Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by DHill

  1. Yes DHill!, why not make it an option to select relevant keywords? I guess you're depicting something like that. The two sistems may stay together and the single contributor could decide to put some keywords in the first 'relevant' box, or with a drop down menu. So basically a small change could be to make not mandatory to split the keywords in sections. Would it make everyone happy?

    What I'm envisaging is that key words would initially be at the lowest weighting (i.e. comprehensive), as now, but the user would have the ability to promote a limited number to a higher level - effectively the same as now but selecting a number to designate the level (essential or main) would be much faster than copying and pasting into different boxes. The devil in the detail would be how to deal with phrases rather than single words, though I can think of a few possibilities. 


    Another option would be drag and drop functionality between the keyword boxes. I think that was suggested, IFRC, in the Manage Images suggestions thread from a year or so ago.  



  2. I think I can say I am. More would probably not be appropriate.



    That's good news! We know that (a) progress is being made, b] it's being tested with real users before going live, and © they've chosen at least one tester well!! ;-) 


    Back on the topic, personally I find that ranked keywords are useful - there are always kws that are appropriate for an image but you wouldn't want the image appearing in a search for only that word, so those go in comprehensive. 


    I've just had the idea: that workflow would be a lot faster if a little drop-down menu appeared in MI next to each keyword from which a rank - 1, 2 or 3 - could be selected. The number of kws with each rank would be limited, similar to now. That would save an awful lot of copying and pasting. Now, why didn't I think of that earlier!! 

    • Upvote 2

  3. I was in a similar position a year ago.  and these were my conclusions: 

    • I wanted something with better image quality than my wife's Sony RX100 mk I - I wasn't happy with it in anything other than reasonably strong daylight, etc. Maybe I'm a perfectionist. Incidentally, the best thing about the RX100, IMHO, is the lens - it's hard to fault it. 
    • MIrrorless was the obvious choice
    • I eliminated Sony mirrorless due to lens reviews - the options available, especially the ones that would fit in a laptop bag for use before or after business meetings, didn't review well
    • Micro two thirds has the widest lens choices amongst mirrorless - but the sensors were beaten by Sony and Fuji - probably due to their extra size
    • I went with a Fuji (the X-M1 - not sure it's still available). That has an excellent sensor - same as high end Fujis such as the X-T1 and on a par with Nikon APS-C such as the D7000 - but the weakest link is the kit lens - great in the centre but you have to be careful with the edges. If you don't mind the extra size of the better lenses, then Fuji is an excellent choice - possibly the best amongst mirrorless but I believe heavier and more expensive than the M4/3 and Sony systems.  

    Now, I appreciate the ability of the X-M1 to be carried everywhere and the fact that it blows aways even quite recent APC-C cameras, but also miss my D800 when I use the Fuji - you just can't beat full-frame tonality, flexibility, lack of compromises and so on. For this reason, if I have a choice, I still use the D800 every time. 


    Just my opinions - hope they help ;-)


    PS agree with what Martin about using the ColorChecker Passport to get the colour the same in both cameras. More useful than i expected! 


    Not sure if I'm doing this right, but here's my Facebook thingy: - https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100009182933445


    I set it up for Martin Wilson's Professional Stock Photographer's group, but I guess I should look at using it for more than that ;-). Any friend requests accepted ;-)

    Not sure if this is exactly what is being discussed. 

    Yours is a personal FB page, surely to promote photography you need a separate 'Dave Hill photography' (example) page?


    I haven't bothered doing a separate page as I don't do wedding etc, but I  may change my mind and just post some of my other stuff.

    I have had sales sourced through my personal FB page which has a link to my normal website, also contacts (usually expecting free work) through it as well.



    Thanks, Mick - is this more the thing you mean?: https://www.facebook.com/David-Hill-Photography-1084908461542591/


    Actually, that particular Facebook account was set up purely for photography - I'm keeping the personal stuff off it. 

    • Upvote 1

  5. Thanks for your answers.


    The lens I'm considering is the Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC USD for use on Nikon. Currently on a DX body but likely to be FX in near future. Looking at the DxO test this lens seems to optically be as good as the Nikon versions with a much lower price tag.

    That's an excellent lens. I've been using it for some time now (18 months or more) and it's performed flawlessly with my D800. The VR is very useful - I can often shoot down to 1/15 or even 1/10 of a second at the wide end, which reduces the need for a tripod at dusk. There's a new Nikon 24-70 that has VR, but it's a lot more expensive even than the old one. Further, from memory, test results show that the Tamron is better at the wide end whereas the Nikon (non-VR version) is better at the long end - the Tamron thus suits better how I tend to use it - more at the wide end than the long end.


    In short - recommended.   


    Edit: if you're concerned about sample variation, try it on a full frame body if you can as any loss of edge or especially corner sharpness may not be apparently while you're shooting on DX. Apologies if you're already thinking about this! 

    • Upvote 1

  6. Well, my 2016 is getting off to a good start, with a sale for just below $100 gross. That would have made it my third highest sale in 2015! A Japanese subject to a Japanese magazine - feels like selling coals to Newcastle or ice to the Inuit but it is an unusual subject. 


    Long may this continue, and all hail to customers who are prepared to pay a reasonable fee!! 

    • Upvote 1

  7. I'm trying to work out the business case for such low-value sales. 


    There would be no business case for them being negotiated on a per-book basis, as the salesperson's time would almost certainly cost Alamy more than they receive for the sale. 


    They're obviously not the calculator price from a human-free automated download. 


    It would make sense therefore for them to be negotiated in bulk. Could it be that, like the $180 etc textbook sales, the publisher has negotiated a flat fee for any use, from spot size inside to front cover? But then, why would the report say 'front cover'? 


    Are these books ONLY low-volume titles - say, academic texts destined mainly for university libraries, with expected lifetime sales only in the hundreds, which will make practically no money for anyone? Or are mainstream books with expected sales of tens of thousands included? 


    There may be an entirely innocent explanation, but it would be helpful for contributor morale to have an explanation from Alamy. 

    • Upvote 2

  8. 2015 in brief, compared with 2014: 

    - no. of images up more than 15%

    - no. of sales exactly the same

    - gross revenue (the one that counts) down to 56% of last year's


    So, taking 15% off the gross revenue to roughly account for the 2015 uploads, we end up with around a

    halving of revenue from the images that were there in both years. 


    Hmmm. My numbers are low enough that hopefully this is just an (unlikely but possible) statistical blip. 


    I'd previously put this dramatic decline down to the lack of $180 or so textbook sales ... I wonder! 

  9. Could it be that there is a step or two after the QC people make their decision? Perhaps the QC 'passed' queue has to be synced with another database for the images to appear in Manage Images?  That would explain QC reporting happening in the middle of the night or Saturday mornings. 


    Of course, it could be that there were some dedicated soles staying late on a Friday night, and perhaps reporting occurs immediately ;-) 

  10. My percentages (Nov last year to Oct this year, inclusive): 


    A: 9% of images, 2% of sales

    B: 42% of images, 59% of sales

    C: 9% of images, 7% of sales

    D: 20% of images, 18% of sales

    E: 20% of images, 24% of sales 


    Many of my A images where when I was just getting used to Alamy - so not as saleable as later ones. Very interesting that my B images are doing relatively well. Good news that the long-term strategy is working, at least for those images. 

    • Upvote 1

  11. Wow, after very slow and calm period of low zooms today it jumped up to the sky limit... :P

    CTR 2,04 - does that mean coming nice bunch of sales? :D

    It does tend to be more volatile at the beginning of the month - with only two or three days' data, chance becomes a bigger factor*. Things tend to settle down later in the month, when there's enough data for it to be more statistically significant. Makes you wonder why they don't use a thirty day (or even ninety day) rolling average. 


    *A little bit like the reason you get more noise in the shadows of your photos ;-)

    • Upvote 1

  12. One pattern I have been noticing for months is the growing percentage of sales I am getting from recently-taken images.

    A disproportionate amount of money is coming from the images I have taken in the last 12-18 months.

    Is this the market or Alamy's search engine? I don't know, but I think the best way to get new sales is to upload new images.

    That would be a great pity because I would think that the way to make money on Alamy is the ''long tail'', on other words, images from the past continuing to sell in the future. If images nowadays are only selling for a couple of years or so, that would seriously reduce income in the long term. 


    However, the 'stats breakdown for October images found' thread gives a bit more hope! 


    Edit: where's that thread gone? Surely I didn't imagine it! 

  13. A rather poor two sales for just under $57 net in total.


    My long-term average has been one sale per thousand images per month, but I'm way down on that this year, and value per image is also way down. This is way past the point where there's a commercial justification for putting images on Alamy - it's more a matter that the images do slightly better on Alamy than on my hard drive! 

    • Upvote 2
  • 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.