Jump to content

Andy Holmes

Verified
  • Content Count

    75
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Andy Holmes

  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.
  15. "I'd agree it is a bit low, and there should be a way of restricting it, the current restrictions don't seem to allow this without affecting something else - unless I'm missing something? Perhaps Alamy could confirm, or add the ability to restrict just this personal use." I can't see a way of achieving that either. That's why I started the other thread. I was hoping that someone with more experience in this area could point me in the right direction. If Alamy doesn't respond here, I'll have to contact member services for advise.
  16. "Andy, I have some images in both stock and POD but my criteria for selection is different and even when I put the same image in both places I usually make the POD one an altered image, so if someone liked the POD one, they wouldn't find the exact same one if they knew where to look on a stock site, and they probably wouldn't want to hang it on their wall." Thanks for that Mick. My photography doesn't really lend itself to artist effects, but I might consider it when adding new work. "I haven't considered restricting personal file downloads here (if it's possible), and I have seen photographers with their own websites who allow digital downloads of full res files for personal use, on trust of course, but not for $15!" Which is really the point. I'm not looking to restrict personal licencing on principle, or because of potential breach of licence conditions. I just think that the personal licence is too cheap for the size of file offered.
  17. "It may draw a few admiring glances in your house, but in a restaurant it has much more time in the limelight,and might even attract customers, so it would have more value for the buyer." I fully accept that art in commercial premises can enhance the business, so should attract a higher licence fee. It was more to do with the scale of the difference (mostly the low cost of the personal licence) that I was trying to point out.
  18. "True, but that's not home/personal use though is it? How often do you get full calculator price as well." Alp, I appreciate that, but the difference is still astounding. I wasn't trying to infer anything about fraudulent use, just pointing out the difference in cost of licencing art for a house, and for a restaurant.
  19. Danny, I don't intend to remove images from licencing completely, but am considering trying to place a restriction on personal use. If there is so little crossover, there should be little risk to income, compared to the upside of higher POD sales.
  20. Don't spend it all at once According to the price calculator, shop / restaurant indoor decoration/ display, 1 use, full size, UK, 5 years was 765€, whereas personal / home use was 10€ under the same preconditions. That's a massive difference.
  21. "Prices for a full-size image (the only size option) vary: e.g. USA $20; UK $15; Canada $10 (Yikes!), etc." That was exactly my reaction, when I looked too.
  22. Thanks all for your thoughts. @Martin. I don't know if you've used restrictions, but it's regulated by a series of drop down boxes with limited options to select from. I can easily see why implementing such moral choices, would be difficult to express. Restricting a specific sector should in principle, be far simpler. @Philippe, thanks for taking the time to come over and comment. To a certain extent, undercutting myself is only part of the problem. I'm not sure that I'm overly happy to hand over a 50MB file capable of printing large poster sizes, for half (or less through a distributor) of €10, whether they've seen my POD offerings to compare against, or not. @ Danny, I understand that in principle they're serving different markets, but there definitely is crossover. So long as you're aware of the relatively low licencing fees, and are happy with them, there's no problem. From my perspective though, just as with the newspaper scheme, I'm not convinced that this is valuing my work adequately, so I'm examining my options.
  23. Does anyone that has images, simultaneously on stock and POD sites, place any restrictions on stock usage for personal use ? If so how do you do it ? The reason that I ask, is that after reading a discussion thread on another site, it appears that an artist lost out on a sale because the buyer bought an RM image much cheaper than the artist's mark up on POD. Out of curiosity I looked at Alamy's RM prices for personal use, and was surprised to find that 50MB files were available for €10 for personal use. Now I can't control a buyer purchasing a competitors image, but I can control me competing against myself. I've never used restrictions before, but it appears that I can specify personal use only, but can't make a restriction, excluding personal use. Any help on whether or how to proceed, would be much appreciated.
  24. Only free for a small number of images. Go over and you pay. Allan Not strictly true in that you can have as many as you like for free, but they only allow a certain number (25?) to be printed on demand direct through them. Anything else is "contact artist to arrange sale." I've just tried to upload my 26th image and been blocked until I delete an uploaded image or pay up. If you think about it, you could have 24 images with prices set, and whenever a customer contacted you directly, you could put prices on that image to sell it, then take them off again to make room for the next enquiry.
×
×
  • 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.