Live news

[M.Chapman]

22 hours ago, Starsphinx said:

I am not seeing much about the route to competence I am seeing people who occasionally in the course of their normal activities come across full on newsworthy stuff and who are rather peeved at having had the place they would have sent it denied to them.  I am not a news photographer - nor would I want to focus on that.  However, due to the things I do do, I actually come across actual news more frequently than Joe Public - say 5 or 6 times a year.  Now I am (I believe) competent with a camera, I read and understood the stuff on captioning headlining etc and complied with Alamys requirements.  The fact that I did not and do not chase stories and send in multiple news stuff day in day out does not detract from what I did send in and does not detract from what I will take in future.  There are numerous others in similar situations - who get stuff a few times a year and want to be able to do something with it, who have done absolutely nothing wrong, and who have been dropped without so much as a bye the bye.   I do not see anyone arguing about separating news and stock or adding in a soft news area I see people arguing about not being given any notice or warning and that the way the decisions on who to drop appear to have been made is far from the best way to make that decision.

 

Ditto!

 

Mark

[M.Chapman]

1 hour ago, Shergar said:

The Live news guys will be pleased to hear that they will  carry on as normal. 

 

Initially it will be good for them (less competition from within Alamy). But what happens when News desks come to realise the "breadth" of Alamy's news coverage has reduced significantly, won't they start sourcing images elsewhere? Then it won't be so good.

 

Mark

[spacecadet]

16 minutes ago, Keith Douglas said:

 

 

 

If you were an agency, which type of contributor would you build your business on:

 

1. The ones who claim to be good photographers, say they always have their camera ready and have been near to where the action is, and one day will come up with a scoop, but never actually deliver News images that sell?

 

 

I didn't claim to be anything. I was offered a facility which I used several times. Alamy then took it away without telling me. I did nothing wrong except fail to meet criteria I didn't know existed and which I was never told about.

[Starsphinx]

4 minutes ago, spacecadet said:

I didn't claim to be anything. I was offered a facility which I used several times. Alamy then took it away without telling me. I did nothing wrong except fail to meet criteria I didn't know existed and which I was never told about.

This - exactly this.

 

[Keith Douglas]

17 minutes ago, spacecadet said:

I didn't claim to be anything. I was offered a facility which I used several times. Alamy then took it away without telling me. I did nothing wrong except fail to meet criteria I didn't know existed and which I was never told about.

 

I didn't say you did claim to be anything.

 

It may not have been handled very well, but Alamy did tell you and took it away. They just didn't give you advance notice.

 

[Colblimp]

2 hours ago, Keith Douglas said:

 

I'm sure that all the agencies and newspapers will be welcoming your images with "how much do you want, name your price". Good luck!

 

If you were an agency, which type of contributor would you build your business on:

 

1. The ones who claim to be good photographers, say they always have their camera ready and have been near to where the action is, and one day will come up with a scoop, but never actually deliver News images that sell?

 

or

 

2. The dedicated news photographers who will seek out news stories and images, can be relied on to be there, know what makes a good news picture, and regularly deliver images that sell?

 

I think you need to think about it from a business point of view, and not from your own, narrow perspective. Alamy is operating in a professional and competitive market. As contributors we should be operating as professionals, whether we are full time professionals or enthusiastic amateurs or somewhere in between.  To expect access as a right without delivering the results is not what this business needs, either in terms of administrative burden or damage to its reputation by being seen to deliver sub-standard work that doesn't meet what the Clients want. 

Good words.  The way Alamy did this was appalling, but I can see why it was done.  I guess if the news pics are clogging the feed and aren't selling then there's only one option...

[Mr Standfast]

45 minutes ago, Colblimp said:

Good words.  The way Alamy did this was appalling, but I can see why it was done.  I guess if the news pics are clogging the feed and aren't selling then there's only one option...

 

The news team seem to finish at 9:30 and no one is tidying the news page over night. It's a mess in the morning, clogged with multiple headline uploads etc. I don't envy them. Still no excuse  for the disrespect shown to contributors though.

Edited April 11, 2019 by Mr Standfast
Spelling

[Colblimp]

3 minutes ago, Mr Standfast said:

 Still no excuse  for the disrespect shown to contributors though.

Which is why I said The way Alamy did this was appalling

[Mr Standfast]

Favourite picture today.....lady with the pram.

[Mr Standfast]

27 minutes ago, Colblimp said:

Which is why I said The way Alamy did this was appalling

 

and it deserves repeating until such time as we get an apology. Not holding my breath. Good night all.

[Starsphinx]

1 hour ago, Colblimp said:

Good words.  The way Alamy did this was appalling, but I can see why it was done.  I guess if the news pics are clogging the feed and aren't selling then there's only one option...

Oh I would be able to see why it was done - IF it had been done which looking at the newsfeed it has not.

Are we seriously suggesting that the problem is *quote* The ones who claim to be good photographers, say they always have their camera ready and have been near to where the action is, and one day will come up with a scoop, but never actually deliver News images that sell?*unquote but who upload within an hour, properly caption and headline and follow the guidelines to the letter while the ones uploading deer in a field, boats sailing etc are fine?

There are too many people who did absolutely nothing wrong - who carefully decided what to upload as live news and what to upload as stock, who checked and double checked they were getting the IPTC fields correct and who presented damn good images of, yes, news, but who unfortunately did not see their story picked up who have been dumped while others carry on uploading and presenting "pear blossoms in China" as news.

If the culling had been done on the basis of who had followed guidelines about stuff actually being news there would be far less complaining but when people who followed the guidelines have been dropped but can still see images that are not news on the feed they are going to be miffed. Word to the wise if you are going to pull off something guaranteed to upset people it is a good idea to make sure it is seen to be doing what you claim it is for.  

[Colblimp]

1 hour ago, Starsphinx said:

Oh I would be able to see why it was done - IF it had been done which looking at the newsfeed it has not.

Are we seriously suggesting that the problem is *quote* The ones who claim to be good photographers, say they always have their camera ready and have been near to where the action is, and one day will come up with a scoop, but never actually deliver News images that sell?*unquote but who upload within an hour, properly caption and headline and follow the guidelines to the letter while the ones uploading deer in a field, boats sailing etc are fine?

There are too many people who did absolutely nothing wrong - who carefully decided what to upload as live news and what to upload as stock, who checked and double checked they were getting the IPTC fields correct and who presented damn good images of, yes, news, but who unfortunately did not see their story picked up who have been dumped while others carry on uploading and presenting "pear blossoms in China" as news.

If the culling had been done on the basis of who had followed guidelines about stuff actually being news there would be far less complaining but when people who followed the guidelines have been dropped but can still see images that are not news on the feed they are going to be miffed. Word to the wise if you are going to pull off something guaranteed to upset people it is a good idea to make sure it is seen to be doing what you claim it is for.  

You're missing the point.  Alamy doesn't care what the subject of the picture is, the IPTC fields, or whatever.  All Alamy cares about is sales.  If deer in a field, sailing boats, pear blossoms in China etc sell, Alamy will keep those contribs as news people.  If someone consistently uploads news images which don't sell, Alamy will get rid, which is what it has done.  It may be harsh, but that's the reality of business.

[Shergar]

9 minutes ago, Colblimp said:

You're missing the point.  Alamy doesn't care what the subject of the picture is, the IPTC fields, or whatever.  All Alamy cares about is sales.  If deer in a field, sailing boats, pear blossoms in China etc sell, Alamy will keep those contribs as news people.  If someone consistently uploads news images which don't sell, Alamy will get rid, which is what it has done.  It may be harsh, but that's the reality of business.

So do you think this culling of photographers will spill over into regular stock? If your opinion  is right  for news then I guess it would be right for regular stock. What do you think?? Are those that don't make regular sells  going to get an e-mail .

Edited April 11, 2019 by Shergar

[Colblimp]

1 minute ago, Shergar said:

So do you think this culling of photographers will spill over into regular stock? If your opinion  is right  for news then I guess it would be right for regular stock. What do you think??

No, it won't spill into regular stock.  I think, and I'm possibly completely wrong, Alamy wants to streamline the whole news thing so it only receives newsy pictures which have the possibility to sell, from contribs who have regular sales.  It's a business thing, nothing personal, I think.

[Shergar]

11 minutes ago, Colblimp said:

No, it won't spill into regular stock.  I think, and I'm possibly completely wrong, Alamy wants to streamline the whole news thing so it only receives newsy pictures which have the possibility to sell, from contribs who have regular sales.  It's a business thing, nothing personal, I think.

I never thought it was anything personal. Im pretty sure Alamy don't sit around thinking who they can piss off today and looking at who's been dumped one could consider oneself lucky to be in such an esteemed group. Location might have played a part. 

[Sultanpepa]

1 hour ago, Starsphinx said:

Oh I would be able to see why it was done - IF it had been done which looking at the newsfeed it has not.

Are we seriously suggesting that the problem is *quote* The ones who claim to be good photographers, say they always have their camera ready and have been near to where the action is, and one day will come up with a scoop, but never actually deliver News images that sell?*unquote but who upload within an hour, properly caption and headline and follow the guidelines to the letter while the ones uploading deer in a field, boats sailing etc are fine?

There are too many people who did absolutely nothing wrong - who carefully decided what to upload as live news and what to upload as stock, who checked and double checked they were getting the IPTC fields correct and who presented damn good images of, yes, news, but who unfortunately did not see their story picked up who have been dumped while others carry on uploading and presenting "pear blossoms in China" as news.

If the culling had been done on the basis of who had followed guidelines about stuff actually being news there would be far less complaining but when people who followed the guidelines have been dropped but can still see images that are not news on the feed they are going to be miffed. Word to the wise if you are going to pull off something guaranteed to upset people it is a good idea to make sure it is seen to be doing what you claim it is for.  

 

I don't give reds, greens or little love hearts but if I did I'd give you a green for this. 👍

[MariaJ]

1 hour ago, Shergar said:

I never thought it was anything personal. Im pretty sure Alamy don't sit around thinking who they can piss off today and looking at who's been dumped one could consider oneself lucky to be in such an esteemed group. Location might have played a part. 

 

I was wondering about location as well.  I don't see anything from Canada in the Live News feed at the moment and I wonder how many Canadian contributors kept their Live News access.   My LiveNews images never sold as news, but then again I have never seen any of the local or national news outlets showing any alamy images. 

 

Like others, I am uphappy with the way I was abruptly cut from Live News.  It would have gone over easier if there was an earlier announcement about upcoming changes and how Live News access was going to be reduced.

 

Maria

[Matt Ashmore]

2 minutes ago, MariaJ said:

 

I was wondering about location as well.  I don't see anything from Canada in the Live News feed at the moment and I wonder how many Canadian contributors kept their Live News access. 

 

If the decision to cut people was down to their number of live news sales and if Alamy don't sell many Live News images taken in Canada simply because their target audience isn't based in Canada....    ... might this suggest the cause of your observation?

[MariaJ]

Yes that's what I was getting at Matt.  I'm guessing that some of the LiveNews images produced here may have sold if there were more (or any) Canadian news desks using alamy images.  But like I said, I'm just guessing, I don't know the behind the scenes details, and I haven't checked every Canadian news outlet.

Edited April 12, 2019 by MariaJ

[MizBrown]

I looked for photos of what a number of people consider the biggest recent story out of the UK: Julian Assange's arrest at the Ecuadorean Embassy after his asylum was revoked.  Alamy news photographers had photos of the various protests, but someone else got the photo of Assange being carried out of the embassy by British police.   Getty Images got another, of Assange in the van being taken away.

 

The problem with news photography that's being pushed rather than pulled from the live news feed is that Alamy needs to be confident that they're offering news photographs that are topical and of events that are unique and dramatic.

 

 

 

[sb photos]

My take on the live news changes. Over the last 2 years I've shot only live news, but only sold later as stock. They were used by magazines, national press and for banners on web sites + 1 PU, and some sales I could never track down. Since losing Alamy live news access I've sat back and looked at why they likely didn't sell as live news.

 

Although my submissions were news, most were of minority interest, and uploads weren't prompt. Typically I would shoot a protest march/event, but felt I would miss more interesting shots If I stopped for a quick edit and upload, then head straight to another event, and sometimes three in total. Then sit in the Marylebone Station bar editing and uploading, far too late, before catching the train home. It's whoever submits their photo's first that has the best chance of a sale, but even then it has to be something topical. Losing live news access has actually been a benefit in forcing me to re evaluate how I work. I have done a soft run to see if I could have images ready within an hour, it was surprisingly easy. I always have the IPTC info pre prepared in Photo Mechanic, plus additional variations incase things change, carry my 13" MacBook Pro, and mostly use my phone as a hot spot. Also have looked through the national press in print and online over last week to see what they are using, and live news feeds elsewhere. Something I should have done long ago.

 

I will still shoot news, but be much selective over what I cover. Based upon what I've sold as stock, some I've what I will shoot, still technically news, I will tailor specifically for stock. As for straight stock, I've been shooting specific themes that may be topical for a few months now, just a few need re shooting in better light. Must now finally submit my first 3 images to Alamy. So overall I'm not bitter re losing Alamy live news access, but the the way it was conveyed to contributors could have been much better. 

Edited April 12, 2019 by sb photos

[John Mitchell]

4 hours ago, MariaJ said:

Yes that's what I was getting at Matt.  I'm guessing that some of the LiveNews images produced here may have sold if there were more (or any) Canadian news desks using alamy images.  But like I said, I'm just guessing, I don't know the behind the scenes details, and I haven't checked every Canadian news outlet.

 

I've never seen an Alamy image of any kind in a Canadian newspaper. However, I think someone in the past mentioned seeing some in the Toronto Star.

[Colblimp]

7 hours ago, Shergar said:

Location might have played a part. 

I doubt that's the case as I live in the middle of nowhere, deep in the countryside, and I was kept in the live news thing.

[Chuck Nacke]

9 hours ago, MizBrown said:

I looked for photos of what a number of people consider the biggest recent story out of the UK: Julian Assange's arrest at the Ecuadorean Embassy after his asylum was revoked.  Alamy news photographers had photos of the various protests, but someone else got the photo of Assange being carried out of the embassy by British police.   Getty Images got another, of Assange in the van being taken away.

 

The problem with news photography that's being pushed rather than pulled from the live news feed is that Alamy needs to be confident that they're offering news photographs that are topical and of events that are unique and dramatic.

 

 

 

Miz and all,  FYI mostly ALL,

 

With all due respect,  In my opinion "The Problem with News Photography" is that there are too many people trying to do it who have no idea of how it works and what is required.

 

I was very happy to see Alamy get in to the direct upload, read my previous posts, but to sit on the computer complaining about "how sad life is" is a waste of time.  As one of my favorite radio stations in San Francisco, CA, says " If you don't like the news, Go out and make some of your own....."  I have followed this thread closely and I have seen very few constructive comments.

 

In terms of Assange's arrest and extradition from the Ecuadorean Embassy, THE PICTURES THAT MATTER are of him coming out with the police.  If you don't have that picture you do not have the story, actually what you need for a big money magazine and TV sales are pictures of his room and the excrement that he allegedly smeared on the walls.  Take a look at my pictures of Erik Honecker, not great pictures but..., coming out of the Chilean Embassy in 1992 in Moscow ( Alamy Image DA13TY and DA13T7)  I spent weeks on assignment staking this out.  The door shot was with a 600 f4 on FUJI 400 NEG film (pushed a stop).  I was not "just there with a camera ready." 

 

Making "NEWS Images" is difficult and sometimes dangerous work not for people who sometimes stumble on a news event, but over the decades many great spot news images have been made by someone who was just standing on a corner with a disposable film camera or now with a mobile phone. 

 

I started taking pictures for a medium daily newspaper when I was 15 in 1975.  I quickly decided that I did not want to be a "newspaper photographer" I got a degree in journalism and started working for the news agencies and on assignment for the major news magazines.  Did that for decades.  My magazine images have appeared in the worlds major magazine covers and across many two page spreads and single pages over the decades.  

 

In closing I will say that, in my opinion, Alamy is currently not really a "NEWS PHOTO AGENCY" but it is getting better.  There is currently one agency that most of us know and I was contract with them for years.  I feel at home with Alamy and my experience since 2004 has been that they have treated me well and they have done the best they can in a difficult market.  The news photo business has changed dramatically over the years and I am no longer involved in it on a daily basis and I do not want to be involved in it on a daily basis, but I do photograph events or subjects that interest me and Alamy has been a valuable resource to distribute newsworthy images.

 

I SUPPORT ALAMY

 

Chuck Nacke

Edited April 12, 2019 by Chuck Nacke
clarification

[Starsphinx]

9 hours ago, Colblimp said:

No, it won't spill into regular stock.  I think, and I'm possibly completely wrong, Alamy wants to streamline the whole news thing so it only receives newsy pictures which have the possibility to sell, from contribs who have regular sales.  It's a business thing, nothing personal, I think.

 

The point I (and others) are trying to make is that by insisting on the former coming only from the latter Alamy are restricting themselves.

Good photographers who do not have regular news sales can and will take newsy pictures which have the possibility to sell.  So what if each non-regular news contributor only ever gets one "scoop" in their lifetime - multiply that by the number of lifetimes of contributors and that is a hell of a lot of scoops that Alamy has just done a good job of cutting itself off from (not because of what it has done but how it has done it)

I repeat that the complaints I have seen about the news feed both before this happened and since do not and did not concern sporadic contributions of genuine newsy pictures from non-regular news contributors, they concerned the presence of photographs that were not and are not news at all.  A plane preparing to take off is not news - yes I get there is a news story to go with it BUT the image that has been uploaded could have been taken any time and the story could be illustrated with photos already in stock.  They have had complaints about one thing and cut a different one which overlaps.  I will admit from a personal point of view it is this careless casual inefficiency which irks me the cut ABC in order to deal with an issue from B.  No Alamy are not the only ones who do things like this - not by a long way - but the practice is wasteful harmful and damages the company in the long run.

If I want to start throwing hyperbole about I might observe that this "you can only sell news photos if you are a proper news photographer" smacks of closed shop restrictive employment practices that should belong in the past.

I say again - when one of Alamys contributors is the only one to photograph Elvis riding Shergar off a newly landed UFO should Alamy be the place they automatically send the image or should they be looking at the whole market of agencies to decide where is best to send it?