sparks Posted December 3, 2014 Share Posted December 3, 2014 Good morning All. Do you find more sales/zooms result from deleting older pictures and submitting same picture enhanced with latest level LR etc software? . I read that many go through reviewing keywording and I do the same till I go cross-eyed! At the moment that seems mainly deleting keywords. But how many review and resubmit actual pictures? Do the hours spent doing so reap fruitage? Thank you. Sparks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pearl Posted December 3, 2014 Share Posted December 3, 2014 A lot of the old pictures that I would like to replace were taken on cameras that are no longer on the acceptable list so it is not an option without reshooting. I would like the option though. Instead I just relegate them to a low ranked pseudo so they don't harm the main one. Even then I occasionally get a sale from them otherwise I would delete. Pearl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Posted December 3, 2014 Share Posted December 3, 2014 I've experimented a bit but concluded that it was not worth the hassle, e.g. LR versus Canon's own software. To date I've only replaced an image when I have inadvertently uploaded it with a processing filter left in place (deleting the upload immediately it passes QC), however I have replaced shots with those that are otherwise identical but taken in better light, and that has been beneficial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert M Estall Posted December 3, 2014 Share Posted December 3, 2014 In my rush to scan a significant portion of my archive accumulated over 30 years I'm sure there would be room for improvement on some of those early uploads, but they don't look that bad. And they are selling. Just a few I have revisited and reworked, but for the most part, think it best to get on with new work. There are always rainy afternoons where perhaps you might do some useful work but I've looked at quite a few of your Alamy pages and I don't think you have a huge problem there. Robert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jill Morgan Posted December 3, 2014 Share Posted December 3, 2014 Since the minimum was brought down to 17mb, I have considered going over older images and cropping in to make a better thumbnail and then moving the older ones to a new pseudo. Jill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnnie5 Posted December 3, 2014 Share Posted December 3, 2014 I have a few images that get zoomed and never bought. I don't know why I thought they were OK when I uploaded them, but they were underexposed and lacking contrast. I recently went back and reprocessed them in LR and hoping they will now sell. Like Jill I am thinking of cropping older photos maybe as a version of the original. Of course they may never be seen as all my photos now appear at the back end of any searches due to my fall in rank. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted December 3, 2014 Share Posted December 3, 2014 If a Alamy had a "replace image" option, I would do some updating. As it is, I leave everything as it is. My old pics continue to sell well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiskerke Posted December 3, 2014 Share Posted December 3, 2014 If a Alamy had a "replace image" option, I would do some updating. As it is, I leave everything as it is. My old pics continue to sell well. Ask member service: they sometimes allow you to replace an image. Have the image ready. If I remember correctly it had to have the same file name. In one case I found dust bunnies that I had missed and another had horrible CA. I was able to swap the images. With cleaning it, I brought it a bit up to date: no CA, shadows a tad lighter etc. In another case I have two images side by side and the new one sells occasionally, but the old one is still selling better. Both refer to the other, like: this one has been superseded by that one. wim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Robinson Posted December 3, 2014 Share Posted December 3, 2014 I've been doing just that the last few days. Having come across some images I took nine years ago and never processed (!) I was prompted to start trawling through my old RAW files and found many that had sales potential - but not the way I did them originally. My Photoshop skills have improved considerably in the last few years (I believe) and I can certainly produce better results from a RAW file now than I could then. I have no plans to redo everything more than a few years old, but I have found some with real potential that are NEVER going to sell in their current form. I've done about 30 of Budapest today - if one of them sells, that will pay for the coffee I've got through. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dov makabaw Posted December 3, 2014 Share Posted December 3, 2014 A lot of the old pictures that I would like to replace were taken on cameras that are no longer on the acceptable list so it is not an option without reshooting. I would like the option though. Instead I just relegate them to a low ranked pseudo so they don't harm the main one. Even then I occasionally get a sale from them otherwise I would delete. Pearl I also relegate non performers and get sales from them, one recently from 2007 without any prior zooms. My guess is that to reprocess performing images may be productive but not non performers unless they are unique in some way. .dov Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.