Recommended Posts

1131. Using a simple search “person”, I have 1131 images with that tag. 

How many do you have? Nice to give one an idea whether one should concentrate on including more people in one’s shoots.  Or not.

Betty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

with the tag "people" I have 10,180

 

With 1-5+ people using the filters I have 16,850

 

Generally I have people in my images . :)

 

Kumar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Betty LaRue said:

1131. Using a simple search “person”, I have 1131 images with that tag. 

How many do you have? Nice to give one an idea whether one should concentrate on including more people in one’s shoots.  Or not.

Betty

 

Coincidentally, I have 1132 images with "people" in the keywords. However, I often don't include "people" because buyers can use the filters.

 

 I admit to not being the greatest people photographer. Also, I'm not as comfortable photographing people as I used to be. Times have changed, and maybe people have changed as well. B)

Share this post


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

However, I often don't include "people" because buyers can use the filters.

 

 

You might be shooting yourself in the foot. Sure, buyers can use filters, but what if they don't?

There has been 672 pages of results (20 results per page) for 'people' in the last year.

 

Similarly, I err on the side of caution regarding 'vertical'. I know there is automatic orientation recognition, but there is also 23 pages of results for search word 'vertical'.

 

Gen

 

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To answer Betty's question, I am pleasantly surprised that a search on 'people' on my portfolio returns 2,552 results. I would have never guessed I had so many.

I must be getting braver LOL! 

 

Do they sell? That's another story. Sometimes they do.

Edited by gvallee

Share this post


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

 

You might be shooting yourself in the foot. Sure, buyers can use filters, but what if they don't?

There has been 672 pages of results (20 results per page) for 'people' in the last year.

 

Similarly, I err on the side of caution regarding 'vertical'. I know there is automatic orientation recognition, but there is also 23 pages of results for search word 'vertical'.

 

Gen

 

 

 

Ouch! Guess I should start putting "vertical" (and possibly "horizontal" as well) in my keywords.

 

There are also searches containing "tilted". However, I'm not sure what "tilted immovable pregnant women" might be. B)

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I try to religiously use horizontal and vertical. Many times while preparing in AIM, I double check that I have the appropriate tag, if not, I add it.

Share this post


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

I try to religiously use horizontal and vertical. Many times while preparing in AIM, I double check that I have the appropriate tag, if not, I add it.

 

I'm thinking that "vertical" -- and to a lesser extent "horizontal" -- might result in a lot of false positives in search results.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh boy . . . I've got just 166 popping up under "people." Mind you, I have thousands of images with people in them, but my tagging is obviously terrible on this word. 

 

Betty, you may be good about shooting verticals, and when I asked in the past, forum folks said they always shoot both. However, all we have to do is spot check collections and we'll see that verticals are not happening. 

 

Edo

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People = 431

Person =  59

 

Might say something about my photography?

 

Allan

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Ed Rooney said:

Oh boy . . . I've got just 166 popping up under "people." Mind you, I have thousands of images with people in them, but my tagging is obviously terrible on this word. 

 

Betty, you may be good about shooting verticals, and when I asked in the past, forum folks said they always shoot both. However, all we have to do is spot check collections and we'll see that verticals are not happening. 

 

Edo

I do that, Edo. When the subject warrants, I try to have each. I do sell verticals. Not that I have suitable images for this, but I would think book covers would warrant verticals. Although much of the time a vertical can be cropped from a horizontal. In fact, I often do it myself. I usually crop to the 8x10 size.

Edited to added...just taking a quick count, approximately 25% of my sales are verticals. 

Edited by Betty LaRue
Add text

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Before digital and the Web took the place of books and magazine, vertical was king. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Betty LaRue said:

I do that, Edo. When the subject warrants, I try to have each. I do sell verticals. Not that I have suitable images for this, but I would think book covers would warrant verticals. Although much of the time a vertical can be cropped from a horizontal. In fact, I often do it myself. I usually crop to the 8x10 size.

Edited to added...just taking a quick count, approximately 25% of my sales are verticals. 

 

Haven't done the math, but I'd say that at least 25% of my sales are verticals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking at the search terms for my images, I'm wondering if we should be including shorthands like WP and WOP in our tags?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/7/2019 at 20:44, John Mitchell said:

 

Coincidentally, I have 1132 images with "people" in the keywords. However, I often don't include "people" because buyers can use the filters.

 

 

Not sure that you can rely upon the filters John, in my experience there are umpteen squared images on Alamy where the filter fields have been totally ignored. This is very frustrating when looking for images found in the papers, as I have discovered that it is a complete waste of time to use the filters. Best therefore to include the word people, where appropriate,  in my view.

 

To be clear I always try to complete the people box, but suspect I may be in a minority.

 

Indeed the standard of keywording amongst some is atrocious - however I am finding these photos, they are selling!  Typically many  live news images are sloppily keworded, I guess, under pressure of time, the contributor uploads a ton of images with generic keywords that don't  apply to all of the photos.  So, for example, you are looking for a named individual,  and that person does not appear on half the shots with that keyword.  Not all are guilty of course. 

 

Then there is that infuriating characteristic of AIM, which I am sure leads to many false positives.

 

Just checked I have 1835 people results, probably some more that should be so tagged.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Bryan said:

 

Not sure that you can rely upon the filters John, in my experience there are umpteen squared images on Alamy where the filter fields have been totally ignored. This is very frustrating when looking for images found in the papers, as I have discovered that it is a complete waste of time to use the filters. Best therefore to include the word people, where appropriate,  in my view.

 

To be clear I always try to complete the people box, but suspect I may be in a minority.

 

Indeed the standard of keywording amongst some is atrocious - however I am finding these photos, they are selling!  Typically many  live news images are sloppily keworded, I guess, under pressure of time, the contributor uploads a ton of images with generic keywords that don't  apply to all of the photos.  So, for example, you are looking for a named individual,  and that person does not appear on half the shots with that keyword.  Not all are guilty of course. 

 

Then there is that infuriating characteristic of AIM, which I am sure leads to many false positives.

 

Just checked I have 1835 people results, probably some more that should be so tagged.

 

I always do my best to complete the number of people box in AIM. No doubt I miss a few, though. Shall have to be more diligent about including "people" and/or "person" in my keywords. How about "vertical" and "horizontal"? Are you including either or both of those terms in your tags?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, John Mitchell said:

 

I always do my best to complete the number of people box in AIM. No doubt I miss a few, though. Shall have to be more diligent about including "people" and/or "person" in my keywords. How about "vertical" and "horizontal"? Are you including either or both of those terms in your tags?

I don't use vertical or horizontal, but, maybe I am losing sales as a result! 

 

I recently discovered that the word "in" has to be a keyword if searched for. I now try to include it either in the caption or keywords where it might possibly be used.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

😳 A few things here I hadn’t given too much thought to - looks like I might need to check my key wording at the same time as I go through cross referencing ‘exclusive’ v ‘non-exclusive’ - some long evenings ahead . . .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, kay said:

 cross referencing ‘exclusive’ v ‘non-exclusive’ 

 

Should be easy to do now that you can click them in attributes.

 

Allan

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting question

Using filters: 15,543

Using keyword 'people' : 1839

'person' ; 855

 

I've been adding it as a tag recently - looks like I didn't much in the past.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I enjoy posts like this, usually started by others. They make us put our thinking caps on and help us maximize chances for sales, by pointing out areas some of us just haven’t thought about.  I’ve gone through my images and added a few tags I never considered because of those posts.

This one, I started more or less to make contributors aware whether or not they were shooting only “things” and rarely including people. The side benefit morphed into tag inclusions. Grrreattt!

Betty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Betty, this was helpful.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 07/02/2019 at 18:41, Betty LaRue said:

1131. Using a simple search “person”, I have 1131 images with that tag. 

How many do you have? Nice to give one an idea whether one should concentrate on including more people in one’s shoots.  Or not.

Betty

1285 with the tag.

In my case, I don't see more sales with people in them than without.

I'm sure if I had released photos, that would be different, that's really what buyers want.

Share this post


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

1285 with the tag.

In my case, I don't see more sales with people in them than without.

I'm sure if I had released photos, that would be different, that's really what buyers want.

Alamy is more of an editorial site. I do have some released people images, but I can’t say that they have been hot sellers. I think most of those sales were editorial where having a release didn’t matter. I can’t remember any that licensed for advertising. When I realized that, I quit getting releases. Hassle-free!

Of course, one big released license could change my mind!

Betty

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