Approaching the 40 Million mark.

[John Mitchell]

 

 

I wish my local paper would use alamy, even the bad pics on alamy must be better than the junk that the newspaper uses. Most of which look like they were taken

on a dodgy camerphone, and then blown up to become massively over pixelated.

 

Cheapskate news, like my local paper asking for readers pics to fill the pages. They will not pay for a good photo.

 

Allan

I am seeing an increasing use of images from Google streetview in certain newspaper websites. Generally not the best, but, the customer is always right and if there is nothing better....

 

With regard to selling dross, I have, in unguarded moments, uploaded some less than satisfactory shots, and, while contemplating their extinction, had one sell!  

 

Likewise I had started proceedings to delete what I felt was the weakest in a series of similars, when the shot was searched for by its code - twice!  Rapidly restored to full health by member services, thank you kindly.

 

I presume that I am not alone here?

 

I'm not advocating a lowering of standards, but maybe we need to see things more from the customer's perspective. It matters to me that the sun is shining on that building so that the stonework glows like gold, but, to a harassed picture editor, a picture, any picture that illustrates the story, is better than nothing. 

 

I think that you need to explore new ideas in this game, suck it and see. That way you may find a niche and make some cash. I have now licensed a particular shot 3 times for decent money. It's technically fine, but breaks one of the established stock shooters' rules.  Nothing illegal or morally dubious, rather a case of "You should avoid -------" , but I didn't, and it worked.

 

Bryan, you're not alone. I think you've made some interesting and valid points. There is much truth to that old saying about beauty being in the eye of the beholder (or the photo buyer in this case). Yesterday, I deleted three recently uploaded images because, even though they had passed QC, I decided I had screwed up the white balance. Now, looking at the corrected versions, I'm thinking that I liked the ones I deleted better. The strong colour cast gave them more "pop" than the corrected versions. Who knows, the poorly processed ones might have had a better chance of selling, especially since there are already many technically correct shots of the same subjects on Alamy. I'll never know now, however.

 

Moral of story: always think twice before hitting the "delete" button.

[Ed Rooney]

I've given up deleting images on Alamy . . . because we can't. We can show an intention of deleting an image, and then wait six months to see if that actually happens. I understand why, but I don't like it. So I just leave the images that I would like to delete on the Alamy site. I have some exact duplicates uploaded, not many, but some. When I'm interrupted in my workflow, I've found it's possible to upload something twice. And occasionally I will revisit an image in Post, trying to improve it. If I upload the improvement I just leave both versions up. I would delete sometimes if I could . . . delete, gone immediately, and totally out of mind. But we can't. 

 

Everybody makes mistakes. Thank God. That's why I had a decade of having a great part-time job as a copyeditor. 

[John Mitchell]

I've given up deleting images on Alamy . . . because we can't. We can show an intention of deleting an image, and then wait six months to see if that actually happens. I understand why, but I don't like it. So I just leave the images that I would like to delete on the Alamy site. I have some exact duplicates uploaded, not many, but some. When I'm interrupted in my workflow, I've found it's possible to upload something twice. And occasionally I will revisit an image in Post, trying to improve it. If I upload the improvement I just leave both versions up. I would delete sometimes if I could . . . delete, gone immediately, and totally out of mind. But we can't. 

 

Everybody makes mistakes. Thank God. That's why I had a decade of having a great part-time job as a copyeditor. 

 

I kinda understand the long wait for deletion. But, as discussed in previous threads, it would be really useful to have  a "replace image" function. The new image would obviously have to pass QC again, but that wouldn't be too much of a biggie. Or would it?

[ReeRay]

 

I kinda understand the long wait for deletion. But, as discussed in previous threads, it would be really useful to have a "replace image" function. The new image would obviously have to pass QC again, but that wouldn't be too much of a biggie. Or would it?

This is already in place. Just upload the replacement image, clear QC and then ask MS to delete the original and explain why. At the next update the replaced original is deleted leaving only the "improved" version.

[Ed Rooney]

 

 

I kinda understand the long wait for deletion. But, as discussed in previous threads, it would be really useful to have a "replace image" function. The new image would obviously have to pass QC again, but that wouldn't be too much of a biggie. Or would it?

This is already in place. Just upload the replacement image, clear QC and then ask MS to delete the original and explain why. At the next update the replaced original is deleted leaving only the "improved" version.

 

I didn't really know that, ReeRay . . . but it is a lot of trouble to wait for MS to get back to you and all. 

 

And, John. I understand why Alamy wants the deletions business to work the way it does, I just don't like it. 

 

Either way, it's a small matter, and I'm content to do things the way I do. 

[ReeRay]

@ED - No delay or trouble with MS. As soon as QC is cleared, I cut and paste the keywords over and notify MS that I have replaced the image and refer to their reference number. They immediately acknowledge and at the next update the "old" image is deleted.

[John Mitchell]

@ED - No delay or trouble with MS. As soon as QC is cleared, I cut and paste the keywords over and notify MS that I have replaced the image and refer to their reference number. They immediately acknowledge and at the next update the "old" image is deleted.

 

I didn't know about this either. Thanks.

[Bryan]

 

 

I kinda understand the long wait for deletion. But, as discussed in previous threads, it would be really useful to have a "replace image" function. The new image would obviously have to pass QC again, but that wouldn't be too much of a biggie. Or would it?

This is already in place. Just upload the replacement image, clear QC and then ask MS to delete the original and explain why. At the next update the replaced original is deleted leaving only the "improved" version.

Thanks Reeray. Does the new version take on the previous version's code, or is it allocated a new one? I suspect the latter. Might be important if the original has some buyer history.

[ReeRay]

The new version is indeed allocated a new code.

[Paulstw]

My brother works for Traffic Scotland, and he said that the news people phone him all the time for a screenshot of one of the cameras if there is bad weather or traffic chaos on the roads. 

 

Anyway back on topic. If I take more than one shot of something, I'll upload one and ditch the rest. This was not a practice I did at the start, but one I'm doing now. 

 

If Alamy made it easier for you to delete images then we wouldn't have this problem. I've had 7 images sitting for 6 months in the delete pile. 

[RedSnapper]

If I take more than one shot of something, I'll upload one

 

upload 2

a vertical and a horizontal

often for a print use the space for the image is set before the image is sourced

 

km

[Mirco Vacca]

Just to come back to the un-edited submissions.

 

I have to say in on side it is great that Alamy offers this (Talking forphotographers that sends good images and not abuse the system). We can send images without getting strange refusals. For example i had on some agencies sometimes strange refusals on images that where doing very great on other agencies. This problem dont exist in Alamy. It is a big plus for us photographers.

Like i said before only pitty that some people used it the wrong way .

[NYCat]

The new version is indeed allocated a new code.

You can put the old code in the keywords of the new version so people can find it with the old reference number if they have been interested in it.

 

Paulette

[Phil Robinson]

Alamy's success or failure is going to depend ENTIRELY on the quality of its search engine and results. As long as the best images come first in searches, they (we) will continue to be successful. Alamyrank and its future development (possibly on an image- as well as contributor-based system) must be the single most important factor in the company's future.

[Bryan]

 

The new version is indeed allocated a new code.

You can put the old code in the keywords of the new version so people can find it with the old reference number if they have been interested in it.

 

Paulette

Good thinking, thanks Paulette.

[John Mitchell]

Alamy's success or failure is going to depend ENTIRELY on the quality of its search engine and results. As long as the best images come first in searches, they (we) will continue to be successful. Alamyrank and its future development (possibly on an image- as well as contributor-based system) must be the single most important factor in the company's future.

 

Although I think it's fair to say that the "best" image is the one that the buyer is looking for. It might come up anywhere.