Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  

Recommended Posts

Oh no! Not another RM/RF conversation! Sorry, but here goes...

 

Is it better to offer closeups of flowers as RM or RF? Any thoughts on this? The ratio of RM to RF for these types of images on Alamy seems to be roughly 50/50.

 

Since there are so many flower images on Alamy, I'm leaning toward RF, but I'm not sure that this is a good enough reason to abandon RM, which is my usual preference.

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All of my flowers are RM.  I made the decision right at the start on the basis that the majority of my flower shots would be named (genus, species, variety etc) botanical images that would only have a limited, editorial market - mostly books, magazines and newspapers.  It made sense to exclude them from the RF market to avoid the situation where a magazine or a paper could buy once and use as many times as they felt like.  If I was producing generic flower shots RF might be a better option, attracting a wider range of buyers.  But I'm not, so it's RM for me.  It seems to be working fairly well.  I've only had one month without a sale since September 2014 and I'm starting to get repeats for some of the images.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All of my flowers are RM.  I made the decision right at the start on the basis that the majority of my flower shots would be named (genus, species, variety etc) botanical images that would only have a limited, editorial market - mostly books, magazines and newspapers.  It made sense to exclude them from the RF market to avoid the situation where a magazine or a paper could buy once and use as many times as they felt like.  If I was producing generic flower shots RF might be a better option, attracting a wider range of buyers.  But I'm not, so it's RM for me.  It seems to be working fairly well.  I've only had one month without a sale since September 2014 and I'm starting to get repeats for some of the images.

 

Thanks for the response. The flower shots I have in mind will be of the "generic"  variety -- i.e. probably most suitable for calendar or website use, I imagine. 

 

I'm only a casual flower shooter and have very few such images on Alamy.  The one flower sale I've made was RM (magazine, low fee), but it was of a fairly rare flowering vine, of which there are -- unbelievably -- still only about 100 images on Alamy.

Edited by John Mitchell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you John you have saved my last doubt. My mind was for RM, for the same reason you stated, I'm also tend to think that I want sell almost all like RM. With time maybe I'll change my mind but for now I think that is the better way and you confirm that probably that is true..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As with everything else, I try for a roughly equal split between rf and rm. It doesn't always work out that way, but it's a goal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the one hand, I think a mix of RM and RF makes sense - RF for the garden variety images (pun intended :) ) and RM for those rarer shots or those where you know not just the genus but also the species and other details to make yours stand out from the crowd. On the other hand, since there are a lot of flower photos on the micros, uploading them as RM might assure buyers that they are not on the micros, but if you license images yourself and have clients who might prefer the ease of RF, or want to entice Alamy buyers who prefer the ease of RF, I'd go for the 50/50 split.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for all the useful feedback. Makes sense to me: generic "garden variety" flower shots, probably best RF; serious botanical shots, best RM.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Thanks for all the useful feedback. Makes sense to me: generic "garden variety" flower shots, probably best RF; serious botanical shots, best RM.

 

Most horticultural agencies are RM only (certainly the ones I have been/am with) - there seems little demand for RF especially for named plants from clients. Only exception I have experienced is some industry clients wanting 'perpetual rights'. Whilst Alamy doesn't really touch that area (horticultural industry), I really don't see much RF use here given the predominant secondary editorial uses here.

Edited by Guest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Thanks for all the useful feedback. Makes sense to me: generic "garden variety" flower shots, probably best RF; serious botanical shots, best RM.

 

Most horticultural agencies are RM only (certainly the ones I have been/am with) - there seems little demand for RF especially for named plants from clients. Only exception I have experienced is some industry clients wanting 'perpetual rights'. Whilst Alamy doesn't really touch that area (horticultural industry), I really don't see much RF use here given the predominant secondary editorial uses here.

 

 

Interesting, thanks. When you say that you don't see much RF use on Alamy, are you referring specifically to horticultural images or making a general statement?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

 

 

Thanks for all the useful feedback. Makes sense to me: generic "garden variety" flower shots, probably best RF; serious botanical shots, best RM.

 

Most horticultural agencies are RM only (certainly the ones I have been/am with) - there seems little demand for RF especially for named plants from clients. Only exception I have experienced is some industry clients wanting 'perpetual rights'. Whilst Alamy doesn't really touch that area (horticultural industry), I really don't see much RF use here given the predominant secondary editorial uses here.

 

 

Interesting, thanks. When you say that you don't see much RF use on Alamy, are you referring specifically to horticultural images or making a general statement?

 

 

I was referring to plant work. The main places that I get my plant images licensed by Alamy are the UK editorial press, both general and some of the horticultural press. I specifically put them back on here as Alamy was being used at the partial expense of one of my main agencies - price was the factor (having seen two images used side by side and getting different amounts depending on source).

 

RF does sell on Alamy but TBH, it matters a great deal less than designating RF in the wider market. So many images will be used by editorial clients with set fees. I set RF for my commercial work unless I have very good reason not to...i.e. real added value. There's been a massive change in commercial RM.... partial death would be more accurate.

 

IMO, if you are only dealing with Alamy then RM/RF means little, if you stray beyond here, it's far more important to make the correct choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Thanks for all the useful feedback. Makes sense to me: generic "garden variety" flower shots, probably best RF; serious botanical shots, best RM.

 

Most horticultural agencies are RM only (certainly the ones I have been/am with) - there seems little demand for RF especially for named plants from clients. Only exception I have experienced is some industry clients wanting 'perpetual rights'. Whilst Alamy doesn't really touch that area (horticultural industry), I really don't see much RF use here given the predominant secondary editorial uses here.

 

 

Interesting, thanks. When you say that you don't see much RF use on Alamy, are you referring specifically to horticultural images or making a general statement?

 

 

I was referring to plant work. The main places that I get my plant images licensed by Alamy are the UK editorial press, both general and some of the horticultural press. I specifically put them back on here as Alamy was being used at the partial expense of one of my main agencies - price was the factor (having seen two images used side by side and getting different amounts depending on source).

 

RF does sell on Alamy but TBH, it matters a great deal less than designating RF in the wider market. So many images will be used by editorial clients with set fees. I set RF for my commercial work unless I have very good reason not to...i.e. real added value. There's been a massive change in commercial RM.... partial death would be more accurate.

 

IMO, if you are only dealing with Alamy then RM/RF means little, if you stray beyond here, it's far more important to make the correct choice.

 

 

I tend to agree, RM/RF often doesn't seem to make much difference on Alamy, given their "hybrid" licensing. RM sales are easier to track, though, which can come in handy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My options are simple and straightforward. If the object is a plant, flowers, view of a landscape, lake, mountain, it goes as RF

If object is a building, monument, or a place with persons, a property, my selecting no with Model/Property release automatically puts it under RM. 

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
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • 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.