Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I agree that Alamy probably let the fox into the hen house by allowing microstock images through the door, but I don't see how this could have been prevented. Alamy would have had to revise its entire "open-door" policy.

 

As far as "exclusivity" is concerned, it never really existed. The move was mainly to appease us after the first commission kerfuffle. If Alamy had been truly serious about offering exclusive imagery, they would have devised an exclusive contract option for contributors in addition to the existing non-exclusive one. The honour system was bound to fail IMO.

 

 

 

 

Edited by John Mitchell
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, NomisH said:

Poor reasoning, indeed. Free market capitalism is my fault, yes. I was LOYAL to ALAMY and felt they offered a fair deal. They chose to break that deal and I responded. Instead of just moaning, why not supplement your income with a job in an Amazon warehouse. I hear they have plenty of openings.

Yet another stupid comment from you. Keep them coming and embarrass yourself, it’s giving me a right laugh 🤣🤣🤣

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Chuck Nacke said:

Another "rare" case where I agree with you 100%.

 

The original post is in my humble opinion "Utter Rubbish."

 

Chuck

 

 

Your problem not mine. 

 

 

Edited by geogphotos
  • Confused 1
  • Sad 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Some of us have been with Alamy for many years longer than the OP and have weathered the ups and downs of this industry. Personally I am happy to stick with exclusivity on Alamy, It has served me well.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

For those of us who have been on Alamy for a long time will remember us getting 70% of the sales back in the day and the shock when the sales fell into only double figures !!

As an industry the democratising of photography through digital cameras and online libraries means only one thing downward prices. Historically photographers being a disparate group of individuals which has often made them hard to organise and not undercut each other. Most photographers would say RM is the only way to sell your images, but it only takes a few to support RF and the rug is pulled from under the rests feet. The suits see the splits in the ranks and it all over.

 

The pricing on all the sites are not sustainable for anybody creating content with an eye to making any money certainly you couldn't be a full time stock photographer anymore.

Perhaps the industry has to eat itself and new models arise. Setting our own prices would certainly help even if its only setting minimum prices. I can understand how any agency that isn't MS can justify sub dollar prices. If they want to give their clients incentives don't do it out of my pocket. I'm not sure why clients ( often large multinationals ) aren't made to pay a realistic price.

 

As somebody once said trying to organise photographers is like trying to herd cats.

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Dave R said:

For those of us who have been on Alamy for a long time will remember us getting 70% of the sales back in the day and the shock when the sales fell into only double figures !!

As an industry the democratising of photography through digital cameras and online libraries means only one thing downward prices. Historically photographers being a disparate group of individuals which has often made them hard to organise and not undercut each other. Most photographers would say RM is the only way to sell your images, but it only takes a few to support RF and the rug is pulled from under the rests feet. The suits see the splits in the ranks and it all over.

 

The pricing on all the sites are not sustainable for anybody creating content with an eye to making any money certainly you couldn't be a full time stock photographer anymore.

Perhaps the industry has to eat itself and new models arise. Setting our own prices would certainly help even if its only setting minimum prices. I can understand how any agency that isn't MS can justify sub dollar prices. If they want to give their clients incentives don't do it out of my pocket. I'm not sure why clients ( often large multinationals ) aren't made to pay a realistic price.

 

As somebody once said trying to organise photographers is like trying to herd cats.

 

Re setting our own prices -- I've been experimenting with submitting some of my images to places (which I won't name) where you can set your own prices. Depressingly, most photographers who contribute to these sites price their images for peanuts, almost as bad as microstock. What's the point? They are their own worst enemies it seems.

 

Not to sound boastful, but I've had four $$$ sales (a rare event) this month, so there still are some customers who are willing to pay higher amounts for hard-to-find images.

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 23/09/2021 at 23:30, Jill Morgan said:

 

Jeff, I buy images and if I see an image I like, I simply right click and search on google for the image.  It will tell me in 5 seconds if I can find it in one of the cheap joints.

 

Jill

 

So do you end up with image package in all the stock agency?  Based on my understanding to get these prices OP mentions, don't you need to buy packages of 100s of images? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is you may have made the sales and I am glad you did , but you didn't set the prices. Most clients would pay the larger amount if they had no other choice of paying peanuts somewhere else. With other major agencies going RF it really is coming to a crunch point. As a working photographer London with many contacts with art buyers at major add agencies they all think its great as the costs are pretty much fixed. but when I explained that many of the photographers can't produce the quality of content for the new model they kind of twig that you can't produce high quality shot with models, locations ,wardrobe etc for it to be sold for low fees.

 

I've had a quick glance at a lot of peoples work on this chain and the majority of the work is shots of the world that don't cost anything other than shoe leather to produce. But that shouldn't mean it should be given away.

 

It also important to know where to place your work I've had work sit here for years with out a sniff. Move it to somewhere else and it sells straight away and vice versa. Knowing the agencies market is important if you understand that then exclusivity is a bonus. But only if the Agency then charges like they have something unique. This should be a collaborative process not us giving our time, energy, creativity, depreciation of equipment for nothing. Getting a "buzz" from a sale isn't enough. This has become a club photo competition with minor cash prizes. You'd get a bigger buzz if it sold for 4 or 5 figures I'd have thought.

 

   

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, meanderingemu said:

 

So do you end up with image package in all the stock agency?  Based on my understanding to get these prices OP mentions, don't you need to buy packages of 100s of images? 

 

I'm a little different, as I have to buy a commercial license, which costs more.  There are no packs for those, but costs vary widely among the different services for the same image.

 

Jill

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Jill Morgan said:

 

I'm a little different, as I have to buy a commercial license, which costs more.  There are no packs for those, but costs vary widely among the different services for the same image.

 

Jill

 

What do you think of the idea of Alamy creating a "budget" collection of downloadable, non-editorial RF images (with set prices) similar to those that proliferate on micro sites, only with better returns for photographers?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, John Mitchell said:

 

What do you think of the idea of Alamy creating a "budget" collection of downloadable, non-editorial RF images (with set prices) similar to those that proliferate on micro sites, only with better returns for photographers?

 

I usually buy extended licenses as I use a lot of the images in products I design. And of course I use a lot of my own images.  So are you talking about a collection from one photographer?  There is one site where I have bought collections of images by one photographer for one extended license for a reasonable cost to me but each image is usually about 3"x3" generally at 300 dpi.

 

No full size high resolution images.

 

Jill

Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Jill Morgan said:

 

I usually buy extended licenses as I use a lot of the images in products I design. And of course I use a lot of my own images.  So are you talking about a collection from one photographer?  There is one site where I have bought collections of images by one photographer for one extended license for a reasonable cost to me but each image is usually about 3"x3" generally at 300 dpi.

 

No full size high resolution images.

 

Jill

 

No, I meant a general collection, one in which contributors could opt in/out of on an individual image basis. Probably a silly, unworkable idea, but I'd consider something like this for certain RF images if the returns were higher than microstock. You have to wonder what Alamy is going to do with all those millions of images that will probably never see the light of day because of competition with micros.

 

 

Edited by John Mitchell
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Ed Rooney said:

🎼 10 cents a dance, that's what they pay me, my how they weigh me down.

 

 

... and step on your toes no doubt. 🦶

Link to post
Share on other sites

The original 'Are you contributing' thread that I started was killed at birth by the Alamy mod.

 

I was sent a warning message that I should not have asked if people were now contributing to other agencies - though I asked that the agencies not be named.

 

I received a brief forum ban and had to go through some process of acknowledging my sin in order to be readmitted.

 

Now, what about this thread? The OP starts this off my naming another agency and talking about why he likes it.

 

It was started on Thursday now its Sunday.

 

The Alamy Mods do nothing. Hard to see any consistency.

 

 

Edited by geogphotos
  • Upvote 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

This is another reason it's hard for photographers to present a United front. all the forums on all the agencies won't let you talk about the others.  I haven't found a forum in a neutral place that let's people have adult conversations about the situation. Its divide and conquer. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dave R said:

I haven't found a forum in a neutral place that let's people have adult conversations about the situation

Read this quickly before it's deleted!

A former contributor here started a FB group. "professional stock photographers"

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, geogphotos said:

The original 'Are you contributing' thread that I started was killed at birth by the Alamy mod.

 

I was sent a warning message that I should not have asked if people were now contributing to other agencies - though I asked that the agencies not be named.

 

 

 

 

thanks for the info..  It is interesting after Alamy literally told us they see No Value in us contributing some images exclusively to Alamy. 

Edited by meanderingemu
  • Like 1
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.