Ultimate Collection

[Stephen D]

Can anyone explain the "hand selected" choice of images for the Ultimate Collection.

As I specialise in images of the Cotswolds I idly did a search for images of the Cotswolds in the Ultimate Collection following the advice -  "If you’re fed up with run-of-the-mill search results, try hand-selected images like no other, sourced by creative experts".

The result was underwhelming. Six of them frankly could be anywhere and one isn't even of the Cotswolds at all.

I'm really not sure how Alamy imagine that such a selection of images will excite a picture researcher looking for the best Cotswold images.

Please try it at https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo/cotswolds.html?collectiontype=ultimate&sortBy=creative

 

[meanderingemu]

46 minutes ago, spacecadet said:

I tried to find one of my images on a smartphone yesterday so I could show off my latest licence.

It took me most of 15 minutes just to work out which "collection" tab to use.

 

that sounds frustrating, even if the images was placed where it was most suited.

[spacecadet]

7 minutes ago, meanderingemu said:

 

that sounds frustrating, even if the images was placed where it was most suited.

I've no idea where it was placed, I finally looked in "all" after failing many times. I don't know why it wasn't appearing in searches.

[meanderingemu]

11 minutes ago, spacecadet said:

I've no idea where it was placed, I finally looked in "all" after failing many times. I don't know why it wasn't appearing in searches.

 

beats me.  Here is what i am seeing, following images get sent to 3 different collections, yet i am told they are in the "most suited" one.  I see no difference as a potential buyer

 

 

 

[Harry Harrison]

26 minutes ago, meanderingemu said:

following images get sent to 3 different collections, yet i am told they are in the "most suited" one

But only because of how they were uploaded, or how they are tagged in AIM surely?

 

2FNKC5N is in Vital but 2G5WMAP is still in Uncut - are they treated differently in AIM because on the face of it they should both be in Vital?

 

2FN2X93 was uploaded as Live News so is forever in Editorial. The fact that these soft news images can only ever be found in Editorial does seem to be a problem, they're topical on the day but after that I don't suppose anyone will look for them there, but they will still be found in All. Because they were uploaded as Live News they will always have the "This image could have imperfections as it’s either historical or reportage." disclaimer underneath and may indeed be of poorer quality than if they'd been uploaded via the normal route with more time for checking/processing. I don't have any of those but that might have been a specific question to ask James A, in the circumstances it would seem reasonable to upload them again through the normal route, or maybe upload similars that way anyway.

 

I can see that with 261 million images then the separation into the Vital & Editorial collections has to be automated, 'based on metadata rules' as James A said above, the remainder stay in Uncut unless plucked out of obscurity for Ultimate. Clearly Ultimate (and Foundation?) are handled differently and apparently 'constantly refreshed and curated', which for 100,000 images is quite a task in itself.

 

Very interesting that Alamy can tell that "The majority of users still search in ALL."

 

Quite reassuring really.

 

[Alamy]

59 minutes ago, meanderingemu said:

 

beats me.  Here is what i am seeing, following images get sent to 3 different collections, yet i am told they are in the "most suited" one.  I see no difference as a potential buyer

 

 

 

 

As I mentioned in a previous post, the images are placed either according to aesthetics or metadata rules - in this case, it's the rules. Lets take each image as an example:

 

Image one - 2G5WMAP

This is in Uncut as you've said it contains property, but you don't have a release, but also haven't restricted it for Editorial Use only. Therefore the search engine would take this as being able to potentially be used commercially.

 

Image two - 2FNKC5N

This appears in Vital as you've annotated it as not containing people or property - therefore "fully safe" for commercial use.

 

Image three - 2FN2X93

This doesn't appear in the creative collections (so can only be found in ALL) because you've annotated it as containing 4 or more people, and property, but not having releases for either. It was also uploaded as Editorial Live News.

 

Regardless of the fact of whether or not a buyer of this type of image would actually more than likely be searching in ALL only (of which these would all appear), had you annotated these consistently and correctly - 0 people, Property = yes/no - they would all have gone to the same collection.

 

I know it goes without saying but my "most suited" comment previously assumes the images have been annotated accurately, which is why I stressed that as being the key (along with uploading your best work).

 

James A

Head of Content

[spacecadet]

Although I think my annotation is reasonably accurate, am I going to devote several days of free work to go back over 10,000 images to check? Am I fishpaste.

[Harry Harrison]

18 minutes ago, Alamy said:

It was also uploaded as Editorial Live News.

Thanks for the clarification, useful for all of us. Does this mean that 'soft' news images uploaded through Live News can be made eligible for Vital & Uncut because that doesn't seem to be the case according to what has been reported on here.

 

Also if I we haven't checked both People & Property in AIM for '0' & 'No' respectively then they will never go into Vital but we have no way of finding these in AIM. Particularly since in the csv download is '0' & 'N' whether you have done this or not. I would always check the number of people but leave Property as it appeared from the csv that this was the default. I don't have that many images so I've been through all my batches and done this now and so these have moved into Vital, this isn't practical if you have many more images. I take your point that this may not in any case aid their sales though.

 

It also raises the question as to what constitutes 'Property', I can see many images in Vital that have recognisable buildings but no releases, so the contributor must surely have stated 'No' for Property, similarly for unrecognizable people in the distance, on beaches etc.

Edited November 17, 2022 by Harry Harrison

[spacecadet]

Am I missing out by completely ignoring this whole sorry spectacle? My views seem to be holding up over the year.

Edited November 17, 2022 by spacecadet

[Alamy]

1 hour ago, spacecadet said:

Although I think my annotation is reasonably accurate, am I going to devote several days of free work to go back over 10,000 images to check? Am I fishpaste.

 

In which case if you can't be sure on the accuracy, next time you are looking for one of your own images you should always search within ALL to ensure your image will be found.

 

1 hour ago, Harry Harrison said:

Thanks for the clarification, useful for all of us. Does this mean that 'soft' news images uploaded through Live News can be made eligible for Vital & Uncut because that doesn't seem to be the case according to what has been reported on here.

 

Images uploaded through Alamy Live News would not be included into the creative collections. The only scenario would be if the image was originally uploaded as news but rejected by the team and re-directed to regular stock. Also, upon launch there was a bug that caused some live news images to end up in Uncut but this has since been fixed.

 

1 hour ago, Harry Harrison said:

It also raises the question as to what constitutes 'Property', I can see many images in Vital that have recognisable buildings but no releases, so the contributor must surely have stated 'No' for Property, similarly for unrecognizable people in the distance, on beaches etc.

 

That is true in that the annotation would be informing the search in this case. Unfortunately the question about what is and isn't property and what does and doesn't need a release is very complex and would need to be assessed on a case-by-case basis.

 

  

47 minutes ago, spacecadet said:

Am I missing out by completely ignoring this whole sorry spectacle? My views seem to be holding up over the year.

 

There is nothing for you as a contributor to action or address if you are submitting your best work and annotating accurately.

 

James A

[NYCat]

I still have no idea why some of my wildlife images appear in Vital and some Uncut. I do fill out the optional information as no people or property.

 

Paulette

[Alamy]

10 minutes ago, NYCat said:

I still have no idea why some of my wildlife images appear in Vital and some Uncut. I do fill out the optional information as no people or property.

 

Paulette

 

Feel free to share some examples where there appears to be a contradiction and I'll look in to it and post the reasons why here for yourself and others to see.

 

Best

 

James

[meanderingemu]

3 hours ago, Alamy said:

 

As I mentioned in a previous post, the images are placed either according to aesthetics or metadata rules - in this case, it's the rules. Lets take each image as an example:

 

Image one - 2G5WMAP

This is in Uncut as you've said it contains property, but you don't have a release, but also haven't restricted it for Editorial Use only. Therefore the search engine would take this as being able to potentially be used commercially.

 

Image two - 2FNKC5N

This appears in Vital as you've annotated it as not containing people or property - therefore "fully safe" for commercial use.

 

Image three - 2FN2X93

This doesn't appear in the creative collections (so can only be found in ALL) because you've annotated it as containing 4 or more people, and property, but not having releases for either. It was also uploaded as Editorial Live News.

 

Regardless of the fact of whether or not a buyer of this type of image would actually more than likely be searching in ALL only (of which these would all appear), had you annotated these consistently and correctly - 0 people, Property = yes/no - they would all have gone to the same collection.

 

I know it goes without saying but my "most suited" comment previously assumes the images have been annotated accurately, which is why I stressed that as being the key (along with uploading your best work).

 

James A

Head of Content

 

 

This seems to remove the essence of the optional information in AIM to err on the side of safety, and it being Optional. The one upload may have contained some property, now it seems Alamy is giving a preferential label, calling them "Trending" and "Vital", to those that push the definition.  In fact plenty of images with non descript physical property are " "fully safe" for commercial usage", but this is Not the question asked in AIM. 

 

 You also seem to be confirming that images loaded through the Live News windows, which can also qualify at later date as Commercial need to be uploaded a second time.  In the past we were instructed to just remove the For Editorial only check box, but it seems this is no longer sufficient. 

[meanderingemu]

2 hours ago, NYCat said:

I still have no idea why some of my wildlife images appear in Vital and some Uncut. I do fill out the optional information as no people or property.

 

Paulette

 

 

here is an example of mine that fits this. 

 

[meanderingemu]

4 hours ago, spacecadet said:

Am I missing out by completely ignoring this whole sorry spectacle? My views seem to be holding up over the year.

 

probably not at this time as Alamy still is know for Editorial, this issue is potentially as they push the other side, where they to seem to now put all the marketing efforts. 

[meanderingemu]

4 hours ago, Harry Harrison said:

Thanks for the clarification, useful for all of us. Does this mean that 'soft' news images uploaded through Live News can be made eligible for Vital & Uncut because that doesn't seem to be the case according to what has been reported on here.

 

Also if I we haven't checked both People & Property in AIM for '0' & 'No' respectively then they will never go into Vital but we have no way of finding these in AIM. Particularly since in the csv download is '0' & 'N' whether you have done this or not. I would always check the number of people but leave Property as it appeared from the csv that this was the default. I don't have that many images so I've been through all my batches and done this now and so these have moved into Vital, this isn't practical if you have many more images. I take your point that this may not in any case aid their sales though.

 

It also raises the question as to what constitutes 'Property', I can see many images in Vital that have recognisable buildings but no releases, so the contributor must surely have stated 'No' for Property, similarly for unrecognizable people in the distance, on beaches etc.

 

 

I am actually even more confused.  The implication is that Vital means " "fully safe" for commercial use.".  This seems to totally change the way to answer the questions, plenty of images with people and physical property are "fully safe" for commercial use.  This seems to clearly encourage to change the way AIM questions are answered.

 

Also weirdly even though these images are" "fully safe" for commercial use", they still have the annotation "Do I need a Release?" on the client side. 

 

[Rebecca Ore]

1 hour ago, meanderingemu said:

The implication is that Vital means " "fully safe" for commercial use.".  This seems to totally change the way to answer the questions, plenty of images with people and physical property are "fully safe" for commercial use. 

I pretty much own Vital for Jinotega, Nicaragua, with two exceptions.  The only people shots are released.   Animals I own or owned are released with me as the owner.   No single buildings except the publicly owned mirador and cross at Pena de la Cruz.  If that showed up in an ad for travel, I suspect the town would be happy.   I've marked this one as having no release, but it was taken from a public street.  So, yeah, all these would be safe for commercial use.  Wild critters are not anyone's property.

 

Edited November 17, 2022 by Rebecca Ore
picture

[meanderingemu]

17 minutes ago, Rebecca Ore said:

I pretty much own Vital for Jinotega, Nicaragua, with two exceptions.  The only people shots are released.   Animals I own or owned are released with me as the owner.   No single buildings except the publicly owned mirador and cross at Pena de la Cruz.  If that showed up in an ad for travel, I suspect the town would be happy.   I've marked this one as having no release, but it was taken from a public street.  So, yeah, all these would be safe for commercial use.  Wild critters are not anyone's property.

 

 

 

 

you have plenty of property, most non-descript, in your Vital images that I have to assume you marked as not having property based on James comments above, no problem if this is now Alamy's direction, but this is not in line with some of the previous instruction we received, nor clearly addressed in AIM.   Maybe now that we have James attention, this will be clarified once and for all.  

 

@Alamy are the 50 Vital "Jinetoga" images properly annotated? 

 

https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo/jinotega.html?collectiontype=vital&comp=1&imgt=0&lic=rf&mode=0&sortBy=creative

 

 

Edited November 17, 2022 by meanderingemu

[M.Chapman]

6 hours ago, Alamy said:

 

As I mentioned in a previous post, the images are placed either according to aesthetics or metadata rules - in this case, it's the rules. Lets take each image as an example:

 

Image one - 2G5WMAP

This is in Uncut as you've said it contains property, but you don't have a release, but also haven't restricted it for Editorial Use only. Therefore the search engine would take this as being able to potentially be used commercially.

 

Image two - 2FNKC5N

This appears in Vital as you've annotated it as not containing people or property - therefore "fully safe" for commercial use.

 

Image three - 2FN2X93

This doesn't appear in the creative collections (so can only be found in ALL) because you've annotated it as containing 4 or more people, and property, but not having releases for either. It was also uploaded as Editorial Live News.

 

Regardless of the fact of whether or not a buyer of this type of image would actually more than likely be searching in ALL only (of which these would all appear), had you annotated these consistently and correctly - 0 people, Property = yes/no - they would all have gone to the same collection.

 

I know it goes without saying but my "most suited" comment previously assumes the images have been annotated accurately, which is why I stressed that as being the key (along with uploading your best work).

 

James A

Head of Content

 

Hi James

 

How is the customer supposed to know which category to search in that best suits their needs? The descriptions on the home page are very "nebulous" and seem to bear little relation to the criteria you just quoted.

 

e.g.

Ultimate = If you’re fed up with run-of-the-mill search results, try hand-selected images like no other, sourced by creative experts.

Vital = This high-end creative collection is built on authenticity and created with emerging trends in mind.

Uncut = Celebrate the raw, the random and the subversive. From abstract photographers to UGC – it’s all here. Uncut frees you from convention.

Is it any wonder most customers are searching in the ALL category...

 

Also.... Why are the only images that appear in the Editorial Tab those that are marked as Editorial Only, or those uploaded as live news?

 

Mark

[Rebecca Ore]

11 minutes ago, meanderingemu said:

 

 

 

you have plenty of property, most non-descript, in your Vital images that I have to assume you marked as not having property based on James comments above, no problem if this is now Alamy's direction, but this is not in line with some of the previous instruction we received, nor clearly addressed in AIM.   Maybe now that we have James attention, this will be clarified once and for all.  

 

@Alamy are the 50 Vital "Jinetoga" images properly annotated? 

 

https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo/jinotega.html?collectiontype=vital&comp=1&imgt=0&lic=rf&mode=0&sortBy=creative

 

 

 

I changed the mirador to has property, no release.  The others are either plants I was given from wild collectors, or animals I owned and have releases for.  The tree on the path and the view of Jinotega with the mountains smaller aren't mine.  My understanding of property is that city street views and landscapes not focusing on a single building don't have to have property releases.    Next sort should removed the mirador photo. 

[Martin L]

21 minutes ago, Rebecca Ore said:

My understanding of property is that city street views and landscapes not focusing on a single building don't have to have property releases.   

That's true (I think!) but as Jean-francois and Harry have pointed out that under Alamys advice these should have Property set to yes in the optional tab. Unfortunately (even though you don't need it) you probably have to answer 'no' to whether you have a release. In this instance they won't appear in any of the new categories. That is the main problem with this shift to the new categories.

 

Edited November 17, 2022 by Martin L

[Harry Harrison]

2 hours ago, meanderingemu said:

I am actually even more confused.  The implication is that Vital means " "fully safe" for commercial use.".  This seems to totally change the way to answer the questions, plenty of images with people and physical property are "fully safe" for commercial use.  This seems to clearly encourage to change the way AIM questions are answered.

 

Also weirdly even though these images are" "fully safe" for commercial use", they still have the annotation "Do I need a Release?" on the client side. 

The significance of checking 'Property = Yes' and (perhaps to a lesser extent) 'People = 0' has changed very significantly since the new Vital & Uncut Collections have been introduced but we've been left to work this out entirely for ourselves. Similarly of course, as you have pointed out, the selection for Vital is driven by the metadata entered in the Optional section of AIM. Previously there really wasn't any credible disadvantage to not stating if there was any Property, similarly if there were no people since neither aspect is made known to the potential buyer (though it won't come up in the 'No of people' search). The issue of the csv containing inaccurate information is still being passed over.

 

I think "Do I need a release" is against every image and that's probably not a bad thing in that it educates the buyer whether or not the image has a release.

 

I'll be interested to see why your image, and that of Paulette, are not in Vital, I've got my own examples but I suspect the reason, whatever that is, will be the same.

[meanderingemu]

50 minutes ago, Rebecca Ore said:

 

I changed the mirador to has property, no release.  The others are either plants I was given from wild collectors, or animals I owned and have releases for.  The tree on the path and the view of Jinotega with the mountains smaller aren't mine.  My understanding of property is that city street views and landscapes not focusing on a single building don't have to have property releases.    Next sort should removed the mirador photo. 

 

but the dog image has a chest of drawer visible. Your food images have physical goods, potentially with designs ( "Beets tops on cutting board" has designed ceramic)   If an environment where we were asked Commercial vs Editorial yes i would have no issue with most being   " "fully safe" for commercial use.", but again this is not historically the avenue taken by Alamy until this new venture. The question i am asked to answer is "Is There property? Yes or No" . 

Again i am not saying your approach is wrong, all i am asking, and have been fro a while now, is for clear indication from Alamy.  Actually James today stating that Vital is "  "fully safe" for commercial use" is a major breakthrough. 

 

 

[Rebecca Ore]

40 minutes ago, Martin L said:

That's true (I think!) but as Jean-francois and Harry have pointed out that under Alamys advice these should have Property set to yes in the optional tab. Unfortunately (even though you don't need it) you probably have to answer 'no' to whether you have a release. In this instance they won't appear in any of the new categories. That is the main problem with this shift to the new categories.

 

 

I remember earlier discussion of this where basically, if the property wasn't the focus or wasn't recognizable, that it didn't need the property flag.   For folkloric or traditional items, as well as commercial mass produced items, I either flag property, no release, or don't answer the question.

 

This was made by a local craftsman and I've marked it property, yes; release no.

 

[Rebecca Ore]

10 minutes ago, meanderingemu said:

 

but the dog image has a chest of drawer visible. Your food images have physical goods, potentially with designs ( "Beets tops on cutting board" has designed ceramic)   If an environment where we were asked Commercial vs Editorial yes i would have no issue with most being   " "fully safe" for commercial use.", but again this is not historically the avenue taken by Alamy until this new venture. The question i am asked to answer is "Is There property? Yes or No" . 

Again i am not saying your approach is wrong, all i am asking, and have been fro a while now, is for clear indication from Alamy.  Actually James today stating that Vital is "  "fully safe" for commercial use" is a major breakthrough. 

 

 

 

Kitchen counter tile, detail?  I think for some of these, no answer at all might be more useful.   Chest of drawers is custom built to my design, so who owns that?

 

If the photos are about something and that something is a traditional craft item, or a contemporary commercial object, then, yes.  If I can blur out the background without losing anything of importance, then mybe that's the direction to go.

 

I picked my Jinotega photos because it was a small enough sample out of hundreds of Jinotega photos I've taken to see what the criteria seemed to be.  Also, not many other people's.  The people in the photos released or had their parents release the photos.  No other people photos showed up, so that's a constant.

 

Back ground partially visible props?  Scenic views?   Alamy can answer that and I'll go with their answer.

Edited November 17, 2022 by Rebecca Ore

[meanderingemu]

10 minutes ago, Rebecca Ore said:

 

I remember earlier discussion of this where basically, if the property wasn't the focus or wasn't recognizable, that it didn't need the property flag.  

 

 

Do you have this is writing from an Alamy employee?  I was instructed other wise by one of the respected photographer on this forum.  Also this seems inconsistent with the "Person" part where we are told to answer yes even if not recognizable.  Why the difference?