How many images per subject is considered "oversaturated" subject?

[spacecadet]

11 hours ago, tarsierspectral said:

Hmm, I feel like you guys misunderstood my question.  I'm not worried about where my images show up on a page.  

 

Perhaps I have misunderstood- surely that's all you should worry about. It determines the likelihood of a sale- isn't that why we're here?

[Inchiquin]

6 hours ago, Patrick Cooper said:

 

Or Lady Godiva riding a horse!

 

Lady Godiva riding horse: 46 hits.

 

I sold an image of a horse only yesterday. I don't know what search term was used but one of the more obvious ones brings up 8 images, 6 of which are mine. So I won't stop uploading.

 

Alan

[Cryptoprocta]

1 hour ago, funkyworm said:

.., I have another agent whose search returns are just reverse chronological order ... an option also available here. In which case it is not so important that there are stunning images on page 143.  ...

Except that on Alamy, sorting by new doesn't produce a reverse chronological order, as you might expect. It seems that Alamy Rank has considerable weight there. (For example, my pics of a particular location from July this year, all keyworded with the location (and in the caption) are below page 6 by 'new' on the location, but there are lots of pics of celebs, not even in the location (but with bulk-captioned and keyworded files) from 2015 on page 2, presumably from a high ranking celeb shooter. Also another batch of celebs from 2016. In both of these instances, it appears that the tog had inside access to films being shot in the location.

Ironically, as I've noted before, even when it's probable that the pics were actually shot in the location, it's not all that obvious and unlikely to be what a buyer searching only on the location would want.

[wiskerke]

44 minutes ago, Cryptoprocta said:

Except that on Alamy, sorting by new doesn't produce a reverse chronological order, as you might expect. It seems that Alamy Rank has considerable weight there. (For example, my pics of a particular location from July this year, all keyworded with the location (and in the caption) are below page 6 by 'new' on the location, but there are lots of pics of celebs, not even in the location (but with bulk-captioned and keyworded files) from 2015 on page 2, presumably from a high ranking celeb shooter. Also another batch of celebs from 2016. In both of these instances, it appears that the tog had inside access to films being shot in the location.

Ironically, as I've noted before, even when it's probable that the pics were actually shot in the location, it's not all that obvious and unlikely to be what a buyer searching only on the location would want.

 

The New button/tab does not take the original time of the image into account. Only the upload time.

So those 6 pages should have newer Alamy ref ##.

 

wim

[Cryptoprocta]

3 minutes ago, wiskerke said:

 

The New button/tab does not take the original time of the image into account. Only the upload time.

So those 6 pages should have newer Alamy ref ##.

 

wim

Oh, fair enough. The 2015 ones have K ##.

[hdh]

just coming back to the horses as I just started reading the thread. 

there are still many subjects not covered. 

 

for instance there is no

chinese prince on a white horse

 

but there is a 

japanese princess on a white horse

 

and only one! 

 

then comes the next factor, which is to ask what the clients are looking for. 

Has anybody got that Chrystal Ball? 

[tarsierspectral]

37 minutes ago, hdh said:

just coming back to the horses as I just started reading the thread. 

there are still many subjects not covered. 

 

for instance there is no

chinese prince on a white horse

 

but there is a 

japanese princess on a white horse

 

and only one! 

 

then comes the next factor, which is to ask what the clients are looking for. 

Has anybody got that Chrystal Ball? 

You don't need a crystal ball you have AoA.

[hdh]

4 minutes ago, tarsierspectral said:

You don't need a crystal ball you have AoA.

I am oblivious, what does AoA stand for? 

[tarsierspectral]

1 minute ago, hdh said:

I am oblivious, what does AoA stand for? 

AoA = All of Alamy

It's in Alamy Measures where you can see what buyers are searching for.

[hdh]

3 minutes ago, tarsierspectral said:

AoA = All of Alamy

It's in Alamy Measures where you can see what buyers are searching for.

Oh yes, know now and did that already. 

Problem is that this, one only gets  in hindsight, so I still want that crystal ball for the future searches 

[Keith Douglas]

I'm just looking through "Light, Gesture and Colour", by Jay Maisel (a book I would recommend), and I came across this quote, that I thought was particularly relevant to this thread:

 

"You cannot just say water, snow or trees [or horse]. Once you understand how many different aspects each one of these subjects has, you will appreciate the variety possible in the execution of each subject".

[Phil Robinson]

There is no magic number where you should give up submitting.

As mentioned above, if you have a good ranking and your images appear in the first couple of pages, it doesn't matter how many there are behind.

I've had sales of THAT scene of the Grand Canal in Venice as well as Big Ben with a red London bus in front, and even pics of the Queen.

Find some different (but relevant) keywords so they come up in searches where the others don't.

I have just come back from Paris. I didn't make a special trip to the Eiffel Tower, as I think there are enough pics already and I had other things to concentrate on, but if I had been nearby, I would have taken some and submitted them if I thought they had something to offer.

[Brasilnut]

Probably best to avoid these (except #16) - what do you reckon?:

 

1. Disney Properties

2. Universal Studios Properties

3. Central Park, NYC

4. Times Square, NYC

5. Eiffel Tower, Paris

6. The Louvre, Paris

7. Las Vegas Strip

8. Santa Monica Pier, California

9. Brooklyn Bridge, NYC

10. VDNKh (Vystavka Dostizheniy Narodnogo Khozyaystva), Moscow 

11. Siam Paragon, Bangkok

12. Colosseum, Rome

13. Madison Square Garden, NYC

14. Los Angeles International Airport (LAX)

15. Tower Bridge, London

16. Barcelona centre, Spain

17. Notre-Dame Cathedral (Paris)

18. The Metropolitan Museum of Art, NYC

19. Empire State Building, NYC

20. Niagara Falls, Ontario

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/travel_news/article-4002036/Instagram-reveals-2016-s-20-photographed-places-world-s-USA-France-snap-happiest.html#ixzz4xyOedyw8 
 

 

[Shergar]

On 11/8/2017 at 10:38, John Morrison said:

Think 'outside the box'. From the horse's mouth... Putting the horse before the cart... You can lead a horse to water... We're still waiting for the ultimate shot: Lord Lucan riding Shergar...

Please don't think outside the box anymore.

[John Mitchell]

6 hours ago, Brasilnut said:

Probably best to avoid these (except #16) - what do you reckon?:

 

1. Disney Properties

2. Universal Studios Properties

3. Central Park, NYC

4. Times Square, NYC

5. Eiffel Tower, Paris

6. The Louvre, Paris

7. Las Vegas Strip

8. Santa Monica Pier, California

9. Brooklyn Bridge, NYC

10. VDNKh (Vystavka Dostizheniy Narodnogo Khozyaystva), Moscow 

11. Siam Paragon, Bangkok

12. Colosseum, Rome

13. Madison Square Garden, NYC

14. Los Angeles International Airport (LAX)

15. Tower Bridge, London

16. Barcelona centre, Spain

17. Notre-Dame Cathedral (Paris)

18. The Metropolitan Museum of Art, NYC

19. Empire State Building, NYC

20. Niagara Falls, Ontario

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/travel_news/article-4002036/Instagram-reveals-2016-s-20-photographed-places-world-s-USA-France-snap-happiest.html#ixzz4xyOedyw8 
 

 

 

I think that those if us who live in cities where there is a lot of tourism could easily add subjects to this list. I know I could, but I won't in case I'm proved wrong.

 

That said, Instagram isn't Alamy. However, there is probably no shortage of Alamy images of most of the places in the list.

 

Just curious, why not #16?

[fotoDogue]

7 hours ago, Brasilnut said:

Probably best to avoid these (except #16) - what do you reckon?:

 

13. Madison Square Garden, NYC

 

 

Madison Square Garden? These are probably people taking selfies with friends at various events - not photos of Madison Square Garden or anything you would normally shoot for stock. I also noticed some of the photos are of Madison Square which is a park rather than a sporting or concert venue.

[John Mitchell]

1 hour ago, fotoDogue said:

 

Madison Square Garden? These are probably people taking selfies with friends at various events - not photos of Madison Square Garden or anything you would normally shoot for stock. I also noticed some of the photos are of Madison Square which is a park rather than a sporting or concert venue.

 

Given we're talkin' Instagram, I imagine that most of the images taken at the other locales are also selfies or similar types of photos.

[Brasilnut]

True, some of these don't apply in regards stock. 

 

#16 is weird since it's so vague.

 

Here's another list probably closer to travel stock photographers' oversaturated subjects.

 

https://www.nyip.edu/photo-articles/photography-tutorials/the-10-most-photographed-places-on-earth

 

It's funny because I was in Pisa and didn't bother much with the leaning tower as I know it's wayyyy oversaturated and instead focused on the people taking selfies and doing weird stuff - here's one shot:

 

 

[John Mitchell]

Personally, I find these "most photographed places in the world" lists to be highly suspect. There are scads of them on the Web, and the fact that they are all different says something  about them.

 

I think you have to look at saturation on a place-by-place basis. For instance, here's an example of an over-saturated subject in Vancouver. It's all relative.

 

Hmmm... believe I see several of mine showing up on page one. Hasn't helped, though.

[hdh]

2 hours ago, John Mitchell said:

Personally, I find these "most photographed places in the world" lists to be highly suspect. There are scads of them on the Web, and the fact that they are all different says something  about them.

 

I think you have to look at saturation on a place-by-place basis. For instance, here's an example of an over-saturated subject in Vancouver. It's all relative.

 

Hmmm... believe I see several of mine showing up on page one. Hasn't helped, though.

hmm interesting this made me think. 

 

Cologne Cathedral is also oversaturated and my first pictures appear on the third page - but these are not the ones I wish to appear, as they are different to the mass of shots.

Doh, forgot to tick the supertags on the pictures, doh doh doh ..... 

 

an angle rarely taken (and not sellig yet either ) 

 

 

 

[John Mitchell]

6 minutes ago, hdh said:

hmm interesting this made me think. 

 

Cologne Cathedral is also oversaturated and my first pictures appear on the third page - but these are not the ones I wish to appear, as they are different to the mass of shots.

Doh, forgot to tick the supertags on the pictures, doh doh doh ..... 

 

an angle rarely taken (and not sellig yet either ) 

 

Great example. I created a new topic for images like these that have sold.

 

 

[hdh]

3 minutes ago, John Mitchell said:

Great example. I created a new topic for images like these that have sold.

unfortunately this one did not sell yet
 

[Avpics]

There are so many variables. I was keyw.........tagging today an image of a well photographed government building in London. During the research I was surprised to find that it has changed usage, with not a single image on Alamy now tagged with its current use. After tonight's update there will be one. Mine  No questions please!

 

[John Richmond]

How many images per subject is considered "oversaturated" subject?

 

One more than I have of the subject.  

[Bill Brooks]

Sometimes I leave both the old and new tagged, because clients may use the old, years into the future.