Zooms?

[Ed Rooney]

I get what I consider a fairly large, steady stream of zooms. I had a bunch drop in today. Sometimes these zooms turn into sales, but mostly they do not. 

 

I'm just wondering what you all think is the significance of Alamy zooms? 

 

Thanks, Edo

[Doc]

For me, the main significance of zooms is that the overall numbers give me an idea of how many sales I am likely to make.

 

Over years, and whether I had 5K or 20K images on sale, i have always had about 3.5 to 4.5 zooms per sale ratio.

 

If zooms take a hit over a period of time, as they have since 5/12, then I expect sales to follow 2-4 months later.

 

Kumar

[wiskerke]

Usually I check how many more zooms there have been for the same subject:

Click on your pseudo and look at Total Zooms.

 

Yay I just had a zoom for Edinburgh! However: Total Zooms 30.

Yay another zoom for British university students! However: Total Zooms 6.

That's all for today.

By all means it's not a lottery. However...

 

wim

[Bryan]

Some zooms result in sales, some sales have not been zoomed. Zooms are a heart warming phenomenon, particularly when there have been numerous views and only one zoom 

 

I very occasionally check my older (>3 months) zooms with Google image search and also against sales. Last time I did that I found one zoomed image that had been used but not invoiced. I contacted contributor relations and they did pursue, and the sale was eventually recorded. It may have come through without my intervention, I'm not sure how useful the exercise was,  and it took a lot of time. For the sum involved, probably not cost effective.

[Ed Rooney]

Thank you, gentlemen. I like getting zooms, but I can't really draw any valid conclusions from them. Not as much as sales, but zooms do lift my spirits. 

[Robert M Estall]

Yeh, it's mostly a feel-good thing, glad somebody's at least looking. That is perhaps a bit sad. Some zooms turn into sales, but I'm not digging out the calculator or drawing any graphs.

[John Mitchell]

Same here, zooms are something of a sugar rush for me, but a surprising number of them do eventually turn into sales.

 

My verdict: zooms are significant but not super-significant (if that makes any sense).

[Gervais Montacute]

Ed I like the Doc's analogy/formula. I've had just a couple sales this month. One was zoomed a few months back and the other was not zoomed ever.

[Ed Rooney]

I hear you, people: I had 22 zooms on one subject yesterday. I expect  a damn sale. (Disregard the word "damn.") 

[Bill Brooks]

I think the thing to look for is your ratio of zooms to everyone else in the search. If the client zoomed 10 times on a search and you got 7 of those 10, then celebrate.

[Jools Elliott]

Zooms are only to be taken at the line of someone being interested enough in your photo that they click onto it.

 

Really what people should focus on is actual sales and the net figure that they get. That is, at the end of the day, what pays the bills/ provides gear/ holidays/ pocket money etc.

 

I could quite happily quote the gross figure I get from elsewhere but nice as it is, it's not the real situation and the net figure is only what I need to know.

[mickfly]

Zooms are only to be taken at the line of someone being interested enough in your photo that they click onto it.

 

Really what people should focus on is actual sales and the net figure that they get. That is, at the end of the day, what pays the bills/ provides gear/ holidays/ pocket money etc.

 

I could quite happily quote the gross figure I get from elsewhere but nice as it is, it's not the real situation and the net figure is only what I need to know.

Yes, gross is vanity, net is sanity!

[Sultanpepa]

Zooms provide the entertainment, sales provide the reality.

[wiskerke]

I am with Jools too on this.

 

However zooms can tell us something.

Or better the lack of zooms: if no one can be bothered to look, why upload more of it?

 

wim

(who still plays the lottery too)

[Jools Elliott]

I am with Jools too on this.

 

However zooms can tell us something.

Or better the lack of zooms: if no one can be bothered to look, why upload more of it?

 

wim

(who still plays the lottery too)

 

Oh yes, they are "useful" but I think a lot of people put too much credence in them. 

 

It's better to think:

 

1) Why am I taking this image

2) Is it something someone will actually want

3) Have I paid attention to the lighting in the scene as very often I see people have shot things at completely the wrong time of day

4) If people are in the scene don't go cutting off arms/ legs and whatever other orifices

[mickfly]

 

I am with Jools too on this.

 

However zooms can tell us something.

Or better the lack of zooms: if no one can be bothered to look, why upload more of it?

 

wim

(who still plays the lottery too)

 

Oh yes, they are "useful" but I think a lot of people put too much credence in them. 

 

It's better to think:

 

1) Why am I taking this image

2) Is it something someone will actually want

3) Have I paid attention to the lighting in the scene as very often I see people have shot things at completely the wrong time of day

4) If people are in the scene don't go cutting off arms/ legs and whatever other orifices

 

3) Two images licensed in the print version of the Guardian this week, different stories and both images were taken in lousy light with grey skies! I almost didn't upload, but find that I can't ever presume what someone will want, so I do upload things which I would have dumped years ago, certainly not shots I would have framed.

[Jools Elliott]

 

 

I am with Jools too on this.

 

However zooms can tell us something.

Or better the lack of zooms: if no one can be bothered to look, why upload more of it?

 

wim

(who still plays the lottery too)

 

Oh yes, they are "useful" but I think a lot of people put too much credence in them. 

 

It's better to think:

 

1) Why am I taking this image

2) Is it something someone will actually want

3) Have I paid attention to the lighting in the scene as very often I see people have shot things at completely the wrong time of day

4) If people are in the scene don't go cutting off arms/ legs and whatever other orifices

 

3) Two images licensed in the print version of the Guardian this week, different stories and both images were taken in lousy light with grey skies! I almost didn't upload, but find that I can't ever presume what someone will want, so I do upload things which I would have dumped years ago, certainly not shots I would have framed.

 

 

Ah yes, but in this instance the lighting would at least have been consistent. The sky probably added a particular mood. I'm talking about when people take images with sunlight and pointing towards deep shadows. Looks dreadful!

 

The majority of the time good use of light will favour the bad.

[Bryan]

Jools is probably right when he says that good light normally trumps bad as far as sales are concerned, but my second highest grossing shot was taken in poor light. Like Mickfly above, I was in two minds about uploading.

 

I guess it depends upon the usage, an article promoting travel will  want only sunshine, while a piece about  run down area might prefer grey skies. Architectural detail shows better with flat light etc.

 

When the DM was full of Alamy shots I got the impression that, on more than one occasion, they used the first image that came to their attention, when there were far more appropriate shots available. However the Times appears to have more discriminating photo editors, and the images selected are normally of a high standard (to my eyes, that is!).  It's difficult to predict what the customer will want or pick, variety is probably the way forward.

[Jill Morgan]

 

 

I am with Jools too on this.

 

However zooms can tell us something.

Or better the lack of zooms: if no one can be bothered to look, why upload more of it?

 

wim

(who still plays the lottery too)

 

Oh yes, they are "useful" but I think a lot of people put too much credence in them. 

 

It's better to think:

 

1) Why am I taking this image

2) Is it something someone will actually want

3) Have I paid attention to the lighting in the scene as very often I see people have shot things at completely the wrong time of day

4) If people are in the scene don't go cutting off arms/ legs and whatever other orifices

 

3) Two images licensed in the print version of the Guardian this week, different stories and both images were taken in lousy light with grey skies! I almost didn't upload, but find that I can't ever presume what someone will want, so I do upload things which I would have dumped years ago, certainly not shots I would have framed.

 

 

Here is an image from my early uploads when I had an uncalibrated monitor and most images were dark.  It has sold twice for good money.  

 

 

So hard to tell what people will buy.  I still remember Jeff's $150 futon sale.

 

Jill

[Betty LaRue]

 

 

 

I am with Jools too on this.

 

However zooms can tell us something.

Or better the lack of zooms: if no one can be bothered to look, why upload more of it?

 

wim

(who still plays the lottery too)

 

 

Oh yes, they are "useful" but I think a lot of people put too much credence in them. 

 

It's better to think:

 

1) Why am I taking this image

2) Is it something someone will actually want

3) Have I paid attention to the lighting in the scene as very often I see people have shot things at completely the wrong time of day

4) If people are in the scene don't go cutting off arms/ legs and whatever other orifices

3) Two images licensed in the print version of the Guardian this week, different stories and both images were taken in lousy light with grey skies! I almost didn't upload, but find that I can't ever presume what someone will want, so I do upload things which I would have dumped years ago, certainly not shots I would have framed.

 

Here is an image from my early uploads when I had an uncalibrated monitor and most images were dark.  It has sold twice for good money.  

 

 

So hard to tell what people will buy.  I still remember Jeff's $150 futon sale.

 

Jill

I like the image, Jill. Yes, it could be a bit brighter, but it's not so dark to take it away from being a good image.

[Jools Elliott]

 

 

 

I am with Jools too on this.

 

However zooms can tell us something.

Or better the lack of zooms: if no one can be bothered to look, why upload more of it?

 

wim

(who still plays the lottery too)

 

Oh yes, they are "useful" but I think a lot of people put too much credence in them. 

 

It's better to think:

 

1) Why am I taking this image

2) Is it something someone will actually want

3) Have I paid attention to the lighting in the scene as very often I see people have shot things at completely the wrong time of day

4) If people are in the scene don't go cutting off arms/ legs and whatever other orifices

 

3) Two images licensed in the print version of the Guardian this week, different stories and both images were taken in lousy light with grey skies! I almost didn't upload, but find that I can't ever presume what someone will want, so I do upload things which I would have dumped years ago, certainly not shots I would have framed.

 

 

Here is an image from my early uploads when I had an uncalibrated monitor and most images were dark.  It has sold twice for good money.  

 

 

So hard to tell what people will buy.  I still remember Jeff's $150 futon sale.

 

Jill

 

 

 

Do you know what they searched for when they bought it? Putting in Lindsay fair tower ride there are only two images. So if they buyer was specifically after that ride and that place then that would draw its own conclusion.

[Jill Morgan]

 

 

 

 

I am with Jools too on this.

 

However zooms can tell us something.

Or better the lack of zooms: if no one can be bothered to look, why upload more of it?

 

wim

(who still plays the lottery too)

 

Oh yes, they are "useful" but I think a lot of people put too much credence in them. 

 

It's better to think:

 

1) Why am I taking this image

2) Is it something someone will actually want

3) Have I paid attention to the lighting in the scene as very often I see people have shot things at completely the wrong time of day

4) If people are in the scene don't go cutting off arms/ legs and whatever other orifices

 

3) Two images licensed in the print version of the Guardian this week, different stories and both images were taken in lousy light with grey skies! I almost didn't upload, but find that I can't ever presume what someone will want, so I do upload things which I would have dumped years ago, certainly not shots I would have framed.

 

 

Here is an image from my early uploads when I had an uncalibrated monitor and most images were dark.  It has sold twice for good money.  

 

 

So hard to tell what people will buy.  I still remember Jeff's $150 futon sale.

 

Jill

 

 

 

Do you know what they searched for when they bought it? Putting in Lindsay fair tower ride there are only two images. So if they buyer was specifically after that ride and that place then that would draw its own conclusion.

 

 

It was a generic search like carnival ride or something like that.  I think the expressions on the teenager's faces is what sold the image.  I assume they brightened it up a bit when they got it.

 

Jill

[Betty LaRue]

 

 

 

 

 

I am with Jools too on this.

 

However zooms can tell us something.

Or better the lack of zooms: if no one can be bothered to look, why upload more of it?

 

wim

(who still plays the lottery too)

 

 

Oh yes, they are "useful" but I think a lot of people put too much credence in them. 

 

It's better to think:

 

1) Why am I taking this image

2) Is it something someone will actually want

3) Have I paid attention to the lighting in the scene as very often I see people have shot things at completely the wrong time of day

4) If people are in the scene don't go cutting off arms/ legs and whatever other orifices

3) Two images licensed in the print version of the Guardian this week, different stories and both images were taken in lousy light with grey skies! I almost didn't upload, but find that I can't ever presume what someone will want, so I do upload things which I would have dumped years ago, certainly not shots I would have framed.

 

Here is an image from my early uploads when I had an uncalibrated monitor and most images were dark.  It has sold twice for good money.  

 

 

So hard to tell what people will buy.  I still remember Jeff's $150 futon sale.

 

Jill

 

 

Do you know what they searched for when they bought it? Putting in Lindsay fair tower ride there are only two images. So if they buyer was specifically after that ride and that place then that would draw its own conclusion.

 

It was a generic search like carnival ride or something like that.  I think the expressions on the teenager's faces is what sold the image.  I assume they brightened it up a bit when they got it.

 

Jill

Yes, the expressions are priceless. Even the kid who has his eyes closed probably praying, lol.