Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for 'zooms sales ratio'.

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


  • Alamy Forum guidelines and announcements
    • Forum guidelines
    • Announcements
  • Alamy discussion and community support
    • Introductions
    • Portfolio critique
    • Community support: ask the forum
    • Stock photography discussion and contributor experience
    • Alamy Quality Control and technical talk
    • Let's talk about pics
  • Suggestions and ideas
    • Alamy
    • The Forum

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...


  • Start





Website URL







Alamy URL


Joined Alamy

  1. No, they're nice shots, John; they have an alive feel about them. Funny, but in the thumbnail, the food pictures next to the vegan chef, look like sausages and hotdogs! I think about 25% of my sales are food. Maybe I need to add an autumn church? No, but I did forget to show and mention cityscapes.
  2. No doubt everyone knows about Facebook's somewhat scarey TOS agreement, but I thought I would post this link anyway. There may be more up-to-date info out there as well. http://asmp.org/fb-tos#.U0GpVKKGifM The following sounds particularly worrisome to me in the context of sales such as the one mentioned in my original post: "There are also some very important business and legal concerns for photographers to consider. For instance, imagine that a client comes to you in a few months and wants to license an image from you for exclusive commercial use. If that image is posted on Faceb
  3. No critiques from me, but I see one trend in the replies which misses a point. People shots do really matter, but not JUST people, and not with too much of a passive context. One of the few activities which is passive but does sell is eating/drinking, so that's an exception, and the reason it sells is because eating and drinking is so important physically. Just being an interesting character doesn't sell, though it may gain competition prizes. A lot of street photography today just seeks to find people who look a bit distinctive or are positioned in the frame as a shape which works. My experi
  4. "Completely missing the point, it's not a secondary editorial image. I was pointing out that the icons of New York are still alive and well in the visual reference library.... we see NY and it's shorthand for certain things inc the largest financial centre, the Yellow cab is another icon - busy, American etc...... You can then hand any concept you want around that." Bang on. Iconography is key in stock photography. It can be obvious, it can be subtle, or you can play games with it, as this image does. "Get to know the world LIKE NO ONE ELSE". Which is why the cabbie is the one looking
  5. But if you do the celebrity thing you'd be standing next to 25 Getty photogs who are having their images given away or sold for litterally pennies for subscription sales. It's turned into a big "why bother" for many of them. I agree Linda, and I have no intention of doing the celebrity photoshoot thing. I am so totally uninterested (It is big "Why? get a life!" topic for me) that I wouldn't know Johnny Depp from Russell Crowe or recognise few of the women! Not news anyway. No I was thinking more of small local events where (rare occasions) you get a "star" slumming it, doing a favour
  6. New York,London,Chicago...I think no matter where you are at if you've lived a life of variety and travel and no longer living that life,you're probably getting bored in your surroundings not matter what they offer. I am sure many people in other locations would give anything to be in a big metropolitan city and live that lifestyle. I know my life use to be much more exciting than it is now because I don't travel as much and there are not as many fun events to cover here anymore;especially celebrity of which I've been doing since 1980 or so. I've owned my current condo for 11 years and I
  7. But if you do the celebrity thing you'd be standing next to 25 Getty photogs who are having their images given away or sold for litterally pennies for subscription sales. It's turned into a big "why bother" for many of them.
  8. But if you do the celebrity thing you'd be standing next to 25 Getty photogs who are having their images given away or sold for litterally pennies for subscription sales. It's turned into a big "why bother" for many of them.
  9. Had an Alamy sale reported this morning which specifies the ISBN (or part of it) of the calendar that it is destined for. It also appears to give what I'm assuming is going to be the date of publication: Country: Worldwide Usage: Consumer goods Media: Calendar Print run: up to 1 million Placement: Inside Start: 01 January 2014 End: 01 January 2015 ISBN: 1372-9 ; Month: 07JULa Never seen this before and it appears to potentially conflict with Alamy's policy of not identifying the purchaser. Has anyone else had ISBNs reported on sales? Cheers John
  10. I think a lot of us have the same problem I was going to start similar thread. I live in Warsaw now, where everything is covered already (in photos). I was sure this is the place that will make some money for me. But sales are random. So I thought to come back to my Masuria lake district and shot boats, but... how many images of boats I can sell (sold few, nothing more)? I need action, repo, news, happenings... details of living everyday. Wherever I am I can shoot the moment. I tried food and object photog. in studio shots but get boring fast. It's not me. I enjoy nature and landscapes ph
  11. I have had a couple of sales, too, for two different calendars. They are for the Brown Trout range. 1072-8 is the ISBN for the Australian Beaches calendar – see http://www.browntrout.com/catalogsearch/result/?q=1072-8&prev=1 A search for other ISBN numbers can be carried out from the same page – don't forget to tick 'include previous year's product', as the Brown Trout site is now marketing the 2015 range.
  12. Just had two drop into my sales report both for the same amount both for "1072-8 ; Month: 09SEPa" guess one will be refunded. How does one track down the Calendar?
  13. I believe it is a combination of both. Some images, especially those from agencies it seems, are selected by Alamy and then turn up in creative for any search for which they have keywords. Others are keyword specific and have got there due to sales and zoom history. However, just because an image has sold doesn't mean it automatically goes into creative so I don't know exactly how it works. It certainly doesn't seem to be anything to do with creativity as many images included are similar to those not included. Pearl
  14. Two good sales today - nearly as much as for March. Hope it continues. dov
  15. How was your March? I had my best month ever for sales (10) and value ($503 gross) I know this is small beer compared to some of you but i'm pleased i'm heading in the right direction! John.
  16. not universally km Correction: There is, of course, a particular problem that ... sales are declining at Alamy. This might be because too many contribs think church doors, swans and Big Ben are what editors are looking for. Not life. RB
  17. "Like a lot of people here, I can track back many years and look at my photo library returns from the mid 1980's and chuckle. Average per image was far, far higher than now. take into account inflation, and it goes way higher than that even. Sadly for those who rely on stock it is now a struggle and I sympathise. Diversify, keep at it, keep your head up and continue to work to high standards and it will come." Pete Davis True, but factor in leaky film backs, traffic jams on the way to drop films off, the cost, return trips to redo shoots etc etc you could argue that things aren't that bad
  18. The potential client couldn't care less how much time or money it cost to produce an image. If more than one suitable image is available he will take the best/cheapest option. It would cost me hundreds of pounds to get a photo of New York - an NY photographer could do it for next to nothing. The customer isn't going to pay me any more because I had to catch a plane. Some photos are unrepeatable - many of Chuck's images couldn't be taken again and he is not alone in that. Unfortunately it isn't possible for an organisation with a database of nearly 50 million images to give them each a rarity
  19. Yes. Nothing for a couple of years (!) then a couple of (very good) sales (both were 'pretty' floral images), then nothing. Some folk have a lot of success there (I know a couple of people personally who sell consistently and consistently well there). I think that it's similar to others thoughts on FAA: pretty flowers, landscapes, well-known iconic (mostly UK) locations and highly-processed images do well. Personally, the 'amateurish' nature of the way the site is run annoys me (there is an ongoing issue with watermarks - which are pretty poor anyway - not being placed on images corre
  20. I know I have said this before, only 0.5% of my output is stock and I do appreciate this is a stock photography forum. However, similar principles apply to my selling my original prints through major galleries. Of course I am going to wish for the highest price a gallery can get for each of my prints. (They, like Alamy also take 50% - that has been standard for almost ever with good galleries). I have had the opportunity to sell prints cheaply through a number of galleries over the years but I held out - to my ultimate, long-term benefit. It meant hard times in the early days so I fell ba
  21. This 100% I think this has been lost in this world. Yes it's easy to walk up to a store front or a bank and take a picture of the sign and hope that it sells to the media in amongst the rest for what is buttons. It's easy to forget that it took you 20 mins to walk there. It cost you £1.20 for the parking, or the bus. It then sells for £3.71 and you just accept that that's the price with no knowledge of how it was sold for that or any appeal if you don't agree. I'd rather have one or two big sales in the year to add to my gear than see a sale and not get excited about it. Lots of
  22. I have to agree with Chucke, it has become a snowball effect with more image suppliers stacking the shelves high and selling cheap, i remember the old days when a image had some value and photographers had a degree of control and business sense when it came to licensing their work, where is it all going?? I would rather have 7 sales for $1000.
  23. I think that just about everyone (including me) would prefer the fewer sales / higher fees model, but the fact is that everything in this super-saturated digital world is based on volume. Preserving the long-term value of individual images is becoming increasingly more difficult.
  24. It's all about the profit, if the 9 extra sales costs $101 more to produce, well you can guess which one I will take. If Alamy's your only game, you're in trouble.
  25. I had to do a on-site search to find "recently sold," but I'm glad i did, because the over-all image profile is much more varied than it was just a few years ago. There's a whole lot more than just landscapes and animals. I hate most of this newer stuff, but I'm happy to see the various ideas of "art" being on offer on FAA. Another surprise was to find that I've been paying $30 a year for my membership. (My fault of course for not tracking my automatic credit card charges.) I guess I'll put some more images up . . . but I will not be involving myself in that odious, totally insincere quid
  • 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.