Please give me your critique!

[Mltz]

Hello guys, could you please share your thoughts about my pictures (https://www.alamy.com/portfolio/995965.html) 

 

Many thanks in advance. 

 

Mltz

[IanDavidson]

Any photograph critique is subjective and I am not an expert on architecture.  I am afraid I do not like your photographs.  They appear dark to me.  Also, and again, as I am no expert this may be deliberate,, but there is a great amount of distortion in your architectural photographs.  Buildings appear to bend inwards etc.   Some of your photos, such as the desert landscapes, lack any focal point and one has to ask what is the point of the photo?    You do have to ask yourself why would a buyer want to buy some of your images?  I may be mistaken as I only looked at a sample, but you don't have people "doing things".  Alamy, at the moment, is an editorial stock site and it appears to me that the customer base use it as such.  

 

I had a brief look at your captions, which in general, appear to be too short and your keywords.  You do appear to be spamming your keywords.  Using the keyword "blue" in an image will not attract buyers and may harm your ranking.  Have you by any chance come from a micro stock site; Alamy works quite differently.  

 

There are many contributors who are better at giving criticism than me. So hopefully some one will be more constructive than I have been.

 

I would urge you to look at the forums posts on images found and images sold to see what sells.  Also, check your images against Alamy measures to see what your competition looks like and what is in demand.

 

I am sorry I cannot be more positive.  

[Mr Standfast]

Hello Mitz,

 

Have you seen this collection? It might help.

 

https://www.alamy.com/category/architecture.html

[Steve F]

16 hours ago, IanDavidson said:

Any photograph critique is subjective and I am not an expert on architecture.  I am afraid I do not like your photographs.  They appear dark to me.  Also, and again, as I am no expert this may be deliberate,, but there is a great amount of distortion in your architectural photographs.  Buildings appear to bend inwards etc.   Some of your photos, such as the desert landscapes, lack any focal point and one has to ask what is the point of the photo?    You do have to ask yourself why would a buyer want to buy some of your images?  I may be mistaken as I only looked at a sample, but you don't have people "doing things".  Alamy, at the moment, is an editorial stock site and it appears to me that the customer base use it as such.  

 

I had a brief look at your captions, which in general, appear to be too short and your keywords.  You do appear to be spamming your keywords.  Using the keyword "blue" in an image will not attract buyers and may harm your ranking.  Have you by any chance come from a micro stock site; Alamy works quite differently.  

 

There are many contributors who are better at giving criticism than me. So hopefully some one will be more constructive than I have been.

 

I would urge you to look at the forums posts on images found and images sold to see what sells.  Also, check your images against Alamy measures to see what your competition looks like and what is in demand.

 

I am sorry I cannot be more positive.  

 

+1

Lots of underexposed images with converging verticals. Lack of people in images - do images both with and without people in.

 

Don't add 'Stock Photo' to your captions (unless it's a product that someone might get confused that they're buying, e.g. a photo of a medicine packet). Captions are searchable by clients so you're wasting words.

 

Have a look at this post, may be of use:

https://discussion.alamy.com/topic/16969-ill-jump-in-no-matter-what-it-does-to-my-confidence/?do=findComment&comment=344671

 

Good luck,

Steve

 

 

[Jeffrey Isaac Greenberg]

seeing nothing that stood out on your page 1

I went immediately to your page 19 looking for a gem

 

AND FOUND THIS POWERFUL IMAGE: 😱   😱   😱

https://www.alamy.com/two-franciscans-catholic-priests-staring-at-agua-volcano-during-sunset-at-san-juan-del-obispo-church-just-before-going-to-mass-image466658009.html

 

if your (1996) images were varied subjects with same impact as this image
IMO you would have weekly licenses...

[Mr Standfast]

1 hour ago, Jeffrey Isaac Greenberg said:

seeing nothing that stood out on your page 1

I went immediately to your page 19 looking for a gem

 

AND FOUND THIS POWERFUL IMAGE: 😱   😱   😱

https://www.alamy.com/two-franciscans-catholic-priests-staring-at-agua-volcano-during-sunset-at-san-juan-del-obispo-church-just-before-going-to-mass-image466658009.html

 

if your (1996) images were varied subjects with same impact as this image
IMO you would have weekly licenses...

It's a public domain image.

[wiskerke]

4 minutes ago, Mr Standfast said:

It's a public domain image.

Oops.

It is not an Alamy exclusive, but I very much doubt it's really public domain image. That's either a wrong box ticked in the AIM or a misunderstanding of the term. The explanation given under the sprite ? may not be clear to everyone. Or people may even not click on it.

 

I agree: great image. And great light! Which is sometimes lacking in some of the other images.

About distorted architectural images: I once got a substantial commission because of those. However it does need to serve a purpose: bringing out the character of the building or conveying the mood of the image.

 

wim

[Jeffrey Isaac Greenberg]

Mltz shows (20) Guatemala images, falling AFAICT into 2 groups

a. warm toned with "public domain" indicated

b. cool toned (like all Mltz's page 1 images) not public domain

 

https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo/guatemala.html?comp=1&mode=0&name=Mltz&pseudoid={5031A83F-1A55-4860-883E-18C59492F48C}&sortBy=relevant&st=11

 

[Jeffrey Isaac Greenberg]

note: if one or more photographers are putting their highly salable images

in public domain, another photographer making them more visible by offering

them on well-known stock sites is creating additional $$ + $$ from one's own images...?

I never knew "current" salable images were in public domain...

does anyone know where such images sit online...?
Are they sprinkled throughout The Internet?

 

[Steve F]

16 hours ago, Jeffrey Isaac Greenberg said:

note: if one or more photographers are putting their highly salable images

in public domain, another photographer making them more visible by offering

them on well-known stock sites is creating additional $$ + $$ from one's own images...?

I never knew "current" salable images were in public domain...

does anyone know where such images sit online...?
Are they sprinkled throughout The Internet?

 

 

Not my field at all. But my understanding is that a photographer has to dedicate an image specifically to public domain, otherwise they retain the copyright. Or if the images are really old, then the copyright may have expired. Likely neither applicable in this case? More research needed...

[Jeffrey Isaac Greenberg]

10 hours ago, Steve F said:

More research needed...

Steve F my priceless online good buddy

 

IMO, if one can find 100K "current-looking" varied open domain

hi res images of similar quality to link above, one could generate

$50K US net / yr from one's armchair, gawblimey...

 

I searched Alamy "Franciscan sp? priests volcano Guatemala" &

only THAT image returned !!  (unlike 100+ Winston Churchills)

 

🤑 BY CRACKY THERE'S GOLD I TELL YOU BIG NUGGETS OF GOLD !!

[Steve F]

11 hours ago, Jeffrey Isaac Greenberg said:

IMO, if one can find 100K "current-looking" varied open domain

hi res images of similar quality to link above, one could generate

$50K US net / yr from one's armchair, gawblimey...

 

Food for thought... 🤔

[Rebecca Ore]

On 18/08/2023 at 04:00, Steve F said:

 

Not my field at all. But my understanding is that a photographer has to dedicate an image specifically to public domain, otherwise they retain the copyright. Or if the images are really old, then the copyright may have expired. Likely neither applicable in this case? More research needed...

 

Wikimedia requires releasing photos to them and their license, which requires giving credit to the original photographer.  I've done this once, and the image is used to illustrate something it wasn't (east coast Nicaragua, not central highlands) and no credit to me.  Won't do again.

[Mltz]

Thank you very much for all your comments. 

 

There are several points mentioned that I was completely unaware of and thanks to your comments I have been able to correct and better organize my photographic proposal.

 

I come from the world of microstock and I have made mistakes related to this fact in addition to ignoring very specific particularities of Alamy.

 

Total thanks.

 

Mltz

[Ed Rooney]

 

To be a bit less negative about your port, Mitz, I see promise. Try to add some people to your images, as Steve suggests. If the people are graceful and positive, the image becomes more involving, more human. I know it's hard to do. I feel that I have too many peopleless pictures too. And please -- read everything that Alamy has posted for contributors. 

 

Goood luck.

[StokeCreative]

I must admit I always advocate having people in shot (doing something or for scale, not just in the background). However I've just checked my sales and its about 1/30 that actually have people in! I'm actually quite surprised, however I enjoy taking pics of people...so there's that

[StokeCreative]

1 minute ago, StokeCreative said:

I must admit I always advocate having people in shot (doing something or for scale, not just in the background). However I've just checked my sales and its about 1/30 that actually have people in! I'm actually quite surprised, however I enjoy taking pics of people...so there's that

Also this is possibly the wrong thread hey ho

 

[Ed Rooney]

15 hours ago, StokeCreative said:

I must admit I always advocate having people in shot (doing something or for scale, not just in the background). However I've just checked my sales and its about 1/30 that actually have people in! I'm actually quite surprised, however I enjoy taking pics of people...so there's that

 

Hmm. Interesting, Stoke. 

[Brasilnut]

23 hours ago, Mltz said:

Thank you very much for all your comments. 

 

There are several points mentioned that I was completely unaware of and thanks to your comments I have been able to correct and better organize my photographic proposal.

 

I come from the world of microstock and I have made mistakes related to this fact in addition to ignoring very specific particularities of Alamy.

 

Total thanks.

 

Mltz

 

Micros used to be a good place to learn as they actually used to reject on technical grounds. Not anymore, unfortunately as they accept anything and we have a flood of nonsensical stuff that just pollutes the whole collection (and agencies love it as they do all sorts of AI training). Do you duplicate the images on micros or are they Alamy-exclusive? I ask this because I'm of the opinion that the images should be pretty much everywhere as I've seen little evidence that most buyers really shop around. I've even had images on the free-download sites that have been downloaded regularly as paid-stock.

 

Anyway, your port is varied and you seem to have a good eye and energy to travel to loads of places. The people above gave good pointers. 

 

I would add that just from taking a look at my own Alamy sales over the years is that what sells tends to be super specific to a location and better than the rest. There are 100,000 images of Wall Street but why would a client select yours (even if he/she does manage to find it). It needs something a little special. 

 

Once upon a time I was featured at Robert Harding and there are good pointers on that article from my own experiencies - https://www.robertharding.com/blog/2019/04/22/the-road-less-pedalled/

 

btw: Robert Harding have an extensive collection at Alamy.

 

In addition, on my blog I interviewed the Luke Nester, Account Manager on there and one of his advices stood out that I absolutely try to follow every time I shoot:

 

"It’s all about standing out from the crowd. To summarise I’d advise any photographer trying to make money from stock to shoot something no one has shot before, shoot it differently or shoot it better."

 

 

 

Edited September 19, 2023 by Brasilnut

[Mltz]

On 19/09/2023 at 11:53, Brasilnut said:

 

Micros used to be a good place to learn as they actually used to reject on technical grounds. Not anymore, unfortunately as they accept anything and we have a flood of nonsensical stuff that just pollutes the whole collection (and agencies love it as they do all sorts of AI training). Do you duplicate the images on micros or are they Alamy-exclusive? I ask this because I'm of the opinion that the images should be pretty much everywhere as I've seen little evidence that most buyers really shop around. I've even had images on the free-download sites that have been downloaded regularly as paid-stock.

 

Anyway, your port is varied and you seem to have a good eye and energy to travel to loads of places. The people above gave good pointers. 

 

I would add that just from taking a look at my own Alamy sales over the years is that what sells tends to be super specific to a location and better than the rest. There are 100,000 images of Wall Street but why would a client select yours (even if he/she does manage to find it). It needs something a little special. 

 

Once upon a time I was featured at Robert Harding and there are good pointers on that article from my own experiencies - https://www.robertharding.com/blog/2019/04/22/the-road-less-pedalled/

 

btw: Robert Harding have an extensive collection at Alamy.

 

In addition, on my blog I interviewed the Luke Nester, Account Manager on there and one of his advices stood out that I absolutely try to follow every time I shoot:

 

"It’s all about standing out from the crowd. To summarise I’d advise any photographer trying to make money from stock to shoot something no one has shot before, shoot it differently or shoot it better."

 

 

 

 

Hello Alex, and thank you for your comments and the articles you shared with me.

 

"Microstock agencies used to be a good place to learn because they often rejected submissions for technical reasons”.

 

I can confirm that they are still a great platform for learning, as they continue to reject images based on technical grounds. This is especially true on the websites where I currently showcase my work. I've gained a lot of knowledge from these numerous rejections.

 

“Do you duplicate your images on microstock agencies, or are they exclusive to Alamy?”

 

Right now, I'm evaluating the sales performance of my pictures on Alamy. I've been active on microstock websites for over four years, whereas my presence on Alamy spans only about a year.

On microstock sites, I typically achieve regular sales with approximately 80-100 downloads per month from a portfolio of 2500 images. However, I'm unsure if I could potentially earn more with Alamy, especially if I decide to go Alamy-exclusive.

While I've had only a few sales on Alamy, the revenue has been substantial. Since I'm just getting started on Alamy, my portfolio is still quite limited. I'm working on expanding it to create a robust database of my work and see how it performs."

 

For now, I'm duplicating some images while also building an exclusive database for Alamy. Let's see how this goes.

 

MLtz

 

 

 

[Jeffrey Isaac Greenberg]

On 18/09/2023 at 12:54, StokeCreative said:

...its about 1/30 that actually have people

just checked your page 1 of 128

NO image had person(s) in it;
(or 1 if Marilyn Monroe statue = person)

if that's true thru your entire

collection then no surprise IMO

your 1 in 30 sales w/people !!

Statistically, one needs to take

a. subject without person(s)

b. same subject with person(s)

to assess how person(s) affect sales...?

Just counted my Sep 2023 sales thus far:
~39 of 51 have person(s)...

Edited September 20, 2023 by Jeffrey Isaac Greenberg

[StokeCreative]

one page isnt representative of the whole port....your mileage may vary

 

[marc]

Many images are too dark.  Lots of repetition. In architecture, you need to either isolate an element,  capture a building perfectly symmetrically or create a unique balance or light or weather.   Spend more time working out details rather than shooting from the hip. 

Edited September 25, 2023 by marc

[Chuck Nacke]

On 20/09/2023 at 07:26, Mltz said:

 

Hello Alex, and thank you for your comments and the articles you shared with me.

 

"Microstock agencies used to be a good place to learn because they often rejected submissions for technical reasons”.

 

I can confirm that they are still a great platform for learning, as they continue to reject images based on technical grounds. This is especially true on the websites where I currently showcase my work. I've gained a lot of knowledge from these numerous rejections.

 

“Do you duplicate your images on microstock agencies, or are they exclusive to Alamy?”

 

Right now, I'm evaluating the sales performance of my pictures on Alamy. I've been active on microstock websites for over four years, whereas my presence on Alamy spans only about a year.

On microstock sites, I typically achieve regular sales with approximately 80-100 downloads per month from a portfolio of 2500 images. However, I'm unsure if I could potentially earn more with Alamy, especially if I decide to go Alamy-exclusive.

While I've had only a few sales on Alamy, the revenue has been substantial. Since I'm just getting started on Alamy, my portfolio is still quite limited. I'm working on expanding it to create a robust database of my work and see how it performs."

 

For now, I'm duplicating some images while also building an exclusive database for Alamy. Let's see how this goes.

 

MLtz

 

 

 

Mltz,  Making and processing the images is only part of the process.  Finding and including well written, concise information is as important as the image.  I would suggest that you buy a copy of Strunk and White's 'Elements of Style' as a start and also look at other people's images and caption or IPTC information.  

 

I would also agree with Ian's comments.

 

Chuck

[Phil Robinson]

A small point, but a lot of your captions start with 'View of....'
Pretty much every photo ever taken is a view of something. If the viewpoint is important I'd add it later in the caption "...... - view from the top of xyz"

Get the important information at the front: "Grand central Station, main concourse...." with description later
Also "architectural detail" - better in the keywords than at the beginning of the caption.

 

Just my thoughts, others might disagree.

 

You've got some very good photos 

 

Edited October 8, 2023 by Phil Robinson