Ed Rooney Posted October 6, 2014 Share Posted October 6, 2014 Until last week, I had not deleted anything in a very long time. I've been planning to do some deletions after I get my small collection up to 2,000 images. So last week I noticed I had uploaded an image of Rome's Spanish Steps twice by mistake. (Sometimes I make that mistake.) Anyway, I clicked on Delete and stripped the data. But the image is still there, at least from my view, with the data still in place. Hmm. I'm confused. I made this deletion on the first day the batch appeared after I did the keywording in Manage Images. Is it going to sit there visible to buyers for the next six months? I just don't understand this policy. Why delete anything if it's going to sit there for six months? And I wonder, has there been a change in this policy? Thanks, Edo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inchiquin Posted October 6, 2014 Share Posted October 6, 2014 I clicked on Delete and stripped the data. But the image is still there If you did them in that order, that might be your answer. I always strip the data, save the changes, and then Delete (or to be more accurate I leave some garbage in the caption and essential keywords otherwise Alamy doesn't allow it to be saved). Alan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin P Wilson Posted October 6, 2014 Share Posted October 6, 2014 Yep that is what happens, I have the same problem by doing things in the wrong order. I put up some news images from ooc jpegs but subsequently I thought they would be better with some post-production tweaks on the raw files. I uploaded the new converted pics, deleted the old and they have been there for 5 months, they disappear in 3 weeks time. In future I will put them in a "deleted" pseudonym and then do as Alan suggests - gibberish in the caption/ essential keywords BEFORE deleteing. The only instant delete is in Manage Images before they are "Ready". Has always beeen that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Rooney Posted October 6, 2014 Author Share Posted October 6, 2014 Ah so, Grasshoppers. I will see if I can redo it now. In the future I will delete no more, just let the two or three same images sit there staring at one another in contempt. Thanks P.S. I just went in to Manage Images and screwed up the other image, the one I planned to keep! I'm on the road to disaster here. I'll wait to see what happens and in a few weeks maybe I'll upload the image again. Oh my. . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Broken Pixel Posted October 6, 2014 Share Posted October 6, 2014 Do not delete anything! Who knows what will be bought in the future, maybe tomorrow. Who can tell that for sure that a picture is not sellable? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Betty LaRue Posted October 7, 2014 Share Posted October 7, 2014 Most of my old stuff, done 7-8 years ago doesn't measure up to what I'm doing now. I did begin deleting some of them, then a couple of them sold before the final time was up. I probably got rid of 300 or more. I quit deleting. I realized that 5 years from now, what I'm doing now will also look bad in comparison. The software just keeps getting better and better, along with our skills and gear. What to us looks like a scab on a knee may be just the scab someone is looking for. My last three sales were taken 4-5 years ago. Somebody did dig deep. Betty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Endicott Posted October 7, 2014 Share Posted October 7, 2014 Many years ago, there was a film image in the collection of Sir Edmund Hillary on top of Mt. Everest in the collection that was grainy. It was a very rough image and I think it was from the original expedition in 1953. I think it was part of the National Geographic collection. After reading this thread, I did a search on "Sir Edmund Hillary Everest" looking for that image....and 88 images were returned. None of them were of Sir Edmund Hillary standing on Everest (though his statue did return). When I did a search of Sir Edmund Hillary, only 148 images were returned and there were 3 of the expedition group, but none of him standing on Everest. My thoughts are that images of people and places should stay (duplicates removed as is your instance of course), but those images are, in a sense, historic in nature and it's something we should preserve for future generations. Images of our groceries taken over a white background though, I'm not sure about Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted October 7, 2014 Share Posted October 7, 2014 Most of my Alamy income is from older images. I don't delete anything. Wish my new stuff sold like my old stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Rooney Posted October 7, 2014 Author Share Posted October 7, 2014 But I'm not deleting anything because of less than perfect quality. I wanted to delete an image because I uploaded two images that were the same. All my images are perfect . . . or at least mediocre . . . (or perhaps semi-mediocre). Maybe I should upload all of my images twice? I could double my collection overnight! Hmm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted October 7, 2014 Share Posted October 7, 2014 But I'm not deleting anything because of less than perfect quality. I wanted to delete an image because I uploaded two images that were the same. All my images are perfect . . . or at least mediocre . . . (or perhaps semi-mediocre). Maybe I should upload all of my images twice? I could double my collection overnight! Hmm. Hmmm... If you have two the same, doesn't that theoretically double the odds that the image will be zoomed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Rooney Posted October 7, 2014 Author Share Posted October 7, 2014 But I'm not deleting anything because of less than perfect quality. I wanted to delete an image because I uploaded two images that were the same. All my images are perfect . . . or at least mediocre . . . (or perhaps semi-mediocre). Maybe I should upload all of my images twice? I could double my collection overnight! Hmm. Hmmm... If you have two the same, doesn't that theoretically double the odds that the image will be zoomed? You mean I should have left them both and maybe added another? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiskerke Posted October 7, 2014 Share Posted October 7, 2014 But I'm not deleting anything because of less than perfect quality. I wanted to delete an image because I uploaded two images that were the same. All my images are perfect . . . or at least mediocre . . . (or perhaps semi-mediocre). Maybe I should upload all of my images twice? I could double my collection overnight! Hmm. Hmmm... If you have two the same, doesn't that theoretically double the odds that the image will be zoomed? Only with two totally different sets of keywords. Seriously. wim edit: actually you want a sale not just a zoom. If you have views now, but no sales. Then the odds are against you even with a different set of keywords. To paraphrase a certain US president: it's the image, ...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dov makabaw Posted October 7, 2014 Share Posted October 7, 2014 I used to delete and then found that the pics got clicked or sold during the 6 month waiting time. I now transfer redundant pics to another non performing pseudo and just leave them there. If they subsequently sell or have multiple clicks then I transfer them back into my main pseudos. It works for me - I sold one this month for $200 taken March 2006 and never previously clicked or sold. dov Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Posted October 7, 2014 Share Posted October 7, 2014 I only delete if I have a near duplicate that is better, but better is tad subjective, a photo editor might be looking for an image taken on a grey day, and the full sun alternative not so attractive. Looking at shots in the newspaper scheme, I have seen gloomy photos preferred to the more obvious alternatives. To delete, move image to dummy pseudo, remove keywords, maybe replacing with "nothing", wait for a day for the system to update,then delete and wait. If the replacement is really very similar, maybe a reworking of the same file, I ask member services to delete one of them, giving both codes. Deletion is then within a few days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SShep Posted October 7, 2014 Share Posted October 7, 2014 As somebody else said on here some time ago, if you delete a duplicate add its reference as a keyword to the one you keep. Just in case somebody has made a note of it for future use. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stokie Posted October 7, 2014 Share Posted October 7, 2014 "remove keywords, maybe replacing with "nothing"" I just enter a space, so it gets picked up by Alamy's engine but nothing shows. John. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted October 7, 2014 Share Posted October 7, 2014 But I'm not deleting anything because of less than perfect quality. I wanted to delete an image because I uploaded two images that were the same. All my images are perfect . . . or at least mediocre . . . (or perhaps semi-mediocre). Maybe I should upload all of my images twice? I could double my collection overnight! Hmm. Hmmm... If you have two the same, doesn't that theoretically double the odds that the image will be zoomed? Only with two totally different sets of keywords. Seriously. wim edit: actually you want a sale not just a zoom. If you have views now, but no sales. Then the odds are against you even with a different set of keywords. To paraphrase a certain US president: it's the image, ...... I was only joking, but that's an interesting point about having to have different keywords. Contributors who upload dozens of similars should perhaps keep it in mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gervais Montacute Posted October 7, 2014 Share Posted October 7, 2014 Do not delete anything! Who knows what will be bought in the future, maybe tomorrow. Who can tell that for sure that a picture is not sellable? Ed I tend to agree with the above quote. Because what is crap or more importantly, what we perceive to be crap, especially our own work, can sell. Crap sells. Although if that's not your initial point of deletion, then I would say delete away. Otherwise leave it all in imo. I had this very conversation just recently with another agency (not photographic) and they leave everything in, even though the subject matter could be construed as not outstanding, even in the world of crap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted October 7, 2014 Share Posted October 7, 2014 Do not delete anything! Who knows what will be bought in the future, maybe tomorrow. Who can tell that for sure that a picture is not sellable? Ed I tend to agree with the above quote. Because what is crap or more importantly, what we perceive to be crap, especially our own work, can sell. Crap sells. Although if that's not your initial point of deletion, then I would say delete away. Otherwise leave it all in imo. I had this very conversation just recently with another agency (not photographic) and they leave everything in, even though the subject matter could be construed as not outstanding, even in the world of crap. In the unpredictable world of stock photography, I think it's fair to say that if something sells, then it is no longer crap, even if it is crap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin P Wilson Posted October 7, 2014 Share Posted October 7, 2014 A freelance project manager friend used to say "I know I am second-rate; fortunately the world is mostly third-rate". Probably applies in spades to the world of stock photography. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martyn Posted October 7, 2014 Share Posted October 7, 2014 If an image is key worded correctly, then it doesn't really matter how far it is buried as a client will find it even if it means some digging. To underline this, I had a non distributor text book licence this morning from a scan of a shot taken fourteen years ago and uploaded maybe six or so years ago….never been zoomed or licensed before…..so that $180 licence says keep stuff (unless it is really grim !!). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gervais Montacute Posted October 7, 2014 Share Posted October 7, 2014 In the unpredictable world of stock photography, I think it's fair to say that if something sells, then it is no longer crap, even if it is crap. Precisely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin P Wilson Posted October 7, 2014 Share Posted October 7, 2014 I sold one with significant camera shake that would never have passed QC today. And it was not as though it was great composition or subject - old tellies at a flea market. I am not sure how it got past my own QC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jill Morgan Posted October 8, 2014 Share Posted October 8, 2014 I had a duplicate back in June. Not sure how the same one got in there twice in the same lot, but deleted it the day after they went live. Don't know how I didn't notice it when I was keywording. It's still there. It isn't recorded in my numbers here or in 'My Alamy", but if I just do a search of my images, it is included in the numbers there. Jill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Betty LaRue Posted October 8, 2014 Share Posted October 8, 2014 I think a lot of us have uploaded duplicates by mistake. I recently did that, too! A lapse in concentration, I guess. One can do the keyword delete, add some nonsense letters, but when a forum member clicks on the image number under our avatars, the duplicate is still there and will be until final deletion. At least mine is still there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.