dustydingo

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

James raises some interesting points, especially in light of the qualifications he very carefully adds. None of them to me contradict the essesce of Bill Brooks' observations above. I do however think you have misapplied James' advice regarding your (rightly from what you've shown) identified as premium images--if not exclusive at Alamy then I'd be looking at exclusive at other what I consider "premium" agencies. A rejection from Stocksy is hardly what one should consider a final and universally accepted arbitration after all DD

Harry, my standard here and elsewhere would make me mark the Red Arrows as YES (property), and the houses too . . . and I'd consider the boat too, but maybe not. I have no hesitation marking YES to property and NO to having a PR. As far as giving the buyer the necessary information, even if you don't say YES to property you have still clearly indicated you do not have a property release, and I believe the fact you do not have a release is much more important than you (or me) giving our opinion on whether one is needed. DD

No. The jets reminded me of something relevant at least as far as an example of what other contributors do . . . look up USS Missouri. It's a US military base. See how many non-editorial images come up. Not proof of anything I know, but indicative of an approach a tad less conservative 😊 DD

My vote is that you are being way too conservative It is my firm belief that, except for the situation John describes above, where you have made an undertaking to someone that you will not release a certain image for commercial use, the responsibility for how your images is used, regardless of what country has what restrictions, is NOT yours. Think about it, you have no idea of where your Alamy image may be licensed, for what purpose, and by whom, so how are you even the slightest bit responsible -- AS LONG AS you are scrupulously honest about the image's release status. . . which meants, to me, and again with the exception highlighted by John, there is no need to mark an image as editorial only, AS LONG AS you have honestly described the image's status as far as releases. And yes, in several cases concerning images of mine (residing exclusively elsewhere), some US$xxxx sales would simply not have occured had the image been marked 'editorial only'. I have a penchant for four-figure US Dollar sales as a result 😊, as rare as they may be. Of course, it goes without saying that YEMV, but I"ve yet to read such reported in this forum over the past decade or so. DD

Indeed . . . especially when one considers one's portfolio as a percentage of the over 160,000,000 image pool (sigh, I remember when it was approaching a meagre 6 million). Still, always on the lookout for niche subjects . . ."Apophenia" Alamy Search Result: 24 DD

I believe you are not missing a step, but you do have them out of sequence . . . If any are necessary, I do primary adjustments in RAW. _Then_ I convert to jpg for submission. You really are restricting the scope and breadth of adjustments possible if you do them to a jpg instead of to a RAW. DD

Looks like no one here has contributed any of the 9,000 or so 360 degree images on Alamy . . . or at least, no none here is selling them. I do wonder at their commercial application. DD

Imagine how _she_ must have felt, the poor dear 😮 ☮️ DD

All the discussions about QC's sampling methodology and "the point of QC", including in this very thread (see Joseph's posts above), and you still think every submission is looked at? Someone's having a lend, surely? DD

I can't for the life of me imagine why any library would suddenly exclude itself from accepting images with selective focus. In fact, I'll wager London to a brick on that that will never happen. As long as the main focus of the images you quote is "properly" placed and sharp, of course images like these will continue to be accepted. What automated process are you refering to? May we have a look at a 100% crop of some of the number that were not accepted? DD

Would certainly help, although I have noticed over the years in this place two related situations: many complaints about QC were not followed up with a 100% view, or . . . many complaints about QC were modified a tad after we saw and commented on the 100% view, especially related to noise and dust-bunnies DD

Hard to tell from here, the sound's turned off . . .

Rupert Murdoch's Nat Geo is not the Nat Geo of old methinks . . . DD