Peter Jordan

Verified
  • Content count

    567
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

149 Forum reputation = neutral

About Peter Jordan

  • Rank
    Forum regular

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Cleveland UK

Alamy

  • Alamy URL
    https://www.alamy.com/contrib-browse.asp?cid={AC7F283D-A666-4E70-8544-A97D01EE7412}&name=Peter+A+Jordan
  • Images
    13310
  • Joined Alamy
    30 Sep 2005

Recent Profile Visitors

715 profile views
  1. How was your March 2018?

    For March, I had 10 licences for $202 gross I am unhappy with low prices this year. My previous lowest annual average price per licence was $32. This year so far it is $23.
  2. Help please - What is this Wooden Thing

    Kay, Yes, thank you for that. Most other bat box types seem to have a bottom entry slot, and a larger box shaped cavity further up. I was wondering what happened inside this Kent box, whether the two entries combined to give a wider space further up. But if so, why have two slots instead of one? In the link you sent, the picture showing the view through the entry slots tells the story. The slots are the same width all the way up. Those bats are really tiny. I will add "Kent" to my tags. Thanks again, Peter
  3. Help please - What is this Wooden Thing

    Alan et al, I have had a look at another image, looking on the front of the box from slightly below. The outer two pairs of planks have a gap in the inner one, giving two entrances. I will upload that image next time. A bat box it is. Thanks for your help. And shame on me for not noticing the entrances. Peter
  4. Help please - What is this Wooden Thing

    Alan, You sound very positive about this, but these things were not high up and I could look at them quite closely, and I could not see any hole where any animal could enter. Are you suggesting that one of the shorter lengths of wood has a hole in the bottom? I have some other images, that may show this. I will have a look. Peter
  5. Help please - What is this Wooden Thing

    Russel, John, No, they are no kind of box at all. Five vertical planks of three different lengths, and another piece of wood on top, like a fence post cap. Things put out like this are usually for monitoring some aspect of the environment, but these seem to be plain softwood with no obvious coating. Peter
  6. In some woodland along the North Yorkshire Coast, I found wooden things that superficially look like bird boxes but are not. I would like to know what they are for, so I can make a meaningful caption. I will try to insert an image, but if I fail , please see M9MG27 or M9MG28. Thanks, Peter
  7. Help Ed Rooney

    Yes, Well done Alamy. I have been a contributor since 2005, and have always felt Alamy were decent people, and they just proved it one more time.
  8. Help Ed Rooney

    Me too!
  9. I was out this morning, but my QC status, 3* anytime upload, had been reinstated when I got home. Thanks Alamy for sorting it out. Peter
  10. Update: I e-mailed CS late last evening, querying the failure. So far, I have not had an answer to that mail, but at 9:23 this morning the submission was passed. Relax all you RX users... So far, I am still knocked down to 1* and locked out for another 9 days. I expect that will get fixed today. Peter
  11. Hmn, but if I did query it, I might get all you other RX100 users wiped out as well. I am also assuming that if the RX100 is unsuitable the RX10 is unsuitable also. You know what they say about "assume" - It makes an ass of you, and an ass of me. Nevertheless as the sensor size and image process ing is the same as the RX100ii, it is a fair assumption to make. Peter
  12. I have a great many images in my collection from my old RX100, which died a few months ago and was promptly replaced by an RX100iii, and of course many from my RX10. I have form on this kind of thing, back when Alamy had an "Unsuitable Camera" list I had a Ricoh GX100, about the same size and capability as the RX100, with a great many images in my collection.. They failed one of those Ricoh images, and I queried it with MS as it then was then called. Their response was to lock me out for 28 days. I have learnt the lesson, I never enter any discussion with QC. Maybe I need to think a bit more about this, but my reaction is to simply sell off my Sony RX cameras. After all, I have been warned off them. I can, and will, manage without them, my micro 4/3rds and Fuji cameras are better anyway, but not so conveniently small as the RX100iii or as versatile as the RX10.
  13. I read with interest the thread started by efk11, because I too have been blacklisted too. My last QC failure was on 1st February 2016. Since the new AIM came in I have always had 3* QC rating. Since my last failure, I have made 191 uploads totalling 2406 passed images. Now I have 1* QC rating and a ten day ban. Now the interesting bit, what failed? An image from “Digital Camera not suitable for Alamy” The camera in question is a Sony RX100iii. I will no longer use it, or its big brother the RX10 for Alamy. Just a warning to anyone using RX10 or RX100 cameras – beware!
  14. Craig, You inspired me to spend a while looking at how to add keywords in LR, and I can see that there would have been advantages to it if I had used that method from the beginning, or even when I started using LR in 2010. As it is, with 12,000 images approaching I have no real chance of ever having the benefit of having a major part of my collection tagged in LR. I still find the new AIM to be a cumbersome tool for doing tagging, but with the help from this thread, I am finding new ways to do it.
  15. Bryan, Thanks for that, I should give tagging in LR a try. It just does not seem to be a natural way to work for me, because I like to do the tagging last and it is not uncommon for me to start working on an image in LR and then abandon it for some reason when I get it into PS. Does the LR keywording function use the same convention as the new AIM, with commas separating words or groups of words?