Jump to content

Andy Holmes

Verified
  • Content Count

    75
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

25 Forum reputation = neutral

About Andy Holmes

  • Rank
    Forum newbie

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Gran Canaria

Alamy

  • Alamy URL
    http://www.alamy.com/contrib-browse.asp?cid={8D1A4A92-B83C-473F-94E2-10A695276BC7}&name=Andy+Holmes
  • Images
    484
  • Joined Alamy
    29 Aug 2012
  1. I agree with John Mitchell. I use the free DxO Pro Optics 8 and it's a "professional" package.
  2. I had an image published in an article in the Daily Mail, which was then lifted and reproduced across multiple sites. I'm in a similar position, considering whether to chase these infringements or not. I'll probably put together a standard form e-mail, send it out and see what happens from there.
  3. I'm in a distinct minority here, but I don't think that submitting 4 "safe" images as your initial submission is the best way forward. This initial inspection is the only time where you know that all the images you submit are looked at, and you'll learn far more about QC criteria from a fail than a safe pass, which will pay dividends during your future uploads. Future selective inspections can easily lull you into a false sense of security with faults that just aren't picked up. In addition there's no sin bin delay for initial failures. My advise is to use (but not abuse) the initial submission as a valuable resource, to learn about Alamy QC. Upload what you consider acceptable but borderline, and learn from the QC response.
  4. DxO Optics Pro 8 was offered free for a period when version 10 was rolled out. If you search online, I think you can still find sites offering free downloads.
  5. When I process with my laptop, I have a contrast card bookmarked on my browser and I set the screen angle. As others have said, I also pay great attention to the histogram rather than purely relying on the appearance on the screen. If after processing, the visual image doesn't appear to match the histogram, I'll refer back to the contrast card to check the screen position.
  6. Many thanks for that. Much appreciated. It is via Alamy. It was zoomed last month, so I've been looking out for possible uses online.
  7. Looks to me that you're over thinking this. There is no problem. A RAW file of 20-30MB will typically produce an 8-12MB JPEG. If you were editing the JPEG and re-compressing it, it would be far smaller. If you're worried about the 17MB limit, that's the uncompressed size, not the JPEG size.
  8. There are 2 ways to reclaim VAT. The first is to use official customs forms, checked and stamped at the airport, and return them to the retailer for a full VAT refund. Secondly there's the 3rd party schemes like "tax free for tourists", where you'll get an immediate refund, but not for the full amount. VAT is 20% of the base purchase price, but a full VAT refund equates to a 16.6% reduction in the overall price.
  9. I'm not sure that he does mean that Mick. Bjorn specifically talks about a minimum of 17MB in JPEG format, i.e. compressed. Bjorn, this causes continual confusion with new contributors, but Mark is correct. You can crop your photos significantly before file size becomes a problem. The 17MB limit is uncompressed, not JPEG.
  10. You'll need a good quality temperature controlled soldering iron too, or you'll melt the housing that the cable is connected to. Buying a diaphragm assembly with cable attached, is a little more expensive but makes a DIY job, far easier.
  11. "as to whether or not it's still going to be "a reasonable sum", well " Just like beauty, that's in the eye of the beholder.
  12. "Well, I've been on this forum and its predecessor for many years, and I've seen many, many discussions on this very issue, but I've yet to see the slightest shred of evidence that your assertion (that restrictions on Alamy have affected a compensatory outcome for the misuse of an image represented on Alamy) has ever actually come to pass for an Alamy contributor." I think that you miss my point. Without restrictions, someone can buy a personal use licence for say $10, and misuse it. By placing a restriction on personal use, whether it's to avoid you undercutting yourself elsewhere, concerns over the end use of the image, or just because you don't believe that it values your work sufficiently, the cheapest way to acquire that image becomes more expensive, and your commission rises for each potential misuse. If chasing infringements is a waste of time and money, you can at least console yourself that you received a reasonable sum in the first place.
  13. "In reality, anyone can buy a license of whatever type they want and then go and mis-interpret the licenses conditions in whatever way suits their devious plots. They can then do anything they want with the image. There is no real way to prevent this," This is true, but placing restrictions blocking the cheapest of those licence options, means that at least you are better compensated for each misuse.
  14. "Many events only give accreditation on the basis that images are used on an editorial only basis. I wish I could sell prints but I cannot. The fact that people can still buy these images for personal usage would mean a breach." To date, I haven't had that problem, but it's certainly something to be aware of. It certainly looks like we need more restriction options, to fine tune where our images can, and can't be used.
×
×
  • 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.