Wondering what will be appearing in the new contributor tools?

[dustydingo]

 

I wonder what "Live feedback on the 'discoverability' of your images" actually means 

I think this will be a kind of individual ranking for images, based on keywords etc.

 

 

I like your optimism

 

For a start: . . . "discoverability"??? . . . surely if they meant ranking, they'd have said "ranking".

 

And secondly, I read "images" (i.e. the collective mass), not "an image" (singular, or image-by-image) . . . guess we'll just have to wait.

 

dd

[Matt Ashmore]

 

RIP Flash - woof!

 

I was happy using Flash. Is it just me ?

 

Like the Exclusive to Alamy tick box thing.

 

Won't be restricting my images to editorial only. I'd have missed out on 2x four figure $ advertising licences had I restricted my images to editorial only.

I can understand editorial only when covering events etc., as mentioned in Martin's post earlier in this thread.

 

 

The two main reasons that people don't like flash are:

1. Flash has security holes which could be exploited by a virus.

2. iPads (and other tablets??) don't support flash.. which means that people can't relax on their sofa with their iPad and keyword images while watching somethign on TV.

[hdh]

 

The two main reasons that people don't like flash are:

1. Flash has security holes which could be exploited by a virus.

2. iPads (and other tablets??) don't support flash.. which means that people can't relax on their sofa with their iPad and keyword images while watching somethign on TV.

 

 

to 1) very politically correct ... personally I refer to the flash security-"holes" as security-"Wide Open Barn Doors"

[Armstrong]

 

 

RIP Flash - woof!

 

I was happy using Flash. Is it just me ?

 

Like the Exclusive to Alamy tick box thing.

 

Won't be restricting my images to editorial only. I'd have missed out on 2x four figure $ advertising licences had I restricted my images to editorial only.

I can understand editorial only when covering events etc., as mentioned in Martin's post earlier in this thread.

 

 

To comply with accreditation limitations is the only time I would use the editorial only button. For the reasons you suggest.

 

Don't like Flash though but not as vehemently as some. I have it switched off and only switch it on, occasionally, for the BBC and Manage Images!

 

 

Steve Jobs famously hated flash. It's a massive security risk and something best left in the past, like the early versions of Internet Explorer many still use.

[John Mitchell]

My own best sale ever would probably not have been if I would have ticked an editorial only box.

 

wim

 

Same here. It will be a box to use sparingly. Think before you click.

[hdh]

 

My own best sale ever would probably not have been if I would have ticked an editorial only box.

 

wim

 

Same here. It will be a box to use sparingly. Think before you click.

 

i cannot see me using it ... unless forced to by Network Rail (or the likes) and only on request and an image by image basis ... 

[Betty LaRue]

 

 

RIP Flash - woof!

 

I was happy using Flash. Is it just me ?

 

Like the Exclusive to Alamy tick box thing.

 

Won't be restricting my images to editorial only. I'd have missed out on 2x four figure $ advertising licences had I restricted my images to editorial only.

I can understand editorial only when covering events etc., as mentioned in Martin's post earlier in this thread.

The two main reasons that people don't like flash are:

1. Flash has security holes which could be exploited by a virus.

2. iPads (and other tablets??) don't support flash.. which means that people can't relax on their sofa with their iPad and keyword images while watching somethign on TV.

In another thread a month or two ago, somebody revealed an app ((Photon Flash Player for iPad) that did a Flash end around. I got it, and have been happily keywording a few images on my iPad while watching TV ever since. It doesn't appear to work using the new version of Manage a Images, but works fine with the old version, which I use 99% of the time anyway.

I like the new version for image searches when I want to add keywords, or find out if I've uploaded a particular image before.

I will say moving my keywords to all the boxes is slow on the iPad compared to doing it on my computer, but if I have a stockpile needing done, sometimes I get 5-8 done on my iPad while relaxing on the couch.

[hdh]

bump .... 

 

Curious if there is any beta tester on the forum and can comment a litlle further. 

Or maybe Alamy Admins have a clearer view on the timing when the changes are likely to be introduced? 

 

(NB: I'd also be interested in beta testing - I am an IT guy and also "fault tolerant" )

[MircoV]

I have a feeling if we (including me) stop asking Alamy when it will be ready that Alamy faster will introduce the changes. Somehow i know it from my work when i have a plan to finish something till midday but it always change because i have in the meantime to stop for answering the "Is the work done?" mails. The midday becomes afternoon .

 

Mirco

[Allan Bell]

I have a feeling if we (including me) stop asking Alamy when it will be ready that Alamy faster will introduce the changes. Somehow i know it from my work when i have a plan to finish something till midday but it always change because i have in the meantime to stop for answering the "Is the work done?" mails. The midday becomes afternoon .

 

Mirco

 

 

The old saying is, "If you want a job doing quickly give it to someone who is busy."

 

Allan

[Graham]

I wonder what the scope of the changes may be, and whether this might extend to the whole upload process. 

 

In particular, I would really appreciate the ability to pull images from the "Awaiting QC" queue.  Three times now, I have due to tiredness uploaded images I did not intend to upload.  Once I had selected several images in Lightroom and did not notice that three exported instead of one; once there was a bad dust spot that somehow I only noticed shortly after upload; and once I had made an edit which was not up to standard, changed it, but somehow uploaded the wrong version.  All easily done when tired after processing a large batch involving a few hours' work.  Each one would have been a cast-iron QC fail if noticed, but in each case my luck held: I deleted the offending images as soon as the batch had got through QC.  In each case, I was aware of the problem immediately after upload, but there was nothing I could do to stop the process: all I could do was wait with even more anxiety than normal for the results of the QC process.  My stress levels would have been considerably reduced, had I had the ability to remove the images concerned (or even remove the entire upload before QC and re-upload, at the timing cost of losing my place in the queue).  I would have been very upset for my QC record to have been blemished by faults of which I was aware, and which I could have stopped reaching QC, had the system allowed me to do so.  Member Services told me at the time that there was nothing I could do, other than wait for the outcome of QC.  It would be great to have the ability to pull individual images from the process, or even a whole batch. 

 

Graham

[Betty LaRue]

I wonder what the scope of the changes may be, and whether this might extend to the whole upload process. 

 

In particular, I would really appreciate the ability to pull images from the "Awaiting QC" queue.  Three times now, I have due to tiredness uploaded images I did not intend to upload.  Once I had selected several images in Lightroom and did not notice that three exported instead of one; once there was a bad dust spot that somehow I only noticed shortly after upload; and once I had made an edit which was not up to standard, changed it, but somehow uploaded the wrong version.  All easily done when tired after processing a large batch involving a few hours' work.  Each one would have been a cast-iron QC fail if noticed, but in each case my luck held: I deleted the offending images as soon as the batch had got through QC.  In each case, I was aware of the problem immediately after upload, but there was nothing I could do to stop the process: all I could do was wait with even more anxiety than normal for the results of the QC process.  My stress levels would have been considerably reduced, had I had the ability to remove the images concerned (or even remove the entire upload before QC and re-upload, at the timing cost of losing my place in the queue).  I would have been very upset for my QC record to have been blemished by faults of which I was aware, and which I could have stopped reaching QC, had the system allowed me to do so.  Member Services told me at the time that there was nothing I could do, other than wait for the outcome of QC.  It would be great to have the ability to pull individual images from the process, or even a whole batch. 

 

Graham

Plus 1

[Jo Ann S]

I didn't see anything about changes to how the IPTC data entered in Photoshop is interpreted by Alamy. Currently, the Document Title in Photoshop is ignored and the Description in Photoshop appears in the Caption field. I would really hope that the Document Title would become the Caption (and Description = Description)

 

As it currently stands, I have to cut and paste the Caption from my file after cutting and pasting in the Alamy interface to move the information into the Description field where it belongs. This can't be done as a batch action, so it's a massively time consuming step. Almost every other agency handles this transfer as expected (there are a couple that only have one field instead of two). 

 

Any chance of this change?

 

On the editorial "tick box" change. I have images that would require property and/or model releases that I don't have and which I sell elsewhere with an RF license for editorial use only. Alamy currently insists on RM licensing for anything without releases - which obviously isn't an option if the items are for sale as RF elsewhere. I don't much care about how the interface is implemented, but it would seem that you could keep the current license selection setup but if you say that a release is required and you don't have one, a new choice would be RF (editorial use only).

 

From my perspective, it isn't up to the buyer to make the decision about how to use an image I'm licensing without releases. I want it to be made plain to the buyer that commercial use is not OK - for my protection as much as the buyer's

[Charles Stirling]

Thanks, it all sounds very good.

[Arletta]

I didn't see anyone said it before in this thread, but I remember we talked about it long time ago, more than one time... and I really miss that option - to set up my own higer pricing for chosen images/ special/ premium/ exceptional, etc... I still didn't upload my best photos to Alamy as I don't want to sell them as cheap as 5-20 $ ever. They are worth more and this is what I need here (most of them are creative fine art). And I know quite a lot people who miss that option too.

[MircoV]

I didn't see anything about changes to how the IPTC data entered in Photoshop is interpreted by Alamy. Currently, the Document Title in Photoshop is ignored and the Description in Photoshop appears in the Caption field. I would really hope that the Document Title would become the Caption (and Description = Description)

 

As it currently stands, I have to cut and paste the Caption from my file after cutting and pasting in the Alamy interface to move the information into the Description field where it belongs. This can't be done as a batch action, so it's a massively time consuming step. Almost every other agency handles this transfer as expected (there are a couple that only have one field instead of two). 

 

Any chance of this change?

 

On the editorial "tick box" change. I have images that would require property and/or model releases that I don't have and which I sell elsewhere with an RF license for editorial use only. Alamy currently insists on RM licensing for anything without releases - which obviously isn't an option if the items are for sale as RF elsewhere. I don't much care about how the interface is implemented, but it would seem that you could keep the current license selection setup but if you say that a release is required and you don't have one, a new choice would be RF (editorial use only).

 

From my perspective, it isn't up to the buyer to make the decision about how to use an image I'm licensing without releases. I want it to be made plain to the buyer that commercial use is not OK - for my protection as much as the buyer's

 

Hello Jo Ann,

 

About RF and editorial use only. Alamy mentioned that in the new system there will be the possibility to set unreleased RF photos as Editorial Use Only. Then you can submit your RF editorial microstock photos to Alamy.

 

Mirco

[Phil Robinson]

bump .... 

 

Curious if there is any beta tester on the forum and can comment a litlle further. 

Or maybe Alamy Admins have a clearer view on the timing when the changes are likely to be introduced? 

 

(NB: I'd also be interested in beta testing - I am an IT guy and also "fault tolerant" )

I strongly suspect that anyone who had taken part in the testing would have been asked at the test centre not to say anything about what they had seen......

[wiskerke]

 

bump .... 

 

Curious if there is any beta tester on the forum and can comment a litlle further. 

Or maybe Alamy Admins have a clearer view on the timing when the changes are likely to be introduced? 

 

(NB: I'd also be interested in beta testing - I am an IT guy and also "fault tolerant" )

I strongly suspect that anyone who had taken part in the testing would have been asked at the test centre not to say anything about what they had seen......

 

 

No not really.

However most of these questions and speculations go far beyond anything we got to see and do in that short time.

And while it was very much an end product and the user interface of that, it may well have been completely overhauled since then.

Most of what I deducted from doing the test, is intelligent guessing at best.

So what I can tell is that it very much had the look and feel and simplicity of a phone app. Some people will welcome that, others maybe not so much.

 

wim

[MircoV]

I am very pleased with the RF editorial news. Alamy took the right step on the right moment. Agency SS is growing hard with the editorial section and Alamy is responding in the right way. It think publishers needs to get images as fast and easy as possible. The RF licence is matching this needs. In my case despite a SS sale gives less revenue then Alamy the total revenue on SS is much higher during the super high volume of sales. I think the RF editorial license option on Alamy will generate more sales.

 

Mirco

[wiskerke]

I am very pleased with the RF editorial news. Alamy took the right step on the right moment. Agency SS is growing hard with the editorial section and Alamy is responding in the right way. It think publishers needs to get images as fast and easy as possible. The RF licence is matching this needs. In my case despite a SS sale gives less revenue then Alamy the total revenue on SS is much higher during the super high volume of sales. I think the RF editorial license option on Alamy will generate more sales.

 

Mirco

 

As usual be careful what you wish for or what you're grateful for. You may not get the best of both.

While the competition will like double?; triple?; quadruple? overnight.

 

wim

[Russell]

I'd love to see more data on views/zooms/sale per my Activity Report thread - but I'm not holding my breath.

[MircoV]

We are getting closer and closer ....

 

Just dont know how close we are....