AlexH

Have a look at Darktable. Its Linux opensource stuff so you can't beat it for value and it can be installed on Windows and MacOS.

I'm not sure there is any genuinely passive income, even investments need an eye kept on them. One thing is for sure, stock photography certainly isn't it, and becomes less so year on year as the effort to just stand still increases.

Yes that is an interesting point. My future self may find a renewed enthusiasm for post work, as you say I don't know! Most of what is in my Alamy port was shot RAW, and Nikon generated stuff still is. Of course the fact I'm not keen on sitting doing post processing quite possibly means I don't do a good job at it! Its the fuji I'm using in JPEG mode at the moment.

I'm in complete agreement with all your points! I can and do edit RAWS, but in the context of producing stock for Alamy what I'm suggesting is I don't think its necessary. Personally I don't enjoy post processing particularly, I would rather achieve a good image straight out of camera whenever possible. I agree that may not be the absolute best version of the image possible but I think if its the right image for a buyer it will still be licensed. I suspect most image buyers care a lot less, or are even oblivious to, the technical elements photographers obssess over. They just want the right im

Yes you're right there will be times when these are issues, it goes back to the earlier point about photographic knowledge and skills allowing the photographer to know when these issues are likely to be a problem. I think sometimes they can be worked around or avoided with that understanding. I'm not for a moment suggesting that working with RAW files isn't often beneficial, just suggesting it isn't essential and for me its a workflow stage I'm happy to cut out if I can.

Yes that's what I was getting at; any time in Lightroom (Darktable for me now I've gone Linux) is more than none at all. I'm shifting back to where I started when shooting film on OM slrs, trying to get it right in camera as much as possible. I've picked up an old fuji xt1 which is more like the old OM shooting experience and has jpeg film simulations. I'm enjoying it. I haven't completely stopped RAW shooting but I'm tempted by the thought of selling up my Nikon gear and then I possibly would!

This is sound advice in my opinion, and echoes what John (I think it was) said earlier in the thread about learning and getting to grips with the basics of photography skills and understanding. I think once you've done that it is perfectly possible to work with a JPEG workflow. I'm not disputing the advantages of shooting RAW, just recognising the disadvantage in terms of workflow time. The reality of a lot of what alamy sells is competent imagery that suits a purpose, it doesn't need to be a work of art. This is achievable with those key skills and care straght of camera as a JPEG. Some peopl

One here from STUART MARTIN / ALAMY LIVE NEWS https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/in-pictures-55488606

This is very true. I think Woody Allen said something about being a fan of the light in London for filming for just this reason. So its about adapting the kind of shooting you do to fit the conditions.

I think in the case of news images it is largely about timing. The first few images that come through are the ones in the running. It isn't the best images that get used necessarily, but the first one(s) that are available and do the job. So a good news image submtted early is in reality in smaller pool. The later an image arrives on editors desktop the better or more exceptional it needs to be once the story has already started to run.

Re the quality, I think it has to be judged in context; ie it is a video from a relatively large media related company. So, despite the fact it's aimed at contributors it has to be said the production quality is frankly appalling. There are children producing far superior work on YouTube every day. If any of the hoped for new customers stumble across they would not be inspired to work with Alamy. Re the content, the trouble with the point about updating existing content in an increasingly competitive environment is that the decimated level of fees being secured means we will effect

I think that argument holds water when they are highlighting content with a headline/excerpt and linking to the original source. I think the bottom falls out of the bucket when they just republish in full, including images they have not bought the rights to use.

I agree its an annoying reality of online use and there is little point persuing many infringements. In my case the story, and my image, were copied in several sites most of which I didn't bother to flag up to Alamy as I knew it was pointless. However MSN news is not of these fly by night operations, yet Alamy's response was still a shrug of the shoulders.

I had the same thing recently with an image used in a Guardian article online, which then got picked up by news aggregators and republished in full on some other significant sites, including MSN. I reported it to Alamy who dismissed it as being ok, despite the so called license terms clearly stating one organisation use. To be frank it's been the last straw really in me giving up on there being anything meaningful about the licenses Alamy issue. It's my understanding that when news and content aggregators started on the web they would pull article headlines and maybe a summary with

Nice one, and of course it'll still be there to sell again next year!