Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Reading the thread about updating legacy images got me curious. Does anyone make time to fill in the "Number of People" on legacy images? Do you think it helps?

 

I have a touch of the OCD so I've been updating my legacy images by filling in all the data boxes when I have time to kill.

 

Just curious,

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, dlmphotog said:

Reading the thread about updating legacy images got me curious. Does anyone make time to fill in the "Number of People" on legacy images? Do you think it helps?

 

I have a touch of the OCD so I've been updating my legacy images by filling in all the data boxes when I have time to kill.

 

Just curious,

I certainly do, but not sure how much difference it makes. Searches seem simply to be done which either include or exclude people, which can be done through tagging e.g. 'no people'. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More than one contributor has reported in years  gones by that Alamy has contacted them, asking them to update that field in images which did not correctly report the number of people. I have no reason to assume things have changed. Alamy say that the number of people in the image is sometimes important to customers. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Joseph Clemson said:

More than one contributor has reported in years  gones by that Alamy has contacted them, asking them to update that field in images which did not correctly report the number of people. I have no reason to assume things have changed. Alamy say that the number of people in the image is sometimes important to customers. 

 

Happened to me once - a hand just showing in the frame - so yes it must matter to clients, so it follows it should matter to contributors 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People numbers - this drives me crazy. Just like the nauseous "tick all squares with vehicles/parachutes/street signs" sign-in screen.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, vpics said:

People numbers - this drives me crazy. Just like the nauseous "tick all squares with vehicles/parachutes/street signs" sign-in screen.  

 

careful now, sensitive subject and I'm getting pretty good at it! (irony where applicable).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, vpics said:

People numbers - this drives me crazy. Just like the nauseous "tick all squares with vehicles/parachutes/street signs" sign-in screen.  

 

I once saw one with "Tick all cows" ... maybe that comes up again - Geoff? 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have that same OCD and try my best to get them all up to date. What drives me slightly insane is that the size of the image in AIM isn't large enough to actually spot all of the people (or event if there are any - that little dark spot in the background could be anything when viewed in tiny format) in an image, even when working on the decent sized Eizo. So I frequently go back to my own image files one of several hard drives and look at the image magnified, but that takes ages, obviously. I have probably clicked 5+ people or even any people much more often than needed, just to be save.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do the same if I'm not completely sure about the number of people or people "parts."

 

I am careful to always list how many people are in an image, but lately I've had images, where I've listed people, turn up in searches for "no people."  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as legacy images go, I listed them in the old, and those numbers translated to the new. So I don't have to do anything there.

Didnt you list them in the old?

As far as new images go, I keyword before upload and count them while developing. Then in the tags, I say, "two people only" or whatever number.

All I need to do in Optional is see my tag. No trying to see in that tiny enlargement that looks the same size as before enlarging.  That part of AIM is a dismal failure. Contributors asked for enlargement and we got that? :lol:

Betty

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Betty LaRue said:

As far as legacy images go, I listed them in the old, and those numbers translated to the new. So I don't have to do anything there.

Didnt you list them in the old?

 

 

Betty, I didn't join Alamy until January 2017, so I don't have any legacy images.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Martin Carlsson said:

 

careful now, sensitive subject and I'm getting pretty good at it! (irony where applicable).

Yes it is apparently.  The thread I started about having to identify Woodpeckers in order to log in was quickly deleted but I don't understand why.

 

Pearl

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I used to fill in number of people with every image (drove me crazy, looking for miscellaneous body parts, etc.). Since the new AIM appeared on the scene, I do this much less often, usually only when there are recognizable (to their owners) faces in the image. Also, I sometimes add zero people to images where I think this might make a difference to potential buyers.

Edited by John Mitchell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Betty LaRue said:

As far as legacy images go, I listed them in the old, and those numbers translated to the new. So I don't have to do anything there.

Didnt you list them in the old?

As far as new images go, I keyword before upload and count them while developing. Then in the tags, I say, "two people only" or whatever number.

All I need to do in Optional is see my tag. No trying to see in that tiny enlargement that looks the same size as before enlarging.  That part of AIM is a dismal failure. Contributors asked for enlargement and we got that? :lol:

Betty

 

Betty,

 

Yes I had them listed before I left Alamy and I have them in a database but since returning to Alamy a few mouths ago I lost them. I should ask Alamy to integrate my my old data.

 

I really like your ideal about tagging/key wording the number people when I caption/process the images. I will start doing that!

 

As an aside when did Keywords become known as Tags?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, I didn't realize you'd left Alamy and came back.  Sorry you lost your work.

I hate saying tags rather than keywords.  That changed with the new AIM. I think keyword still. You'll find a lot of my posts using both terms! My brain hasn't grasped it completely.

Tags has less keystrokes than keywords, though. :D

Betty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Prior to AIM there was a definite requirement to specify the number of people, now that field appears to be optional. I live in fear of litigation, so always try to complete it accurately.

 

However I have noted, particularly amongst the bulk imports from agencies, that this has not been done. If you try to find a newspaper image and have the temerity to specify the number of people, you will likely not be successful, as, chances are, the agency/tog did not bother to complete that field.

 

I like Betty's suggestion that you should do your people count while developing, saves searching out the photo while keywording.

Edited by Bryan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree, ideally that is the best method (to include the number whilst keywording). However, for live news, that's very tricky, it's hard enough to add half way meaningful captions and a few relevant keywords before the upload (and I am always too slow in any case), so there isn't any chance to count people beforehand. But there are more pressing/annoying issues with AIM than this, a least the images will sill go on sale without the info so I appreciate that we are given the option to add this later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still think, as I've written many times before, that there should be two different fields. One for people for MR purposes and one for people that buyers might want.

For PR purposes, we have to include tiny out of focus blobs, bits of finger etc, but if a buyer is searching for e.g. 'three people', almost certainly they want to see the people, and probably as a main focus of the image.

I can't see that having out of focus blobs or tiny parts of people noted as people is any help to the buyer actually looking for people in their image.

Edited by Cryptoprocta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, and once I got an email from Alamy saying I had people wrongly indicated in a few of my images . These were all the sort of out of focus blobs/bits that I'm talking about above.

I wrote back to them pointing out that I had indicated the people according to their instructions, and added the bit about 'although that is not useful to buyers looking for people', and didn't get any reply, either telling me I'd been right all along, or that I'd been wrong and should delete the number of people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With reference to the number of people in a photo, what is the situation if you take a photo of a photo that already contains images of people? Do you have to specify the  total number of people in the photo including the ones in the original photograph? Thx in advance.

 

A photo of Princess Diana, Dodi Al-Fayed and Henri Paul, outside Kensington Palace, on the twentieth  anniversary Stock Photo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 08/09/2017 at 09:48, Joseph Clemson said:

More than one contributor has reported in years  gones by that Alamy has contacted them, asking them to update that field in images which did not correctly report the number of people. I have no reason to assume things have changed. Alamy say that the number of people in the image is sometimes important to customers. 

Happened to me, and using their criteria of bits of people or out of focus blobs, I had the correct number of people indicated for each of the images they highlighted, (even though as I always say, I don't think that's what buyers want when they search looking for a number of people  - they probably usually want people who look like people).

Anyway, I emailled back saying that each of the images had the number of people according to their rules, could they please clarify? - and didn't get any reply.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 09/09/2017 at 05:39, Bryan said:

Prior to AIM there was a definite requirement to specify the number of people, now that field appears to be optional. I live in fear of litigation, so always try to complete it accurately.

That's what I thought when I read the OP, I thought it was compulsory.

 

I don't know that we need to be too worried about litigation. Unless you indicated that you have a model release and/or a property release, the file indicates that there is no model / property release, even if neither are needed (which must confuse some buyers).

 

That said, I also live in fear of litigation and write 'needs PR/no PR' on many occasions when I'm 99% sure one isn't needed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Jansos said:

With reference to the number of people in a photo, what is the situation if you take a photo of a photo that already contains images of people? Do you have to specify the  total number of people in the photo including the ones in the original photograph? Thx in advance.

 

A photo of Princess Diana, Dodi Al-Fayed and Henri Paul, outside Kensington Palace, on the twentieth  anniversary Stock Photo

 

Yes. 

In your example: 5+ people  (Diana, 2 kids, +2 +1 indeterminate arm)! 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, losdemas said:

 

Yes. 

In your example: 5+ people  (Diana, 2 kids, +2 +1 indeterminate arm)! 

Cheers - that's what I thought but wanted to be sure! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • 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.