Jump to content

riccarbi

Verified
  • Content Count

    69
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

44 Forum reputation = neutral

About riccarbi

  • Rank
    Forum newbie

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    https://www.inexhibit.com

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Cremona, Italy
  • Interests
    architecture, art, food

Alamy

  • Alamy URL
    https://www.alamy.com/contrib-browse.asp?cid={5D1F2E46-39B9-4185-9ACA-AB06B196979D}&name=Riccardo+Bianchini
  • Images
    1097
  • Joined Alamy
    31 Mar 2014

Recent Profile Visitors

495 profile views
  1. Just another good opportunity for Alamy, if they'll be able to grasp it.
  2. I don't want to look cocky whatsoever. But I had a look at your portfolio and many of your pictures, though nice, have a big problem: most of them are askew. I don't know whether this was intentional or not, but I doubt it would be easy to sell a tilted photo, these days.
  3. My fav hotel in Liverpool has always been the Premier Inn at the Albert Dock. Strategic position, reasonably clean, wifi, and generous breakfast... The only drawback is that most of the restaurants at the AD are very touristic and with a rather disappointing price/food quality ratio... Better to walk and find something better elsewhere.
  4. By converting an aRGB to sRGB you'll actually lose color information. The math is quite simple; if you use the same amount of bytes, say 8 bit per channel, for a larger color space (aRGB is larger especially in the green/blue wavelength range) and then you convert the same data to a smaller color range you'll have to compress two different colors into one, sometimes. So two different greens will be forced to merge into one because there are not enough bytes to define both greens in sRGB as you did in aRGB. Converting from ProPhotoRGB to sRGB would be even worse since it has a larger color space than aRGB. A possible workaround is to save all your aRGB or ProPhotoRGB images at 16-bits per channel and then, when needed, converting them to 8-bit-channel sRGB, this way you won't lose (8-bit-channel) color information.
  5. If you have a limited number of bytes for an image, and you used it to fill a broader color space such as aRGB and, thereafter, you convert such information into a narrower color space such as sRGB, you are losing color information, actually. It would have been much better to save the photo in sRGB since the beginning, indeed. That said, at least in my experience, there is not a single printer in the world capable of printing the full-color space, whether sRGB or aRGB. So don't worry about that...
  6. I remember that some years ago I did many experiments on AdobeRGB vs sRGB. Starting from a 16-bit/channel Tiff photo with a broad range of colors, especially red nuances (which are notoriously difficult to print) I printed it again and again for two full days on my hexachromatic HP Print Jet 130NR changing color space, trying different semi-glossy, matt, and glossy photo papers, and so on. I didn't see any difference between converting my picture to 8-bit/channel aRGB or to sRGB. None, nada, zero. What really mattered was how good I was at calibrating the system for different types of paper. Since then, despite the theoretical superiority of aRGB as color space; I'm always saving in sRGB.
  7. There is a BIG difference between taking a photograph of a photo within a "context" (say, at an exhibition, with your photo also showing a part of the gallery space, perhaps some visitors, and so on ) and a photograph of another photo totally separated from its context (namely, setting your lens zoom level to exclude anything but the photo you are depicting or cropping it when editing). IMHO, in the first case, you are documenting an event; in the second case, you are (most times, not always) just trying to circumvent copyright. Furthermore, you must be very clear and detailed in your caption by including the original photographer's name, the title of the picture, the exhibition title, place, and year, and so on; even if there is more than one photo in your picture. Obviously, all photos of that kind should be marked as editorial only. Yet, I admit it's not always easy to tell one scenario from the other. Obviously, it also depends on the quality of your picture, it's almost impossible to create an acceptable "copy" of another photo with your camera without using a tripod, for example. Furthermore, was your shooting close-up intentional or not, did you make it because you wanted to fake you were the original picture's author or just to take a better picture? Who is responsible if you took the photo within a context and the buyer cropped it removing walls, frame, people and so on? What about the caption, are you sure the buyer read it? (it's always better to add an artwork's author and the exhibition details in your photo filename and title. so that nobody can say "I ignored that the photo depicted was actually by..."). Very difficult matter, indeed.
  8. 18 sales, 7 of which in June so far. Not bad at all, considering my small port. Revenues are not extraordinary (that's the photo market, these days) yet I had one $200 sale in April.
  9. As described in the article linked by wiskerke, it all depends on the property rules as well as on national copyright laws which differ substantially from country to country. I can tell you how it works in Italy. 1) If the museum (in its website, in signage, on the ticket) forbids taking photos or allows taking photos for personal use only, you can't take pictures to be sold on Alamy there. 2) If the museum says nothing about the matter, better you ask. Many museums allow taking pictures for editorial use only and have a precompiled form for that. 3) If the museum allows taking photos for any use, you are OK, but only in respect of the property copyright. You are possibly still violating the artist's copyright, which is a different matter and mainly depends on national copyright regulations. 4) In Italy, you are not violating any artist's copyright as long as the artist died more than 70 years ago. You are either not violating the artist's copyright if your picture has artistic value in itself (to judge whether a photo depicting an artwork has also an additional "artistic value" or not is a tricky question, honestly). 5) Certain exhibition events (the Venice Biennale, for example) usually allow taking editorial photos of any artwork on show, as long as you are registered as a press photographer and you'll sell such images for editorial use only (I guess that they have an agreement with the featured artists about that point); yet, at the Biennale, this is true for the two main official exhibitions (at the Arsenale and in the Giardini's Central Pavilion) only, while each national pavilion may have its own, different rules.
  10. I find it a bit surprising, I saw your port and there are many beautiful images there. I have much fewer photos than you here, and I've already had sixteen sales, this year; it sounds to me strange you haven't had a single one, so far. Yet, I have some things to ask you and/or point out: 1) You said you use three other agencies, including a Microstock one, in addition to Alamy. If you have the same photo on sale on both Alamy and a Microstock agency, you'll hardly sell it on Alamy, since the prices are usually higher than Microstock's. 2) You have many interesting and original pictures in your port; yet, you have also many other pictures which are more "generic". In my very personal experience, a photo usually sells better on Alamy if it has a unique and clearly identifiable subject. 3) Your pictures have bit-too-short titles and too few keywords; I'd suppose they could sell much better with longer and more detailed titles and more keywords.
  11. Hi Bryan. My opinion is that depends on the subject. I see you have many travel photos in your portfolio. Possibly, most magazines and newspapers have already completed their travel/ Summer-holiday articles by late-May and, therefore, they don't buy many travel images in June. Usually, June is a good month for me, but my sales are almost exclusively restricted to pictures of special events rather than monuments, architecture, travel destinations and so on.
  12. Almost all my photos are marked "sell for editorial only". I mostly take pictures of artworks and buildings and, also when they do not include people, in many countries you must have a property release to sell pictures of architecture and art. Moreover, it's not always easy to understand what type of release you exactly need in each country and whether the subject is copyrighted or not; in Italy, for example, it depends on how many years have passed since the death of the artist or architect who created the work you are depicting while in the USA you don't need a release in order to take and sell pictures of a building from a public place; therefore, I deem better to always check the "editorial only" box. Furthermore, I am not interested in selling my pictures for commercial use and/or advertising.
  13. 1 for $44 gross. Below average (in May 2018, I had 2 sales for $90 with half the pictures I have now in my port); but at least I had a CTR of 2%...
  14. I agree this could be extremely useful in certain cases, like a football match (you previously know the players of each team, presumably), and even in a museum (of which you already know what's in the collection). By and large, it is always useful when you have previous information about what you are going to picture, or when you frequently take photos at the same subject in different contexts (i.e. football stars, showbiz celebrities, politicians, and so on). Unfortunately, this method would be largely useless in my case. As in many special exhibitions of contemporary art, you already know some details (the venue, the city, the name of the artists featured, for example) but most of the artworks on view are totally new, artworks which have never been displayed before; furthermore, the exhibitors always keep their artwork list as secret as they can (I read all their official press release in advance and they never mention a single artwork's title). That's why I always prepare a lot of keywords in advance that many pictures will arguably share and which I can cut and paste in seconds (such as: Venice, Art, Biennale, 2019, Venice Biennale, Biennial, exhibition, Arsenale, Arsenal, exhibition, British Pavilion, and other 40 or 50 of them....). Yet, I still have to check and write a lot of details I can't prepare beforehand such as work's title, year, owner, technique, main color, media, type of artwork (sculpture, sculptural installation, painting, drawing, video-art, photograph. mixed-media, audio-visual, ...), ownership, and so on; moreover I have to check if there are special copyright conditions and /or attributions I have to comply with or which prevent me to sell my picture (and that's a pain in the neck, every time). To do that in a couple of minutes, would mean to make a mess, believe me. Contemporary art is a very specific niche, I know; with its own odd rules.... Nevertheless, thank you for your suggestion; for other subjects, I'll certainly give Photomechanic a look.
×
×
  • 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.