Jump to content

Steve Valentia

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Steve Valentia

  1. Just in; Country: Worldwide, Usage: Editorial, Media: Editorial website, Industry sector: General business services, Image Size: Any size, Start: 01 November 2018, End: 01 November 2023, Serbia, Web, One month, Bulk Discount, Flat Rate: $3.16 Merry Christmas!
  2. I have 4 reasons for doing it right away. 1. I had some spare time on my hands right now (the lull before Christmas - less emails and hands-on work (magazine articles done, etc). 2. Leaving it until next year may mean I get caught up with teaching, assignments and stock shooting. 3. I'm old and close to senile (which actually only literally means being over 65), so it could slip my mind if I wait too long. 4. ...I can't remember what the 4th reason is.
  3. First of all...I think we need to be clear and have a consensus on what actually happened a few weeks back, otherwise any momentum we might have as contributors could be eroded. I've seen lots of disagreement about the commission "cut" for example on Youtube, with some participants not even able to agree on the meaning of the word "cut". Some used it to mean "commission" or "share" while others used it to mean "reduction". My view is that Alamy did not announce a 20% cut in commission. They announced a 10% reduction of the 50% commission being paid to contributors. The mathematicians here may argue that 10% of the 50% being received is a 20% cut, but to my simple brain it's not a 20% cut in commission. That was 10%, from 50% to 40%. Anyway... Changes I would like to see in the contract, are twofold: 1) A good start would be to let us see precisely where our images are being published. 2) Tied to this, I would like the right to show this to DACS without having to cough up 50% (or maybe even 60%) of an income to which Alamy don't even have a legitimate claim. As it is now, I claim DACS without involving Alamy at all. However, I know that my claim would be bigger if I could cite all of my publications (including the Alamy driven ones) and not just the ones I find myself.
  4. They made their own bed and they should lie in it. Personally, I think Alamy owe its loyal contributors (and that's not necessarily everyone) more than a "gamed" system. A good start would be to let us see where our images are being published. Tied to this, the right to show this to DACS without having to cough up 50% (or maybe even 40%) of an income to which Alamy don't even have a legitimate claim.
  5. Thanks, as I said, I asked about 2 hours ago; to do it again would be bordering on pushy and I'm too polite for that. I'm doing it by year (one year has over 2000 images in it). I've discovered that AIM will only change 500 images max at a time. So, a tip for others, is to watch the total selected image number tot up, on the top LH side of the page. If it get over 500, deselect some of the submission in the LH column, until you have less than 500 images. I'm currently up to 2007. 5 years to go!
  6. I got it. I replied to it. Nothing happened. I've been with Alamy since 2004 and totally loyal (not that it's done me much good). Not only am I struggling to re-keyword thousands of images that had more than 50 key words (prior to the new AIM) and many of those had totally useless ones - owing to me being stupid enough to employ a key wording service recommended by Alamy, some years ago - I now have to take time to tick the "exclusive" box on 7000 images. I'm doing the exclusive box batching by year. When I right-click all of the individual boxes on the left, I'm then given several batches of images, each batch needs to have a "select all passed" box checked before I can click and save the check box. I have, on average, 100 of these per year (which totals around 1400 check boxes plus the same number of left hand boxes - those can be done with a shift click, but not the check boxes. I'm currently up to 2015. This could be a long day.
  7. For those who suggested ( @spacecadet ) or thought that Contributor Services may be able to help with checking the "exclusive to Alamy" box, especially for large numbers of images; here's the reply I got to my request this morning: You can mark your images as exclusive by ticking the 'only available on Alamy' box under the 'optional' tab in the image manager. You can do this in batches by selecting multiple submissions in the left hand column using the 'shift' key and then ticking 'select all passed'.
  8. I find some of your comments lacking in pre-thought. Some of us have been here before the new AIM, and the old one did not allow for images to be marked as exclusive. So, there's "silly" (as in your comment) and there's "we had no choice".
  9. Didn't work for me. Only the first 500 were selected. This could be as much of a pain as re-key-wording a few thousand images from a while back that were over-key worded by a "service" in India I paid to do it (Mal Paso, as Clint Eastwood might say). Any suggestion on how to do it without the help of a bug would be great. I wish I'd been a bit more diligent initially - almost all of my 7K+ images are not elsewhere.
  10. Yes, and my head says that too. My heart says...that photo and your experience and ability is worth at least 10 times more.
  11. Only my 2nd sale of the month. First is above (well into $$$) and this is at the other end of the scale. $5.03 for a print sale (10 x 8 inches). My first ever. I'd be interested in the thoughts of others on this stream - is it worth it?
  12. If your market is truly "niche", then there is scope for you to become your own agent and cut out the middle man. Build up your portfolio - with quality images, and a good number of them. Then (and I suggest you do the photography first) research your niche markets. I've gone into more details about this another thread, but there are publications and organizations out there that are geared for this sort of work. Find your markets and target them directly.
  13. Sorry, but that's not very logical. 1) Buyers will see the photo before they see the "optional information" (how many people are in it, officially. 2) Putting "woman alone" in the keywords, will help them will find it. 3) if there are other people in the image with your wife; she's not really alone.
  14. I'm not sure that it does miss the point; or why it's a problem stating how many people (rendered as pinkish blobs or perfectly sharp) you have in your image. If the buy uses the WOP (without People) code to search for an image, then I would doubt they'd be happy with even pinkish humanoid-shaped blobs in the background, so showing you have people of any description would avoid erroneous views or zooms, which could reduce your ranking. If you show that there are people in the image, but they may not be the main subject (e.g. pigeon shots), they may or may not prove to be a problem for the buyer. Who knows how buyers think. I can't even fathom why Alamy themselves promote some of the images on the website and in blogs! But, at least you'll be alerting the buyer to potential copyright issues - and it's for them (not you) to decide if that will render the image unusable. Personally, I just add up the out-of-focus faces and stray hands and feet at the edges of the frame (which also count as "people"); and tell myself that even after all this time; I could be a better photographer.
  15. I am experiencing a number of Processing Errors, with submission to the Live News feed. I had one today (10 minutes ago) and another in the early hours of this morning, both the same set of images, via AIM, on my desktop – it has never failed previously in several years. I have also had some when using a mobile app in the last month. I'm using (as always) the IPTC "Headline" and "Caption" metadata fields with the "Alamy Plus" metadata set in Lighroom, on the desktop. For the mobile uploads the Lightroom apps does not have the "headline" field and I used the "title" one, which I understand works. Any suggestions as to why this is happening, are welcome.
  16. That's been happening to me for over 30 years. Send an editor 5 of your most outstanding images, plus a "filler" for the half-dozen, and they'll print the filler! It's just one of those unfathomable laws of publishing. On the obverse side of that coin, as someone (for the last 7 years) involved in a well-known UK camera magazine; I've known page layouts of amazing images by a single photographer to be responded to with a request to change them for other, very mediocre shots. Go figure.
  17. As a semi-retired person (and professional photographer for 40 years), I currently have more time to devote to stock photography than I have had since I joined Alamy in 2004. My rate of submissions have increased dramatically in the last 2 years, along with my rate of sales and income (although it's not close to a living-wage by any means). For the first 11 months of this year, I worked hard to improve this situation and planned to do even more about it 2019. However, I can say that I have not felt more annoyed, disappointed and let-down by anything in years than I was by James West's @Alamy rambling and unconvincing video posted yesterday, basically informing us of his (in my view, totally misguided) decision to poop all-over his loyal contributors. I sold my first photograph (a 10x8 B/W print) to a magazine at the end of the 1970's, for more than I got for an Alamy sale last week. But, I have continued to show my faith in the company, because I considered it to be more reputable and more concerned about contributors than many of its competitors. But, now, it's time for a change, I think. When I sold that first image, there were only a few picture agencies around and they were extremely difficult to join. I remember selling a few 6x6cm transparencies to Tony Stone and others, but no one took me on as a regular contributor. So, I sold most of my work by direct contact with the "market" (book publishers, magazines, calendar companies etc). I spent many hours a week sending stiff-back envelopes with slide sheets and 10x8 prints all over the UK and abroad. The rest of the time was spent researching markets using 'Artists & Writers Year Book'; 'Photographer's Markets Annual' and the 'BFP' newsletters. Things are much easier now. Buyers are contactable by email. Images can be submitted via the cloud and a simple URL link. So, it occurs to me: Why not go back to "knocking on doors"? Cut out the middle-man and make the initial contact with potential buyers myself? Maybe not all of the time, and maybe not exclusively, but enough for me to stop being upset that my loyalty to Alamy for the last 14 years was totally misplaced. Take back the reins and become an architect of my own stock photo destiny. If enough of us do that, James may re-think his decision. But, if he doesn't (as I expect), we may not care as much. Stephen Power Associate Editor, Cameracraft Magazine
  18. Just got my first sale of December: Worldwide, web advertisement, media and publishing. Nice $$$ fee. Also, it's the 9th time this image has sold in the last 12 months. It's an 8th Century treasure that was found in a field half a mile from where I lived for 11 years. So, I'm hoping for 11 sales before the end of 2018!
  19. Don't know about you, but at my age every reminder to check something is valuable. Is that gas....????
  20. I've not had a QC fail for about 6 years (thankfully) and I'm submitting at least once a week. I have a *** QC rating and I usually expect the Good News email within 24 hours. However, for the previous 3 submissions I've noticed that the email lags behind the actual "Congratulations" notice on AIM, sometimes by up to 2 days. Case in point, today, after uploading at the weekend I had no email, but when I looked on AIM my images had passed. Is anyone else experiencing this?
  21. Thank you. I hadn't seen it, I was expecting it to be posted in the same thread (I'm not always on the forum - too busy key-wording! ) It was nice to be shortlisted.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.