Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I have 5576 images on sale.

1415 of those are RF

4161 are RM

Of the last 26 sales, 6 were RF (October 4 through December 21)

 

I‘ve promised to let you know how it was going after I began converting some images to RF.  Only a handful of the RF are RF editorial.  The kinds of images I tend to list as RF are birds, butterflies, other insects, and plants. I do have some released people as RF. Less than 15. None of those have sold in the 26 I’m working with.

Most of my people are unreleased, like my property. Those, of course, are RM. Basically I’m stacking the table against RF because of the types of images I’ve put as RF.

That said, I’ve only stuck a toe and a half in the water. :D. I’m finding it warmer than I expected.

I expect the percentages will change in a few months. The trend seems to be that the RFs are slowly gaining a bit of ground.

 

I’m not making a statement for or against RF. Just putting numbers out here and you can take the information, ignore it, rail against it, make use of it, in any way you want. I can’t see that the prices are much different other than my best sale during the period was RF. The best RM wasn’t too far behind.

Betty

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Betty LaRue said:

I have 5576 images on sale.

1415 of those are RF

4161 are RM

Of the last 26 sales, 6 were RF (October 4 through December 21)

 

I‘ve promised to let you know how it was going after I began converting some images to RF.  Only a handful of the RF are RF editorial.  The kinds of images I tend to list as RF are birds, butterflies, other insects, and plants. I do have some released people as RF. Less than 15. None of those have sold in the 26 I’m working with.

Most of my people are unreleased, like my property. Those, of course, are RM. Basically I’m stacking the table against RF because of the types of images I’ve put as RF.

That said, I’ve only stuck a toe and a half in the water. :D. I’m finding it warmer than I expected.

I expect the percentages will change in a few months. The trend seems to be that the RFs are slowly gaining a bit of ground.

 

I’m not making a statement for or against RF. Just putting numbers out here and you can take the information, ignore it, rail against it, make use of it, in any way you want. I can’t see that the prices are much different other than my best sale during the period was RF. The best RM wasn’t too far behind.

Betty

 

Are you finding the sale prices better for the RF?

 

Jill

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not really. As I said, during that time period, my highest sale was RF. $250. My highest RM under it a bit. $187.  The rest of them are basically close.

Edited by Betty LaRue
Add numbers
Link to post
Share on other sites

It used to be eeny, meeny, miny, mo about if I should make images RM or RF. All guess work of course. About two years ago, I decided to give RF a serious (I thought) test, so I made all my food snaps RF. They stayed RF for a full year. I had one RF sale in that year, under $5. Every image I have now is RM. All subjects, including food, are selling OK. With 4,718 in my collection, I've averaged 8+ sales a month in 2017 That's not great, but it's not bad. 

 

If next month Alamy decides we must all go with RF only, I'll go along. But at the moment, everything is RM. 

Edited by Ed Rooney
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Most of my people are unreleased, like my property. Those, of course, are RM. 

 

Why of course? Interesting experiment, very interested to see how it pans out. 

I'm leaning much more towards RF lately but my zooms/sales have been poor lately...roll on 2018!

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Bill Brooks said:

Thanks for the info Betty.

 

Don’t forget that you have the option to have images featuring unreleased people and/or property as RF editorial only.

Yes, I know. I’m not there, yet. I still plan on doing what I’m doing for the present. Maybe another 6 months.

If that continues to go well, I’ll consider the next step.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Brasilnut said:

 

Why of course? Interesting experiment, very interested to see how it pans out. 

I'm leaning much more towards RF lately but my zooms/sales have been poor lately...roll on 2018!

Because that is my plan. I’m not rolling out RF willy nilly, but in a measured way.  Nature, in the past, while I do sell some, hasn’t sold that well for me, so if I see sales increase quite a bit in that area, it will tell me something.  Then I’ll move on to another stage/area. 

Although unless my thinking greatly changes, I’ll always have some RM too.

I’ll try to remember to report in again in 3 months. 1st April or thereabouts.

Betty

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just out of curiosity, why would an image of a flower ever be RM? I can understand if it's a super rare flower in the middle of the Amazon, but a relatively common flower....? :) 

 

I'm not a botanist so don't know how rare this one is, for example (it's very pretty though):

Purple Iris, Double Overtime  Tasco '04 IB. Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, USA. Stock Photo

 

 

Edited by Brasilnut
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the detailed updates, Betty.

 

I have 336 RF images (no RF editorial, though) and none has licensed. I did have an RF image of a stone wall zoomed this month, which I guess is some cause for celebration.

 

I doubt very much that Alamy will be telling us that we must all go RF. It would cause too much descension and chaos among the ranks.

Edited by John Mitchell
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think @Bill Brooks suggested a while back to experiment for a fairly lengthy period to denote all submitted images as RF and see what the results were.  The thread was quite long and many opinions were expressed.  It was the usual battle between RF vs RM.  I'm going complete RF for 2018 and see where it leads.  Almay is still saying that is what the trend is from their buyers.

 

I still say it really doesn't seem to matter from what I've seen of the licensing details in the threads I've read.  I even had a sale (yes, I had one this year), that was a RM image but had RF usage rights granted to the buyer by Alamy.  So my point is; this argument may be moot, as dictated by market forces.

 

I don't think Alamy necessarily wants it that way, and I don't think many of us here want it that way either.  But, the market rules now, not the photographer.  Those days are over.

 

Thank you @Betty LaRue for this information.  My stats won't mean much this coming year as I still won't have many images, probably under 2k, to judge by, but I am very interested in how you see your sales going.

 

I would like to know if Alamy could possibly mine some stats from their software and tell us through a Blog post what the percentage of searches are RF only, as that is a search option.  That would be good to know if they can do it, or would want to do it.

 

Rick

 

Edit:  I forgot to state, I did have a RF sale this year for very little money.  I think it was like $19 or something.  The RM sale was $125 but like I said it had unlimited time and usage granted.

Edited by Rick Lewis
senior moment
Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Brasilnut said:

Just out of curiosity, why would an image of a flower ever be RM? I can understand if it's a super rare flower in the middle of the Amazon, but a relatively common flower....? :) 

 

I'm not a botanist so don't know how rare this one is, for example (it's very pretty though):

Purple Iris, Double Overtime  Tasco '04 IB. Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, USA. Stock Photo

 

 

If it's a common "pretty flower(s)" image that I think might be used for design or advertising purposes, I make it RF. If it's a bit rarer and I'm sure of the scientific name, I make the image RM because I think there's a chance that it might be used in a magazine or book.

 

P.S. I'm not exactly a botanist either.

Edited by John Mitchell
Link to post
Share on other sites

Rick,

 

I don't think that statistics on RF only searches would be of much use.   I get them occasionally, but fairly rarely.

 

My best guess, and it's only that, is that most buyers will do a general search in hopes of finding exactly what they want.  If the buyer finds an image that is much better for their purpose than its closest competitor, then the RM vs. RF distinction probably doesn't matter much.  However, if two or more images are both equally acceptable, then the preference for lowest price and / or RF over RM might make the difference in which is licensed.  

 

Robert

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Brasilnut said:

Just out of curiosity, why would an image of a flower ever be RM? I can understand if it's a super rare flower in the middle of the Amazon, but a relatively common flower....? :) 

 

I'm not a botanist so don't know how rare this one is, for example (it's very pretty though):

Purple Iris, Double Overtime  Tasco '04 IB. Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, USA. Stock Photo

 

 

You are missing the point. A large majority of photographers here that have been around for years, almost all of us had 100% RM ports. Flowers, cracks in the sidewalk, worms...;) it mattered not. RM across the board. You weren’t a member of Alamy then. 

Things are changing, and some of us are testing or have tested the waters. Some didn’t like it and have returned to the RM fold.

 

So yes, something I once would have listed RM is now RF.  And, for me, the jury is still out. But I will keep testing.

Betty

 

Edited by Betty LaRue
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Robert Shantz said:

Rick,

 

I don't think that statistics on RF only searches would be of much use.   I get them occasionally, but fairly rarely.

 

My best guess, and it's only that, is that most buyers will do a general search in hopes of finding exactly what they want.  If the buyer finds an image that is much better for their purpose than its closest competitor, then the RM vs. RF distinction probably doesn't matter much.  However, if two or more images are both equally acceptable, then the preference for lowest price and / or RF over RM might make the difference in which is licensed.  

 

Robert

 

 

 

 

Well, that was initial thought too, Robert.  The statement from Alamy about clients requesting RF more often, and making it the default upon uploading, is curious though.  At what stage does this request come?  I'm just curious.  I agree with you that they do an image search first to find the perfect image.  Do they then ask Alamy if they can license it as RF even if it is listed as RM?  I guess it really doesn't matter, but I'm curious.

 

I still don't believe it matters much how we have our images displayed, RF or RM.  Almay will what they can to make the sale.  I know they do the best they can because they need to make money too.

 

Rick

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Robert Shantz said:

Rick,

 

I don't think that statistics on RF only searches would be of much use.   I get them occasionally, but fairly rarely.

 

My best guess, and it's only that, is that most buyers will do a general search in hopes of finding exactly what they want.  If the buyer finds an image that is much better for their purpose than its closest competitor, then the RM vs. RF distinction probably doesn't matter much.  However, if two or more images are both equally acceptable, then the preference for lowest price and / or RF over RM might make the difference in which is licensed.  

 

Robert

 

 

 

That’s been my thinking, Robert. Plus some buyers might want the simplicity of purchasing RF rather than negotiating the terms of RM. Especially new employees that are new to purchasing stock. And, like Rick said, so many of our RM sales are RF in disguise. Like the RM I sold today for a net to me of $1.

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

Not really. As I said, during that time period, my highest sale was RF. $250. My highest RM under it a bit. $187.  The rest of them are basically close.

But given that RF can be used unrestricted as many times as the buyer wants ad infinitum, the prices should be a lot higher.

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, geogphotos said:

 

It is totally without any meaning to say that things are aways changing. It certainly does not mean that any specific change is advisable, sensible, or inevitable,

 

 

I am simply responding to the original comment that "things are changing". I agree with your second sentence.

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

Just out of curiosity, why would an image of a flower ever be RM? I can understand if it's a super rare flower in the middle of the Amazon, but a relatively common flower....? :) 

 

I'm not a botanist so don't know how rare this one is, for example (it's very pretty though):

Purple Iris, Double Overtime  Tasco '04 IB. Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, USA. Stock Photo

 

 

All my flower photos are RM.  The reason is very simple.  As an ecologist with a strong interest in gardens and gardening I can generally tag and describe garden plants down to species, sub species, variety or cultivar level.  That level of knowledge is valuable.  It generates me a large number of views where I'm either the only or one of two or three contributors on Alamy.  The market for accurately labelled plant images is good (gardening is big business worldwide) but images can often be used infrequently over their lifetime.  In my opinion, making them RM maximises my yield.

 

(Betty, if you're reading this, I'd add Intermediate Bearded to your keywords for the Iris shot.  The editorial buyers do look for Iris types as well as specific cultivars.  Tall Bearded Iris for the TBIs as well.)

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, John Richmond said:

All my flower photos are RM.  The reason is very simple.  As an ecologist with a strong interest in gardens and gardening I can generally tag and describe garden plants down to species, sub species, variety or cultivar level.  That level of knowledge is valuable.  It generates me a large number of views where I'm either the only or one of two or three contributors on Alamy.  The market for accurately labelled plant images is good (gardening is big business worldwide) but images can often be used infrequently over their lifetime.  In my opinion, making them RM maximises my yield.

 

 

Value for image licensing is derived from the image content, not the meta associated with it.  Your meta work may be a good reference, but I don't see how that makes it more valuable.  You can write a book about a dandelion, but the image is still going to be very common and priced appropriately.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 22/12/2017 at 01:52, Brasilnut said:

Just out of curiosity, why would an image of a flower ever be RM? I can understand if it's a super rare flower in the middle of the Amazon, but a relatively common flower....? :) 

 

 

 

 

 

Why not? RM doesn't indicate any rareness, it's just a way of licensing.

In theory, non-exclusive RM should be cheaper than RF, as RF can be used any number of times in any number of ways. (It doesn't [always?] seem to work that way on Alamy, though.)

There is one UK gardening mag which uses one of the micros to source most of the flowers the article writers don't supply as a package (they sometimes use Alamy, presumably to source the cultivars they can't find on the micro cheaper), but I see the same photos being used again and again in different issues, sometimes with a different crop. With RM, at least if you have low UKNS sales on Alamy, you get repaid whenever it's used (unless sold under one of the new Alamy deals :-( )

Edited by Cryptoprocta
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, seanlockephotography said:

 

Value for image licensing is derived from the image content, not the meta associated with it.  Your meta work may be a good reference, but I don't see how that makes it more valuable.  You can write a book about a dandelion, but the image is still going to be very common and priced appropriately.

Single use, non-exclusive RM is theoretically cheaper than RF, which is as it should be.

Of course, what really makes the difference is the deal the buyer has struck with the agency.

 

There are over sixteen species of dandelion, and several cultivars. Presumably a book about 'the dandelion' (ha!) would want to illustrate each of them, properly identified.

Sadly, there's no guarantee of that on Alamy, where - as on all micros and several mid-stocks (including the one with the Cutesy name) and some macros - people put wrong tags on files either through genuine mistake, laziness in researching or spamming.

 

So in some circumstances it would be more worth their while to buy from a specialist macro, where indeed the value is in the metadata, and the sale will probably be RM.

Edited by Cryptoprocta
clarification
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.