wiskerke

Not the ape thing again. Remember with the ape, the photographer went to photography school; saved money; bought a camera; became a pretty good photographer; saved some more; went to Borneo; thought out this great image; set it all up got the picture of an ape/monkey taking it's own selfie with a wide grin and rightfully so, because he/she won the copyright from the photographer and lost it to PETA who stole it from both and who in turn were told by appeals court that they didn't have it either and that they had been it it for self-glorification from the beginning. So yeah it's not easy: is it the finger that pushes the button or the one who set up the shot. With an assistant you usually arrange those things before they happen. Like before you're becoming someone's assistant or when you're hiring one. In your case I would say: settle it, like just like Slater did when he had become too broke to even attend the court hearings anymore and considered becoming a professional dog-walker. When I briefly assisted it was before legal paperwork and the really great photographers/teachers once in a while said: nah you can have it: it was your shot. And one definitely knew when it had been just your finger and not your shot. wim

mine: I don't see a problem: it's just a bulk discount. It's not even sure if it's to Slovenia, Slovakia or Czech Republic (mine). The country is only in the online Sales history, not in the downloaded Net revenue sales report. My guess is that they have a sort of newspaper scheme like Alamy has in the UK. If you don't like the money, just opt out of the distributor. I did once track an image that had been licensed through them and found out it had been used at least 4 or 5 times. Alamy chased it and got a couple of licenses more out of it. This was to one of the former Yugoslav countries. Why not check all your sales to the countries that this distributor services? Just go to your Sales history and set the time period to all. I only checked for the Czech Republic so far, because I stopped my search when I saw a $ 265.00 (gross) sale for a cover of a detective novel. So I will stay in. Not just for that cover, because as I have said before: I will still stoop for a dime and run for a dollar. I also really liked the cover btw and the image only sold once. wim

The quickest way imho is to go through everyone's own sales in the Sales history and locate one with the same details: Worldwide and up to 2 million. Because that's quite a rare one. This only helps if someone actually has managed to locate his/her image of course. Or else we'll have 1 more case to resolve. 😉 wim

Sorry, all my up to 2 million have been in United Kindom. wim

I have a ls5000 and have cleaned the mirror a couple of times. First hit on google is a good guide. wim

Found an answer: please reload my previous post. It's in the edit. wim

Is this a magenta on slides? Could it be it's applying the negative filter? Could be software setting; could be wrong film holder. wim edit: this thread suggests cleaning the mirror is the solution: because when dirty the scanner fails a routine check during start up.

Would have been a good image for Live news yesterday here, because today is National bee counting day (or hour actually) in Holland. Not many Alamy clients in Holland though. wim

Suchthaus? Sucht=addiction. You mean Zuchthaus? wim edit: K28GB3 - Sansouci in Potsdam is Sanssouci. Great perspective, but aren't your shadows very very dark? Not just in this one, but in general? Could be a deliberate choice of course. Here are more Sanssouci in Potsdam images on Alamy

Television. Editorial worldwide. For a bit more than 49.99 😀 Almost good enough for the positive results thread. If someone spots it, I would very much like to know what and where! wim

https://goo.gl/maps/Crv4kpzpfvB2 It's before 1968: that was when the Singer Building was demolished. Great image! Do you know Andreas Feininger? wim edit: wow look at Google today: a Bauhaus tribute! Andreas Feininger studied at the Bauhaus, where his father Lyonel was head of the graphics studio.

Taken in the course of a couple of days. But hey, maybe they've sold: They're all about Aberystwyth 😂 wim edit: he/she has 12 more images on Stockimo, more or less the same as the news images. Could this be a test? Or is this the normal behavior of Stockimo News: duplicating the images?

Wow! Have your sales gone up or your zooms gone down? 😂😂 Sorry couldn't resist. 🙄 Oh I see your sales have been increasing. So that's good. My zooms have gone down a little bit btw. I have been keeping my numbers and ratios, not percentages. But you are right it's better to describe zooms/sales as a conversion rate. - It could be argued though, that the real conversion rate is views/sales. I'm certainly keeping those records. I call it CTR for sales. So let's get to work (bored of Photoshop): yr zooms conversion 2007 447 5.8% 2008 837 6.4% 2009 444 13.4% 2010 307 24.1% 2011 307 30% 2012 328 40.9% 2013 424 47.6% 2014 504 36.7% 2015 771 28.4% 2016 922 38.1% 2017 774 40.7% 2018 742 44.6% Sales: 26 in 2007 and 331 in 2018. 2016 has a lower %% but actually a higher sales amount, which is difficult to see for innumerates like me. (2007 is the first year I have kept sufficient numbers.) What we're seeing is at least two things: the growing of the total collection on Alamy hence the massively increased competition, and the changes to/improvement of the search engine. (Keeping the quality of the collection out of the equation.) Let's do my CTR for sales in %% and add that; and for good measure add my CTR numbers as well: Year Z/S=% V/S=% AvCTR TotCTR 2007 5.8% 0.07% 1.15 1.15 2008 6.4% 0.06% 1.17 0.95 2009 13.4% 0.13% 0.31 0.51 2010 24.1% 0.12% 0.39 0.44 2011 30% 0.16% 0.34 0.53 2012 40.9% 0.22% 0.16 0.58 2013 47.6% 0.25% 1.04 0.53 2014 36.7% 0.19% 2.75 0.51 2015 28.4% 0.22% 1.27 0.78 2016 38.1% 0.33% 8.29 0.87 2017 40.7% 0.41% 0.83 1.01 2018 44.6% 0.38% 0.58 0.85 Z/S = Sales to Zooms V/S = Sales to Views And this is where my eyes start to glare over, even more than they already do in the real world. Because there's no nice number that's predicting sales. Every number does have a meaning to me though: No views; no zooms; no sales: this is not your sport. Many views; no zooms; no sales: You're doing something seriously wrong. Maybe just keywording. Probably more than that. Style? Technique? Many views; some zooms; no sales: also something wrong, could be technique or style. Many views; many zooms; no or few sales: definitely style or technique. Many views: some zooms; many sales: you're a perfect match for Alamy. Too many views however will lower your ranking on the page: go shoot popular subjects that return less than 2 pages of images; cut back on keywords. (from a discussion here in 2015 - only it said 5 pages in that last line.) Hmm maybe I'd better get back to Photoshop. 😉 wim

No it doesn't, it's just a color profile. Just weighing colors; saturation and hue differently. However contrast (=a steeper curve) does influence perceived sharpness. If you click on the 4 squares next to the profile's name in ACR (Adobe Color being the default) you can browse all profiles that come with it. Plus the ones you may have saved. If you have your image at 100%, it's easy to see the differences they make in perceived sharpness. Clicking browse does the same btw. wim

I read the Adobe aim/statement as: if you cannot be bothered with setting specific values for each camera body you have, you will probably want a nice crisp image without too much work (fully agreeing with MDM here). The default Adobe Color is a step in that direction also with higher saturation and higher contrast than the old Adobe Standard. And I don't think it's mainly meant for the LR users, because Photoshop users have also felt the need to produce much more saturated and contrasty images because we're now mainly working for the screen. Because even when images will end up on the page, they're picked from a screen. wim