Jump to content

Recommended Posts

 

 

A few days ago I had 3 of these pop up;most likely same client. $10 gross. Lowest amount I've ever grossed on a sale.

 

I had 3 of those sales too Linda…it really bummed me out!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was in the sinbin recently for 'soft'..whatever on an image that was of a soft plush velvet heart...

No hard edges on that object.

 

Frustrating...especially when I go thru images of some of the 'featured photogs' that are so textured and manipulated you can't even tell what it is...

 

L

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was in the sinbin recently for 'soft'..whatever on an image that was of a soft plush velvet heart...

No hard edges on that object.

 

Frustrating...especially when I go thru images of some of the 'featured photogs' that are so textured and manipulated you can't even tell what it is...

 

L

I had a shot of an object with a mottled surface fail last year. Reason given was softness due to "interpolation artifacts" (image had not been interpolated). I'm now hesitant to upload anything that doesn't have hard edges -- e.g. neon signs, rough textiles, etc.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am also experiencing a decline in sales but it has only kicked in recently having been steadily increasing since I joined in 2003.  I am still adding new images at the same rate but the volume on Alamy is increasing much faster.  The introduction of the Creative button is also partly to blame in my opinion as it favours the agencies.

 

Pearl

 

And the 'partner' agencies, although they earn most of their income from distributors, receive only a tiny proportion of that income specifically from Alamy. 

 

So the RPI of at least some of the partner agencies (and contributors) is vastly greater than the RPI enjoyed by the average Alamy contributor. 

 

The separation of production from sales is a big change that is now taking place in the stock photography industry: as big as the arrival of Getty or the crowdsourcing/micro phenomenon. 

 

"Why are my sales declining?" will probably be a hot topic here for many years to come

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

> I had 3 fails out of 7...then 3 passes, and now the sinbin.

 

3 QuickFails & now a SinBinFail?

What are current EDUCATED guesses as to staying on QuickFail list vs. SinBinFail list?

(of course, staying off both clearly preferable)

Getting "enough" passes between fails = QuickFail?

Enough = ????????

Can't really answer your question, but I had 18 passes in a row between fails last year and that wasn't enough to keep me out of the sin bin (for a month). Have no idea how the system works or when -- or even if -- return to "quick fail" happens.

Edited by John Mitchell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

> I had 3 fails out of 7...then 3 passes, and now the sinbin.

 

3 QuickFails & now a SinBinFail?

What are current EDUCATED guesses as to staying on QuickFail list vs. SinBinFail list?

(of course, staying off both clearly preferable)

Getting "enough" passes between fails = QuickFail?

Enough = ????????

Can't really answer your question, but I had 18 passes in a row between fails last year and that wasn't enough to keep me out of the sin bin (for a month). Have no idea how the system works or when -- or even if -- return to "quick fail" happens.

 

 

I'm under the impression that not all QC fails have equal weight - so if contributor hasn't had QC fail in dozen of pages, or ever, and then accidentally submits some 'horrific' error that could really embarrass the agency, you might get a 28 days lockout.  (For example, say you sloppy crop Outside part of an image so area along one or more borders has no data, and is just empty white, where empty white clearly shouldn't be.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a similar discussion on FAA about a significant drop in both views and sales for many contributors there.  Both views and sales for the site plummeted in March, came back part way in April and then plummeted even further in May.  This can be seen graphically at www.quantcast.com/fineartamerica, a site that tracks internet traffic to websites.   Their May numbers are half of those from December, January or February.  I only provided the data for FAA because numbers for Alamy weren't available on Quantcast.

 

I would caution this does not mean all contributors there are experiencing drops in views or sales.  Oddly enough my views on that site increased dramatically over the past couple months.

 

Here on Alamy my views are holding steady or even increasing although my zooms have all but disappeared for the past two or three months.  Don't ask about sales. :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

> I had 3 fails out of 7...then 3 passes, and now the sinbin.

 

3 QuickFails & now a SinBinFail?

What are current EDUCATED guesses as to staying on QuickFail list vs. SinBinFail list?

(of course, staying off both clearly preferable)

Getting "enough" passes between fails = QuickFail?

Enough = ????????

Can't really answer your question, but I had 18 passes in a row between fails last year and that wasn't enough to keep me out of the sin bin (for a month). Have no idea how the system works or when -- or even if -- return to "quick fail" happens.

 

 

I'm under the impression that not all QC fails have equal weight - so if contributor hasn't had QC fail in dozen of pages, or ever, and then accidentally submits some 'horrific' error that could really embarrass the agency, you might get a 28 days lockout.  (For example, say you sloppy crop Outside part of an image so area along one or more borders has no data, and is just empty white, where empty white clearly shouldn't be.)

 

Unusual theory. What do you base it on?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh no! Betty you are not in there are you?

 

No wonder you are having a bad day. ;)

 

Allan

 

Shhhhh, Allan.  Don't interrupt my solitude.  I had a bunch of pictures I took at Christmas of a line of trees all lit up in different colors. Different views.  I hesitated all of this time because they were taken at dusk and dark, but there were always things in the image that were sharp. A brick wall, the bark of the tree, etc.  They weren't noisy, I looked at 100%.  But somehow, at least one of them was frowned upon.  All of my X-T1 images have passed.  These were before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

John, yes, I like how you referred to it as a theory, since that's all it is.

 

Some details might be off, but.... back in the original forum someone posted about getting 28-day timeout after one QC fail, and it was mentioned at some point that a rather major artifact was present in the inspected image.

 

I then leapt to conclusion that one major technical error might increase odds of 28-day time out more than a lesser glitch, such as an image (of average usefulness/interest) with iffy focus or minor chromatic aberration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

John, yes, I like how you referred to it as a theory, since that's all it is.

 

Some details might be off, but.... back in the original forum someone posted about getting 28-day timeout after one QC fail, and it was mentioned at some point that a rather major artifact was present in the inspected image.

 

I then leapt to conclusion that one major technical error might increase odds of 28-day time out more than a lesser glitch, such as an image (of average usefulness/interest) with iffy focus or minor chromatic aberration.

Could be, who knows?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, they don't like discussion of sinbin policy, especially when a couple of us are apparently hot on its trail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh dear.  Alamy deleted my post :(

 

You are welkom to submit your hard work to bi sold for peanuts. 

But you are not suposed to......

 

Gosh, this too is going to be deletet.

Edited by ladikirn
  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sales peaked, like others, in 2012 - but only one less sale in 2013 and a slight increase in overall revenue. I've not added huge numbers of pics over the last two years. This year's sales and revenue look set to be about the same, or slightly better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My experience about QC, yes I have too much of it, would not fully support Ann’s theory.

But back to the topic: My graph shows a very steep line upwards from 2003 – 2008.

Almost horizontal to 2011. And now it is diving trough the floor. Because of inactivity?

Oh well, I had a peak last year too, due to I sold all my gear  B)  It was my best photobiz of the year  :)  That way, from the part time tog I become full time hobbyist. But I know too many more exiting hobbies = photo inactivity.

Since early 80es I have been leaving and coming back to the photobiz. It was paying the bills most of the time; but amount of the effort and time put in it…. was it worth?

Stock? Fighting for every bloody pixel in the frame just to be sold to Putin for a spot size… worth?

Should stop here to avoid risk of being deleted.

Ps. A sale trickled in right now. 3 this month so far. Thanks Alamy anyway. 

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My graph shows steady growth in sales volumes and values up to 2013 although the last three years growth has been relatively modest.

 

This is against a background of greater growth in my portfolio of images and reducing prices.

 

 

dov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Oh well, I had a peak last year too, due to I sold all my gear  B)  It was my best photobiz of the year  :) 

On the other tread losdemas, on 17 Jun 2014 - 11:53 PM, said:

When you see a gold rush, stop digging and sell shovels.

It is so appropriate I could not help it....

 
And BTW why is someone ticking me red buttons ? Alamy? Or it is because my crap English? Spelling?
It is amusing anyway, go on and let's have a good time  :)
Cheers
Ladi
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Oh well, I had a peak last year too, due to I sold all my gear  B)  It was my best photobiz of the year  :) 

On the other tread losdemas, on 17 Jun 2014 - 11:53 PM, said:

When you see a gold rush, stop digging and sell shovels.

It is so appropriate I could not help it....

 
And BTW why is someone ticking me red buttons ? Alamy? Or it is because my crap English? Spelling?
It is amusing anyway, go on and let's have a good time  :)
Cheers
Ladi

 

 

I've cancelled out your red arrow: apparently it can be a mistake when using a iPad or similar - too easy to accidentally swipe across the arrows.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Similar story here as many others - peaked in 2012. I do wish you'd all stop telling the truth - thats why you get deleted!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Oh no! Betty you are not in there are you?

 

No wonder you are having a bad day. ;)

 

Allan

 

Shhhhh, Allan.  Don't interrupt my solitude.  I had a bunch of pictures I took at Christmas of a line of trees all lit up in different colors. Different views.  I hesitated all of this time because they were taken at dusk and dark, but there were always things in the image that were sharp. A brick wall, the bark of the tree, etc.  They weren't noisy, I looked at 100%.  But somehow, at least one of them was frowned upon.  All of my X-T1 images have passed.  These were before.

 

Betty, I had an Xmas lights image fail (SoLD) last December. I think the problem was that the camera back-focused on the house, leaving some of the lights blurry. I quite liked the effect myself, but I guess QC expected the lights themselves to be sharper. Next time I'll use manual focus with shots like these.

 

P.S. Guess this doesn't have anything to do with decline in sales, though. Sorry.

Edited by John Mitchell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My graph looks very different.  As with some others here, I peaked in 2012. 

 

I started in 2005 and have added 1000 images every year.  I was hopeful with results from 2009 to 2012.  Sales volume increased from 58 (97, 152) to 232 in 2012.  Then 2013 hit with 125.  2014 will be the same (half-way with only 63 sales). 

Plus, my 2013 (125 sales) income was the same as that from the 58 sales I had in 2009.

 

p.s.: Nice graph Keith - how do you post that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the truth

 

my alamygraph

 

sales volume

 

alamygraph.jpg

 

your truth

 

very impressive

 

congrats

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My graph looks very different.  As with some others here, I peaked in 2012. 

 

I started in 2005 and have added 1000 images every year.  I was hopeful with results from 2009 to 2012.  Sales volume increased from 58 (97, 152) to 232 in 2012.  Then 2013 hit with 125.  2014 will be the same (half-way with only 63 sales). 

Plus, my 2013 (125 sales) income was the same as that from the 58 sales I had in 2009.

 

p.s.: Nice graph Keith - how do you post that?

It sounds as if my graphs look quite similar to yours (shape-wise, anyway). I too can't figure out how Keith managed to post his graph.

Share this post


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.