sooth

hold the camera against columns, pillars, chairs, etc. or walk in there with a limp and a monopod/walking stick.

.

it makes it much much harder for buyers to look for what they need, wastes their time. noise and non related images also in a way led to live news being restricted to a few as the feature was being abused i believe; made it really difficult for the rest of us who got caught in the crossfire and which really desired that option, now closed off.

At the end i casually mention... "also, the website is open to all so you do get a lot of noise and stuff getting uploaded so you do have to have something that is more unique, and higher quality than the other stuff to stand a chance. " ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

for the average general purpose portfolio, just have to be patient. when i started, i was trying to figure this out--still am--and didn't figure anything will sell, left it alone. then a few things sold, and my interest picked up again, so i started devoting a lot more to it in terms of quantity and quality. it's not a get rich quick scheme unless youre part of that group with special portfolios of stuff that's in high demand. also, the website is open to all so you do get a lot of noise and stuff getting uploaded so you do have to have something that is more unique, and higher quality than the other stuff to stand a chance.

if it really bothers you, can't you simply just crop more toward the right; once you clone and remove items no matter how small, then you can't ethically sell it as an editorial.

yes, looks like a bug. images are seven digits now, yet the "zoomed" thumbnail and follow-thru url in the pseudonym summary page still expects a six digit id, or that it truncates any id number greater than six digits in length.

buyers buy images that fit the project they are doing. advertising, news, travel, etc. you also have competition. the photographer with the better image, and better keywording will edge out the competition. > But the thing is with, this country or state of Wisconsin. It seems we here in the US rather rely on people that work in the media not with stock sites. Because they don't want to be paying for someones work they don't know. some community newspapers have staff photographers or people they rely on that they know. Stock sites exist to fill that need for a generic photo that can't be obtained quickly or cheaply enough through a photographer or agency. a powerful equalizer has been google images which helps connect buyers with photos located at other places buyers might not have considered perusing, like alamy. > Than either I am doing something wrong or Alamy isn't for the US. would you consider submitting your portfolio for a critique? https://discussion.alamy.com/forum/18-portfolio-critique/

same here. had an image of this that was refunded after a few months interestingly, i checked images google for it, found a 100px thumbnail of something pecular it was a video still from a uk newspaper site, wrong country where image was licensed and refunded. google was able to yield a larger thumbnail. followed a rabbit trail and found an unauthorized use from 2015 by the telegraph uk as i had no sale of this back then. they cut half the image and stuck text on it but i can tell it's mine

.

likely same person buying all these vancouver imagery brought one of mine of granville island public market, same license.

photo by Gabriele Holtermann-Gorden no individual photo credit apparently it's the Times online and they credit photo agencies or something. pacific press is a news agency that uploads (the best) pics from photographers to various other photo agencies including getty and alamy. i tried pacific press, and it pays nothing. whatever pacific press earns from selling a photo on getty, or alamy, etc. it takes its commission, and sends the rest to the uploader only if they meet a certain (big) dollar level threshold. i think i've sold 1-2 photos through pacific press, and later i told them to delete every photo i had with them from all the websites they sent to. i'm never going to see any cent from the photos i've sold through them as i never met the threshold for cashing out. i tried to sign up onto getty several times, but they don't bother answering back, so i don't bother with those *****. pacific press is a route that some people use to get onto getty, and it's an somewhat open door allowing upload of live news in hopes of it getting picked up elsewhere (live news at microstock prices). i know somebody who did the pacific press route full time, and is now an accredited news photog. i really hope getty falls because they are crap, unfortunately everybody buys photos from them. even alamy sent a tweet last week highlighting The Atlantic magazine's best photos of the week which contain all getty photos. i only like alamy because they have an open door, and i've sold many photos through them, but only recently they closed the live news option, and I don't have, nor know of any other acceptable agency to upload photos. if alamy is closed to me in the future, then that's probably the day i quit photography. i'm bad at marketing, and have no other reputable outlet for the photos.

the caption of the alamy photo said it was a print exhibition, and one of the visible keywords was nadav, although print buyers don't really look at the keywords btw, google doesn't crop anything.

7 sales $423, all except 1 was a storefront image. Ctr for these subset of images is 2.4

marketing package, large business for the listed price.