Alamy tweet promoting the 'Analogue Aesthetic'

[Harry Harrison]

Interesting for us film lovers, and a link to a Lightbox.

 

https://twitter.com/AlamyContent/status/1567083685412687872

 

[spacecadet]

So the "film look" is uncorrected colour casts, underexposed blacks, and grain like you only ever saw in HP5 pushed 2 stops, badly. Hmm.

[meanderingemu]

10 minutes ago, spacecadet said:

So the "film look" is uncorrected colour casts, underexposed blacks, and grain like you only ever saw in HP5 pushed 2 stops, badly. Hmm.

 

Alamy, do i need to reprocess all my images?  How do i get these accepted?  

[wiskerke]

2 hours ago, meanderingemu said:

Alamy, do i need to reprocess all my images?  How do i get these accepted?  

 

Try the archival route. Quite a few in that lightbox have the line This image could have imperfections as it’s either historical or reportage. Like the Eyem images. The Stockimo images are not archival, which is weird. But that's another route.

And maybe QR has changed? Try including something like analog/analogue; film; kodachrome in your file name.

 

It would be so nice to know if any of those long shots ever sell here.

It's clear some of it is selling enough for the bigger newer agencies like Eyem, Johner and Cavan. Because they are producing lots of it.

 

wim

[Allan Bell]

6 hours ago, spacecadet said:

So the "film look" is uncorrected colour casts, underexposed blacks, and grain like you only ever saw in HP5 pushed 2 stops, badly. Hmm.

 

Don't forget OOF, blur, fogged, uninteresting. Can do better myself.😉

 

Allan

 

[meanderingemu]

3 hours ago, wiskerke said:

 

Try the archival route. Quite a few in that lightbox have the line This image could have imperfections as it’s either historical or reportage. Like the Eyem images. The Stockimo images are not archival, which is weird. But that's another route.

And maybe QR has changed? Try including something like analog/analogue; film; kodachrome in your file name.

 

 

wim

 

no such access 😠

 

[wiskerke]

2 hours ago, Allan Bell said:

 

Don't forget OOF, blur, fogged, uninteresting. Can do better myself.😉

 

Allan

 

Not to mention CA. Or maybe not, because there's not a whole lot of CA in those images.

Maybe weird keywords help?

 

Like idyllic:

 

But what do we know, right?

It may well sell like hotcakes.

There must be a reason we're not doing too well.

Maybe I should go back to all my film scans and add the keyword Kodak, because nobody knows Velvia anymore. Let's ask AoA first.

Maybe forget Kodak too, because clients are not looking for Kodak or Kodachrome style colors in AoA.

Fuji? More than Kodak anyway, but mainly all things Mount Fuji. Or like with Kodak specific products.

Maybe analog? No. Analogue? Analogue photography flower; Beaver dam analogue, huh?

Ok maybe try from the other side and see if people do search for maybe Aesthetic. Nah not really. That Girl aesthetic?

Esthetic maybe? 3.

Maybe style? Oh no hundreds of searches for Harry Styles. You're kidding right? No: 1180 for the rolling year.

There's one for Instagram style couple. One. But one thousand one hundred and eighty for Harry.

A couple for things like Japanese street style or old style posters.

Film style maybe? None. %style%film% gets me some more Harry Styles of course and Wild Style film. I had to look that one up.

It's a film from the early eighties, so definitely analog.

See this is where I must have lost contact with the modern world. I blame my art school: we were still into punk and new wave. But the real world already was like this:

 

 

As always: AoA is your friend. Educating the client is not a good idea. So give them red carpets and celebrities.

Hope that Liz Truss slips on that carpet and shows a hint of side boob and get a couple of pennies, maybe even pounds.

 

I'm waiting for what the NYT pays for an image nowadays. I'm not having too high hopes.

 

wim

[John Mitchell]

I do like the moody look, but my artsy neurons don't seem to be firing these days, a symptom of ageing no doubt.

 

Does anyone still buy hotcakes? 🥞

 

 

[Betty LaRue]

1 hour ago, John Mitchell said:

I do like the moody look, but my artsy neurons don't seem to be firing these days, a symptom of ageing no doubt.

 

Does anyone still buy hotcakes? 🥞

 

 

I can make them, but really don’t have them over once a year. Swimming in butter & syrup. That’s why I seldom make them. 2 days of calories in one meal. 😂

[sb photos]

Looking at Close-up Of Dandelion Against Sky 2GWX1HK, to me the dandelions (yes there are 2, not 1) appear to be in water and not the sky. Additionally the shadows look artificial. As mentioned further up in this thread, I wonder how many images like this sell via Alamy. 

 

[Robert M Estall]

The largest chunk of my collection are film scans. Kodachrome was a real assache with little fringes you had to hunt down and spot out. The LS 9000 scanner was pretty good at fixing the problem as long as you had not remounted the chrome and didn't clock the film type. There was a separate setting for Kodachrome available which was the main improvement on the LS 8000. There was some Ektachrome 200 which had a pretty grainy structure and you couldn't really disguise that. And then there some Ansco  and Agfa! They were just so bad. But I have sold some.

Edited September 7, 2022 by Robert M Estall

[Harry Harrison]

Perhaps this is common knowledge but I've just noticed that the majority of these are in the Ultimate Collection because 'This is part of our Ultimate collection' is flagged up on the right above the prices when you click on the thumbnail to see the image details. Also noticed that the advertised prices for these are twice those of images that aren't in the Ultimate collection.

 

I thought at first that it was an RM/RF thing since the majority in Ultimate are also RF, but not so, 2CT66CE is RM and in the Ultimate Collection at the Ultimate rate, 2GMXTW9 is RM, not in the Ultimate Collection and at the standard rate.

 

As Wim has demonstrated, goodness knows how anyone would find images with the 'Analogue Aesthetic', these 70 chosen lightbox images have very little in common in terms of keywords or caption content.

Edited September 7, 2022 by Harry Harrison

[wiskerke]

Oops, did we just break AoA?

 

wim

[Marianne]

I really like the lightbox. I miss the days when I shot what felt aesthetically pleasing rather than thinking about keywords and whether it would sell. 

 

Most of what I've sold on S would never be accepted on Alamy proper.