Jump to content

Scott Gese

Verified
  • Content Count

    13
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Scott Gese

  1. 10 hours ago, Starsphinx said:

    I too have noticed the big discrepancy between what my image manager shows on sale and what the portfolio say is on sale - and my latest uploads are showing in the portfolio.

    I have just this second worked it out - my portfolio showed some 30 odd fewer photos than my manager.  Even taking out the ones not on sale in the manager did not balance it.  Then I had a lightbulb - if you go to the left of your manager you have quality control - your image manager counts the images that did not pass or rather were in a batch that did not pass (it means some images appear twice if resubmitted).  If you add the batches that did not pass, with the not on sales, with the portfolio, you will get the number of images in your image manager.

    But all of my batches have passed and all are on sale.

  2. Can anyone answer this for me.

    Depending on what Alamy page I'm on, my image upload number is different.

     

    My dashboard shows 128 images on sale.

    My image manager page shows 133 images on sale.

    My portfolio page shows 123 images on sale.

    The last batch of seven images to go on sale are not showing up on my portfolio page. If they did, that would show only 130 images on sale.

     

    Why are there so many inconsistencies with the number of images I have for sale?

    Why are the last batch of images to go on sale not showing up on my portfolio page?

     

    Any ideas?  

  3. Thanks Light_Trails for your reply.

    I've been posting my photo's without running them through Photoshop first. 

    I think this is a mistake I'll need to remedy in the future. I've been doing some research to get a good idea of the things I can do to improve the final image.

     

  4. I'd like to find out more about enhancing photo's. Not necessarily how to go about learning a photoshop type program, but more along the lines of what types of things you do to make an average photo stand out within the program.

    I understand the technical side of taking a photo. I even know a few things about processing film, but with digital cameras and no film, seems to me the processing side would be more along the lines of enhancing an image in Photoshop or other like programs.

    I'm curious to know if there are certain things that an average photographer can do on the processing side to improve the quality of an image. 

     

    I'm hoping this isn't one of those things professional photographers don't like to divulge because I'd really like to know.

  5. 8 hours ago, Joseph Clemson said:

    An image sold as RF can be used by that buyer as many times as they want with no further royalties paid. An image sold as RM can only be used for one specific purpose and its licence fee is set in accordance with the type of use. The upshot of this is that, Alamy tells us, customers tend to prefer RF as it gives them maximum flexibility and value, while many photographers, myself included, prefer RM as it gives the possibility of repeat sales to the same customer (and I have had a few like that).

     

    Most of my images are shot as soft editorial, images intended to be of use to a newspaper editor, book publisher, documentary maker etc. Each image tends to be very specific in subject and I don't expect to make multiple sales of any individual image so I set them all as RM in the hope of making the most of each sale that does come along. If I was producing generic illustrative imagery which could be used many times in many ways by a purchaser, I would probably set it as RF and hope my picture found favour against the thousands of similar RF images out there. 

     

    I do have an archive of RF images on microstock dating from the days when I was unenlightened and contributed to such places (and I should say with due respect, learning something of my trade there). However, it pains me greatly when I see such  images used over and again, having been sold for a few cents. In some cases I have sold many  instances of the same RF image, but all for a few cents each. I get more satisfaction today from a single RM image and, despite the reduced RM licence fees we are seeing these days, still significantly more cash in the hand than RF microstock sales. 

     

    I remain an RM, soft editorial, enthusiast through and through.

    Joseph

    Thank you for your reply. I now have a better understanding of how I want to proceed. I appreciate it.

  6. 9 hours ago, Cryptoprocta said:

    One reason  many people choose RF is because they have these files RF on other agencies (which only sell RF), and need to keep the same licence on Alamy. That indicates that they don't want their image to be exclusive to any agency, not necessarily a preference for RF per se.

    From previous threads on this forum, there doesn't seem to be any real advantage in setting files RF otherwise. RF files can be sold RM with the correspondingly lower 'rack rate' fee (check out any RF file page) and some RM sales terms seem hardly different from RF (but at least IME with a pretty low $ rate, because of a 'deal').

    Cryptoprocta

    Thank you for your reply. It helps.

  7. I'm new to Alamy and this is my first post to this forum. 

     

    I've been trying to do my homework by reading up on different topics. The two license types, Royalty Free and Rights Managed have me baffled as far as which one is better to use . By looking at the images of several contributors, I've noticed there are definitely two camps when it comes to license types. I can't seem to get a good handle on why one person prefers RF while another prefers RM.

    Does one have a distinct advantage over the other or is it just personal preference? 

     

    Correct me if I'm wrong but it seems as if the RF contributors are possibly amateurs using the "shotgun" approach by throwing thousands of images online and playing the numbers game.

    The RM contributors may be more professional and selective about what they post. They may treat their images more like art and feel their work is worth using the RM license.

     

     I started out using RM but switched to RF. Now I'm wondering if that is what I really want to do. 

     

    I'm trying to make an informed decision here and would love to hear from anyone interested in putting in their two cents worth. 

     

    Thanks

    Scott

×
×
  • 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.