Flash68

This problem is by no means one-sided. Alamy have a serious issue here, a ticking time-bomb. They have no idea how many of us will leave at the last minute. Most of us on here are Alamy's bread and butter - we have a thousands of images and provide regular guaranteed sales. They surely know that many of us do this as a side-line and are not willing to risk our livelihoods by opening ourselves to litigation risk. If enough leave they will not have a viable business. A large proportion of images and contributors will be those who have tried Alamy once or twice, realised how much time needs to be

None of mine is, I did it all through Alamy as they are the only agency I use. Regardless of my decision, its made me realise this is a risk so need to hold my data myself.

I've found a plug-in to Lightroom and Bridge that will export your data from Alamy, match the images in Lightroom and update your keywords etc in Lightroom - it does this directly, you don't even need to download your data. Free to try and only £25. lightroom-plugins.com

So someone is reading the comments!

My fault - there were a few hundred rows at the start that were blank (probably old failed/deleted ones) - I'm becoming paranoid

Has anyone requested their data? I've just downloaded mine and the tags and supertags are blank. Is this usual or has it been removed?

Me too - before they realise their mistake and remove it

That's my thought. I've spent nearly 20 years submitting solely for Alamy. I'm not going to remove my images overnight (and I'm sure Alamy are banking on most people not doing this too) but they will lose out. I'm staying exclusive right up to the 1st July to get the most I can from them then I'll go non-exclusive and sell wherever I can. I've also been keywording directly on Alamy so its time to download and start doing that locally. I'll also stay while I'm on Gold, if I'm downgraded to Silver though I'm gone - but by then I'll won't be reliant on Alamy anyay.

Good idea but that's assuming Alamy actually want to pay the higher commission. I suspect it's either set so unattainably high as a token gesture just to show they are not completely removing the current commission or just to appease their 'important' top contributors and the hell the rest of us.

What a greedy, deceitful and short sighted decision. I've been a contributor for nearly 2 decades. By pure coincidence by sales today went over $250 today so I'm 'lucky' I'll stay in the Gold [sic] tier (Alamy really must be sniggering at this in-joke). Of course like the vast majority of us I've got no hope of getting anywhere near the Platinum tier that would retain the current commission rate, so my obvious choice is to remove the exclusive flag from all my images and sell them through Alamy's competitors as well - what a great way to lose loyalty. In addition, my wife has recently starte

I photograph my old slides. I use a macro lens, lightbox and film holder. It produces excellent results and have always passed QC but takes a lot of effort to set up and clean in post. I only scan slides that are unique and can't be re-shot on digital.

Harry, I've not tried exporting in LR with increased size. From what I read Preserve Details 2.0 resampling in PS offers the best quality but for some reason is not the default in PS so I would be surprised if it was used in LR. I'll do some tests at the weekend. Spacecadet, no I didn't crop, although they were all over 17MB uncompressed, some were around 2.8MB compressed though. I think I had wrongly read that 3.2MB uncompressed was a requirement when this was probably stating that this is an approximate size of a 17MB image when compressed so I probably didn't need to upscale them anyway.

An update to this. I exported my 6MP images from Lightroom and found that some did not meet the minimum compressed size so I upscaled these by 150% to just exceed the minimum. Using Photoshop's 'Preserve Details 2.0' in the resample option. Zooming in I could not tell any difference in quality or sharpness and they have just passed QC this morning - a mixture of direct 6MP exports and some upscaled 150%

Cee Dee, what I'm a little uncomfortable in this case is I am a member of the club. Certainly for events I may attend as a member of the public in the future though I would like to be able to sell photos without worrying about privacy issues.

I think for these old photos I'm going to play it safe and only use a few more generic photos. I take both points and it was why I'd not used them before. I'll definitely not use the ones with children (although they will be adults now and presumably any potential safeguarding issues will not apply). But I will check out this out in more detail for future photography. It would seem reasonable that anyone taking part in a sport that's watched by spectators would automatic relinquish certain privacy rights. They will know that they will be watched and expect to be photographed, and certainly the