Jump to content

Nature portfolio


Recommended Posts

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.

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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

 

 

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 09/03/2019 at 02:49, wiskerke said:

 

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

 

wim

Hi, I have just tried a search with the phrase "indian animals" and then as a separate words "indian" and "animals". The phrase came up with 33 of my images on the first page and only 6 with the separated word  tags. It clearly pays to use a phrase as well as separate words.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • 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.