Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Duncan_Andison

  1. Just checked one of my St. Croix images.  Underneath, well over 80 images and only 4 of them mine.  I have at least 300 St. Croix images. Would be nice if under my main zoomed image, all of those underneath were mine, since I can easily fill that space.


    That is going to drive customers crazy. I mean, they've just searched through hundreds of images potentially and picked one to look at...... that gets lost amongst 80 other images?!?!? The volume of similar images is way out of control, as is there size. They also need to be more relevant.

  2. And on what basis do they select the similars on the zoom page.....????

    Is there some poor soul selecting them manually? Come on, it's bullshit! Doesn't serve anyone.


    Did some more tests:

    "Ile de Ré island France" Guess what pictures comes up ....... World Trade Center / Niedersachsen / Salisbury cathedral / Red Square in Moscow / ... Anybody see the connection 'cause I don't  :wacko: 

    "city Ghent Belgium" Guess what pictures comes up ....... Sydney Harbour Bridge / Beijing, China / Blackpool illuminations / .... Anybody see the connection 'cause I don't   :wacko: 

    'blood pressure elderlyGuess what pictures comes up ....... lady drinking her midday sherry / hands checking calendar / .... Anybody see the connection 'cause I don't. Hell, "blood pressure" isn't even the keywords  :wacko: 


    Well done! I'm impressed  :angry:





    While I said I had no problem with similar images being displayed, I was of course assuming the similar images were indeed similar and relevant  :D


    If the above searches are representative of the whole system, then it should be stopped until it does work..... and, that the similar images are at least 50% smaller than the Zoomed image. Some examples I've seen show similar images that look the same size / bigger than the zoomed image due to the similar being Portrait instead of Landscape! This is not right and takes away attention from the zoomed image.


    Insufficient testing before implementation?!?

    • Upvote 1

  3. Come on guys/girls, if their images turn up underneath your results, your images will show up under their results.

    Any which way you compute this, the other results will be more than yours alone. So your images will show up under more searches.


    The only thing you will now have to do is to make sure yours are better.




    +1 No problems with seeing similars


    That said, I think they need to slim down the volume. One I checked had 27 more images under mine and made it look very confused, which is not good from a customers perspective. Restrict it to 4-8 with a link to "See More" otherwise the "Zoom Page" starts to look messy and confusing.


    Or, make the thumbnails a little smaller and have 1 row of 8 similar images from the same artist and 1 row of 8 from other artists..... this is how it is managed at other libraries and if kept to an acceptable size, will not look overly distracting as it does now (with a massive 27 other images :-)


    Edit. Thumbnails definitely need shrinking, they're too similar in size to the zoomed image, which should be the main focus of the page.

    • Upvote 1



    I'll hold out for the X-T2. I expect it to have the same sensor as the Pro2. Then my T1 will become the backup.

    Me too. The X-pro users I know of pretty well all use the EVF exclusively, so why pay a premium for a hybrid finder? It doesn't make sense unless you only shoot short primes, and then you only have to put up with the horrendous parallax close up!
    Agreed. The only prime I have is the 56. I love my zooms.

    On another note, the 100-400 has also been released, a lens I've waited for along with the macro. But it is very pricey. I'll wait until some time passes and view images taken with it, read opinions from users like me, and hope for a price drop.


    Oops. Thought it was released. Guess not.

    Reviews of the lens looks good. Stacks up with the 50-140. Yippee! Looks like it might ship in Feb.



    Yeah, I could get the Canon 100-400mkii for more or less that and the resale value will hold up better. I'll see how it goes, love the 50-140 and if it's the same quality it will be great but cost wise, I could be tempted to stick the Canon 100-400mkii on the A7rii as the AF works well with it. The added bulk of the Metabones adapter isn't an issue as neither rig is really a walk-about lens  :D


    I'm also waiting on the X-T2 and only then will I decide which camera to go for for my backup camera. I really want to see if Fuji now allow ALL NR to be switched off and not just lowered.

  5. Odd, I am running 2015.0.0 (not updated to very latest version) and it runs very quickly. Only other thing would be the scratch disk but if the same one is dedicated to both versions.....that wouldn't seem to be the problem. I'm on a clean install of W10 with programs on a SSD...the latter may be disguising a software slowdown??


    Also running the latest 2015 CC Photoshop but on a Macbook Pro and it runs as fast as you like.


    If it helps, It's also on a SSD, dual graphics card, 16gb ram & i7 chipset 2.5GHz. I haven't changed any settings from install and as a rule, it finishes processing before I've even pressed go. Which probably means it will stop working now  :mellow:

  6. Seems the courts have changed their minds



    Shame on Peta and Wikipedia. If this is how they use their donations, to fight over monkey copyright, they won't be seeing any money from me. Better to give to people and organizations who work to improve the lives of animals.


    +1 When they say they're fighting for animal rights. What they mean (in this instance) , "We're fighting for the right to grab a hold of someone else's  money".  


    PETA's weekly board meeting - We could grab some of that hard working guys money as the monkey took the shot....Oh, right, the monkey isn't subject to our laws, damit..... never mind, we'll waste $m's of dollars (of other peoples money) fighting a lost cause with the vain hope we may get even more money for us....errr..... I mean for the monkey of course!


    Next thing we'll hear is the monkey is up in court for theft of the camera!



    Perhaps the exceptionately low price derived from the fact that it was an RF image being licensed for "one time use only." If so, it would be a good argument for sticking with RM on Alamy.


    It's not because it's RF. I've had several RF sales over the last month ranging from $120 to $200+. In fact, over the last month and a bit, I've had mainly RF sales, only 5 RM and I've had one of my strongest spells at Alamy for a while. Apart from a couple of $7 ones, they've all been decent prices



    Interesting to hear this. I've never licensed an RF image on Alamy. But then I have very few RF images on Alamy (or anywhere else). Actually, I was thinking that the buyer might have been able to negotiate the low price because Bryan's image was RF and they wanted only one-time usage. But that theory has been debunked since the same buyer apparently licensed RM images as well.



    I have to admit, I've been pleasantly surprised by the $'s for RF from Alamy and hopefully it will continue that way!

  8. Perhaps the exceptionately low price derived from the fact that it was an RF image being licensed for "one time use only." If so, it would be a good argument for sticking with RM on Alamy.


    It's not because it's RF. I've had several RF sales over the last month ranging from $120 to $200+. In fact, over the last month and a bit, I've had mainly RF sales, only 5 RM and I've had one of my strongest spells at Alamy for a while. Apart from a couple of $7 ones, they've all been decent prices



    I saw a research report recently that said roughly 75% of stock photos sold these days are now RF. Makes me wonder the Rm/RF strategy going forward. Alamy sells RF so if one doesn't want the microstock sites to sell RF then Alamy might be the choice.


    I wonder if the reason may be that balance between RF and RM is even higher in RF direction? I mean in general there is more RF images than RM and this may cause the 75%...

    Nope, it's that clients are now preferring to use more and more RF. Every survey that I have seen from buyers is telling us that - US Graphic design one recently. One reason is that more clients now need to use an image through multiple media channels which makes RF more suitable. Image use is changing and one license is becoming more usable for a lot of clients.

    Yeah, the number of platforms for image use etc now would mean RM is quite expensive. If it is a major campaign with plenty of $'s in the budget then great, otherwise RF can be a lot more appealing.


    Also, how many book /magazine editors have asked you for total exclusive rights over an image?!? They do happen but these days with tighter budgets, I'd imagine they will be a fewer in number. On this basis the balance of RM & RF should weigh in RF favour. Keep the very best / rare images as RM and the rest for RF. That said, to do well now the "Rest" have to be very good as well. We need to constantly improve on what we do and keep ahead of the chasing pack :-)

    • Upvote 1

  10. Hi Duncan!  the only way you are ever going to get a price justifying the usage or whatever, nowadays is what I posted in the other forum ( you know the one)  is when a creative buyer scouts around for a client, might be exclusive-rights, copyright sales as the buyer I had looking for a pic to use in a world-wide logo-type.


    Why?  simply because they have no option but to pay, no matter the cost, the pic must simply be exclusive, period. Also when you have ad-agency creatives, art-directors buying etc, money is seldom an object.


    A pal of mine, AD at O&M is right now looking for a stone statue of an old man draped in snow and is prepared to pay 5K for it. How about that???  he could most probably find that in any old agency BUT he wants the copyright, etc.


    In August I did a Land-rover shoot, latest Defender ( 15 year old client), the budget for the shoot was mega big, around, 50K, models, props, this, that and only a day shoot. This they don't mind paying for, same client I told a few month's earlier to use a stock-agency just for fill-out pics in an annual for a meager, $.70 per shot. He thought that was too expensive, HA!


    There is no way you can win, prices have just been slashed too much and going down and agencies are finding all sorts of ways to save payouts to contributors ( not alamy ) but the micros, one of the leading ones are pushing down higher royalty-members in the search-engine, another one is pushing subs-packages instead of credit-sales.


    Talk about some day, this will all backfire on them and we wake up on a Monday morning just to find they've gone out of business.


    all the best Duncan.


    Good to hear from you Chris! Yeah, no agency is ever going to compete with client based work :-) Emailed ya by the way!


    The day we find an agency that can be trusted 100% will be the day hell freezes over (sorry Alamy). They all have too many agendas, shareholders and investors etc who want more and more of the pie!


    In fairness, most have been doing really well of late and that includes Alamy..... cheers Alamy, credit where credits due!!

  11. You make the assumption that buyers in Alamy's main editorial markets have the time to go search every micro to see if they can get it cheaper. Well even if they did have the time (they generally don't), they might well be in a scheme or have discount access that doesn't make micro any cheaper. Also their time is money, so the cheap alternative maybe isn't all that cheap when you factor in ALL their costs.


    Alamy made the decision some time back to allow this to happen, it was a positive decision. Don't forget that Alamy were (still are?) members of the biggest indie microstock forum. They knew exactly what the score was. Indeed, ever noticed how they have often used microstockers as examples in their PR/blogs.


    Agree. The cost of imagery now is often cheaper than the time it takes to look for it in the first place (if you waste time looking everywhere).


    Secondly, Joe Blogs image finder is not entirely bothered if it costs a little  more here when the majority of what they do need is here. It isn't worth buying a subs / credit packages with numerous different agencies as it offsets minimal savings elsewhere. Besides, it's often not their money but it is their time and they have to meet their bosses deadlines!

    • Upvote 1

  12. NAS (personal cloud) is the way to go. If you can afford it get RAID duplexed disks.




    1x 4/5 bay NAS setup as RAID 1. You will have two disks for storage and the other two back them up. This protects agains disk failure. This will be the main storage system.

    1x 4/5 bay NAS as RAID 5. Use this to backup the above RAID NAS ideally with different disks to the main system. This protects against hardware failure and major disk failures due to manufacture faults. RAID 5 is slower but will give you more space and as it's only used as backup and won't to store additional data, does't really matter. You could backup two main system NAS drives in affect.


    Store copies of all images asJpgs on external solid state storage something like SSD drives, bluray disks etc. They have no mechanical parts to fail and can be stored in a separate location in a small fire proof safe if necessary. Protects against theft and fire at the main location. SSD's are great, getting a lot cheaper and very small.


    Back to the original question: Why sell RM?


    I assume that everyone here wants to maximize their long-term income from their images. If you believe RM does that better than RF can you please explain how?

    You have the answer in your question ;)

    RM will bring the long-term income ... because it's RM.


    Anna is buying your image as RF and she uses it everywhere she wants, forever. Pays you once and never come's back for the same image. You can multiply it for xxxx clients.

    Maria is buying the image as RM specific license and she uses it once in detailed way. If she wants to use it again next year or next project, she must comes back and pay again... You can multiply the scheme for xxxx clients.


    Let's say in both cases the number of clients who buy your file is limited to the same number... Can you see the difference in long-term income now?



    Anna see's you image as RM, she may need to use it more than once. It is a common subject and there are plenty of images of a similar subject matter. Your RM or someone else's RF... the RF wins as it has the flexibility of reuse as many times as she wants.


    Anna see's you image as RM, she may need to use it more than once. It's a hard to find subject matter and there isn't really a suitable image elsewhere that matches her requirements. Your RM wins and you protect it from over use and get an extra licence laster on down the line.


    Use both systems to your own advantage.... Otherwise, RM could also mean NO income  ;)  :D

    • Upvote 2



    Sorry, indeed my mistake. I only did look at the first few pages of your port which are almost all RF and thus gave me that wrong impression.

    I certainly didn't mean to be derogatory. I DON'T look down on RF, it's just not my cup of tea, I'm just sick and tired of people (and I don't mean you) who give the impression that RF is the way to go and preferably elsewhere.


    Robert always implies that commercial RFs are the way to make money (elsewhere) and the rest is just for amateurs. THAT's derogatory! Sure, commercial photography will bring in more bucks than editorial, but not everybody is interested in this kind of shooting. There's more in life than money. But implying that editorial RM is just for amateurs trying to save enough for buying a new lens from time to time is absolute bullshit. 






    No worries, I thought that was the case :D .


    Most know I do a lot of RF elsewhere and I enjoy that, it pays the bills and I have fun doing it but, Alamy is still an important part of my future business plan, I may not have submitted much over the last year (if you're reading, Sorry Alamy  ;) ) but that will change soon as I do love getting out from the studio capturing images for them. I wouldn't want to sacrifice one for the other as you say, the money just allows us to do the things we love. All I need is 48 hour day to fit everything in  :D

    • Upvote 2

  15. I believe each of us have different experience and expectations, as different images and style (different client at the end). In my photo sell experience I've noticed that it's better to sell RM (like Philippe's). Others will do better with selling RF. Why fight for the rights? ;)


    Dbooksta (and all other newbies), test your ground, try both and make your conclusions after two years (one is nothing in macro sales).


    Exactly. There is no hard and fast rules. The images you take / create will dictate the licence you use as will cost of capturing the image. Don't set expensive imagery as RF if it isn't going to sell in high numbers. There are so many variables involved and unfortunately, there is a lot to learn with very few right / wrong yes/no answers.

    • Upvote 2



    I only used RF on pictures that are not special at all and are probably found in many portfolios (i.e. flowers, trees, ...). 

    I believe that RF can be purchased and then re-sold, without me getting any further royalties - so I will use RF only on images where I do not care.


    Anything else is RM - specially where I do not have property and model releases (which I rarely have or can provide) - but these need to be RM anyways. 


    It doesn't matter what anyone believes, it's facts that matter. The fact, for instance, that most RF license agreements specifically forbid reselling, or enabling reselling to take place illicitly.


    The crucial thing about RF is that it facilitates commercial sales, but also that it is increasingly the license of choice for serious editorial buyers.  It is now where the money is.  If photography is your hobby, then Alamy's version of RM (RM lite) is fine.  You'll earn enough to buy some equipment, maybe pay for a couple of holidays.  But anyone professionally involved in stock photography, with the exception of press togs perhaps, has to consider RF as the license of choice, and selling through a number of agencies, with RM reserved for personal work, or work aimed at the top end of the market.


    See Duncan's post above - that's the reality



    Stock is my ONLY income and I ONLY sell RM (and when I look in the mirror in the morning, I don't look too undernourished)

    All the full-time pros I know personally, all sell ONLY RM and - as you know - many do here as well.


    "See Duncan's post above - that's the reality"

    See Duncan's port: it's all typical RF material and NOT the kind of pictures the vast majority submits here, at Alamy.








    I don't often disagree with you but, nearly 4,800 of my 7,600 are RM and probably only 2k are typical RF stuff that doesn't sell well here (but does still sell).


    I have a feeling you just skipped the first couple of pages without looking deeper into my port. I think it would be wise to amend that statement as it does sound derogatory but is also inaccurate.


    I have a standalone port of 4,500 RF images that are elsewhere as I don't believe they would sell very well here. They make nearly 7 times the income that 7,600 images make here. I'd need to make many $k's p/month here to replace it. But that is my point, we aren't supporting football teams here, we can support both sides and make plenty of money from both.


    Edit. P.S. I did give you the greenie as I don't believe you meant anything bad by it. Sort of know what you are saying i.e. here at Alamy RM is king but it just sounds a little like you are applying it to everywhere when reality says RM is only one part of the system.





    So how can they tell between a LR export from RAW and a LR export from jpeg- surely the software flag will be the same.


    My understanding from the comments below the story is that the EXIF gives the game away. But I don't know if it's possible to edit that. 





    Yeah it's possible. Whenever I buy a new camera that isn't on C1's list, I change the camera details in Raw files with an exif editor so I can process them (provided its the same make of camera, fuji pro - x-t1). Some apps allow you to do bulk routines for this if you have large volumes.



    But of course if anyone does that and Reuters find out, or identify the changes in other ways they are in deep doo-doo! If you are selling work through a channel like Reuters can you really afford that risk of seriously upsetting them? And do you have the time to mess about with converting raw and editing EXIF on news images?


    I know I wouldn't.



    Just to point out, I was only confirming it was possible and not that I would be bothered to do it (I'm not with Reuters so it has no impact on me). It's still a faff altering exif data on mass even though it's possible.


    Personally, I'd just set the camera to Raw + Jpg. Hell, on the Fuji you can set bracketing to create your three favourite jpg styles at the same time. Or, select the Raw in camera and tell it to create a jpg from it. These would all be easier than trying to process Raws out of camera and then trying to cover it up!

  • 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.