Thinking of going exclusive - am I crackers?

[geogphotos]

2 hours ago, Cal said:

 

Thanks. have started using LR for keywording now and am in the habit of no longer forgetting to do it before exporting, so that's taken care of...!

 

I have almost everything listed RM, think it's only something like 8 images RF and they're all free of property and have me as the model so obviously released without question if it gets to that. It was more of an experiment than anything else but going forward my plan is to stay more or less wholly RM. 

 

Two of the three sales I had so far were of the same image of a motorway taken not 2 miles up the road from me, and not even used in this country. Go figure!

 

I am guessing but quite likely an image like that would be rejected from the micros as not being sufficiently saleable. That is a big lesson itself I'd say. If there are types of pictures that are not on micros then that has to be a good lead to follow.

 

The other big difference I see when looking at micros is the often very loose, careless approach to captions even if they have the images eg) do they mention the name of the motorway, the exact location, direction, anything specific such as the name of a haulage company or has all that been omitted/cloned out to make it look generic?

 

So although we can't get away from the huge negative impact that micros have on all of us we can at least attempt to differentiate our own images and distance ourselves from the same sort of content. To me that is one of the main advantages of RM because no RM image can be on a micro site.

 

Edited June 10, 2020 by geogphotos

[spacecadet]

4 hours ago, Cal said:

0 images on Alamy's MS offering.

Alamy doesn't have a "microstock offering"- what do you mean?

[spacecadet]

duplicate

Edited June 10, 2020 by spacecadet

[spacecadet]

triplicate

Edited June 10, 2020 by spacecadet

[george]

12 minutes ago, spacecadet said:

Alamy doesn't have a "microstock offering"- what do you mean?

Maybe he meant S******O 

[Marvin McAbee]

As I only upload to Alamy I have been working on moving most of my pics to exclusive.

[dlmphotog]

I'm exclusive with Alamy and prefer a smelly blue cheese on my cracker! 😄

 

As others have mentioned, metadata is your friend!

 

Best practice is to have all the metadata (captions, keywords/tags, location, copyright notice, photographer contact info), on the original image file, be that RAW, TIFF or JPG. Then any derivative copy's of the images that you submit have all the metadata included. Notice I include in my metadata information that Alamy strips from the images, not to worry as I annotate my images for the long term not just for what Alamy requires.

 

A good book that helped me transition to digital is The DAM Book

 

Hope this helps,

 

David L. Moore

[Betty LaRue]

Mine are exclusive. But then, I’m more interested in a rather peaceful life, not flogging my work. If you are energetic, by all means...
From what some others have said, a certain amount of buyers search a lot of agencies. I never want to offer something here that can be gotten for pennies elsewhere.

For the most part, my sale prices are decent here. Not what they used to be when I got $300 textbook sales, but the market is what it is. Back then, most licenses were for print, not web.

Someday, physical in-your-hands books will be in museums, not libraries.

[Chuck Nacke]

1 hour ago, Sally R said:

 

People would be referring here to the subject type - specifically images with people that lack model releases and images with property that lack property releases. So images of Black Lives Matter protests, general street scene with property and people, basically anything unreleased.

 

My general understanding is that if the license type is RM, ticking the editorial box is mostly not essential, but the photographer can choose to at their own discretion. The important thing is to indicate that you don't have model and/or property releases. However, Alamy states that images including artwork must be marked editorial and photographed in a wider context.

 

So I think what people are saying here is that a lot of the kinds of images that sell here are unreleased images, and often of the type that appear in newspapers, news websites, magazines etc. There is a greater focus on those kinds of images over the kinds of commercial images that appear a lot in microstock, such as model-released photos of a family eating dinner, business people around a table, that kind of thing. You can still get editorial images on more commercially-oriented stock sites and vice versa, but not to the same degree. The fact that there are contributors on Alamy who are photojournalists or work for magazines makes sense, as Alamy is more oriented to the kinds of subject matter that are editorial in nature.

NO Sally,

 

According to what you have written both you and Alamy have corrupted the term "Editorial" or you have taken something written by Alamy out of context.

 

Editorial According to Merriam-Webster: Traditionally, the word editorial operates firmly within the realm of the written word. As a noun, it most often refers to a newspaper or magazine article (or an online equivalent) that gives the opinions of that publication's editors or publishers. 

 

In my opinion; Editorial Photography is a different way of seeing and making images and magazine photography, newspaper photography and wire service photography and very different subsets of Editorial.  Over the years I have also done a lot of "Corporate Photography" and "Advertising Photography"  Those are very different than "Editorial Photography."  I have tried to do "Stock Photography", but was never happy doing it.

 

To put it in context for Cal:  Editorial, at least in the way I used it, was meant to mean that I make an image (s) with the idea that it or they will be licensed by a publication or editorial web site (see definition above in bold).  I have made "Editorial" images that I had signed model releases from the subjects appearing in the images, but do not do that very often.  One more important factor for "Editorial Images" is that they be unaltered graphically (see Alamy's own guidelines) and have complete and accurate caption information.

 

I would also add that an "Editorial Image" also illustrates a story or event.  

 

Chuck

Edited June 11, 2020 by Chuck Nacke
addition

[Cal]

there is an excellent tweet from Alamy that I have just seen on the dashboard which I agree with:

 

 

Cracking photo as well.

 

Thanks for the tips re. editorial.

[Cryptoprocta]

It's impossible to advise. Everyone's port is different so everyone's experience is different. All my pics on Alamy are RM and exclusive (though some are only de facto exclusive as they are pictures of artworks). I also have a port on one of the micros, about 10% smaller than my Alamy port, but every month except one I have earned more there and my overall earnings there are considerably more than my earnings via Alamy. I will say that I don't do Live News on Alamy, and that probably makes a big difference.

Both agencies are falling in sales and especially in rpd, and what will happen round the corner is anyone's guess. If your aim is a better rpd, Alamy is a better bet for the moment, if your aim is to maximise your income, Alamy may not be your best bet unless you move into Live News.

[Ed Rooney]

I'm exclusive and all RM. 

[John Mitchell]

I admit to being crackers, but I think that being exclusive is especially beneficial for editorial photos -- i.e. ones created with magazines, books, editorial websites, etc. in mind. Not sure about "commercial" and "lifestyle" images, though, since I don't know much about those markets. I like to think that keeping most of my Alamy images exclusive has resulted in consistent monthly sales numbers and revenue, but I don't have any way of verifying this.

[Bill Allsopp]

Just over half my images here are exclusive, the others are with a small specialist agency that is very picky about what it takes but returns far more per image and in total than Alamy. I think it depends what you shoot, if you have a specialist area it may be worth looking through the BAPLA lists to find a library you fit with. I will have no truck with the "Penny Dreadfuls" and almost all my images are RM.

 

[Allan Bell]

3 hours ago, Bill Allsopp said:

"Penny Dreadfuls"

 

🤣🤣🤣

 

Neither do I.

 

Allan

 

[Russell]

17 hours ago, Cryptoprocta said:

especially in rpd

??????

[Cryptoprocta]

8 hours ago, Russell said:

??????

return per download. The average you net from each individual sale.

[Russell]

33 minutes ago, Cryptoprocta said:

return per download. The average you net from each individual sale.

Thank you.

[Colblimp]

On 11/06/2020 at 11:35, Sally R said:

 

Ok Chuck, I think I understand what you are saying. I was trying to answer that question for Cal as I could see it hadn't been answered yet.

 

My understanding of editorial was on the basis of images that cannot be used by the purchaser commercially. I do get that editorial images are used to illustrate a story or event, and are used in a range of media publications. I guess what I was also including in editorial were images that cannot be used commercially because of the lack of a release. For example, if I photograph a branded can of soup but I don't have a release, then it can only be used by the purchaser editorially. However, the can of soup on it's own is not telling a story (and is less interesting). Someone writing an article may still use the image though if it helps to illustrate what the article is about (maybe something on the canned food industry, cooking fresh meals rather than eating canned food for a health magazine etc).

 

So if I get you correctly, you are talking about the craft and profession of doing editorial photography, and that involves storytelling via capturing a moment in time. And as you point out, it is possible to take an editorial photo even where you may have a release. It is a qualitative thing, rather than being defined by the presence/absence of a release.

 

So I guess a better answer for Cal than what I gave above would be to say that editorial images that illustrate stories and events that are used with the written word in various forms of media sell better on Alamy.

 

 

You’re right Sally and your first post was correct too. I understood what you were getting at 👍

[Bmaintz]

On 11/06/2020 at 14:52, Ed Rooney said:

I'm exclusive and all RM. 

*******************

Took a peak at your pics...

Do the food plate pics sell well, I do cruises & can take plenty of them..

What are your best sellers?

Thanks,

Bob

 

[AlexG]

On 11/06/2020 at 11:52, Ed Rooney said:

I'm exclusive and all RM. 

If you don't mind me asking, what settings do you typically limit when you do RM?

Does RM make sense if none of the options on the second page are checked?

[Cal]

1 hour ago, AlexG said:

If you don't mind me asking, what settings do you typically limit when you do RM?

Does RM make sense if none of the options on the second page are checked?

 

I would say RM still makes sense if you value the image and don't want, say, a newspaper buying it and then using it frequently thereafter on articles. On the other hand I suspect some types of images will only ever sell well when set as RF, but I'd never set something I was very very proud of (or that was a rare thing to have an image of) as RF - it's like giving your work away.

[John Mitchell]

5 hours ago, Cal said:

 

I would say RM still makes sense if you value the image and don't want, say, a newspaper buying it and then using it frequently thereafter on articles. On the other hand I suspect some types of images will only ever sell well when set as RF, but I'd never set something I was very very proud of (or that was a rare thing to have an image of) as RF - it's like giving your work away.

 

I tend to use RF only for certain types of images -- e.g. abstracts, backgrounds, generic nature shots and the like. I've experimented with making some older editorial images that have been gathering dust "RF Editorial", but frankly it doesn't seem to make any difference on Alamy. Most licenses are "hybrid" RM/RF anyway, and the direct download options are essentially RM licenses, even for images marked as RF.  I suppose that RF images have a better chance of being licensed through distributors, but I'm not sure about that.

Edited June 16, 2020 by John Mitchell

[Ed Rooney]

5 hours ago, John Mitchell said:

 

I tend to use RF only for certain types of images -- e.g. abstracts, backgrounds, generic nature shots and the like. I've experimented with making some older editorial images that have been gathering dust "RF Editorial", but frankly it doesn't seem to make any difference on Alamy. Most licenses are "hybrid" RM/RF anyway, and the direct download options are essentially RM licenses, even for images marked as RF.  I suppose that RF images have a better chance of being licensed through distributors, but I'm not sure about that.

 

Thanks for that very good answer to Alex's question, John. 😉

[John Mitchell]

8 hours ago, Ed Rooney said:

 

Thanks for that very good answer to Alex's question, John. 😉

 

I believe it's called "magical thinking" (on my part). 🙈