KateR

Has anyone else had any weird "disappearing" images where something that has been zoomed now goes to effectively a 404 page? I have a zoom from the last month which doesn't bbring up an image when i click on it - the reference is 2AOJHW , which also gives no result in search! I haven't deleted any images recently. IF only they'd make it easy to include images in posts, i could show you a screen shot *sigh*

I just logged on to also ask whether anyone has found shooting to the "what should i shoot" list (as against looking for zero result queries in AoA), because when i randomly checked a couple of the terms they had plenty of decent quality existing results! For example, El Rey Ruins is on the list currently, as is St James Hotel and Club. Both perfectly well covered when you do a normal search. So, is there any point at all in looking at that list?!

Ah, I wonder then whether "publication" would include putting the images on websites, social media etc, in which case for someone looking to use them as part of his art / portfolio, they would be next to useless. Maybe that's what he meant and the subtleties got lost in translation. He did definitely talk about a case in which someone in a crowd recognised themselves in an image used online, and successfully sued. Sorry, my inaccuracy

I think we can let them off, if they are German. I learned at a Street Photography festival recently, that in Germany their privacy laws actually do forbid taking identifiable photos of others without their permission, even in the most public of public spaces. The guy saying so was a German street photographer (masochism or what), so I guess he'd likely be correct. (Totally off topic but I was really surprised by that, maybe everyone else knows, but worth bearing in mind if you're travelling in Germany!!)

I did exactly that because my neck and shoulders are shot to hell from an old whiplash injury. I love my Fujis (an X Pro and a teency X-A2 i almost bought as a toy and now end up using most of the time) but you're so right about the lenses. I spend a LOT of time faffing between the 18mm , 35mm and the 55-200. Having said that, as i'd ground to a halt with taking my big old Canon setup out with me almost ever, I am still getting 100% more shots than I would have with a camera left at home in the cupboard

Ok thanks - I'm sure the FT are doing things properly, so I'll keep an eye out for the next few months!

Hi folks An image of mine appeared in the online edition of the FT a couple of days back. (The link is here, but it's firewalled so may not work, and I can't for the life of me figure out how to insert a screenshot here! https://www.ft.com/content/ace1dbe0-7ece-11e8-8e67-1e1a0846c475 ) The image in question has been licensed quite a few times, but never for anything saying "newspaper". One license says "single company multiple use, editorial only" but doesn't say who the company was. So, with the vagueness of the license detail, how can I know whether this usage was legiti

Firmly agree with this! The vast majority of what I put on Alamy is exclusive, because I think they are the agency coming closest to protecting reasonable prices - moreso with the optouts of the cheapie schemes. More revenue for us is also more revenue for Alamy, and if a client wants a particular image and it's not available elsewhere, I'm quite sure they'll be able to find the additional few quid

Right, i've opted out of the newspaper scheme, but apparently can't deal with the Distribution bit until next April. Annoying - arguably i should have read some small print more carefully, but it doesn't mean much until you see the numbers in practise....

Yes this is exactly what i was getting at, really. I also don't subscribe to "every little helps" - it doesn't, quite honestly, in the face of current living expenses, it helps the buyer a very great deal more than it helps us! Especially when the image in question is actually unique on Alamy (it is - i went out and shot it specifically to fill a stock gap) and wouldn't be likely to even be accepted on those "other" cheapo sites because it's not in their style. I also won't put my images with the s***stocks of this world for the same reason. I only have a small portfolio and i'd be the first

I've just had two sales drop in for the end of last month, with usage as follows: First one: Country: United Kingdom Usage: Editorial Media: Newspaper - national Print run: up to 2 million Placement: Inside and online Image Size: 1/4 page Start: 01 May 2018 End: 02 May 2018 Any placement in paper and online. One use in a single editorial article used within the print and digital versions of a single publication. Digital usage includes archive rights for the lifetime of the article. Second one: Country: United Kingdom Usage: Editorial Media: Newspaper - nati

Presentation, for a magnificent $13 (before all the deductions. I must start a thread on trying to understand the "My Account" tab at some point, i seem to be paying commission to half the world on some shots ) Still, taken within 1/4 mile of my flat, so that's nice.

Thankyou Wim, very helpful thoughts. I've not got to grips at all with the Pseudonym idea (strategically i mean, i know what it is but just hadn't worked out if / how it could help!) In answer to your first question, i do genuinely think there is a chance that a pic of the FCA headquarters being built might be needed to illustrate a story at some point in the next year or so. It's the "headline act" of a major new post-Olympic regeneration in London, so it's more about that that people wanting to illustrate the FCA as an organisation. I struggle a bit with the quantity vs quality thing

Do you think you're sales and zooms are of your best images? Or of your mediocre or worst images? Have you had lots of views of subjects that have not been zoomed? Are your images as good as the ones that did get zooms and sales? It's three shots that have sold, mainly. One is (slightly depressingly, from a "how do i do more of that" POV) an image I alone (or almost alone, give or take a handful of neighbours) could have taken, because the height of my balcony gives me a unique view over that particular area. It's not a bad shot, though. The others, both of the same subject, wer

You seem to be doing pretty well sales wise. My fancy studio lighting is basically a window, some reflectors, and one off camera strobe. A great place to start is the http://strobist.blogspot.com Your "studio" shots look great to me, especially the food ones which my few dabblings with have been terrible. Maybe it's the styling, I just don't have the eye for arranging things nicely?! I don't know.