AlexH

Thanks for the spot Bryan 😁

I am having a very similar experience. A collapse in all the usual level of reporting and activity and then the other day one sale popped up but reported a week or so late. Coincidentally also for around $2.

Wow that's a great travel image; it makes me want to go there!

Hi Kelly If you really want to go lighter and smaller while retaining quality and versatility I'd suggest you look at M43 kit from Olympus/OM and Panasonic. The benefit with M43 is not only small body sizes (other mirror less systems have similar small bodies) but the tiny/light lenses that are possible. I have a Lumix gx80 and gx9, both of which are more than enough for stock despite what look like modest specs. Stick a pancake lense on one of these and you've got a similar sort of camera to the Fuji x100 variants with with much more versatility. M43 kit makes for a great basis for a small/light travel kit. However you do mention low light....the stabilisation is excellent, I've shot happily in low evening light with a fast prime, but you may find the smaller sensor isn't up to your needs if low light work is a loy of you what you do.

To some extent the whole success of the Fuji retro styled cameras, the X100 variants in particular, has been down to brilliant marketing that's taken on a snowballing life of its own. No doubt they are nice cameras but they sell as much as fashion items.

Thanks Jeff and Keith, fingers crossed!

Timber! Tree surgeon felling a large tree.

I think if you 'miss' completing part 1 Dacs just process your claim with the previous years details. So given it's usually just a case of a little updating it probably isn't surprising if it makes little difference to an individual claim.

Sometimes the business of photography doesn't entirely fill me with positivity! So I liked this little news story for it's example of photography being used to work towards better healthcare outcomes. https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/68093246 It reminded me of when, living in Australia, I was being monitored, mole by mole, for worrisome skin areas. The Doctor looking after me was in the process of adopting digital photography to record patients' skin over time. We ended up spending as much time discussing the importance of consistent lighting and white balance as the need for hats and sunscreen. Quite possibly the most valuable photography related 'work' I've ever done.

A stock photo of breadcrumbs on my chopping board. After Alamy's 60% I'm left with, you guessed it, breadcrumbs . ...

Yes! We need this in some form. Novel use or call it what you will, but as contributors we would welcome the choice of being involved in these bulk deals or not.

I would like to see Alamy 'reinstate' the idea of novel uses as something we as contributors can choose whether or not we want to be involved in.

The green; well I get the idea of having a bold call to action button / link hover colour, this particular green....well maybe it will be one of those things that grows on you? My take is more on the bold statements; "Don't start with the same content as everyone else, find the unexpected and unique" - well its fine words but surely this bold claim stood up more when Alamy actually had a commission structure that encouraged exclusive submissions? The opposite is now the case, there is no incentive to be exclusive and falling license fees encourage content to be spread around everywhere. Alamy's unexpected and unique offering is only diluted by their recent actions. Branding doesn't change that, and buyers will know it. " "Make your budget go further Save up to 30% on content packs and get more creative firepower." Well this is what leads to $1.02 gross license fees. Enough said.

I couldn't agree with this more. Ideally I would like the ability to set a minimum acceptable sale price level. While that might be dreaming I did think the whole point of opt in/out of novel use was to allow contributors the choice of being involved in the sort of deals with publishers that are likely to lead to very low individual fees but perhaps greater volume. However despite being opted out of novel use I (and it sounds like many others) am increasingly being drawn into these deals with the end result of piddling license fees. I would really like to see the distinction and definition of novel use reasserted so that contributors who decline to be involved are not subjected to paltry fees. Alamy's twitter is consistently filled with posts about the specific image needs and 'motivational' bumph about shooting creative work. Unfortunately my response in recent times is now why would I bother with anything specific and or creative for Alamy, when my realistic expectation of rewards will be literally pennies? I might be shooting myself in the foot but at the moment what I consider my better images are going where I can control the pricing.

I need to get on with this too. To the best of my knowledge it can be done in batches of up to 500 at a time.