peterjones

A 30 second Google search confirmed this: SPA= Sanus per Aquam translated as Health through Water. As a word spa could be derived from the Latin "spargere" to scatter, sprinkle or moisten" I frequently use the search engines for my keywording if I am unsure. HTH.

I note that Glover & Howe are "underwritten" by the Sterling Insurance Group; any broker is only as good as the insurance company they represent luckily Sterling have a good record in the trade particularly in the settling of claims.

I confess to having yo-yoed from despondency (e.g. when Alamy dropped the commission rate) to elation when an image sells for loads of £££££s; sometimes boredom or demotivation sets in when sales are lacklustre, in the end I guess everything else being equal sales can be periodic or not depending entirely on your mix of images; if indeed a collection largely consists of "scenic" or "touristy" shots then there are going to be times when buyers aren't looking for those pictures. In the end some of the best advice I have received in this forum is to try to have as much variety as possible in a collection with keywording as excellent as can be; after over 5 years in this business and towards 5000 images I feel that I am only beginning to get it something like nearly right. G'luck, Peter.

QC turnaround fine with me.

The guidance on here for submitting your first four images has always been a conservative view: take your images in excellent light using the optimum aperture for your lens (some call it the "sweet spot" often around f/9) using a tripod and obtain technically excellent images which you then check over with a fine toothcomb for errors such as CA, sensor dust etc. After many submissions you get a feel for what QC may or may not fail and then you can become more adventurous but still staying with QC criteria. Peter

Thanks for the link; absolutely hilarious critiques maybe from people who have been believing camera club judges far too much .....

........................... deleted.

The mileage allowance is £0.45 per mile up to the first 10,000 business miles pa not £0.44. I am sure that Alamy contributors who hold down full time jobs with HMRC must be reading this thread with wide open eyes and great interest. Peter.

I wonder that one of two of the posts have put you off? ..... pity! G'luck, Peter.

If there is one thing that we photographers love to do is to vastly overcomplicate matters grrrrrrrr. "De minimis non curat lex" UK law does not concern itself with trifles and a few quid is not going to start a full blown HMRC investigation; so back to basics: tell HMRC what you are up to asap; do keep records in order that you can justify everything you may enter into your books be it income or expenses; if you have any doubt and can't yet justify the expense of an accountant ask the Revenue, they can be very informative; if you have a doubt and wonder if something can be claimed ask the Revenue! Do enrol on HMRC's self employment and self assessment courses; I found both very helpful; finally the word that came up time and time again when I attended my courses was "reasonable" I would also add "justifiable"; when I upload my 2012/13 self assessment very shortly to the Revenue if necessary I can justify every figure. I am NOT an accountant; my opinions are just the result of my experiences with the Revenue, loads and tons of research and a very useful long relationship with an accountant. G'luck, Peter.

I wish you all and all at Alamy a very Happy Christmas and Peaceful New Year. Thanks to all those who were a great help to others especially those who took the trouble to post published images. Peter.

Undoubtedly everything else being equal your heirs will enjoy the income until your collection withers on the vine; all your images on HD(s) Ctrl A ..... "DELETE"

I was contemplating buying the 55-200 for my X-Pro 1; thanks to the mixed opinions I won't bother; sorry Fuji you have lost my business especially with respect to:

The Fuji system (I have an X-Pro 1 and X100) is great in terms of file quality and so intuitive and easy to use; I am also delighted that Fuji are supporting discontinued models as I didn't rush to upgrade to a X100s; very many thanks for the updates.

In the end one does whatever one does and hopefully suits the image; in your pictures I prefer the unadorned image as I don't think that the vignette suits the subject and the flower details seem better exposed but that is only my opinion and not absolutely right as another will undoubtedly demur. I wonder with nature shots a leaf can be taken out of our "amateur" bethren's book: they apply as little change to the image as possible? For me I will carry out such post processing that I think that suits the subject including if necessary vignetting; I have never noticed QC raising eyebrows over such. Peter.

Film is undoubtedly far more tactile than digital, the use of film involves so many processes that involves human contact much more so than digital, film is also delightfully retro which makes it very special compared to DI; add the attribute that there is an excited wait for the results be it waiting for the return of your film/ processing the negatives or watching the appearance of a print in the developer there is no surprise that film has a faithful following. I know two/three "amateurs" who have shed all their DI kit in favour of film gear. Many young people are also enjoying using film, already they are fed up with time in front of a screen and many schools' extra curricular darkroom clubs are well subscribed. You could as many have said adopt the mind of a film shooter when shooting digital; I think that depends on you; some digital shooters use the mud on the wall principle others take a more considered approach Whatever approach you take is right for you but wrong for the next person; luckily the choice is yours. Perhaps in the end you could try the tri-approach of: Shoot for dough (use digital) Shoot for show (use digital or film) Shoot for self (use film) For me I will stay put with digital photography. Peter.

Since 2008 I am still learning this stock business & these forums are one of the most valuable assets in than learning curve particularly now that the more emotional responses in the main seem to be history; I suggest upload loads of images in terms of variety & quality; images that answer one, some or all of the 5 Ws: who, what, where, why & when? Don't have may similars as these adversely affect your Alamy ranking and keep those keywords accurate and succinct though some contributors may argue against the latter .... I am lazy! Remember that currently global and local search engines generally ( ignore tineye and google images for our purposes as contributors) do not "see" images only key words; also remember to upload images that buyers may use to illustrate a point. http://www.dphotoexpert.com/2010/12/31/thirty-keys-to-stock-photography/ is a good primer. I really must heed some of my own and other's advice sometime. G'luck, Peter.

And another vote for the Fuji stable from me using an X-Pro 1 + 18/55 + 14mm and X100. Peter.

I agree with JG; street photography per se no; street photography that makes a point that a buyer might want to make yes however even some of my "street" has sold and I never head or pay attention to rules, unwritten or otherwise.

100% for me too in the last year so a very positive sign.

Bank Transfer for me, I am unsure why anyone in the UK would want to use Paypal if BACs is an option particularly because Paypal can play up occasionally.

Many thanks for finding; a quick look reveals three of mine on the site under Catalogue -> Collections -> Alamy, -> England -> Bath: what gives Alamy? Peter.

definitely via Alamy, very many thanks SShep. Peter

I thought "losdemas" I wrote that 17000 was the last figure that I had heard of not fact; I wonder if Alamy can confirm there are some 34,000 contributors?