dustydingo

Is it an established fact that all images are individually ranked? DD

An observation of many previous attempts to analyse this very question leads me to one comment: therein lies madness, frustration and totally inconclusive results. If you think it will help organise your images or help in other ways, do it. But looking for justification based on analysis of search results has been shown many times to be a total waste of time . . . in my opinion/experience. FFTD DD

Mate, I've just e-mailed you on your gmail account. DD

no worries, thanks mate. My question about repeated elements I can now offer as a definite statement--there are noticeable repeated elements in many of your images that I am sure Alamy would identify as obvious retouching. I do wish we still had private messaging . . .

I've not downloaded the actual images as the last thing I need is to have to "register" for yet another app/website/whatever, but looking at one of your excellent breakdown videos I couldn't help but notice many obviously repeated elements--and repeated elements as an indicator of "obvious retouching" used to be one of the specific examples Alamy used to show contributors as something for which images would be rejected. So I wonder, is this a factor in the rejected images? DD

well, yes. but the person to whom I was responding has only been here 4 years so I adjusted the scope of my query accordingly 😎 DD

Matt, which of your 7 images is meant to be portrait? DD

. . .and I don't want to rain on anyone's parade, but if I was looking to pay for information, I'd be looking to someone who was here reporting success, not complaining about a lack thereof. DD

Mate, have you not being paying attention for the past 3 or 4 years? DD

To sum it all up: There is no "best". If there was, we'd all be using it. DD

Alamy could do what many other sites do and not report anything until payment has actually been received. They choose to do it differently, but there will always be people who are not happy with that. C'est la vie DD ,

I imagine you could get much, much closer to hitting this image with a little judicious luminance masking. DD

No one batted an eyelid in either. As you noted, my gear definitely looks "used" . . . even my brand new machine has a tatty old camera strap, and the lenses all have been given the (visually) "battered and bruised" treatment. Back in the 1980s I was questioned at Heathrow (on my way in) about whether the camera gear I was carrying was new or old. Back in those days I didn't deliberately 'age' my gear, but I was easily able to convince her it was indeed old, and I was allowed to continue no problem. And once in Bali one customs officer was highly amused by my screw-in filters, handing them around to his mates for a very fingerprinty look-through. At the end of it all he then asked "wartawan? jurnalis?" I laughed and told him no, I was not a journalist, just a tourist, isn't it lovely weather we're having etc etc., which he cheerfully accepted. The only similar experience, though not involving customs, was at the Missouri memorial in Hawaii, but that's a whole different kettle of fish DD

Thankyou Marianne. We appear to travel very similarly equipped

If you read carefully, you'll see I wasn't refering to "constructive feedback". DD