taken any other way and the effect is intentional (for aesthetic reasons). But there are a lot of building shots here on Alamy which could be improved very easily by a minute's work in LR or PS.

    I quite agree - buildings taken more or less straight on and almost vertical look much better tweeked.

  12. The fact is that we are used to angles converging when we look up at things. Straightening buildings a bit to get parallel verticals is OK on many shots, but when the viewpoint is obviously from below, our eye expects the verticals to converge. Try straightening the verticals on that image of the church and you will feel worse than dizzy. 

    I'd happily send that one to Alamy - it's a good shot of a church highlighting the welcoming open doors - something that wouldn't have been as prominent if taken from a distance with a longer lens.

    • Upvote 1


    Ed Rooney: "I did drop out of the Novel Scheme when they sold one image (large on a prestigious site) for $1.00 "


    That's interesting. I have always rationalised my use of the NU scheme with the assertion by Alamy that the sales were to markets that would not undermine their other business. I would be very interested to hear where this NU image was used! 


    Phil, I've posted the name of the buyer on that $1.00 sale somewhere on here in the past. It is/was the Telegraph of London, on their Website. 



    If you mean the Telegraph newspaper, that totally undermines my faith in the system and, it has to be said, Alamy. If the Novel Use scheme has been used to license images to national newspapers for that amount, then we have been deceived an I am extremely disappointed that I ever signed up to the scheme. If not, I would be grateful to Alamy to clear up the confusion.

  • 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.