dustydingo

Not really. As it stands, customers of Alamy know to expect a certain quality and a minimum size. Customers of the other bit know to expect mobile-phone quality (including image size etc). Mix them up and you're going to have a) some very confused purchasers, in addition to b) some very p*ssed-off purchasers, leading to c) some even more p*ssed-off contributors as the refunds go sky-high. I for one am quite happy to leave sleeping dogs lie. DD

Images licensed for commercial use: I calculate as close to the proposed use as I can using another long-usually-wooden-structure-jutting-out-over-water like place's pricing structure, then cut 25% off (and let potential license purchaser know my price is 25% lower than that other place). Works for me, I'm comparatively way ahead in that I pay no commission to anyone. I can't see any ethical dilemmas therein--purchasers are free to shop wherever they choose, and purchase from whomever they choose. For electronic image, personal use, price depends on the event and who the purchaser is etc. Electronic images are 2600 pixels on longest side. don't provide prints anymore. DD

You had real steam? Bleedin' luxury! DD

We could check again in a few days . . . . DD

No ashes lying around? . . . DD

Edo, as you know I'm not one for outward indications of non-conformity, but I do note that every now and again such examples are used in some of the more quirky advertising materials I see here--I'd therefore advise model releases . . . . just to add a tiny element of uncertainty DD

Come on, you just need to break the ice with the offer of a nice cuppa. DD

Not sure, but I think that's the reason I posted here _last week_ that you should " stop thinking "noise", think instead "overall image quality". Your tenacity sticking to how lovely and noise free the sky is, while ignoring the terrible quality of the rest of the image, indicates nothing anyone has said has made the slightest impression. I repeat, this is the worst 100% crop I've ever seen here, and it is now obvious the problem isn't your processing or your eyesight, it's your opinion of what is acceptable. I'm out of here . . . DD

I hope Alamy don't mind these other agencies' reference, but I submit (different) images to the big G and one other highly respected agency, with one more on the back-burner. I would be censured in all of them if I posted an image of this (your) quality. If I did it again, I would expect to be barred from submissions altogether. And a friendly hint for your consideration or dismissal: stop thinking "noise", think instead "overall image quality". DD

The Cavern Club. See MDM's post above. DD

Seriously? Compared to the nightclub image you previously posted, this is off the scale (in the wrong direction). With due respect, I've been flitting in and out of this forum (and its wild-west predecessor) for a very, very long time, and I'm comfortable saying this is the most non-acceptable 100% crop of an image I've ever seen--and that includes the time when a contributor claimed his fail for dust-spots was weird because his image contained absolutely no dust-spots: from memory the forum found over a dozen dust-spots once he was persuaded to post a 100% version of a large section of the image I'd strongly urge a recalibration of what you consider "pretty sharp"/acceptable before submitting again. As has been communicated to you many times in the past, there are many image-processing programs that are accessible and not-too-difficult to master, way superior to Window photo software. good luck DD

Great image, great subject for a "best caption" competition. DD

In a similar discussion many, many, many moons ago, I vaguelly recall someone asking for a single example of a photographer being successfully sued because another party published one of the photographer's images, where the photographer had made clear to the agency that licensed the image that there were no releases available. I think I remember the gist of the answers. Of course, that was a long time ago . . . and yet . . . I also recall what I thought was the only truly compelling argument for an "editorial only" button was where photographers had a formal legal agreement with another party that certain images could be taken and licensed but only if used strictly as editorial only. Beyond that particular situation, I still see no need to do more than honestly state the release status of an image, explaining perhaps why the "editorial only" button is, and only needs to be, optional. DD

It appears to me that in the final wash, it doesn't matter whether you identify property or not, as long as you don't claim you have a Property Release when you don't. Whether you say YES to property (and NO release) or simply NO to property, it appears the interface visible to customers will in both cases show "Releases: property - no". DD

I do agree second rate stock photography in quantity is dead, or at the very least in the process of dying. Jim Pickerell's quote about content that sings and dazzles is reflected here (and elsewhere) in the portfolios of those who experience high volume licensing of their images IMO. As Bill states, on a more granular level a contributor's search positions would be better, and it's a fair prediction their income would be higher. We can't all produce images that always sing of course, but for me I know I can remove some that seriously don't. Yes, high quality images do often attract minuscule fees, but dross rarely if ever attracts seriously good fees. And high quality is over time going to trump better dross as far as search results here go. I seriously believe my own position will improve here over time as I begin to think more about trying to include images that may stand out a bit from the crowd, and remove from my portfolio images that seriously don't . Or I could change nothing and just blame Alamy. DD