Jump to content

Recommended Posts

 

about 7%  revenue increase from 2013 (which was poorest year in 12 years with alamy.)

 

So my dire 2013 (and not much better 2014) was not untypical in 12 year Alamy history. I am not sure it makes me feel any better tho' :(

 

A misery shared and all that ...

 

 

My sales took a dip in 2013 as well, but they sprang back (surprisingly) in 2014.

Edited by John Mitchell
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Wim's very useful advice is indeed sensible stuff, but there are some exceptions to the ideas postulated.

 

Looking at the dreaded Mail Online website on most days - I also look at the Guardian as a much needed antidote - there is one image (not mine) that is used virtually every week, sometimes more than once. It is a perfectly competent standard view but taken in dull cloudy conditions. Even at the standard net rate of about $3 this photo must have been an excellent earner.

 

Perhaps the shooter is a relative of the editor, as there are plenty of other good shots available taken in sunshine. ;)

 

Maybe the exception proves the rule?

Edited by Bryan
Link to post
Share on other sites

Wim's very useful advice is indeed sensible stuff, but there are some exceptions to the ideas postulated.

 

Looking at the dreaded Mail Online website on most days - I also look at the Guardian as a much needed antidote - there is one image (not mine) that is used virtually every week, sometimes more than once. It is a perfectly competent standard view but taken in dull cloudy conditions. Even at the standard net rate of about $3 this photo must have been an excellent earner.

 

Perhaps the shooter is a relative of the editor, as there are plenty of other good shots available taken in sunshine. ;)

 

Maybe the exception proves the rule?

 

RF?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Wim's very useful advice is indeed sensible stuff, but there are some exceptions to the ideas postulated.

 

Looking at the dreaded Mail Online website on most days - I also look at the Guardian as a much needed antidote - there is one image (not mine) that is used virtually every week, sometimes more than once. It is a perfectly competent standard view but taken in dull cloudy conditions. Even at the standard net rate of about $3 this photo must have been an excellent earner.

 

Perhaps the shooter is a relative of the editor, as there are plenty of other good shots available taken in sunshine. ;)

 

Maybe the exception proves the rule?

 

RF?

 

 

RM Wim, arbitrary pedestrians in the shot.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Although not nearly as disciplined and thoroughly as Wim, I too keep 'pruning' my main pseudo as I add images. I never delete images though, I just move them to lower ranked pseudos.

 

I don't delete images either, but I'm wondering if moving "non-performers" into lower-ranked pseudonyms doesn't just drive those pseudos deeper into the depths.

Link to post
Share on other sites

d I ended 2014 in the slammer, so wait with interest as to the reason!

 

Be prepared to be surprised, they're picking them out of a hat.

Don't expect to be in the clear if you deal with the failed image, either. They may find another in the same batch next time, It's happened to me twice recently. It's a complete lottery now.

  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

d I ended 2014 in the slammer, so wait with interest as to the reason!

 

Be prepared to be surprised, they're picking them out of a hat.

Don't expect to be in the clear if you deal with the failed image, either. They may find another in the same batch next time, It's happened to me twice recently. It's a complete lottery now.

 

 

What reasons are being given for the failures, Mark? It's always best to recheck all images in a failed batch to see any of the others have the same problem(s).

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've mentioned it before. SOLD and CA. Naturally I don't know the latest one- it'll be three in a row,( I hope it's not three strikes and you're out).

QC got tighter last year and all of a sudden faults were being found using the same kit and same processes i've always used.

Of course I recheck. But only last year did the practice of not marking all defective images in a batch start. Previously one could rely on the failure reasons applying only to the failed images. Now you can't and I simply don't know what to do anymore.

Edited by spacecadet
Link to post
Share on other sites

We've been through this. SOLD and CA.

QC got tighter last year and all of a sudden faults were being found using the same kit and same processes i've always used.

Of course I recheck. But only last year did the practice of not marking all defective images in a batch start. Previously one could rely on the failure reasons applying only to the failed images. Now you can't and I simply don't know what to do anymore.

 

Not true. The last batch I had fail, more than 4 years ago,  had just 1 marked as failed even though on several I had missed an obvious blob in the sky. There were 39 in the batch and at least 5, all from the same session had the problem; I clearly had not checked that part of the batch at all, let alone diligently. I checked them all again properly and they passed - if I had just corrected the failed image and resubmitted I would have failed again.

Edited by Martin P Wilson
  • Upvote 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

I made my first - and only, so far - sale in October of 2014. The good thing is that I only had 130 or so images loaded into my portfolio at the time. Selling that one image lit a fire under me, and I have been busy taking images and uploading them. I am looking forward to making sales in 2015!

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

We've been through this. SOLD and CA.

QC got tighter last year and all of a sudden faults were being found using the same kit and same processes i've always used.

Of course I recheck. But only last year did the practice of not marking all defective images in a batch start. Previously one could rely on the failure reasons applying only to the failed images. Now you can't and I simply don't know what to do anymore.

 

Not true. The last batch I had fail, more than 4 years ago,  had just 1 marked as failed even though on several I had missed an obvious blob in the sky. There were 39 in the batch and at least 5, all from the same session had the problem; I clearly had not checked that part of the batch at all, let alone diligently. I checked them all again properly and they passed - if I had just corrected the failed image and resubmitted I would have failed again.

Not true for you perhaps. True in my case. I can only say what I see.

Either way I'm quite lost now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

d I ended 2014 in the slammer, so wait with interest as to the reason!

 

Be prepared to be surprised, they're picking them out of a hat.

Don't expect to be in the clear if you deal with the failed image, either. They may find another in the same batch next time, It's happened to me twice recently. It's a complete lottery now.

 

 

Not a lottery at all. Your images are displaying clear technical faults and we don't check every image in each batch. If you resubmit an image that was part of a failed batch and it contains faults there is every chance it may be flagged the next time having not been seen initially.

 

Saying that it is a lottery is misleading.

 

Alamy

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

We've been through this. SOLD and CA.

QC got tighter last year and all of a sudden faults were being found using the same kit and same processes i've always used.

Of course I recheck. But only last year did the practice of not marking all defective images in a batch start. Previously one could rely on the failure reasons applying only to the failed images. Now you can't and I simply don't know what to do anymore.

 

Not true. The last batch I had fail, more than 4 years ago,  had just 1 marked as failed even though on several I had missed an obvious blob in the sky. There were 39 in the batch and at least 5, all from the same session had the problem; I clearly had not checked that part of the batch at all, let alone diligently. I checked them all again properly and they passed - if I had just corrected the failed image and resubmitted I would have failed again.

Not true for you perhaps. True in my case. I can only say what I see.

Either way I'm quite lost now.

 

For many year it has been the stated position by not just me but others and Alamy themselves.

 

It is possible to pass QC consistently, many do.

Edited by Martin P Wilson
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

It is possible to pass QC consistently, many do.

 

So did I, for four years. Then something changed and it wasn't me, my kit or my software. CA in the extreme corner of an image, not the subject; SoLD away from the main subject; camera shake that wasn't.

I had a sale today, of an image taken last spring, that I wouldn't have dared to submit under the new policy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Some time ago I read John Shaw's business of nature photography. In it he mentioned that one could expect roughly $1/image/year in revenue from licensing. Based on this thread, it seems like the numbers are still in the right ballpark. (On reflection, maybe this is low because images can be licensed in multiple venues and directly by photographer).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Some time ago I read John Shaw's business of nature photography. In it he mentioned that one could expect roughly $1/image/year in revenue from licensing. Based on this thread, it seems like the numbers are still in the right ballpark. (On reflection, maybe this is low because images can be licensed in multiple venues and directly by photographer).

 

Roughly $2.00 gross per image for me last year on Alamy, so $1.00 net per image sounds about right.

Edited by John Mitchell
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.