Jump to content
  • 0

My Dasboard Does Not Show That My Photos are For Sale


Question

Dear Friends,

 

I'm new and I think I’m not doing something right. None of my images that have passed QC are listed as ‘For Sale.’ I’ve read the instructions and I thought I had done everything correctly. I have some images that are still going through QC, but I’m not referring to them.

 

Please advise…thank you!

 

Mark Wise

  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Recommended Posts

  • 0

It is sooo hard to help someone in this situation where we can't see what you are doing. At least you have caption and keywords showing at this point so my suggestion is that you go into the Image Manager and select ONE image and then look only in the panel on the right. It should be clear now where the caption is. Change it to the actual description of that one image. Add more very specific tags. Click on SAVE. Then deselect that image. This is important because if you don't you will carry your work to the next image. Go one by one through the images. Hope this helps.

 

Paulette

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
7 hours ago, sb photos said:

 

I suspect Alamy would automatically remove entries from all non relevant IPTC fields as it does with camera data before being ready for sale.

 

I can't find a field in Alamy Image Manager to enter anything that would show up like this.  News accepts a headline field, which is an IPTC field accessible in PhotoShop but not in Lightroom Classic under the default, but can be done by switching to IPTC for Metadata type.  If nobody has ever entered a field before that will write to a jpeg export, then if Alamy is using a standard media information software package and modifying it, then maybe one of these fields doesn't get stripped out because the default assumption is that we'll enter data through AIM and nobody has entered these fields before in stock submissions.   And the headline field is relevant for news submissions, but stripped out when moved to stock.

 

OP can see these fields by looking at his original photos and checking the IPTC metadata. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
On 30/01/2021 at 08:41, MizBrown said:

 

OP can see these fields by looking at his original photos and checking the IPTC metadata. 

 

Looks like the caption problem is sorted, but the tags are still a tad problematic.   His falcons are hawks -- Harris Hawk (North American species that is captive bred in Europe and sold to falconers (technical terms for people hunting with hawks is astringer but almost nobody uses it) and Red-shouldered Hawk. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
On 29/01/2021 at 21:42, Mark Wise said:

Lol...I am satisfied with the tags and captions, but Alamy says that the same caption (staring seagulls) is associated with all the photos. I don't see this caption they're referring to. Do you know where I could find it if it's not on the photos themselves? Sorry for all these questions...again, I find this site VERY confusing!

 

Mark

Thank you. I seem to be on track now, although this whole process is STILL confusing to me. I changed each pic's caption individually, as most of them had the same caption (I mistakenly thought that a 'caption' was the name placed on each pic).

You said not to worry about 'poor discoverability.' What is it and why should I not worry about it? How can I improve it...my captions and tags I THINK are very good!

Finally, someone else posted a sarcastic response to this subject...pls, nobody do this; I'm asking questions because I don't know...like you at some point.

  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Mark, you gave what came across as a sarcastic response to one of my posts. I can assure you my comment was not trying to insult you at all. I genuinely didn't understand why you were doing something that wasn't going to be helpful to you. In one of my later posts I tried to go step by step to help you. Am I being paranoid in thinking that you may have taken my question about the discoverability filter as some kind of sarcastic remark? By the way. when they first introduced this image manager I moaned and complained for months because I think it is unnecessarily complicated and confusing. I understand why you are having trouble.

 

Paulette

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Hi Mark,

 

Just to reiterate Paulette's advice above, it does seem that you may not be deselecting an image after adding a caption and tags. For example, 

Blue Heron in Pond, Cocoa Beach, FL 

- Image ID: 2E529T9

 

This image has tags that are not related to it and are clearly meant for other images you have uploaded of different subjects in different locations. It seems you may have done something to correct the duplication of captions, but not so with the tags.

 

So when you go to add information to an image, make sure only that one image is selected in Alamy Image Manager. Add tags as necessary (and remove ones that are not meant to be there) and make sure the caption is correct. Click SAVE then click the image again to deselect it before going on to another image.

 

With regard to captions and tags, I would add the full name and not just the initials of states. So for example, it would be good to put Florida as well as FL, as many may search with Florida and then your image will not appear if you just have the initials.

 

The discoverability bar only needs to get to orange for an image to be on sale. By getting to 40+ tags you can make it green, but this can be counterproductive if you are just adding tags for the sake of it to make the bar green. You only want tags that are directly relevant about what is exactly in the image, otherwise your image may appear in customer searches where it is not relevant and this can affect your Click Through Rate which can affect your ranking in search results. Basically you want tags that help buyers find your images.

 

Also, look out for sensor dust spots. There is a recurring spot appearing in the top left quadrant in several of your more recent images (taken in 2020). This is easy to remove in post processing. Alamy QC could fail you on this if it is picked up, as they request sensor dust spots be removed. Similarly, there is a more obvious dark speck on some of your 2017 images on the top right which could be a sensor dust spot or a fleck of something on the lens.

 

It will get easier once you get used to it all. It is nice to see your bird images. Birds are a favourite subject of mine too, though haven't been doing bird photography recently. I like your one of a dog ordering a beer at the bar.

Edited by Sally R
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Tags are still problematic.   See NYCat's and Sally R's advice above.  Check through what you've got up so far and look at one picture at a time and see what the tags are.   For birds, falcons may be more romantic, and the typical term for people hunting with hawks these days is falconers, but your raptors are hawks in both cases.   Google will find you their scientific names.  I've met a trained Harris (Harris's) Hawk in real life at a Virginia falconers' meet.  There are over 4,000 Harris Hawk photos up on Alamy and over 1,000 of Harris's Hawk and also of Harris Falcon (and one of those is actually either a Merlin or a Peregrine Falcon).   Harris Hawks are a particularly interesting species because they live in groups in the wild and even tend their old.  Because they're more social than most hawks, they're easier to tame and breed in captivity. 

 

And yes, getting the technical details right matters for most buyers of bird photos (and fish and insects and spiders).  The basic reality is that people search for images by tags and captions are also used if search terms match words in the caption.  You get dinged if you show up too many times in irrelevant searches. 

 

Probably before you were reading the forums, some contributor used the wrong name for a parrot which end up on a news site.  Several people ID'd the bird in the photo that was first used and pointed out it wasn't the bird the news organization had been looking for.   The news organization went to a different agency to get the right picture of the right species.

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • 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.