Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

53 Forum reputation = neutral

About GeoffK

  • Rank
    Forum newbie


  • Alamy URL
  • Images
  • Joined Alamy
    25 Jan 2006

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Main thing for the plants is that you are often taking close-up plant portraits with too wide a camera focal length. It leads to messy backgrounds which make the images fairly unusable. Sorry but I just don't see that being used, certainly by the horticultural industry, as it's far too distracting a background. The copyspace is useless. Shoot that with a 90mm or better still a 150/180mm macro and you will end up with a far better image. Don't be too worried about a large depth of field - although not as trendy as a number of years ago, for covers shallow works as it's nice
  2. Alamy license images as RF editorial with a note for the buyer "Available for editorial and personal use only. Get in touch for commercial uses" so you can place unreleased RF on Alamy with the editorial caveat (in AIM). RF editorial was introduced a number of years ago.
  3. Far too dark, far too much tone mapping. As Steve has mentioned, look at what clients are actually using either in print or on the web.... many of your images are 'unreadable'. BTW, your image of Dartmouth JGG4RW or what is implied to be Dartmouth was indeed shot from Dartmouth but that's Kingswear taking up most of the image. Nice image so needs correct ID.
  4. For cultivars you won't find any comprehensive sites - for Roses alone there are probably (historically) in to five figures of named cultivars. The trick is to ask when shooting if possible, field identification is always the best. There are national collections of cultivars/garden genus all over the world (a lot in UK especially) and the owners/custodians are often more than helpful. For wild species you really just need a decent flora for that country. I carry a copy of Stace for example when shooting in UK. If you look up how many subspecies etc some plants have, a forum or
  5. In Photoshop preference (control K) under 'file handling', there should be a box right at the bottom of the window for how many files appear in your list (default used to be 10) - adjust to taste......
  6. PL is for when they have serious injury, perhaps life changing....or in my case if I burned down (accidently) one of the places I was shooting. In the UK we have free healthcare but we don't have free ongoing total care if I was found to have caused those injuries. It's a very small risk. If I were in a more litigious country it would be first in my priorities.
  7. For many years I had camera insurance as well as public liability - PL is about the cheapest insurance you can buy considering the amount it covers you for - last time IIRC was about £60 for many millions in cover...... better value than camera insurance. I needed cover for shooting high-end houses plus a few other shoots, so it was a no brainer. The value of camera only insurance really depends on what you are going to do with your camera kit and how easily you can afford to replace if things go wrong. Personally I can live without insurance on my kit these days. Car insurance
  8. https://uk.trustpilot.com/review/www.copytrack.com Interesting background from Harry Smiths (if accurate).
  9. Betty, as you know whilst we have an iMac, I'm not a fan but my other half's iMac was playing up, have you moved as many files as possible off the machine....especially from the desktop. That will slow the machine down as much as the updates. We cleared the desktop and got the rubbish moved to an external drive, ran some 'cleaners' and it's much better (obviously not as good as a new machine but not bad). https://macpaw.com/how-to/reduce-memory-usage-on-mac I would say you are OTT on the graphics card - you are looking at buying a very serious card (my CGI machine is 5
  10. I've just sold a Canon FP-100 which may have done what you need - they come up on eBay.
  11. If I think too hard about the good old days, I'm afraid I will have to shed a tear or two.... lots of money for relatively little work i.e Early/mid 1990s.... net stock sales paid via cheque...remember those...
  12. Hi You need to understand better the demand for images. You have shot a boy with a scooter, that's quite a limited market (play basically) and done it in a very undynamic way. Shoots could be a little more high key. Same shoot with a businessman/woman on the scooter commuting to work....you are marketing for business, work, environmental issues....a whole load of markets with far more potential than a kid with a scooter. Unless you shoot images aimed at the best selling or 'on trend' markets, you will sell conderably less imagery. You need to plan out any mo
  13. https://discussion.alamy.com/search/?q=Discoverability&quick=1
  14. You cannot compare RM agencies (even if RM/RF) with the vending machine that is microstock. At traditional/'macro' agencies, the actual useage needed to be factored in to the price for a licence. You wouldn't have been happy years ago to see your image used for a cover shot when initially the publisher was going to use it for an 1/8th of a page interior but changed their mind during the comping process. Now with micro you would get paid the same for a dl, not in what was the world of stock. So publishers paid on publication, not on download....download of course didn't exist....they scanned s
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.