Critique please

[Tim Ayers]

As you can see I've gradually built a library of about 3,500 images. I have sales and view performances that based on the figures I've seen on this forum are very poor, my views are usually 10-20 and my sales are about 4-7 (usually low value) per month. If you would give me some guidance as to where I'm going wrong it'd be much appreciated.

Thanks Tim

[spacecadet]

That rate of sales is not bad at all for a general collection.

[Keith Douglas]

You mean 10-20 zooms, not views?

 

I agree with Mark on the rate of sales, it's about what I would expect. In my view your collection is very much focused on images OF London as opposed to images taken IN London so it's quite narrow. But there are some excellent images there.

[John Gaffen]

One suggestion is that your portfolio mainly consists of images of London. Whilst they are of good quality, this is an area where you are competing with many other photographers. Whilst I would not stop submitting London images,  I would also try to broaden out your subject types, in different location areas if you can.  High sales figures  generally tend to correlate with portfolio size, here on Alamy. With the largest portfolios, selling  a higher volume of images.

[NYCat]

I'm always attracted to the animals, of course, and I love this..

 

I was curious to see if you had thought to put "urban wildlife" in your keywords so I looked at them. Lots of keywords in there that do not describe the image. Perhaps someone can help you with the exact ID of the bird so you can put in the Latin name. Take out the keywords that don't apply. I think it's worth the time to go over your keywords as they can make a huge difference in getting accurate views.

 

Paulette

[spacecadet]

I'm always attracted to the animals, of course, and I love this..

 

I was curious to see if you had thought to put "urban wildlife" in your keywords so I looked at them. Lots of keywords in there that do not describe the image. Perhaps someone can help you with the exact ID of the bird so you can put in the Latin name. Take out the keywords that don't apply. I think it's worth the time to go over your keywords as they can make a huge difference in getting accurate views.

 

Paulette

He does have ardea egretta in there.

[Tim Ayers]

Keith

Yes 10-20 zooms, the views are in the low thousands

 

Keith and John

I've tended to concentrate on London and they are OF not IN cos I like nice clean vibrant photos which usually means not many people and of course not many people also means less releases required. I've started to try and diversify a bit with Paris, but yet again it's a very competitive arena.

 

Thanks again for your thoughts

[Guest]

 

I'm always attracted to the animals, of course, and I love this..

 

I was curious to see if you had thought to put "urban wildlife" in your keywords so I looked at them. Lots of keywords in there that do not describe the image. Perhaps someone can help you with the exact ID of the bird so you can put in the Latin name. Take out the keywords that don't apply. I think it's worth the time to go over your keywords as they can make a huge difference in getting accurate views.

 

Paulette

He does have ardea egretta in there.

 

 

He's got everything in there including bitterns and egrets...maybe just stick to grey heron.

[NYCat]

Is it really ardea egretta? Sorry I missed that. I'm not a bird expert but I think Geoff is right. Definitely important to get it right as the people who search by Latin name usually know something about it.

 

Paulette

[RedSnapper]

You live in London? Then you have everything you need for a stock photographer on your doorstep

 

Check out the work of Alex Segre.....

 

km

[Tim Ayers]

NY Cat

I believe ardea egretta are general latin names for the two main families involved Egrets and Bitterns (according to Mr Google), yes I too don't have the specific knowledge to identify it accurately (mind you it seems from Geoff it may simply be a grey heron).

 

Red Snapper

I see from Alex Segre I need to try taking more photos of people in London not just things (buildings/cityscapes).

[NYCat]

NY Cat

I believe ardea egretta are general latin names for the two main families involved Egrets and Bitterns (according to Mr Google), yes I too don't have the specific knowledge to identify it accurately (mind you it seems from Geoff it may simply be a grey heron).

 

Red Snapper

I see from Alex Segre I need to try taking more photos of people in London not just things (buildings/cityscapes).

 

I just really love that image. I'm terrible at concept words but I bet there are some for that one. He looks very out of place and like he has hit some strong winds. Maybe an ad for GPS or insurance. Lots of room for text on the roof. Anyway, you have to get rid of the words about trees and walking and all the ones that don't apply. It could use 'animal, animals, bird, birds, feathers, plumage.

 

Paulette

[Doc]

I dream of that level of sales Tim. After 5 years of doing pretty badly things are improving, as my photos have improved a lot but waiting for my ranking to increase takes a long time. I currently have 11 zooms for the previous 30 day period which is a record for me after 5 years on Alamy. My sales last year were just 4 in the whole year, same in 2013, but so far this year I've had 9 sales. Still very low compared to many others with less images for sale but at least things are looking up. So don't feel too down about your own performance.

 

I had a quick look at your photos and as others have said they are pretty decent. More variety is always good though, and abstract things such as a load of paperclips or strange shapes often seem to get licensed. I've tried stuff like that myself in recent months.

 

If you don't mind me saying Tim, I noticed that you have some images of Paddington Station. Please someone correct me if I am wrong but I'm fairly sure you shouldn't be selling those as they are taken on private property and you don't have a release. I'm just pointing that out to save any potential problems for you later.

 

Geoff.

 

Hi Geoff/Tim

 

I am sure there is no problem taking photos for editorial use in Paddington Station, as indeed any other railway station, and most other buildings in London into which the public are allowed. If you dont have a property release as most of us dont, you simply licence them as RM, not RF

 

see here:  

 

http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?95865-Paddington-Station-(2-images)

 

Kumar

[spacecadet]

 

If you don't mind me saying Tim, I noticed that you have some images of Paddington Station. Please someone correct me if I am wrong but I'm fairly sure you shouldn't be selling those as they are taken on private property and you don't have a release. I'm just pointing that out to save any potential problems for you later.

 

Geoff.

No, that's not correct. They are listed as RM. which is fine for unreleased material on Alamy.

You don't need permission and if a landowner allows (not permits, allows- as in, takes no steps to prevent) photography you can do pretty much what you like with them within the law.

IANAL but if i needed a release to licence pix of private property on Alamy, I'd scarcely have a handful on here,.

 

Edit_ aargh as always I think faster than I type. Doc beat me to it.

[Doc]

Hi Tim

 

As has been said above, I dont think you should be saying "I have sales and view performances that based on the figures I've seen on this forum are very poor"

 

I think you should be saying "I haves sales and view performances that are not bad compared to many on this forum, what can I be doing to improve my sales numbers?"

 

My advice:

 

1. Include more people doing things in your images

2. Include more people doing things in your images

3. Increase the variety of places in your images rather than just London

4. Include more people in your images

 

Remember, you dont need model releases for editorial images, and you dont need model releases for people out in public or in places like stations etc

 

Good luck!
Kumar
 

[Doc]

 

 

If you don't mind me saying Tim, I noticed that you have some images of Paddington Station. Please someone correct me if I am wrong but I'm fairly sure you shouldn't be selling those as they are taken on private property and you don't have a release. I'm just pointing that out to save any potential problems for you later.

 

Geoff.

No, that's not correct. They are listed as RM. which is fine for unreleased material on Alamy.

You don't need permission and if a landowner allows (not permits, allows- as in, takes no steps to prevent) photography you can do pretty much what you like with them within the law.

IANAL but if i needed a release to licence pix of private property on Alamy, I'd scarcely have a handful on here,.

 

Edit_ aargh as always I think faster than I type. Doc beat me to it.

 

LOL! Better to hear it twice than not at all, eh Mark?!

[Doc]

Kumar and Mark - I'm pretty sure I have this right. It isn't that he is selling photos of a railway station, but that he is actually at the railway station rather than being elsewhere on public land when taking the photos. If he is on private land, which the UK railway is, then no permission has been given for selling the photos. If he had taken them from a public pavement or other public place then obviously he can sell them as RM without a release, but that isn't the case with the photos I spotted.

 

Cheers,

Geoff.

Geoff - what you are saying is right ONLY IF the buildings owners have specified "No photography is allowed in this building". In that case you can take a photo of the building from a public place, but (in theory anyway) you cant go into the building and take photos, or if you did, they are within their rights to throw you out!

 

If there is no specific rule forbidding photography then you can go inside the building and take photos which can then be sold on Alamy so long as in all the above cases you state that you have no property or model releases. 

 

There are about 1500 images of Paddington Station London, on Alamy - about 70 of them are RF which they should not be. The rest are fine

 

Kumar

[spacecadet]

Kumar and Mark - I'm pretty sure I have this right.

Sorry but you haven't.

If you're admitted to private property under a form of contract, such as an admission ticket with a 'no commercial photography' condition, then you may be bound by that and if you sell images be liable for breach of contract. You could also be asked to leave as your photography might be a trespass.

But that's obviously not the case when you walk into a station.

Rule of thumb: if you haven't paid (and often even if you have) then if you can physically manage to take a photograph, it's yours to deal with as you will.. One notorious exception is the National Trust.

Lots more possibilities for you now!

 

Gawd strewth Doc, you type like a train.

[Keith Douglas]

But on what basis would Network Rail stop you selling photos without permission if you have taken them on their land? Is there a criminal or civil law that says that you have to seek their permission?

 

Many of the restrictions on photography and its use or sale, e.g. at sports or music events, are imposed as a part of the contract for entry. I think that applies to the National Trust as well, but that's a whole other can of worms.  

[spacecadet]

You can legally sell it, just as unreleased. The examples you cite are incorrectly annotated and Alamy may get round to correcting them in time- I've had emails asking me to correct RF to RM.

Network Rail do indeed refer to a prohibition on selling photographs but there is no mention of it in the railway byelaws, only to selling or exposing for sale.

Photographs of trains and stations sell every day of the week and you can bet that very few are released.

There is very little you 'shouldn't legally sell'. The English principle of law is that you can do what is not forbidden.

[spacecadet]

Now I'm even more confused. Under the "Photography" section of this page.....

 

http://www.networkrail.co.uk/aspx/777.aspx

Network is not scouring the papers for pix of railway infrastructure in order to sue photographers, or checking Alamy and sending them threatening letters (although the NT did once). More likely they are just reserving the right to get rid of trainspotters who make a nuiscance of themselves.

Besides, as I said, if we checked in advance where we were 'supposed' to take stock pix we'd take a low fewer.

I'm sure the OP is not going to dutifully remove his Paddington pix any time soon.

[IanGibson]

IIRC although railway stations are private property, they are still public spaces (i.e. spaces in which the public are allowed to go).  If you are allowed to be there because it is a public space then you are generally allowed to do whatever you would be allowed to if you were outside on the street, subject to specific by-laws in the case of railway stations.

[spacecadet]

Well and succinctly put.

[IanGibson]

Now I'm even more confused. Under the "Photography" section of this page.....

 

http://www.networkrail.co.uk/aspx/777.aspx

 

I'm not sure that they would have any luck in attempting to enforce this, but it seems only to apply to railway enthusiasts.  Luckily, I'm not one.

[spacecadet]

Ah, hadn't thought of that. Trainspotters only. As I said the byelaws have something meant to prevent hawking. It's very similar wording as the NT have and on which they base their strong-arming on Alamy, and almost as unrelated to stock. Interesting.