Milestone of 10,000 images

[Paul Mayall]

Hi everybody,  at last i finally will reach 10,000 images online with Alamy tomorrow being the 1st of March,  it has taken many years of hard work getting through QC and all those keywords.

 

Do you think Alamy will send me a cake or a token for making the effort "joking"

 

All i gotta do now is stay alive for 100 years to catch Jeff Greenberg,  how dose he do it?

 

Anybody else getting close to their milestones?

 

[Sultanpepa]

Well done Paul. That is indeed a lot of work.

[Bhandol]

Hi Paul,

 

Congratulations on reaching the Big 10,000 milestone. More and more sales are sure to come.

 

I'm still a few thousand short with just over 6,300, so still alot more climbing to do before I can see the next mountain.

[Armstrong]

Congratulations Paul - That is a lot of hard work and effort!

[MircoV]

Very good job!!!!

 

Well if you want to catch up with Jeff you would need only 10 sheeps, a spray bottle and a lot of space (grass field, dessert etc.).

 

1. Put the 10 sheeps on a row

2. Spray the numbers 1 till 10 on the left sides of the sheeps. On the right side you spray A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J.

3. Now you can make hundreds of combinations with the sheeps. Put sheep A next to sheep 6 and make a foto. Put sheep B next to 6 make second photo. If you are out of combinations just add an extra number 2 to sheep 1 so he will be number 12. Now you can go on and mix sheep number 12 with others.

 

I think in few months you should then reach Jeffs number

 

PS. For all the new contributors....Dont try this at home.

 

Mirco

[Steven Gillis]

Well done Paul and Philippe

[dustydingo]

Very good job!!!!

 

Well if you want to catch up with Jeff you would need only 10 sheeps, a spray bottle and a lot of space (grass field, dessert etc.).

 

1. Put the 10 sheeps on a row

2. Spray the numbers 1 till 10 on the left sides of the sheeps. On the right side you spray A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J.

3. Now you can make hundreds of combinations with the sheeps. Put sheep A next to sheep 6 and make a foto. Put sheep B next to 6 make second photo. If you are out of combinations just add an extra number 2 to sheep 1 so he will be number 12. Now you can go on and mix sheep number 12 with others.

 

I think in few months you should then reach Jeffs number

 

PS. For all the new contributors....Dont try this at home.

 

Mirco

 

Ummm . . . Mirco, do you have too much spare time to sit around thinking

 

dd

[Paul Mayall]

 

Very good job!!!!

 

Well if you want to catch up with Jeff you would need only 10 sheeps, a spray bottle and a lot of space (grass field, dessert etc.).

 

1. Put the 10 sheeps on a row

2. Spray the numbers 1 till 10 on the left sides of the sheeps. On the right side you spray A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J.

3. Now you can make hundreds of combinations with the sheeps. Put sheep A next to sheep 6 and make a foto. Put sheep B next to 6 make second photo. If you are out of combinations just add an extra number 2 to sheep 1 so he will be number 12. Now you can go on and mix sheep number 12 with others.

 

I think in few months you should then reach Jeffs number   

 

PS. For all the new contributors....Dont try this at home.

 

Mirco

 Thanks everybody!  and Mirco, for  a great sense of humour.

[Doc]

Congratulations Paul - well done!

 

Kumar

[Betty LaRue]

My puny little port is about to reach 4,000. I just need to prepare 8 more images that have been approved.

Then I'm going out to buy a few sheep. Might throw in some cows.

 

Can I bring my herd to the party? We can do all the shots Mirco suggested, then start adding the party-goers to the mix. That'll really bump up the numbers.

Edit typo

[Marianne]

Congrats to all of you on hitting your goals. I still haven't made my first goal of 1,000 images here so I'm quite impressed by all of you! Good job!

[davidl]

Well done. Maybe a litre or two of the finest beer you have there is in order

[John Mitchell]

Congratulations, Paul. 

 

Reincarnation might be the only way to catch up with Jeff (in my case, anyway).

[Paul Mayall]

 

 

Reincarnation might be the only way to catch up with Jeff (in my case, anyway).

 

Yes John i agree, reincarnation would be the only option for me as well,  i guess us old boys will have to be happy with what we have achieved on Alamy and not chase the impossible.

[SFL]

Congratulations, Paul.

 

I am heading towards it but very very very slowly.....

[RileyShiery]

Wow! Congrats Paul!

If I can crank out 3k a year I may be able to catch you in three more years!

 

I better keep at it!

[Betty LaRue]

Yes, except for the clumsy mailing of CDs in the old days, trannies were quicker. I always got a low rez print so I could check for suitability, then mailed them off.

Now it is going through a hundred shots, picking out the best (time consuming), then start the developing of those. Way, way more time involved, but cheaper to go digital. No film costs, no developing, no mailing. Yes, you can start adding in the cost of a computer and software, but I'm here to state spending $100 on about 100 images with film and only using 1/3 of them adds up quickly. 10 months of film and developing and posting pays for the computer. Most people own a computer whether they shoot or not.

$10 a month I pay for software.

Cameras are cameras, whether film or digital. But I admit there's a lot more GAS involved with thinking we need the latest camera, more so than with film. If you had a good film camera, you kept it forever unless you broke or drowned it.

I guess if you had deep enough pockets, film would allow a quicker chance at a large port.

 

Apples and oranges.

[Martin P Wilson]

Yes, except for the clumsy mailing of CDs in the old days, trannies were quicker. I always got a low rez print so I could check for suitability, then mailed them off.

Now it is going through a hundred shots, picking out the best (time consuming), then start the developing of those. Way, way more time involved, but cheaper to go digital. No film costs, no developing, no mailing. Yes, you can start adding in the cost of a computer and software, but I'm here to state spending $100 on about 100 images with film and only using 1/3 of them adds up quickly. 10 months of film and developing and posting pays for the computer. Most people own a computer whether they shoot or not.

$10 a month I pay for software.

Cameras are cameras, whether film or digital. But I admit there's a lot more GAS involved with thinking we need the latest camera, more so than with film. If you had a good film camera, you kept it forever unless you broke or drowned it.

I guess if you had deep enough pockets, film would allow a quicker chance at a large port.

 

Apples and oranges.

 

 

Good points but I think we are about at peak GAS. The current generation of most high-end digital cameras are at least as capable as most photographers.

 

The advantage in the past was that we got sensor improvements from time to time but we did not need to replace, all or most of our equipment. We just switched to a new film type every few years! Although I do remember the arrival of zoom lenses and as it was new technology each generation was a significant improvement (so there was some GAS).

[John Mitchell]

 

Yes, except for the clumsy mailing of CDs in the old days, trannies were quicker. I always got a low rez print so I could check for suitability, then mailed them off.

Now it is going through a hundred shots, picking out the best (time consuming), then start the developing of those. Way, way more time involved, but cheaper to go digital. No film costs, no developing, no mailing. Yes, you can start adding in the cost of a computer and software, but I'm here to state spending $100 on about 100 images with film and only using 1/3 of them adds up quickly. 10 months of film and developing and posting pays for the computer. Most people own a computer whether they shoot or not.

$10 a month I pay for software.

Cameras are cameras, whether film or digital. But I admit there's a lot more GAS involved with thinking we need the latest camera, more so than with film. If you had a good film camera, you kept it forever unless you broke or drowned it.

I guess if you had deep enough pockets, film would allow a quicker chance at a large port.

 

Apples and oranges.

 

 

Good points but I think we are about at peak GAS. The current generation of most high-end digital cameras are at least as capable as most photographers.

 

The advantage in the past was that we got sensor improvements from time to time but we did not need to replace, all or most of our equipment. We just switched to a new film type every few years! Although I do remember the arrival of zoom lenses and as it was new technology each generation was a significant improvement (so there was some GAS).

 

 

The majority of my sales on Alamy continue to be scans and images taken with a first-generation 10 MP DSLR and an inexpensive zoom, so I'm thinking that my GAS may have peaked some time ago.

[Martin P Wilson]

 

 

Yes, except for the clumsy mailing of CDs in the old days, trannies were quicker. I always got a low rez print so I could check for suitability, then mailed them off.

Now it is going through a hundred shots, picking out the best (time consuming), then start the developing of those. Way, way more time involved, but cheaper to go digital. No film costs, no developing, no mailing. Yes, you can start adding in the cost of a computer and software, but I'm here to state spending $100 on about 100 images with film and only using 1/3 of them adds up quickly. 10 months of film and developing and posting pays for the computer. Most people own a computer whether they shoot or not.

$10 a month I pay for software.

Cameras are cameras, whether film or digital. But I admit there's a lot more GAS involved with thinking we need the latest camera, more so than with film. If you had a good film camera, you kept it forever unless you broke or drowned it.

I guess if you had deep enough pockets, film would allow a quicker chance at a large port.

 

Apples and oranges.

 

 

Good points but I think we are about at peak GAS. The current generation of most high-end digital cameras are at least as capable as most photographers.

 

The advantage in the past was that we got sensor improvements from time to time but we did not need to replace, all or most of our equipment. We just switched to a new film type every few years! Although I do remember the arrival of zoom lenses and as it was new technology each generation was a significant improvement (so there was some GAS).

 

 

The majority of my sales on Alamy continue to be scans and images taken with a first-generation 10 MP DSLR and an inexpensive zoom, so I'm thinking that my GAS may have peaked some time ago.

 

 

I would have been the same if I had not had to go for a lighter system. Otherwise I would have been more than happy with my 20Mpx Canon 1Ds (and 8Mpx 1D2) from 8-10 years ago; some of my lenses were even older. They are all packed up to go for sale, they will pay for my new Fuji kit.

[Betty LaRue]

 

 

 

Yes, except for the clumsy mailing of CDs in the old days, trannies were quicker. I always got a low rez print so I could check for suitability, then mailed them off.

Now it is going through a hundred shots, picking out the best (time consuming), then start the developing of those. Way, way more time involved, but cheaper to go digital. No film costs, no developing, no mailing. Yes, you can start adding in the cost of a computer and software, but I'm here to state spending $100 on about 100 images with film and only using 1/3 of them adds up quickly. 10 months of film and developing and posting pays for the computer. Most people own a computer whether they shoot or not.

$10 a month I pay for software.

Cameras are cameras, whether film or digital. But I admit there's a lot more GAS involved with thinking we need the latest camera, more so than with film. If you had a good film camera, you kept it forever unless you broke or drowned it.

I guess if you had deep enough pockets, film would allow a quicker chance at a large port.

Apples and oranges.

 

 

 

Good points but I think we are about at peak GAS. The current generation of most high-end digital cameras are at least as capable as most photographers.

The advantage in the past was that we got sensor improvements from time to time but we did not need to replace, all or most of our equipment. We just switched to a new film type every few years! Although I do remember the arrival of zoom lenses and as it was new technology each generation was a significant improvement (so there was some GAS).

 

The majority of my sales on Alamy continue to be scans and images taken with a first-generation 10 MP DSLR and an inexpensive zoom, so I'm thinking that my GAS may have peaked some time ago.

 

I would have been the same if I had not had to go for a lighter system. Otherwise I would have been more than happy with my 20Mpx Canon 1Ds (and 8Mpx 1D2) from 8-10 years ago; some of my lenses were even older. They are all packed up to go for sale, they will pay for my new Fuji kit.

Mine, too, Martin. Sent off my 50mm to a buyer today. Interest in my D800 and my 85 from a buyer..she's not sure if she can raise the funds. Somebody will...eventually.

[John Mitchell]

 

 

 

Yes, except for the clumsy mailing of CDs in the old days, trannies were quicker. I always got a low rez print so I could check for suitability, then mailed them off.

Now it is going through a hundred shots, picking out the best (time consuming), then start the developing of those. Way, way more time involved, but cheaper to go digital. No film costs, no developing, no mailing. Yes, you can start adding in the cost of a computer and software, but I'm here to state spending $100 on about 100 images with film and only using 1/3 of them adds up quickly. 10 months of film and developing and posting pays for the computer. Most people own a computer whether they shoot or not.

$10 a month I pay for software.

Cameras are cameras, whether film or digital. But I admit there's a lot more GAS involved with thinking we need the latest camera, more so than with film. If you had a good film camera, you kept it forever unless you broke or drowned it.

I guess if you had deep enough pockets, film would allow a quicker chance at a large port.

 

Apples and oranges.

 

 

Good points but I think we are about at peak GAS. The current generation of most high-end digital cameras are at least as capable as most photographers.

 

The advantage in the past was that we got sensor improvements from time to time but we did not need to replace, all or most of our equipment. We just switched to a new film type every few years! Although I do remember the arrival of zoom lenses and as it was new technology each generation was a significant improvement (so there was some GAS).

 

 

The majority of my sales on Alamy continue to be scans and images taken with a first-generation 10 MP DSLR and an inexpensive zoom, so I'm thinking that my GAS may have peaked some time ago.

 

 

I would have been the same if I had not had to go for a lighter system. Otherwise I would have been more than happy with my 20Mpx Canon 1Ds (and 8Mpx 1D2) from 8-10 years ago; some of my lenses were even older. They are all packed up to go for sale, they will pay for my new Fuji kit.

 

 

I often use 35-year-old Minolta manual focus prime lenses with my Sony NEX cameras. They don't make 'em like they used to in a lot of respects.

[Bryan]

A belated congratulations to Paul and Philippe, not sure I'll ever get there, or even whether I should be trying, maybe a late move over to minimalism would be beneficial.

 

Had to look up GAS in this context, it's surprising what you learn on this forum.

 

Currently looking covetously at the new Sony a6300 and can't quite get that Zeiss 16-70 f4 out of my mind. Have to do something to ward off the taxman before the end of the month, but that camera is still way too expensive and the pound is rock bottom ( I hope) presently.

[dov makabaw]

Well done Paul.

 

Unfortunately no cake or candles.

 

Just diminishing rate of return!!

 

 

dov

[DDoug]

Congratulations! Well done.