Jump to content

Flash68

Verified
  • Content Count

    19
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

16 Forum reputation = neutral

About Flash68

  • Rank
    Forum newbie

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    gordonhulmes.com

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Staffordshire, United Kingdom

Alamy

  • Alamy URL
    https://www.alamy.com/contrib-browse.asp?cid={B211DA57-B49C-48E3-8BCC-9373206319DF}&name=Gordon+Hulmes
  • Images
    6992
  • Joined Alamy
    11 Jan 2003
  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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%
  4. 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.
  5. 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
  6. Thanks. The article is for US law but I would think the principle apply in the UK.
  7. So as long as I mark for editorial use only, publishers won't be bothered about a release? I can't see any way they'd be used commercially anyway.
  8. Hi Cee Dee, yes that's what I was thinking but spacecadet makes a good point that although it would not be illegal, publishers are likely to take 'safer' released images so might not be worth it.
  9. This is the approach I've taken by not using them previously (they were used by the club in the past but that is a limited use). As you say may not be worth the effort if they will not be used. Thanks
  10. Thanks spacecadet - to be clear this is not school-related, it's a sports club for all ages, but point taken. Would the same apply to adults? ie invasion of privacy? Surely it's not practical to obtain releases for amateur sports events, I would doubt many team sport photos have releases for all involved.
  11. As I'm sure many of us are at the moment, I'm going back through my older photos. I have a lot of photos from a sports club that I'm a member of. These are taken at events on private land and include adults and children. All the photos are in the context of the people participating in sport at organised events. As I understand the law (UK law), photos taken in a public place are no problem (e.g. street photography). But these are on private land (with public access). Previously I've played it safe and not published any with identifiable people on private land as I had not obtained a relea
  12. Thanks for the advice everyone, I'll keep them as they are and upload as 6MP.
  13. When I started contributing to Alamy back in 2003, I was using a 6mp Konica Minolta Dynax 7D. It was a great camera for its time and all of my submissions were accepted (and many have sold, even fairly recently). I've just come across quite a large batch of photos taken with this camera that were not submitted, many of which I'd like to submit. My question is, are 6mp photos still relevant today? According to the submission guidelines they will still scrape through - just. Dimensions are 2000x3008, uncompressed file size of a sample image is 17.2MB and compressed 3.2MB
  14. I don't know what's happened this month but my sales have increased massively. Sales for November have passed my 2nd best previous year total. Maybe it's the numbers game as I have increased my number of images a lot in the last couple of years. So out of this month's 11 sales, most interesting were a simple shot I made during lockdown of a pack of pills that will be used on German TV and best of all a couple of sales on the same day for a music CD cover (2 related images). Not a huge print run but still a welcome figure, the biggest I've had for a while and I would imagine the pos
  15. June has been my best month ever with 4 sales low to mid $$. Honesty plant taken while trying out a vintage Helios lens - taken last year A stitched panorama of Uphill, Somerset - taken last year A wassail near Bristol - taken in January this year A Banksy - taken in February this year Already my sales for this year have almost matched the whole of last year (18), which itself was double the previous year. I've been a contributor since 2003 but for 10+ years I only had a few hundred images and sold o
×
×
  • 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.