Jump to content

Recommended Posts





I'm no economist (understatement), but this sounds suspiciously like the "law of diminishing returns" or something like it:


"The law of diminishing returns is an economic principle stating that as investment [i.e. submitting images] in a particular area increases, the rate of profit from that investment, after a certain point, cannot continue to increase if other variables remain at a constant [images prices actually falling]. As investment continues [uploading more images] past that point, the return diminishes progressively."




Agreed John. There are many variables. To wait for one of the variables to change in our favour is actually to do nothing. Everything has been photographed. Prices are what they are. Millions of new images pouring into the system. Everyone has a camera.  We have no control over these variables. The only variable under our direct control is to up our game, and take better photographs of the everything that has already been photographed by everyone else.


Spending time and money to do exactly the same thing you did before, advanced keywording, better choice of subject, manipulating pseudonyms, extensive travel, high production values, only shooting film, big camera, small camera, shooting every day, shooting only once a year, winking eye before pressing shutter button, only submitting on the weekend. It is all voodoo.


The only way to break through a plateau, is to take better images than you took before.


That is a tough nut to crack, but it is the only way.


I am constantly surprised that "Lets talk about Pics" is the least popular section of this forum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agree that where there are a lot of pictures - take cats, elephants and dogs for instance - there is "economic cannibalism"


Actually disagree with "everything has been photographed". 

There are still areas where customer searches do not reval any or not many images. (that is on Alamy) 

This can be seen in the customer search history. 

I believe one could try to concentrate on these underrepresented areas, given one has the time for the analysis and the access to take these photos. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Now, the newbies start with a medium rank, but if they don't manage to get a few sales within the first few months, their ranking becomes a "bad" one resulting in images that don't get seen (if they only shoot what is already covered thousands of times and/or images nobody is looking for) >>>>>>> Game over!




A very misleading thing to say. 


The rankings are refreshed roughly every 100 days using the previous 300 days data. Sales are only part of the ranking algorithm. 


Topics for stock constantly need updating and there is a constant need for fresh, up to date imagery as well as older images. Many new photographers register with us every day and many of them go onto be very successful on Alamy. 


Coming from an experienced member, saying that if you "don't get a few sales in the first few months you get a bad rank" is not only a completely inaccurate thing to say it's also very off-putting to new members who may be reading this and thinking of joining. This could actually even stop a new photographer from uploading images that would have made them healthy returns.


Please consider that this is an open forum and posting incorrect and harmful statements like this is not appropriate.


This thread has run its course.



Link to comment
Share on other sites


This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • 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.