Only 1 image to submit (but a good one)

[MV7]

Hi,

I have one pretty spectacular image taken during a visit to The Doors’ Jim Morrison’s grave at Pere Lachaise Cemetery, Paris - taken circa 1992, that features a guy squatting on his headstone and FIRE-BREATHING! A slam-dunk case of ‘right place, right time’ if ever there was one. The fire-breather even resembled him.

However, the submission process insists on having three images to upload. Is there any way round this? I did have other shots of the same scene but they've been lost to the sands of time, but this one trumps all other 'standard' shots of the same location, IMHO.

Is it possible to submit just one image?

Thanks

[CrowingHen]

I think you need 3 photos making it through quality control to qualify to sell... but this might have changed.

 

Sounds like a fun photo.  It might be worth uploading it to see what happens. 

 

But I think the others are right, sites like these seem to slanted in favour of people with many photos to share.  The more photos in the portfolio, the more the search favours those and the easier it is for customers to find the photo... or something like that.

[John Morrison]

A portfolio containing one shot... Well, it makes a change from people who upload thousands of terrible pix!

 

If you don't want to carry on submitting pix, then stock is not for you. Make a print of your "spectacular image", instead, and hang it on your wall...

Edited November 5, 2019 by John Morrison

[Avpics]

On 05/11/2019 at 17:38, MV7 said:

OK. No intention of having a portfolio, just thought it was a waste not to put it up somewhere. Appreciate the responses though.

 

Best,

Cartier

It's not a lot of work towards a potential gain. It sounds like something that might well attract a three figure fee at some point, whether this year, next year or in ten years. Wouldn't that be welcome?

[Number Six]

It's also worth bearing in mind that the QC team's only interest is in technical perfection, particularly for your first upload which they will examine in great detail. They will have zero interest in the image content, regardless of your obvious enthusiasm for it. Far better to upload any images with perfect exposure, focus etc etc until you are used to Alamy's QC requirements for an acceptable image. Once you are passing QC successfully, then reevaluate your Paris shot with a clinical 'Alamy QC' eye. In addition, for a 1992 shot, I presume you are probably talking about digitising a film image which raises all sorts of technical QC challenges which others will be able to discuss with you. 

[Brian Yarvin]

On 05/11/2019 at 12:38, MV7 said:

OK. No intention of having a portfolio, just thought it was a waste not to put it up somewhere. Appreciate the responses though.

 

Best,

Cartier

 

Cartier, if you love that image, it isn't a waste. It's just that it costs Alamy money to set up your account and one image isn't going to justify it - no matter what it's of or how cool it is.

[Robert M Estall]

Take a couple of shots of your cat as well. But seriously, a portfolio of 1 isn't going to take you far, nor is a portfolio of 3. They might have made an exception if you were Cartier Bresson. He liked to be pretty selective

[Allan Bell]

No. Sorry but it is Alamy's rules/conditions. If you just upload the one it will fail.

 

Allan

 

[MizBrown]

Take a photo walk around where you live, take 20 to 100 photos, edit down to two that you really like, submit with the Morrison grave photo.   Also check, All of Alamy for how many times anyone searched for Jim Morrison grave.  One of the gotchas for stock is that your photograph has to show up in someone's keyword search to illustrate a verbal work in progress.  Getting a thumbnail viewing in someone's search is the first requirement.  Second, the photo has to be more visually impressive than the others. 

[MV7]

OK. No intention of having a portfolio, just thought it was a waste not to put it up somewhere. Appreciate the responses though.

 

Best,

Cartier

[Brian Yarvin]

On 05/11/2019 at 11:46, Robert M Estall said:

Take a couple of shots of your cat as well. But seriously, a portfolio of 1 isn't going to take you far, nor is a portfolio of 3. They might have made an exception if you were Cartier Bresson. He liked to be pretty selective

 

Cartier-Bresson hated stock photography! He made some really nasty comments when Getty was taking over a major French journalism agency. 

[Robert M Estall]

I used to operate as an agency to some extent. I was approached by quite a few photographers but was hardy ever tempted. They had to fit with my specialities and I had to like them. The ones who really got my goat were the ones who thought they had just the one amazing shot which was going to excite me and the buyers. They were usually pretty delusional

Edited November 17, 2019 by Robert M Estall

[MV7]

Thanks again for all the responses.

 

For anyone interested, here's a small preview of it.

 

Edited December 10, 2019 by MV7

[MV7]

On 06/11/2019 at 19:19, Avpics said:

It's not a lot of work towards a potential gain. It sounds like something that might well attract a three figure fee at some point, whether this year, next year or in ten years. Wouldn't that be welcome?

 

I figured it might. It's niche, but nothing wrong with niche. As happened a couple of days ago, the anniversary of his passing came around and the usual photos did the rounds. Perhaps I'll just send it out into the ether and let the Lizard King decide its destiny 😎

[Colin Woods]

On 05/11/2019 at 14:20, CrowingHen said:

sites like these seem to slanted in favour of people with many photos to share

Er, this is a stock agency, not a social media "I need constant validation" site. So yes, it will be "slanted in favour of people with many photos to share", or , to phrase it another way "active photographers with large and varied portfolios will earn more".

[MDM]

On 06/11/2019 at 19:19, Avpics said:

It's not a lot of work towards a potential gain. It sounds like something that might well attract a three figure fee at some point, whether this year, next year or in ten years. Wouldn't that be welcome?

 

1 hour ago, MV7 said:

It’s sufficiently spectacular if only for those denim shorts on the onlooker in the white t-shirt. 

I figured it might. It's niche, but nothing wrong with niche. As happened a couple of days ago, the anniversary of his passing came around and the usual photos did the rounds. Perhaps I'll just send it out into the ether and let the Lizard King decide its destiny 😎

 

Avpics made that comment without seeing the picture. Looking at that picture it is hard to envisage who would buy it and that is what is important if you want to sell something.

 

It doesn't light my fire I'm afraid. It is just a tourist snapshot and it looks like that. The guy's head in the foreground is really in the way and should be cropped out as he is irrelevant. The guy in the denim shorts is not in any way spectacular or if he is then I can't see why. He is just background. You have lost the top of the flame as well. To mean anything it should be a tighter crop on the fire-eater and the flame, taken from an angle that shows where it is.

 

Finally it is not really unique at all - it is a picture that could be repeated if one was so inclined and it was worth doing financially. Grab your nearest fire-eater on your next trip to Paris and set it up properly in time for the 50th anniversary of JM's death in 2021. 

[CrowingHen]

On 10/12/2019 at 05:48, Colin Woods said:

Er, this is a stock agency, not a social media "I need constant validation" site. So yes, it will be "slanted in favour of people with many photos to share", or , to phrase it another way "active photographers with large and varied portfolios will earn more".

 

Exactly!

Since the OP seems new to stock so I attempted to use the language of social media.  This is probably where I went wrong as I don't actually "do" social media so I'm learning the language secondhand. 

[Steve Tucker]

To the OP

Its a reasonable shot and from your posts it obviously has personal value as a sentimental moment, but as said above it is nothing special in terms of sell-able images, if you already had an Alamy portfolio then it would be worth uploading because it might just sell at some point, however it probably wouldn't fetch much revenue, it might attract some editors attention if something in the news covers this subject but these days for such a shot you may get a tenner if you are lucky and that could be three years on from uploading, so unless you are going to start uploading stock images it honestly isn't worth it in my opinion.

[CrowingHen]

Thinking about it some more.  I wonder if this photo would be better at a print on demand site where people could order prints of it.  

 

It would take a bit more work for the OP to market it, but the income would probably be better than just submitting one photo to a stock agency.

[MizBrown]

On 10/12/2019 at 09:04, MDM said:

 

Finally it is not really unique at all - it is a picture that could be repeated if one was so inclined and it was worth doing financially. Grab your nearest fire-eater on your next trip to Paris and set it up properly in time for the 50th anniversary of JM's death in 2021. 

This one looks like a performer in front of tourist cameras.  I see three people with cameras in the shot, and the photographer's camera is the fourth camera.  Also, without a caption, it's not obvious whose grave this is.   So it looks staged without looking professionally staged.