I don't know how some of you get such large collections

[Betty LaRue]

I've been working at this for 8 years, and am only now closing in on 3,000 images. Of course I have had periods when I was caught up in other things and just couldn't shoot or upload stock, so its not like that's the only thing in my life.

 I don't know how some of you with 10,000 and upwards do it. Shoot lots of similars and batch develop them?

 

I tend to pick my shots, maybe taking a half dozen of something and then choosing one to three of the best ones, all a little different.  It isn't unusual for me to download 50-60 images to my computer and only choose 20 out of those.  It's not that the others aren't good images, I just don't see any advantage to having many shots with only tiny differences.  I know when I am looking on Alamy, when I have come to pages of dozens of images from one photographer that looked almost the same, my eyes glazed over and I didn't look at any of them.  Not one stood out, in other words.

I think that was before Alamy changed things, does stacking, etc.

 

Just curious as to what you all think.  Is it better to have 3,000 images that are, for the most part, different, with only a few similars or does it pay off to spray and pray?  If you went through your portfolio and got rid of everything but 3 or 4 similars of a scene or item, what size portfolio would you be left with?

 

I know there are probably many differing opinions, just curious to hear them.  Sometimes I feel my workflow is in the dark ages.  I just spent a couple of hours developing 15-18 images and keywording 10 of them.  I'll get to the rest tomorrow.  You all probably develop 100 in the time it takes me to do 10.  Right?

 

Betty

 

 

[John Mitchell]

Personally, I think that "spray and pray" (very good BTW) is a waste of time and space. It also makes Alamy look like a dumping ground, which no doubt turns a lot of buyers off. I always choose only one or two images from a series to upload. Better to have a smaller collection with lots of variety IMO (like Wim's for instance) than one overflowing with the digital detritus that we all tend to accumulate these days. 

 

P.S. I'm like you. It can take me a week or more to choose and prepare a handful of images to upload.

[Ed Rooney]

"If you went through your portfolio and got rid of everything but 3 or 4 similars of a scene or item, what size portfolio would you be left with?" -- Betty

 

It would be the portfolio I have now, I guess. I don't upload many similars, but I do find myself returning to subjects I've already captured. That is I'll shoot a subject again from a different point of view, at a different time of day, and so on. But I've decided just recently to stop doing that. 

 

Alamy and most agencies don't want us to put up an endless amount of boring similars, and if they did I still wouldn't do it. I just learned this past week that the main trouble with being in NYC is the vast numbers of images, second only to London. But here I am. 

[Betty LaRue]

I'm still working on the St. croix images I took last October. I have probably 2000 images from that week, and deciding which ones I want is somewhat mind-boggling. I'm into the 4th folder now. I can almost see the finish line.

3 family members will go with me to St. Croix this next time, and the challenge will be not to duplicate what I've already done.

 

But then considering the poorly marked road system that caused my sister and I to seldom get where we were trying to go, and instead going in circles, I should have new areas to shoot. My son-in-law will do the driving, and he'll use his phone gps.

 

One good thing, though. After Joyce and I ended up in the same place for the third time, I looked at her with big eyes, then proceeded to get hysterical. She joined in and we laughed until we cried and our bellies hurt. Laughing like that is good for the soul. Even if I never did get to see those other beaches.

[Ed Rooney]

St. Thomas? It's not that hard to do a day trip to the sister island. Or to St. John. 

[Martin P Wilson]

I often shoot sport and may only have time to work from one position during a race, As a result there are only a few options so many of the pcitiures will look like similars to the average picture buyer but not to someone looking for images for the sports pages - they are of different people,

I guess those who shoot red carpet events have a similar issue. You can see what I mean from yesterdays F4 Powerboat GP - submitted as News. Closer racing generates more variety as do other classes that bounce around more on the wakes. But it is similar problems for cars and motor bikes.

[dov makabaw]

I tend to be quite selective with what I upload and avoid similars although I do return to subjects. If I get no zooms or sales in the first two years then I relegate the pics to a dump pseudo which now represents 50% of my portfolio. (I used to delete these but found I got zooms and sales on them within the following 6 months.) I tend to do a lot of travel and lifestyle which lends itself to greater variety and quantity of pics. I guess if we knew what would sell we would all have smaller and more selective portfolios.

5,000 'live' images in 7 years is not that different to your own experience.

 

dov

[Allan Bell]

I often shoot sport and may only have time to work from one position during a race, As a result there are only a few options so many of the pcitiures will look like similars to the average picture buyer but not to someone looking for images for the sports pages - they are of different people,

 

I guess those who shoot red carpet events have a similar issue. You can see what I mean from yesterdays F4 Powerboat GP - submitted as News. Closer racing generates more variety as do other classes that bounce around more on the wakes. But it is similar problems for cars and motor bikes.

 

Looked at your "News" images Martin. They are excellent and I saw very little in the way of similars in there.

 

Like the one of the red boat with orange bunny ears.

 

Allan

 

PS: In reply to Betty's post, I just don't get out enough.

[Martin P Wilson]

 

I often shoot sport and may only have time to work from one position during a race, As a result there are only a few options so many of the pcitiures will look like similars to the average picture buyer but not to someone looking for images for the sports pages - they are of different people,

 

I guess those who shoot red carpet events have a similar issue. You can see what I mean from yesterdays F4 Powerboat GP - submitted as News. Closer racing generates more variety as do other classes that bounce around more on the wakes. But it is similar problems for cars and motor bikes.

 

Looked at your "News" images Martin. They are excellent and I saw very little in the way of similars in there.

 

Like the one of the red boat with orange bunny ears.

 

Allan

 

PS: In reply to Betty's post, I just don't get out enough.

 

 

Thanks Allan, I kept the selection for news tight by only choosing those placed in the first six. But for stock/reportage I will put up more and from other, junior, classes and then apparent "similars" may increase; will need to as many are future stars of their sport. I guess in total I will upload 50 or so pictures, fortunately there was quite a lot of tighter racing in the other classes.

 

I had the comment from someone that I had a lot of similars when I shot the end of last season's champions showdown of British Superbikes - all the riders in that are newsworthy, potential stock (but limited market i guess) but at any given corner there is usually only a couple of angles that work.

 

My aim is to try and do for my local area the sort of thing KM achieves for Aberystwyth. To that end I am in the process of broadening the scope of m,y copverage. It is about getting out and about and putting in the hours, with the camera,at the computer and probably on the telephone as well.

[vpics]

I often shoot shows like London Fashion Week. This quickly adds up. One show is about 20 (good) images. Cover 20 shows and it 400 ...

Different pseudonyms are really handy in this respect.

[Brian Yarvin]

Betty, I delete old similars more often than I upload new images. I've dumped over a thousand this year alone. There's no way I can shoot new material this fast. However, each time I do a big deletion or a review of my keywording, my rank jumps - so I'll keep at it.

[Betty LaRue]

Betty, I delete old similars more often than I upload new images. I've dumped over a thousand this year alone. There's no way I can shoot new material this fast. However, each time I do a big deletion or a review of my keywording, my rank jumps - so I'll keep at it.

Brian, that's very interesting. You're the first person that I'm aware of that is actively doing that. I've heard of people just deleting some of their early sub-par work, but not going through and deleting similars. Kudos to you.

I began a purging of some of my old work, not similars a few years ago until a couple of them waiting in the deletion group sold. So I stopped that.

I guess I should try dumping those under one pseudo.

[Martin P Wilson]

After dabbling with changes to pseudonyms etc to little effect on my Alamy sales over the years I have decided to effectively start afresh. I am working as though I was just starting out.

 

As of 1 September 2014 I have dumped all but a hundred of my images (best sellers, creative) submitted before last week in to one catch-all pseudonym. I am now putting my new work into one of two new pseudonyms: one for my travel stuff linked with one of my web sites and the other for the rest, the news, sport, local Nottingham stuff etc. I am aiming to be much more focussed on quality, keywording and potential usage and to work on my photography pretty much full time (reluctantly I do 8 days a month for an IT company until I can forego the modest income). Next report at Christmas, at the end of the first quarter.

 

During the dark winter evenings I will work on my archive. I will spend some time reviewing, perhaps deleting and rekeywording my old Alamy stuff and working through the digitisation of my film archive with a view to submitting any that I feel is appropriate. This will be fill in work when I have time from this new start-up business. I am a little confused as to why Alamy isn't working for me; over the years I have had a pretty good success rate with direct pitches; I suspect I have not been as disiciplined/focussed with my Alamy stuff until recently. I now feel I have the energy and desire as a result of the resolution of some personal challenges.

[Bill Brooks]

For me editing is a balancing act. 

 

Designers tend to design the space first, and then try to fit images into their design. They usually do not redesign to fit an image, unless they really love that image.

 

So a vertical and horizontal version if possible. This means that 3 similars can become 6. Shoot wide so you leave room for the designer to crop. Leave room for type.

 

 

Shoot the same subject for different markets. Think internationally and culturally. This one is for German, now UK, now Asian, now North American etc.

 

Editors want an image that communicates a point. Beautiful, ugly, location or season specific etc.

 

Make that beach look pristine and inviting. Move 100 meters and make the same beach look polluted. Make the same beach look crowded. Make the same beach look deserted. Make the same beach look generic, so it could be anywhere. Then include location clues like tropical palms or northern pines or local landmarks, so the location can be recognized. Waikiki Beach with Diamond Head in the background for instance.

 

Visit the same location in a different season, different times of day, different weather.

 

Let your images sit on your hard drive long enough that you are no longer in love with them, or remember all the pain of walking over a mile of broken glass in your bare feet. Then edit. Editors don't care about the cost or work involved, they only care if your image meets their needs better than your competition's images. If you have a lot of images to process you will edit more severely.

 

Shoot every day. If you cannot think of a location, stop thinking and just point your feet in any direction and see where they take you.

 

I go into my collection and delete weak images, but a glance at my 12,140 images will show anyone that I still have lots of delete work to do.

[Betty LaRue]

 

For me editing is a balancing act. 

 

Designers tend to design the space first, and then try to fit images into their design. They usually do not redesign to fit an image, unless they really love that image.

 

So a vertical and horizontal version if possible. This means that 3 similars can become 6. Shoot wide so you leave room for the designer to crop. Leave room for type.

 

 

Shoot the same subject for different markets. Think internationally and culturally. This one is for German, now UK, now Asian, now North American etc.

 

Editors want an image that communicates a point. Beautiful, ugly, location or season specific etc.

 

Make that beach look pristine and inviting. Move 100 meters and make the same beach look polluted. Make the same beach look crowded. Make the same beach look deserted. Make the same beach look generic, so it could be anywhere. Then include location clues like tropical palms or northern pines or local landmarks, so the location can be recognized. Waikiki Beach with Diamond Head in the background for instance.

 

Visit the same location in a different season, different times of day, different weather.

 

Let your images sit on your hard drive long enough that you are no longer in love with them, or remember all the pain of walking over a mile of broken glass in your bare feet. Then edit. Editors don't care about the cost or work involved, they only care if your image meets their needs better than your competition's images. If you have a lot of images to process you will edit more severely.

 

Shoot every day. If you cannot think of a location, stop thinking and just point your feet in any direction and see where they take you.

 

I go into my collection and delete weak images, but a glance at my 12,140 images will show anyone that I still have lots of delete work to do.

 

 Excellent points and advice, Bill.

 

Considering my St. Croix images, should I have the location in the keywords?  Or make them more generic "tropical beach" "tropical island" Caribbean.  I assume I should have St. Croix, U. S. Virgin Islands in the location field.

[dustydingo]

I go into my collection and delete weak images, but a glance at my 12,140 images will show anyone that I still have lots of delete work to do.

 

 

I know what you mean Bill . . . I went through your whole portfolio and I found at least 2, maybe even as many as 4, that definitely aren't up to scratch . . .

 

dd

[Martin P Wilson]

...

 

Considering my St. Croix images, should I have the location in the keywords?  Or make them more generic "tropical beach" "tropical island" Caribbean.  I assume I should have St. Croix, U. S. Virgin Islands in the location field.

 

 

Why not both? I seem to recall David K and others recommending being specific on locations, buildings, plants and animals (inc latin name) etc as well as generic to increase options. At the end of the day it does not matter if a keyword is never searched but a search for a keyword that isn't but could have been there is a missed opportunity.

[Allan Bell]

Betty location field is no longer searched so if someone is looking for your St. Croix images they will not find them unless you add the locations into main keywording somewhere.

 

Allan

[Bill Brooks]

I always keyword location.

 

If the image just oozes location than I put the location keyword in the ESSENTIAL keywords.

 

If the image is generic and therefore location has nothing to do with anything, then I location keyword in COMPREHENSIVE keywords.

 

Consider the problem of a photo editor looking for images for a book called "The Wildflowers of Ontario". This means all images have to be shot in the province of Ontario. Even if some of the flowers could be shot in the UK. Publishers are always in fear of the busybodies that write in and say things like. "I see vegetation in the background that means the image was not shot in Ontario" or "The image is credited to photographer A and I know photographer A has never been to Ontario".

 

A generic photograph of a Daisy shot in Ontario does not say Ontario. Keyword the daisy photograph as "Ox-eye Daisy" [Leucanthemum vulgare] in ESSENTIAL keywords and "Ontario" in COMPREHENSIVE keywords. Then a photo editor working on such a book can search "Ox-eye Daisy" and "Ontario" and get the image he needs. It also means that photo editors searching for Ontario locations, and only using the keyword "Ontario", are not inundated with flower images.

 

The floral emblem of Ontario is the White Trillium. It grows not only in Ontario. This subject oozes Ontario because it is the floral emblem, so put both "White Trillium" and "Ontario" in ESSENTIAL keywords. Then the photo editor gets all White Trilliums shot in Ontario, if he searches on the two keywords. However this also means that a photo editor searching for iconic Ontario images using only the keyword "Ontario" should get, the floral emblem, the Ontario flag, windblown pine, canoe on a lake, legislature building, politicians, etc but not a lot of useless Daisy images. By keywording in this fashion you are making suggestions as to what he should put in his publication.

 

Never assume that the photo editor is an expert on the subject. I try to help out in the caption. For instance the state of Hawaii has only one island named Hawaii, whereas the other islands have other names. If I just captioned "Hawaii" the buyer might be confused as to wether I am talking about the island of Hawaii, or the State of Hawaii.

 

If I have a shot taken on the Hawaiian island of Maui, I would caption it "High surf at Kamaole Beach on the island of Maui in the State of Hawaii USA"

 

As a photo editor I saw a lot of very good images that were rejected on the basis of poor, or no, or confusing information.

[Betty LaRue]

Good grief!!  I feel I need to go back into my images and check all of the keywords and their locations!  

 

And, Allan, I did not know location was no longer searchable. Why have it, then?  It's useless to any photo buyer.  And all it does is confuse the photographer into thinking it is.

 

Bill, I need to hire you (joking) to re-keyword my images.

[Phil]

Good grief!! I feel I need to go back into my images and check all of the keywords and their locations!

Yep - been there and finished last week.

 

I initially thought the statement in the "Annotation fields" chart for Location field of "This information can make or lose a sale" somehow implied that the Location field was significant for searches. Rude awakening with the realization that it does not.

 

Not all images need search significant location info but those could benefit from it need it entered twice with current scheme - in keywords and Location field.

 

Wonder why the Location field has no search engine significance given it's importance for many image searches?

[MDM]

 

Wonder why the Location field has no search engine significance given it's importance for many image searches?

 

 

It used to be searchable and the change was a relatively recent development (maybe a year or so ago).  I think it was changed because large numbers of generic images had the location fields filled in when the locations were irrelevant. These would of course show up in searches where the location was the prime object thus leading to large numbers of spurious results.

 

It is a good idea in any case to accurately fill in the location field if it is relevant, as this information may be important to the buyer. 

 

[Betty LaRue]

St. Thomas? It's not that hard to do a day trip to the sister island. Or to St. John.

 

That's a possibility, but not sure if we'll have the finances. I really want to schedule a snorkeling trip to Buck Island. That will give me some photo ops.

[Ed Rooney]

Understood. St. Thomas is a totally different island structure, hills and charming bays with a view of most of the other Virgins. If you can . . . do. 

[TokyoM1ke]

Good grief!!  I feel I need to go back into my images and check all of the keywords and their locations!  

 

And, Allan, I did not know location was no longer searchable. Why have it, then?  It's useless to any photo buyer.  And all it does is confuse the photographer into thinking it is.

 

Bill, I need to hire you (joking) to re-keyword my images.

 

I think that having the location field filled in ensures that an editor can do a final check and know that it's not just the vagaries of the keywords that brought up the image.  I'm sure we can all think of plenty of examples... Whisky made in Scotland in Japan (and yes, I know it's Scotch).