Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I've uploaded some photos that were scanned from medium-format transparency film, and, given that they were old images and I was uncertain how scanned film would work with QC, I bypassed it by using the "Archival Upload" option.

 

Later on, after reading some threads here, I uploaded some images from the same camera/film/scanner as regular stock images and they passed QC.

 

Of course, the ones designated as Archival include the proviso, "This image could have imperfections as it’s either historical or reportage."

 

Member Services has advised me that designations cannot be changed, so I would need to delete the images and re-upload them as stock.

 

My question is whether you think the caveat about imperfections would limit sales potential, so deletion and re-uploading would be worth it.

 

Thanks for any input,

Don

P.S., E9EC8A  E9EC7N  E9ETJ7  F7DY40  F7DY4A

 

edit: typo

Edited by DDoug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't lose a lot of sleep over it. I've got quite a few scanned images in the archival section and they sell reasonably. But it's not a route to getting boring old snaps into the system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

May I ask how you established your bona fides to get archival privileges? Do images have to be interesting or just old?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I assured them that I wouldn't submit images as archival that could be reproduced today with a digital camera. Ones I've uploaded include (mostly) now-deceased Indian classical musicians, the Oriental Pearl Tower under construction in Pudong and Shanghai harbor in 1993, Beijing without smog, etc. The earliest is an oil fire in El Segundo, California in 1967.

 

edit: P.S., perhaps one could look at the images I referenced above (E9EC8A  E9EC7N  E9ETJ7  F7DY40  F7DY4A) and judge them to be "boring old snaps" or just old. They were shot with a Fuji GSW690III on Velvia 50 with a tripod and I was at least serious about trying to get it right. They were done after I'd been shooting 4x5 for commercial clients for a number of years.

Edited by DDoug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've never bothered with trying via the Archival submission route.

 

But have plenty of scans that have passed the normal Alamy QC without any issues (scans have been from HP5, Kodacolor Gold 200 etc, even Fuji Neopan 1600 !).

 

When selecting work to be scanned, ....edit carefully. They do licence no problem, but remember the time and costs involved versus the possible returns....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

May I ask how you established your bona fides to get archival privileges? Do images have to be interesting or just old?

 

I believe that they have to represent a "body of work." For instance, I have a lot of old images taken in Latin America that I like to think are interesting as well as old.

 

Archival images do sell. I've had several license, including one last month. As to whether or not the "archival" designation limits sales, it's difficult to say. I would imagine that it does in some cases. I guess it depends on how badly the buyer wants a particular image and how scarce it is.

Edited by John Mitchell
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So just to be clear, Archival isn't just for scans of your old negs and transparencies - but for Reportage too:

 

Alamy's guidelines for Archival read:

 

".. an additional upload route for collections of archival or reportage images which might not meet our technical standards for regular stock imagery .. Images that are historically or culturally significant, examples include film stills, press archives and specialist collections."

 

and

 

"Photojournalistic images illustrating a story but captured under difficult circumstances and might not pass our standard QC checks. Examples include photo essays or features."

 

I can't say for sure whether reportage has dented my sales but I do sell many under this label. But wherever possible, I upload under Stock if the material doesn't fit that criteria because it's what Alamy expect.

 

And here's their Archival/Reportage upload application form page.

 

Hope this helps,

Richard.

Edited by Richard Baker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do Archival images appear in regular searches?

 

Alan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And also bear in mind that Archival/Reportage images have the same , bigger, caption field as LiveNews, 600 characters rather than 128

 

 

km

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't used the Archival route yet, but I can see the possibilities for future use.

 

I was granted access some years ago in connection with News upload. In fact, I don't think I applied for any of them, but I was granted access after my uploads of the COP15 images from Copenhagen, as far as I remember. Many things were easier in 2009-10. Even the sales.

Edited by Niels Quist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

".. Archival/Reportage images have the same, bigger, caption field as LiveNews, 600 characters rather than 128."

 

 

Yes this is a big thing for me too as I find the standard 128 way too restrictive.

 

Richard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most of my theatre pictures are either uploaded via News or Reportage because of the high ISO. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do Archival images appear in regular searches?

 

Alan

Perhaps, but evidently not consistently. I searched [Oriental Pearl tower construction] and got 122 results which do not include my 1993 image, E9EC7N. Most of the other shots have construction in them but not the tower itself under construction.

 

Then I searched [Oriental Pearl tower "under construction"] using quotes and got five results, again not including my image.

Edited by DDoug
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

deleted

Edited by DDoug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Do Archival images appear in regular searches?

 

Alan

Perhaps, but evidently not consistently. I searched [Oriental Pearl tower construction] and got 122 results which do not include my 1993 image, E9EC7N. Most of the other shots have construction in them but not the tower itself under construction.

 

Then I searched [Oriental Pearl tower "under construction"] using quotes and got five results, again not including my image.

 

That sucks. :-(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As an update on the search issue: I deleted the former archival versions of the two images of Shanghai harbor from 1993 and replaced them with regular stock uploads.

 

The search problems remain as they were before, so it's reflective of the difficulty that Alamy is having with their search engine in general and not particular to archival images.

 

A client zoomed one of the images, having searched [Pudong 1993], so I have some hope for it once search is fixed.

 

MS assured me that they would contact me when search has been sorted, politely leaving "and stop bothering us about it" unsaid.

Share this post


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.