Alee Posted December 22, 2016 Share Posted December 22, 2016 hey i'm new at alamy. I want to know should i RM or RF for my nature shots, Which one license type should be more profitable for me Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Betty LaRue Posted December 22, 2016 Share Posted December 22, 2016 One of th contributors here with a very large nature port, sells RM. Most of mine are RM, with an occasional similar listed as RF. Maybe 5-10% as RF. Or less...I haven't run the numbers. Betty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Yarvin Posted December 23, 2016 Share Posted December 23, 2016 I'd like to suggest that whatever you decide, have at least some images in the other category. At Alamy, it's important to have as many areas covered as you can. ,,, and best of luck in the new year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Yarvin Posted December 23, 2016 Share Posted December 23, 2016 Philippe, in my opinion, "elsewhere" should be as close to everywhere as possible. I have RM images in small, specialist agencies and RF at the micros. All reach important segments of the marketplace. I wouldn't turn my back on any of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Yarvin Posted December 23, 2016 Share Posted December 23, 2016 To each his own! Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Brooks Posted December 23, 2016 Share Posted December 23, 2016 Philippe, in my opinion, "elsewhere" should be as close to everywhere as possible. I have RM images in small, specialist agencies and RF at the micros. All reach important segments of the marketplace. I wouldn't turn my back on any of them. I don't submit to micros. Cheers, Philippe Why not? I hear some photographers are making money there. In addition Phillipe, I don’t think Alee is trying to prove anything. Alee just lacks your vast esoteric knowledge of keywording that lands arterra images on the last page of the search. Alee do not be discouraged by anything you read posted by arterra. Keep asking questions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NYCat Posted December 23, 2016 Share Posted December 23, 2016 Philippe, in my opinion, "elsewhere" should be as close to everywhere as possible. I have RM images in small, specialist agencies and RF at the micros. All reach important segments of the marketplace. I wouldn't turn my back on any of them. I don't submit to micros. Cheers, Philippe Why not? I hear some photographers are making money there. In addition Phillipe, I don’t think Alee is trying to prove anything. Alee just lacks your vast esoteric knowledge of keywording that lands arterra images on the last page of the search. Alee do not be discouraged by anything you read posted by arterra. Keep asking questions. Whoa. I don't give red arrows but I'm very tempted. Philippe pointed out an image that did NOT contain many of the things that are in the keywords. That doesn't take esoteric knowledge. He can be blunt but very, very helpful. Paulette Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Seward Posted December 23, 2016 Share Posted December 23, 2016 Philippe, in my opinion, "elsewhere" should be as close to everywhere as possible. I have RM images in small, specialist agencies and RF at the micros. All reach important segments of the marketplace. I wouldn't turn my back on any of them. I don't submit to micros. Cheers, Philippe Why not? I hear some photographers are making money there. In addition Phillipe, I don’t think Alee is trying to prove anything. Alee just lacks your vast esoteric knowledge of keywording that lands arterra images on the last page of the search. Alee do not be discouraged by anything you read posted by arterra. Keep asking questions. Whoa. I don't give red arrows but I'm very tempted. Philippe pointed out an image that did NOT contain many of the things that are in the keywords. That doesn't take esoteric knowledge. He can be blunt but very, very helpful. Paulette It was by no means the worst example of inappropriate keywording amongst the set of images either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Yarvin Posted December 23, 2016 Share Posted December 23, 2016 Thank you Philippe! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cryptoprocta Posted December 29, 2016 Share Posted December 29, 2016 But only ask questions if you're going to do something with the answers. I see that the keywords on the file Philippe pointed out haven't been changed, and they are totally irrelevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CM photo Posted December 29, 2016 Share Posted December 29, 2016 Depends where you submit elsewhere. If you submit to one agency as RM, you have to submit the same images elswhere also as RM. Some nature specialist agencies only accept RM. Btw what are you trying to prove with this? alps, art, background, beautiful, beauty, blue, blue sky, bright, canyon, cloud, clouds, country, environment, female, field, forest, girl, grass, green, health, healthy, highland,hill, hipster, horizon, lake, land, landscape, landscapes, lifestyle, meditating, meditation, morning, mountain, mountains, natural, nature, outdoor, outdoors, pasture, peak,people, relaxing, river, rock, rural, scene, scenery, scenic, sitting, sky, spring, summer, sunlight, sunny, tourism, travel, tree, valley, view, water, white, woman, young Again, Alamy, isn't it about time you also take a peek at newbies' keywords? Cheers, Philippe Why stop there? What about EA65R4? This is apparently a garter snake, a whip snake, a boa constrictor and a corn snake. It's also dangerous, Honduran and green (among various other inaccuracies). No wonder textbook sales are falling through the floor; they don't know what to believe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Betty LaRue Posted December 29, 2016 Share Posted December 29, 2016 Agreed, Philippe. It's hard to understand people who don't realize how important keywords are. They should only reflect what's actually in the image. Nothing more, unless it is a well-understood concept word. Such as loneliness, anger, abandonment , happiness. But if that concept isn't there, don't use it! New contributors, at least some of them, don't seem to have a grasp of the fact that if their image wrongly comes up in a search that it actually hurts their brand and reputation. Once you lose the trust of buyers, it's hard to get it back. They will find their images are treated as worthless, not to be trusted. I guess we should quit trying to help, and allow them to metaphorically cut their throats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted December 29, 2016 Share Posted December 29, 2016 I've always thought that Alamy should encourage contributors to report inaccuracies in keywords and captions. It would be beneficial for all concerned. I've made mistakes and haven't discovered them for months, even years, in some cases. It would have been great if someone had alerted me to them sooner. Having a forum segment devoted to this type of thing sounds like a good place to start. However, reporting keyword spamming might be trickier since there's often an element of chastisement -- i.e. "you're being sneaky" -- involved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cbimages Posted December 30, 2016 Share Posted December 30, 2016 Phillippe, I have given my first arrow ever - a green one of course. As an underwater natural history photographer, I go to almost extreme lengths to get a correct ID for subjects. I regularly badger experts around the world and where they can't agree, I'll state in the caption, "possibly ABD or XYZ". Or where something has been reclassified, I'll write ABC, previously XYZ. Then I check where my image comes in the search results to find images before mine where the keywords name just about every fish in the ocean.....and I can feel the steam coming out of my ears! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiskerke Posted December 30, 2016 Share Posted December 30, 2016 This deserves not a topic, but a whole board! ;-) A tool for flagging an image would be even better. If you search for Yellowstone waterfall, you'll find Yosemite Falls at #5 on row 1. It's more than 1000 miles / 1700km and 4 states from there. wim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hotbrightsky Posted December 30, 2016 Share Posted December 30, 2016 I want to know should i RM or RF for my nature shots, Which one license type should be more profitable for me Some difficult or unusual nature subjects might take weeks to photograph effectively, in which case choose RM I suggest. Sadly Alamy and other agencies do not allow us to differentiate on price according to the time and effort involved, which is why nature photography will probably never be profitable. I would only choose RF for generic wildlife ID shots personally, but there are plenty of those already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DHill Posted December 30, 2016 Share Posted December 30, 2016 Phillippe, I have given my first arrow ever - a green one of course. As an underwater natural history photographer, I go to almost extreme lengths to get a correct ID for subjects. I regularly badger experts around the world and where they can't agree, I'll state in the caption, "possibly ABD or XYZ". Or where something has been reclassified, I'll write ABC, previously XYZ. Then I check where my image comes in the search results to find images before mine where the keywords name just about every fish in the ocean.....and I can feel the steam coming out of my ears! Same here. If I'm not 100% sure of the name, I don't upload, but place them in a special folder where they wait for me to have time to do further and deeper research. Some mushrooms are in that folder for more than 10 years. Still didn't figure out what they are Just did a little check for one of the most recognisable and widely encountered mushrooms: the fly agaric. Who doesn't recognize those? But guess what's on place n°6 of 5,947 images? ...... a panther cap. Another one? Check the little wading bird "red knot". Guess what's on place n°3 of 559 images? ..... a ruddy turnstone (have distinct ORANGE legs) Try the very common "peacock butterfly". N°11 of 4877 is a small tortoiseshell butterfly. You must be blind to miss the four distinctive, black, blue and yellow eyespots Cheers, Philippe I agree wholeheartedly with all that is said here. I'm wondering whether those of us who care about accuracy in our captions should use some common wording in the description: "special care was taken in establishing the accuracy of the information in the caption and keywords of this image" or something like that. If buyers become familiar enough with this, perhaps they will start looking out for that wording. Probably this idea is a bit pie in the sky, but I feel we need to do something! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrumu Posted December 30, 2016 Share Posted December 30, 2016 New contributors, at least some of them, don't seem to have a grasp of the fact that if their image wrongly comes up in a search that it actually hurts their brand and reputation. Once you lose the trust of buyers, it's hard to get it back. They will find their images are treated as worthless, not to be trusted. I guess we should quit trying to help, and allow them to metaphorically cut their throats. The problem is that the damage is not done to the individual contributor but to Alamy as a whole. If a buyer sees lots of irrelevant images, he will not blame the contributors, but Alamy. Alamy, because they presented the search results. Alamy, because they don't do enough against keyword spamming. Alamy, because they don't clean up their library. This hurts Alamy and all of us alike. I understand that with such a huge library it is very challenging for Alamy to clean up and check contributors' keywording and images. Even more so I hope Alamy would accept our help with this cleanup. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Betty LaRue Posted December 30, 2016 Share Posted December 30, 2016 Solution would be simple though: block them from further uploading till they cleaned their mess up. Cheers, Philippe Plus one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Crean Posted December 30, 2016 Share Posted December 30, 2016 Solution would be simple though: block them from further uploading till they cleaned their mess up. Cheers, Philippe And remove the offending images from sale! Phil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.