How many switched from RM to RF?

[ReeRay]

My own selection of RF is based on an image devoid of people or identifiable property and with common accessibility. Conversely I prefer to shoot with RM in mind.

[David_Buzzard]

I had a RF image sell for $200 the other day, which I found kind of surprising.  Basically, if it's a really interesting photo or has identifiable person really prominent in the frame, then I'll go RM.  If it's a run of the mill boring shot, then I'll go RF.

[Marianne]

Looking back a couple of years my best RM sale was $400, best RF $250, lowest of each was $6-7, and many prices in the $35-$100 range for both, so no big advantage either way on price. I had an RM image licensed to a large reputable publisher and they paid two licenses for the same image to be used inside and again in the frontispiece (good) but when I advised Alamy that the photo was re-used in a new version of their guide book, despite "One Time Use" in the license, Alamy said that was permitted under the actual license. So they've made RM so much like RF anyway, I don't see the need to go through and change my licenses. I may change a few, but I don't like the idea of images I sell on POD sites ending up on art.com, so RM is the answer there. 

 

Not to be political, but I had hoped my neighbor Hillary Clinton would be president and was looking forward to editorial RF giving me the option of licensing her images here and elsewhere without having to decide "where do I place them?"  Life is full of disappointments. 

[John Mitchell]

Looking back a couple of years my best RM sale was $400, best RF $250, lowest of each was $6-7, and many prices in the $35-$100 range for both, so no big advantage either way on price. I had an RM image licensed to a large reputable publisher and they paid two licenses for the same image to be used inside and again in the frontispiece (good) but when I advised Alamy that the photo was re-used in a new version of their guide book, despite "One Time Use" in the license, Alamy said that was permitted under the actual license. So they've made RM so much like RF anyway, I don't see the need to go through and change my licenses. I may change a few, but I don't like the idea of images I sell on POD sites ending up on art.com, so RM is the answer there. 

 

Not to be political, but I had hoped my neighbor Hillary Clinton would be president and was looking forward to editorial RF giving me the option of licensing her images here and elsewhere without having to decide "where do I place them?"  Life is full of disappointments. 

 

Also don't want to step into the political swamp, but I'd start taking pictures of Bernie instead if I were you. He's getting up there in years. However, his star is still on the horizon.

[John Mitchell]

John and all,

 

Being a "snob" has nothing to do with RM VS RF.

It is just business, good business VS bad business, for

the photographer, Image creator. 

 

Yes, I agree, preferring RM has nothing to do with snobbishness.

 

However, I do think that traditional RM is probably on the way out. I just don't see any reason to hasten its demise.

[John Mitchell]

Deleted. Wrong thread.

[Stokie]

 

 

I have no use for RF,  I've been that way for years.

 

 

+1

 

Problem is RM seems to be the new RF.

 

Allan

 

At least with RM there is some pretence at managing usage In many cases there is actually control and even repeat usage fees.

 

 

If my image that has been relicensed 28 times in18 months for a travel brochure had been RF I would have probably got $200 for it whereas I've grossed $1483 as RM!!

 

John.

[Allan Bell]

 

 

 

I have no use for RF,  I've been that way for years.

 

 

+1

 

Problem is RM seems to be the new RF.

 

Allan

 

At least with RM there is some pretence at managing usage In many cases there is actually control and even repeat usage fees.

 

 

If my image that has been relicensed 28 times in18 months for a travel brochure had been RF I would have probably got $200 for it whereas I've grossed $1483 as RM!!

 

John.

 

 

 

Great news John.

 

Allan

[Allan Bell]

Just had an RM sale drop in as below.

 

Country: Worldwide

Usage: Editorial
Media: Editorial website
Industry sector: Media, design & publishing
Image Size: Any size
Start: 01 February 2017
End: 01 February 2022
One use in a single editorial or advertorial article used within web versions of titles from the same group. Digital usage includes archive rights for the lifetime of the article.

 

Might as well be RF at $6.03 gross

 

Allan

[AlessandraRC]

As far as the images that don't have a release and need one- I have uploaded to Alamy those images that I have elsewhere as RF editorial, but those that were previously uploaded here as RM will stay as RM. 

[Betty LaRue]

About 1/5 of mine are RF, the rest RM. I'll test the waters with the mix.

[Colblimp]

99% of my images are RM and I'm going to keep it that way. I've a few RF, as a sort of experiment if you like, but I'd say everything from now will be RM.

[geoff s]

I switched on the basis that nothing fantastic was happening with most as RM so therefore not a great deal to lose, and took a leap of faith on Alamy's recommendation.

Since switching my zooms are up and March was best month for sales for a while, though I realise it's too early to reach any conclusions.

But how I separate the effects of the new search engine from the effects of changing license type I am not sure.

I remain in a general state of confusion about all things Alamy.

 

Geoff

[Betty LaRue]

I switched on the basis that nothing fantastic was happening with most as RM so therefore not a great deal to lose, and took a leap of faith on Alamy's recommendation.

Since switching my zooms are up and March was best month for sales for a while, though I realise it's too early to reach any conclusions.

But how I separate the effects of the new search engine from the effects of changing license type I am not sure.

I remain in a general state of confusion about all things Alamy.

 

Geoff

So, were any of those recent sales RF images? It's probably too early for those to be reported. I'd say in a couple of months you might see results.

[geoff s]

Yes Betty they all were RF,but I suppose it's not possible to say that those sales were due solely to the to the license change, coming so soon after I made the change.

[Chuck Nacke]

Over the decades I've gone to the corners of the earth and taken many physical risks.

The last decade has not been good to "stock photography" It was up, it was down and

now it appears to be leveling off.  Back when I started with Alamy my average take home

after commissions was over $400 per license.  Seeing licenses for over $200 is not a

great thing, but still good.  I've been seeing many more of them in 2017, a good sign

and good for Alamy.  In my opinion, RF is toilet paper, a roll is $0.25 and that is it.  I will

not do business that way, my choice.

 

If you spend some time looking at the Alamy library you will see some exceptional images

that are important and I would not like to see them discounted.  I am talking about a specific

type of images, not general stock.  In my opinion most general stock is more like "toilet paper"

than photography.... 

 

Just my opinion.....

[Betty LaRue]

Yes Betty they all were RF,but I suppose it's not possible to say that those sales were due solely to the to the license change, coming so soon after I made the change.

If the sales were of images you changed from RM to RF, then that tells us something. I'm happy to hear it. it shows recent changes are kicking in already.

Betty