dbooksta

Interesting. But that would really only be guaranteed to the client if you list it as RM-E, right?

You have the answer in your question RM will bring the long-term income ... because it's RM. Explanation: Anna is buying your image as RF and she uses it everywhere she wants, forever. Pays you once and never come's back for the same image. You can multiply it for xxxx clients. Maria is buying the image as RM specific license and she uses it once in detailed way. If she wants to use it again next year or next project, she must comes back and pay again... You can multiply the scheme for xxxx clients. Let's say in both cases the number of clients who buy your file is limited to the same n

Back to the original question: Why sell RM? I assume that everyone here wants to maximize their long-term income from their images. If you believe RM does that better than RF can you please explain how? Or do you sell RM for some purpose other than maximizing income? If so, what is the purpose and how does RM as implemented at Alamy serve it? If you think the answer is obvious please don't assume I know it! Or, if your answer is just, "Well, all the other pros do, but I don't know why," that's fine (though not particularly informative).

OK, here's what I see for my "RF" image. What does an RM purchase screen look like?

I'm just looking at the purchase options for test images I submitted under RF. The first that appear are five RM options, then there is a link to also show RF options. So is it not correct to state that if I designate my image RF then Alamy will still offer it as RM as well?

I'm still bewildered. Part of it is apparently that I don't understand the implications of the licenses: RF: Any number of clients can buy the same image and use it with no restrictions. Any image with RF license is also available to clients under RM options. RM: Image is only sold using Alamy's five RM license options, which can be cheaper than full-res RF. What "control" do you have as a contributor by selecting this option, vs RF? RM-E: What's exclusive? Is the contributor asserting that no more than one client shall ever get to use the image? I.e., after first sale it's not avail

Yeah, after a year of pixel-peeping with the Sony A77II I just think they pushed too far by recording 24Mpx. Things are beautiful when shooting at the "medium" 12Mpx resolution, but obviously I don't have a choice when shooting RAW but to start with something that at 100% has a grainy quality to it. It's not a deal killer -- Alamy did just accept two such 24Mpx photos I submitted without any special noise-reduction measures. And I still typically shoot at full resolution just to be sure I don't miss some detail. But I am beginning to think that before I hand such an image to pixel-peepe

Heh, I wish Alamy was that active on these forums! I (the OP) selected that as the "best answer" by clicking on the "Mark Solved" button under it.

I don't understand why it is up to me as a contributor to determine the license type for my image. In general I would like any prospective buyer to have the option to buy whatever license they want. I assume that Royalty Free (RF) is the most expensive license. When I have no interest in restricting usage I would like this to be an option. I assume that Rights-Managed-Exclusive (RM-E) is less expensive than RF but more than RM. If someone wants to pay for exclusivity I would like them to have that option. Finally, if someone doesn't want to pay for either of the above, I would l

So you find the Lightroom export interpolation to be adequate? And how do you decide when to downsample, vs. providing the original resolution?

Ah ha -- thank you guys! Using the twig and bark as a reference I can see now that I did miss the focus. I'm almost certain I wasn't running strict center autofocus like I should have been. Though I'm surprised that at such a distance and aperture the focal plane is so thin! Guess I'm still learning....

Here's a 50% downsample. Here's the original. Glass wasn't top-of-the-line, but at f/7.1 I've found my Tamron 70-300mm f/4-5.6 to be sharper than this sensor.

I just submitted my first batch of four. All were rejected, but only the first got a reason: "Soft or lacking definition." This was on a 24Mpx shot from a Sony A77II (APS-C) at ISO 200 with f/7.1, and the focus was perfect. Sony might be overly ambitious to be providing 24Mpx off that sensor at that size; it's certainly noisy even at ISO 200; so I'm wondering: Do successful contributors downsample in cases like this? Any recommended practices for that?