Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Just now, ChrisC said:

Go to upload, then  1) under choose your upload route, its the box on the right hand side

 

Cheers, Chris - thanks for the prompt reply. You have saved me countless hours. 🙂

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
 
 
12 minutes ago, RedSnapper said:

at least 4......

km

That seems quite a small team for an international news offering. I wonder why they don't subcontract out to operatives elsewhere?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Jansos said:

Cheers, Chris - thanks for the prompt reply. You have saved me countless hours. 🙂

No probs, I had the e-mail too and just happened to be checking the thread for what it actually means in reality, I'm still slightly confused, but as someone else said, if I do a concert, as I have done in the past, it can work for that, I guess it's also ok, If I see something slightly or possible newsworthy. A young lad was knocked off his motor bike by my house as I headed home, I could have taken some photos of the aftermath, but like a lot of others, don't have "live news" access, but I guess this could be a way to put such like online, then ask Alamy to look at them, & perhaps they can then be syndicated?

 

Chris

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if photo essays submitted as reportage will need a separate headline (title) in addition to a caption.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
20 hours ago, Joseph Clemson said:

 

I fully understand that the reportage images are not being actively  promoted to the news agencies. That being the case, the only difference I can see with reportage is that the images by-pass QC and, I assume, enter the normal library.

 

If the image I am submitting (typically a regional/local event) is time -sensitive, to the extent of being mainly of possible interest to the publishers of the next day's newspapers, then simply bypassing QC and entering the normal library is not going to be terribly helpful. What I would be hoping for is, if you like, a secondary news stream which is not actively pinged to the news agencies, but to which they can refer to if they choose to see what current secondary editorial is being submitted that day.

 

The only advantage I can see to reportage uploads, is if they are potentially saleable images and might be marginal for QC, such as shot in very challenging light. 

 

I believe every live news image I've previously uploaded would have passed QC, just as my current 'news' related stock uploads are now. Other than already mentioned, the reportage upload path is a useful option, but not a substitute for what has been lost. Currently I shall continue uploading as stock, saving a day is no great benefit, until I finish investigating other possibilities.

 

I can't see a  'secondary' or 'soft news' stream being practicable for Alamy, it would likely require more staff to manage.

Edited by sb photos
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

However Alamy decide to do this I think they should spend some time knocking their various Live News Help pages into shape. When I made my first (and almost last!) News submission back on 3rd March it was over a weekend so I had to go by what I could find online. I went primarily by this downloadable pdf, which I downloaded and printed out so I could have it in front of me:

 

https://www.alamy.com/contributors/captions-and-headlines-for-alamy-live-news.pdf

 

I committed the cardinal sin of uploading my images with slightly different headlines because this pdf doesn't actually say they have to be the same. I know that once you know it is obvious but if you don't realise that is what ties them together then it might not be, coupled with the usual stress of getting things done quickly.

 

I now know that there is a page somewhere else that does say this but it's not obvious and I hadn't seen it since I imagined this pdf would be comprehensive. Fortunately there were only 3 images so it didn't mess up the news feed that much and once the News Team had rolled up in Abingdon they were rejected anyway. I even put a post on here asking if this might have been the reason they had been rejected which elicited a variety of responses.

 

I think this is still happening on the news feed and must be a major cause of frustration for them so spending a bit of time creating better help guidelines would seem to be time well spent.

 

I just came across this which I hadn't seen before, mainly because from its Properties I  can see that it was created on March 19th of this year:

 

https://www.alamy.com/help/Live-news-policies.pdf

 

For what it's worth that doesn't point out that the Headline has to be the same either whereas in one simple short sentence it could do.

 

There's a link to it tagged on to the end of this page:

 

https://www.alamy.com/contributor/how-to-sell-news-images/what-images-can-i-send-to-alamy-live-news/

 

 

 

Edited by Harry Harrison

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
30 minutes ago, Harry Harrison said:

 

I just came across this which I hadn't seen before, mainly because from its Properties I  can see that it was created on March 19th of this year:

 

https://www.alamy.com/help/Live-news-policies.pdf

 

I certainly haven’t seen that before, and since I am a regular live news contributor, I wouldn’t be looking for it. The limit of 20 images is news to me. It’s much tighter guidance than I have seen anywhere before.

Edited by Sally
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Sally said:

I certainly haven’t seen that before, and since I am a regular live news contributor, I wouldn’t be looking for it. The limit of 20 images is news to me. It’s much tighter guidance than I have seen anywhere before.

 

I only got pointed towards it once I'd been denied access. 

 

Surely the sensible path in all this would have been to write these new guidelines, then push it out in an email to all current news contributors, advising us all that if the updated guidelines were not adhered to, then a cull would be taking place. New potential contributors could have been pointed in the direction of the PDF. Would have saved a lot of potential surprise and upset. I understand totally why they've done what they have, but the method and communication leaves much to be desired. 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, losdemas said:

Surely the sensible path

Yes, absolutely. It leaves a bad taste that some contributors were given at least 48 hours notice when they were only going to be affected positively by having much of the 'competition' eliminated at a stroke whereas those that were kicked out had no notice at all. The reasons the changes were made are understandable, the extra workload etc., but for some reason Alamy decided to chuck their toys out of the pram without apparently considering the consequences. Why not have a measured period so that people could reapply and Alamy could manage those applications?

 

It couldn't really have been my 3 images that pushed them over limit could it?

Share this post


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

 

The only advantage I can see to reportage uploads, is if they are potentially saleable images and might be marginal for QC, such as shot in very challenging light. 

 

I believe every live news image I've previously uploaded would have passed QC, just as my current 'news' related stock uploads are now. Other than already mentioned, the reportage upload path is a useful option, but not a substitute for what has been lost. Currently I shall continue uploading as stock, saving a day is no great benefit, until I finish investigating other possibilities.

 

I can't see a  'secondary' or 'soft news' stream being practicable for Alamy, it would likely require more staff to manage.

 

It will be a great shame if Alamy really can't find a way to implement a secondary or soft news scheme, though I understand that they may not have the resources to manage it, or indeed that the news agencies may not have the time or inclination to keep checking it to see if there is anything worth having (though they seem happy to trawl Twitter for such items). The loss to both Alamy and the news agencies is an army of skilled, if occasional, news contributors and the loss of some real saleable images in the Alamy news stream in the days ahead. 

 

Like yourself, I'm in no way in the business of submitting reportage images which would not pass QC in any case. I declined to apply for the reportage route when Alamy first offered it to me when declining my news stream application. I could not see how that it in any way provided a viable and timely route for genuine news images. Nothing Alamy has said since then has changed my mind about that, even when they automatically granted me and others reportage privileges, .I think the reportage route concession is just a sop to try and keep disenfranchised former news contributors vaguely happy.

 

I worry about the move to open the reportage route more widely because, I believe, it will be used by less scrupulous contributors as a backdoor to avoid QC. This devalues the collection as a whole and hurts other contributors by enabling unfair competition. 

 

The sad thing is  that no longer having news upload privileges means I have changed my work pattern and have now ceased prioritising events and locations which may have potential news value. Instead, I am using my time to shoot generic stock timelapses instead (sadly, I can't upload those to Alamy either, but that is another story). I think Alamy has perhaps lost a little more than they realise through the tightening up of the Live News scheme. Even so, I would welcome any initiative Alamy may take to reconnect with and to re-energise the community of occasional news submitters. I live in hope.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
 
 
 
2
15 hours ago, Mr Standfast said:

 

Welcome to the party, did you bring beer?

 

I think Alamy clarified their reasons earlier today, they clicked their fingers because of a  "dramatic increase of imagery that isn’t suitable, either due to the content itself or from  incorrectly formatted captions ".  To me a simple explanation such as this, sits easier, than anything Machiavellian,

Surely the correct response to "dramatic increase of imagery that isn’t suitable, either due to the content itself or from incorrectly formatted captions " is to ban people guilty of that not kick out 80 or 90% of contributors including those who have always stuck to content and caption guidelines?

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Harry Harrison said:

It couldn't really have been my 3 images that pushed them over limit could it?

No lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, ChrisC said:

No probs, I had the e-mail too and just happened to be checking the thread for what it actually means in reality, I'm still slightly confused, but as someone else said, if I do a concert, as I have done in the past, it can work for that, I guess it's also ok, If I see something slightly or possible newsworthy. A young lad was knocked off his motor bike by my house as I headed home, I could have taken some photos of the aftermath, but like a lot of others, don't have "live news" access, but I guess this could be a way to put such like online, then ask Alamy to look at them, & perhaps they can then be syndicated?

 

Chris

I wish you luck with that. Seems a bit slow and long-winded. Has put me off the idea of going to live news type events that I wouldn't have normally attended. Will still go to events of interest though! Can't help but think that Alamy hasn't really thought this one through. 

Share this post


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

Surely the correct response to "dramatic increase of imagery that isn’t suitable, either due to the content itself or from incorrectly formatted captions " is to ban people guilty of that not kick out 80 or 90% of contributors including those who have always stuck to content and caption guidelines?

 

A good point but why quote me when you make it? I was answering a different question.

 

 

Share this post


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

I wish you luck with that. Seems a bit slow and long-winded. Has put me off the idea of going to live news type events that I wouldn't have normally attended. Will still go to events of interest though! Can't help but think that Alamy hasn't really thought this one through. 

I'm not saying I will, I was thinking maybe?

 

The way Alamy has been doing things over the last few months, seems to be all about making decisions of some sort, ti I guess improve the business model and grow sales and profit, but it seems like they gave found the ideas in an ideas manual, having not though out how to implement them, nor the repercussions, or what it may mean to the people who supply them with everything they need to run their business model.

 

Maybe it's an accounting way of running the business? 

 

I've seen a few people say that they think people were gaming the live news stream to bypass the QC for stock upload, but like a number of other people who have said this, I also used the same Alamy QC upload criteria for Live as for stock, so I'm not sure if that is true? But if it its true, Alamy should have targeted these people directly, a couple of times, I didn't title correctly for live news, I did get an e-mail to say so and change it, which I did.

 

The new reportage way of uploading, sounds ideal for those who do want to bypass QC, which is a bit odd!

Chris 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Starsphinx said:

Surely the correct response to "dramatic increase of imagery that isn’t suitable, either due to the content itself or from incorrectly formatted captions " is to ban people guilty of that not kick out 80 or 90% of contributors including those who have always stuck to content and caption guidelines?

 

No, the correct response is what Alamy did "news access was limited to those who used news upload regularly and had made live news sales"

 

Actually selling news images is the measure of success that is important to Alamy and so the criteria that they applied was the correct one.

 

With a breaking news story 15 miles away from you (as you have told us), it's a shame that you didn't take the opportunity to get out there, get the pictures and show Alamy what you can do. Instead you spent time trying to make an issue out of your inaction and blame it on Alamy. Is that what a successful news photographer would do?

 

 

  • Upvote 6

Share this post


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

I'm not saying I will, I was thinking maybe?

 

The way Alamy has been doing things over the last few months, seems to be all about making decisions of some sort, ti I guess improve the business model and grow sales and profit, but it seems like they gave found the ideas in an ideas manual, having not though out how to implement them, nor the repercussions, or what it may mean to the people who supply them with everything they need to run their business model.

 

Maybe it's an accounting way of running the business? 

 

I've seen a few people say that they think people were gaming the live news stream to bypass the QC for stock upload, but like a number of other people who have said this, I also used the same Alamy QC upload criteria for Live as for stock, so I'm not sure if that is true? But if it its true, Alamy should have targeted these people directly, a couple of times, I didn't title correctly for live news, I did get an e-mail to say so and change it, which I did.

 

The new reportage way of uploading, sounds ideal for those who do want to bypass QC, which is a bit odd!

Chris 

 

When I read Alamy's statement it makes business sense to me. They're reducing the time that they have to spend on non-productive  activities (cleaning up the news feed) so that they can spend more time on getting the good images out to buyers.

 

Whatever criteria they had used to achieve this there would be some contributors who ended up on the wrong side of the cut and were not happy. But I would argue that the objective measure they applied, i.e. have the contributors' images sold as news, is both as fair as any, and is correct from a business perspective. Yes, as a result, Alamy may miss out in the future on some news stories, but this has to be viewed against the cost of supporting a free for all where the overall quality was declining and more and more time had to be spent cleaning up the feed and finding the newsworthy images.
 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Keith Douglas said:

 

When I read Alamy's statement it makes business sense to me. They're reducing the time that they have to spend on non-productive  activities (cleaning up the news feed) so that they can spend more time on getting the good images out to buyers.

 

Whatever criteria they had used to achieve this there would be some contributors who ended up on the wrong side of the cut and were not happy. But I would argue that the objective measure they applied, i.e. have the contributors' images sold as news, is both as fair as any, and is correct from a business perspective. Yes, as a result, Alamy may miss out in the future on some news stories, but this has to be viewed against the cost of supporting a free for all where the overall quality was declining and more and more time had to be spent cleaning up the feed and finding the newsworthy images.
 

Agreed, this is all old news now, it's time to move on. Let alamy get on with selling some pictures.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Keith Douglas said:

more and more time had to be spent cleaning up the feed and finding the newsworthy images.

 

Yes, time to move on but might there not be a case for a redesign of the News feed, it still looks something of a mess to me. I know that you've said that no news desks look at it anyway, the images are always pushed to them, or am I misinterpreting you?

 

In particular the soft news images just don't look right jumbled up with the hard news ones, I recently saw a shot of a terrier gambolling in bluebells (not yours) next to one of bodies laid out in Gaza. Now that was in the 'All' section of course but you can go to the Entertainment or Sport tabs if that is your interest, I would have thought a 'Soft news' tab might be in order, perhaps with a more enticing name.

 

Supplementary question - if the news desks don't buy from the news feed then who does?

Share this post


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

 

Yes, time to move on but might there not be a case for a redesign of the News feed, it still looks something of a mess to me. I know that you've said that no news desks look at it anyway, the images are always pushed to them, or am I misinterpreting you?

 

In particular the soft news images just don't look right jumbled up with the hard news ones, I recently saw a shot of a terrier gambolling in bluebells (not yours) next to one of bodies laid out in Gaza. Now that was in the 'All' section of course but you can go to the Entertainment or Sport tabs if that is your interest, I would have thought a 'Soft news' tab might be in order, perhaps with a more enticing name.

 

Supplementary question - if the news desks don't buy from the news feed then who does?

Alamy doesn't care whether soft or hard news is on the feed.  Alamy only cares about sales, as Keith Douglas alluded to a couple of posts above.  I'm still a news contributor because I make news sales - making the sales is what it's all about, not whether you have a cracking news story.  Did pics sell?  Yes - great, you're in!  No - sorry, we only need contribs whose pics sell.  Simple as that.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


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

Alamy only cares about sales

 

I absolutely agree, I don't think that what I wrote was arguing against that at all. I was just thinking that from a buyer's point of view it would make it easier to find the soft news pictures if they were separated out just as Entertainment and Sport are.

Edited by Harry Harrison

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Harry Harrison said:

 

I absolutely agree, I don't think that what I wrote was arguing against that at all. I was just thinking that from a buyer's point of view it would make it easier to find the soft news pictures if they were separated out just as Entertainment and Sport are.

No, bad idea.  I guarantee no one would look at the 'soft news' section.  Leave it as is, anyway, we can discuss this 'til the cows come home - it won't make the slightest bit of difference.  Right, I'm going to take some pics...

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Harry Harrison said:

Supplementary question - if the news desks don't buy from the news feed then who does? 

 

 

nobody....

 

and if you look today (09/05/2019) at the current first page of my collection here, you will find 5 images that have been sold as LiveNews in the past week...

 

km

Edited by RedSnapper
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Colblimp said:

No, bad idea.  I guarantee no one would look at the 'soft news' section.  Leave it as is, anyway, we can discuss this 'til the cows come home - it won't make the slightest bit of difference.  Right, I'm going to take some pics...

I'm out taking pics as well. Moving on.... 

Edited by Mr Standfast
Dumb comment

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now 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.