Sign in to follow this  
Sultanpepa

Weeding out weak images

Recommended Posts

I'm sure this will have been discussed before but it would be most helpful in culling out unproductive images if we had a tool to assess which portfolio images are not being sold or even viewed. This would not only be an advantage to improving our ranking but also an advantage to customers perhaps. What do you think Alamy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 02/01/2019 at 12:52, Sultanpepa said:

I'm sure this will have been discussed before but it would be most helpful in culling out unproductive images if we had a tool to assess which portfolio images are not being sold or even viewed. This would not only be an advantage to improving our ranking but also an advantage to customers perhaps. What do you think Alamy?

Well, maybe. But many of my sales of old images haven't sold before; and because not all buyers show on measures, I have some sales which were 'apparently' never even viewed. So they'd presumably need to have a totally different system to the one currently in place to identify pics that haven't been viewed at all. I really think on Alamy there's no way of predicting what might sell as stock; I'd be reluctant to cull anything unless I got a better version of the original, which in my case would normally mean better lighting (you know how it is hereabouts!). Anyway, as I've said before, who knows what is better or best for the end user?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Cryptoprocta said:

Well, maybe. But many of my sales of old images haven't sold before; and because not all buyers show on measures, I have some sales which were 'apparently' never even viewed. So they'd presumably need to have a totally different system to the one currently in place to identify pics that haven't been viewed at all. I really think on Alamy there's no way of predicting what might sell as stock; I'd be reluctant to cull anything unless I got a better version of the original, which in my case would normally mean better lighting (you know how it is hereabouts!). Anyway, as I've said before, who knows what is better or best for the end user?

 

You make a good point. I have sold images that surprised me but I just feel culling under performing images would tighten my portfolio and increase my average rank.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The lovely thing would be to be able to put one's strongest images of a given subject on top, so to speak. so they would come up first in a search. It would be our judgment so maybe not what someone else would want but I think we are pretty good judges of our work. Alamy already trusts our judgment by letting us choose what to put on sale.

 

Paulette

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, I've had a further thought on this. I just looked at an older photo which sold today and knew that I'd make a much better job of post-processing nowadays, in particular, I didn't know about the persepective tool in ACR (or maybe it hadn't been introduced yet). So it may be that I should look at these older pics and rework them, with better persepective. Just a shame the old versions would need to stay around for six months.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
21 minutes ago, Cryptoprocta said:

Actually, I've had a further thought on this. I just looked at an older photo which sold today and knew that I'd make a much better job of post-processing nowadays, in particular, I didn't know about the persepective tool in ACR (or maybe it hadn't been introduced yet). So it may be that I should look at these older pics and rework them, with better persepective. Just a shame the old versions would need to stay around for six months.

I've had MS replace images with reworked ones. Just send them the pairs of references when the new ones pass QC and they'll swop over all the annotation.

However, if one had sold, and one of mine had, I'd leave it up and just copy over the details myself. After all if they prefer the "inferior" version who am I to argue!

I also copied the pairs of references across so if anyone searches by reference they get both.

BD9ME9.jpgDCGBD5.jpg

I guess I could correct the converging verticals on that on as well, but I don't think I will.

Edited by spacecadet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, spacecadet said:

I've had MS replace images with reworked ones. Just send them the pairs of references when the new ones pass QC and they'll swop over all the annotation.

Oh, great news. Recently I stupidly uploaded the same file twice, and they kindly removed one, but I wasn't sure if they'd do that sort of swap. That would be a pretty positive thing for me to do.Thanks again.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Crumbs... don't know about yours but those 10 year old jpegs aren't very sharp.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this