imageplotter

It does say that on my FileZilla as well, every time (I regularly update it, so don't think that is the issue). I must admit I just ignore it. The message doesn't seem to pop up with other FTP connections I file to, but it could just be a bug, not sure. Doesn't seem to have caused any issues so far. (as far as I can tell...)

Cheers SShep.

Thanks TeeCee. Went in the print version as well.

A lot of them now also attach a voice recording instead of written captions when they file through to the wire agencies. That's a nice, quick way (although not without pitfalls regarding names/spelling), but of course also then requires work on the agency side again, which isn't realistic with Alamy. The other thing is that it requires enough manpower agency-side to identify, follow and anticipate some of the less obvious, less predictable news events, especially in London, and it would require co-ordinating the available togs more on those breaking news stories that weren't in anyone's schedule at the start of the day. The larger agencies simply have that manpower.

That's not true. Other, larger news pic agencies do provide a detailed by-pic-by-publication/client list of sales at the end of the month. And yes, some people do sell directly, and very successfully. But they tend to be the people who know the picture editors, they're often ex-staffers or have been in news photography for many year.

I agree, although I wouldn't call it 'part of the fun'. Sifting through scraps of other people's detailed schedules for cookie crumbs (a little thanks to B. here, who let's me photograph his screen with 2 pages of his editor's 'notes for the day' occasionally) isn't fun. Unless you can afford to just do it for the fun. It encourages what I have always thought - that Alamy rely on hobbyists, 60+ enthusiasts, retirees and a guy in Wales with orange filters, plus a few pet owners. And then wonder why they're not getting timely, high qual 'news' images. The reality is that nobody can make any "decent" living off freelance news images alone, unless they also supply some of the larger agencies and wires on a freelance or day rate basis. Take away transportation cost, costly purchase of new field laptops every couple of years (and constant use of laptops in outdoor conditions, sitting on pavements or alternatively consuming in cafes 2-3 times a day don't do laptops any favours), software, much higher than average wear and tear (rain, cold, dust on frequent lens changes, resting on dirty surfaces, knocked about in protests and by other photographers) of 2-3 camera bodies and 4-5 lenses or more, spares, flashes, batteries and cards, wifi contract for filing, image storage devices, backpack upgrades, time to back up and update...not so cheap. All for a pittance that you are left with if you take off all those costs. Even those that are highly successful freelancers, which I am not, will have to admit that their 'salary' is laughable. Half a day of decent corporate shooting gets me more than if I had 2 front pages that day. Every day. Nuff said. I did find it interesting for a while to do news as a sideline in addition to other photography work, see things like the Downing Street press machine, events. But for such little money, I'd rather invest in winning more business in other pockets of photography. As I said, it's different if you're a hobbyist or retiree and do it for the kicks.

To be fair to Alamy (and I often criticise) - they do feature in the pic-of-the-day galleries quite regularly, actually, given the size and geographic limitations of the agency. There are two in the Times Online gallery today, even if they're the cute-dog-and-sunset variety Alamy are famed for. (one's opinions on the ever-repeated use of the very same dogs/sunset location can differ, but they are feeding a demand, having created the demand in the first place) Although, given the choice, I'd rather take a small print over the online pic-of-day galleries (grateful for either, obvs), because online pays less. And half the time, the publications don't put the tog credit in. Frankly, it's barely worth it financially and will likely only get worse in the next few years. You cannot compare the reach, manpower and size of operation of the big wires like Reuters, PA, AFP, AP, or compete with them directly, especially not on breaking news. Unless you happen to be the only one there, they'll always win because their togs file directly from camera and often don't need to caption/edit the image prior to filing.

The Times love doing this because they get expired live news cheap as chips.

Go direct to the Sun and don't even think of giving a cut to agencies. 😂

Oh no. 😭 My only hope of ever finding Times pics (since the Murdoch publications aren't on PressReader). But I can totally understand your decision, I probably won't say more than that publicly. And it must have been a lot of effort going though these papers and posting the results - many thanks for all your work, much appreciated!

Thanks Bryan for the spots re Times on the 2nd and 4th.

Ditto. My trust is lost. For the first few years, all my images were exclusive to Alamy, all my news images were exclusive, too. Foolish. It has been a learning curve, and I will never trust Alamy again.

It says they're NU, but I'm not buying that for a minute. Getting even more cheesed off with alamy now.

Yep, me too.

Hi Ian, if it's any consolation, I've also had lots of those Metro sales (not via alamy but that other agency, starting with R) with the same complete caption printed, occasionally also with add-on restrictions, and always stating 'mandatory caption'. Sometimes they've even inserted the heading at the front (i.e. politicians in Westminster/Downing Street/whatever). Seems to be a thing they do when in a hurry. I'm not keen on it either, but there's not much we can do. They don't engage in any spell-checking either, defo a mistake when it comes to my terrible captioning skills, haha. Luckily it's only the bargain-basement pic value online version where this seems to happen. Perhaps this is automated content-generation, human interaction (or any form of add-on journalism) entirely optional. Quite Orwellian.