Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Dominic Robinson

Nature portfolio

Recommended Posts

A quick look at your images and all seems well.

 

Allan

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are some serious hours work there - of the type involving sitting there not doing anything.  If I can get my wildlife where yours is I will be happy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Your images are very good 🙂

 

You do seem to be cutting and pasting Wikipedia articles in to the additional info area?  Is that really just a lot of extra work as it's none searchable?

 

Also you do seem to repeat keywords/tags in different phrase combinations i.e.  indian animal indian animals indian boar indian mammal indian mammals indian nature indian wild boar male boar male boar india male wild boar etc.

 

It seems like a lot of extra effort when you could just the word Indian as a tag then the other tags i.e. mammal, mammals, boar, pig etc.

 

 

Edited by David Pimborough

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for comments and advice. I always thought that if a buyer searched for the phrase "indian animals"  the image tagged with that phrase would show in front of another photographer's image with separate tags "indian" and "animals". I'm not entirely sure.

Share this post


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

There are some serious hours work there - of the type involving sitting there not doing anything.  If I can get my wildlife where yours is I will be happy.

 

1 hour ago, Starsphinx said:

There are some serious hours work there - of the type involving sitting there not doing anything.  If I can get my wildlife where yours is I will be happy.

Thanks for comments. Yes,  wildlife photography is a serious passion of mine and takes up enormous amounts of time.

Share this post


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

Your images are very good 🙂

 

You do seem to be cutting and pasting Wikipedia articles in to the additional info area?  Is that really just a lot of extra work as it's none searchable?

 

Also you do seem to repeat keywords/tags in different phrase combinations i.e.  indian animal indian animals indian boar indian mammal indian mammals indian nature indian wild boar male boar male boar india male wild boar etc.

 

It seems like a lot of extra effort when you could just the word Indian as a tag then the other tags i.e. mammal, mammals, boar, pig etc.

 

 

 

1 hour ago, David Pimborough said:

Your images are very good 🙂

 

You do seem to be cutting and pasting Wikipedia articles in to the additional info area?  Is that really just a lot of extra work as it's none searchable?

 

Also you do seem to repeat keywords/tags in different phrase combinations i.e.  indian animal indian animals indian boar indian mammal indian mammals indian nature indian wild boar male boar male boar india male wild boar etc.

 

It seems like a lot of extra effort when you could just the word Indian as a tag then the other tags i.e. mammal, mammals, boar, pig etc.

 

 

Sorry forgot to mention the Wiki articles. I started to paste them onto some pictures in additional info when I found reading the extra information helped me with key wording. Mostly I go there to find Latin names for species. It's true it is more time consuming but I get to learn a little more about the subject and it definitely improves my key wording.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very nice images Dominic and as you say, time-consuming, but satisfying!

 

Cheers

 

Kumar

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Dominic Robinson said:

Thanks for comments and advice. I always thought that if a buyer searched for the phrase "indian animals"  the image tagged with that phrase would show in front of another photographer's image with separate tags "indian" and "animals". I'm not entirely sure.

 

Just try it with your own images that come up very close to each other in a search.

 

wim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

A fine collection, lots of work on keywording and captioning too. It looks like some are copies from transparencies? One image that doesn't look up to the same standard as the others is GK72AD. The reds look blown (on my display anyway), the resolution doesn't look up to the 50MB size and the grain is more noticeable. Maybe it's a problem with Alamy processing/display or an AdobeRGB sRGB conversion issue, or perhaps it's a crop of a scan of a very saturated 35mm transparency?

 

Mark

Edited by M.Chapman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Dominic Robinson said:

 

Sorry forgot to mention the Wiki articles. I started to paste them onto some pictures in additional info when I found reading the extra information helped me with key wording. Mostly I go there to find Latin names for species. It's true it is more time consuming but I get to learn a little more about the subject and it definitely improves my key wording.

 

It could also establish your portfolio with a point of difference over most others of the same ilk I have seen here and elsewhere . . . a very positive point of difference too if your captions and additional information are accurate (which I'm sure they are by the way). In other words, I definitely do not think it is wasted effort. Instead I think the extra effort you take could lift your portfolio above the crowd . . . and even if it doesn't, it in no way detracts from your image.

 

DD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
10 hours ago, Dominic Robinson said:

 

Sorry forgot to mention the Wiki articles. I started to paste them onto some pictures in additional info when I found reading the extra information helped me with key wording. 

 

Is there a copyright issue with doing this?

 

Mark

Edited by M.Chapman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
10 hours ago, Dominic Robinson said:

 

Sorry forgot to mention the Wiki articles. I started to paste them onto some pictures in additional info when I found reading the extra information helped me with key wording. Mostly I go there to find Latin names for species. It's true it is more time consuming but I get to learn a little more about the subject and it definitely improves my key wording.

 

To be on the safe side I would definitely rewrite and mainly reword the text as buyers may use your wording - and quite a satisfying job you could do days after your keywording.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights

 

Edited by Niels Quist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Doc said:

Very nice images Dominic and as you say, time-consuming, but satisfying!

 

Cheers

 

Kumar

 

Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, M.Chapman said:

 

Is there a copyright issue with doing this?

 

Mark

Crikey-I'm not sure but will look into it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, M.Chapman said:

A fine collection, lots of work on keywording and captioning too. It looks like some are copies from transparencies? One image that doesn't look up to the same standard as the others is GK72AD. The reds look blown (on my display anyway), the resolution doesn't look up to the 50MB size and the grain is more noticeable. Maybe it's a problem with Alamy processing/display or an AdobeRGB sRGB conversion issue, or perhaps it's a crop of a scan of a very saturated 35mm transparency?

 

Mark

You're absolutely right. Yuk! Image GK72AD is all over the place with its colours, and very grainy too. Many of my pictures are scanned from my original collection of transparencies. I was a prolific nature photographer in the transitional days between analogue and digital cameras-it was really bad timing for me. Picture libraries were no longer accepting transparencies so I embarked on the huge task of scanning over a thousands slides. I got better over time, but some, as you point out, went wrong!  The shot was taken on the beach near Byron Bay, New South Wales. I remember crawling on my belly for the best part of an hour over hot sand whilst lifting and pushing a heavy 500mm lens in front of me. I got bitten on my calf by a sand fly too. The next day my leg became infected and I needed antibiotics. I knew at the time it was not right but was so emotionally attached to the image I submitted anyway! A lesson for us all-be objective when editing images. My next job. Delete image GK72AD.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, M.Chapman said:

 

Is there a copyright issue with doing this?

 

Mark

 

I sometimes use Wiki articles but re-worded. Hope it gets round copyright.

 

Allan

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Allan Bell said:

 

I sometimes use Wiki articles but re-worded. Hope it gets round copyright.

 

Allan

 

 

Great-will start to do the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, dustydingo said:

 

It could also establish your portfolio with a point of difference over most others of the same ilk I have seen here and elsewhere . . . a very positive point of difference too if your captions and additional information are accurate (which I'm sure they are by the way). In other words, I definitely do not think it is wasted effort. Instead I think the extra effort you take could lift your portfolio above the crowd . . . and even if it doesn't, it in no way detracts from your image.

 

DD

Thanks for your ideas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
10 hours ago, Niels Quist said:

 

To be on the safe side I would definitely rewrite and mainly reword the text as buyers may use your wording - and quite a satisfying job you could do days after your keywording.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights

 

 

I'm not an expert on the legal side, but my reading of the Wikipedia copyright page suggests that giving a credit to the Wikipedia URL where the pasted text came from maybe sufficient to keep Wikipedia happy? 

 

However, Alamy contributor contract clauses 4.10 and 4.11 state

4.10 You will ensure that all Metadata including without limitation captions, keywording, descriptions and Pseudonyms, rights management or other information pertaining to the Images is and will remain accurate and factually correct and does not infringe the copyright or other rights of any third party, and are not defamatory or pornographic.

4.11 Any information supplied for display with any Image, including captions, keywords, Pseudonyms, agency names and descriptions only includes information that is pertaining to the specific Image itself, and does not include contact details, web addresses, Uniform Resource Locator’s (URL’s), copyright and rights management information or, except in cases of journalism or news reporting or where the consent of any person shown in an Image has been obtained or another legitimate reason exists, any personal details from which a living person can be identified.

So it appears URLs aren't allowed and copyright mustn't be infringed. It might be worth checking with Alamy on this specific point to see whether they would accept pasted Wikipedia text accompanied by relevant Wikipedia credit as a URL, as this seems (to me) to be quite sensible and useful information to include that could increase the saleability of images.

 

Mark

Edited by M.Chapman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, M.Chapman said:

 

I'm not an expert on the legal side, but my reading of the Wikipedia copyright page suggests that giving a credit to the Wikipedia URL where the pasted text came from maybe sufficient to keep Wikipedia happy? 

 

However, Alamy contributor contract clauses 4.10 and 4.11 state

4.10 You will ensure that all Metadata including without limitation captions, keywording, descriptions and Pseudonyms, rights management or other information pertaining to the Images is and will remain accurate and factually correct and does not infringe the copyright or other rights of any third party, and are not defamatory or pornographic.

4.11 Any information supplied for display with any Image, including captions, keywords, Pseudonyms, agency names and descriptions only includes information that is pertaining to the specific Image itself, and does not include contact details, web addresses, Uniform Resource Locator’s (URL’s), copyright and rights management information or, except in cases of journalism or news reporting or where the consent of any person shown in an Image has been obtained or another legitimate reason exists, any personal details from which a living person can be identified.

So it appears URLs aren't allowed and copyright mustn't be infringed. It might be worth checking with Alamy on this specific point to see whether they would accept pasted Wikipedia text accompanied by relevant Wikipedia credit as a URL, as this seems (to me) to be quite sensible and useful information to include that could increase the saleability of images.

 

Mark

Thanks for your research. I will make some enquiries with Alamy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quite an excellent collection. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Marianne said:

Quite an excellent collection. 

Thanks Marianne. You have some very strongly composed images which show a great eye for form and colour. 

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  

×
×
  • 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.