MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Alamy Online Uploads  (Read 11304 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: August 14, 2007, 09:49 »
0
Received an email, "You can now submit your images online using AlamyUpload."


w7lwi

  • Those that don't stand up to evil enable evil.
« Reply #1 on: August 14, 2007, 10:08 »
0
Yes, they are converting over to 100% FTP.  The following is a message I received this morning attached to a confirmation that they had received my latest CD submission.

As you now have AlamyUpload enabled on your account we ask that you send your next submission to us online. We will shortly only be accepting online submissions. Simply go to "My Alamy" and click on the "Upload Images" link in your account to send us your images.

No more $2.70 international mail charges to submit a CD.   :D

« Reply #2 on: August 14, 2007, 10:34 »
0
Yep me too!  :) Seems like I will try out Alamy in the next time :) Thats what I was waiting for..

« Reply #3 on: August 14, 2007, 11:00 »
0
Wonderful!!

« Reply #4 on: August 14, 2007, 11:14 »
0
"We are gradually rolling out AlamyUpload, our new online upload facility, to all our contributors and will send you an email when we activate it in your account."
SIGH.

« Reply #5 on: August 14, 2007, 15:15 »
0
Its not FTP its an activeX plugin similar to some of the microstock ones. Quite nice as you can upload files or folders and it shows you the percentage progress, just don't navigate from that page/browser tab.

I only uploaded a few files about 30 or so but it worked fine and they were even reviewed far quicker than the 5 week wait.

I even received a cheque at the beginning of the month finally.

« Reply #6 on: August 14, 2007, 15:18 »
0
Received an email, "You can now submit your images online using AlamyUpload."

Same here...

« Reply #7 on: August 14, 2007, 16:17 »
0
great news! so that will make the whole process a lot faster.I am just about apply to alamy but as far as I know first application is  still in the same way,sendin cd's dvd's. if you are approved then you are able to upload photos on line.

this a little off the topic but I'd like to know if you upload same files that you also upload to micros,is it allowed and how good idea is it?
one more thing I 'd like to know ,are they only paying by cheque or do they have paypal as an option.
cheers
« Last Edit: August 14, 2007, 16:21 by stokfoto »

« Reply #8 on: August 14, 2007, 17:20 »
0
Is it valid also for first submissions, or do they still require CD submission to be accepted?

Regards,
Adelaide

« Reply #9 on: August 15, 2007, 00:39 »
0
I started at Alamy three weeks ago. First application can be done online and I was approved within 2 weeks

Olga

« Reply #10 on: August 15, 2007, 01:22 »
0
this a little off the topic but I'd like to know if you upload same files that you also upload to micros,is it allowed and how good idea is it?

A very bad idea in my view. If a customer buys an image for a high price at Alamy, only to discover later that it's available for a dollar or two at a micro, he will probably not be happy. I wouldn't have been, and I wouldn't even consider buying from your portfolio at Alamy again.

« Reply #11 on: August 15, 2007, 07:57 »
0
this a little off the topic but I'd like to know if you upload same files that you also upload to micros,is it allowed and how good idea is it?

A very bad idea in my view. If a customer buys an image for a high price at Alamy, only to discover later that it's available for a dollar or two at a micro, he will probably not be happy. I wouldn't have been, and I wouldn't even consider buying from your portfolio at Alamy again.

I agree with that but there is one thing though. by uploading same files  to a macro site you offer your files as RM not only RF (which is mostly not available on micro sites)so that should mean you are giving a different buying option to the buyers.and to my point of view this  should be the main point of considering such a thing.

and one other thing ,I remember reading  some articles  saying many  macro photographers started to think micros were more profitable(this is just according to what I read and remember not my own experience since I don2t have it with macros)and if you choose your best file to upload only to macros this might mean you are limiting commercial possibilities of your work.(having said that I am well aware of price licensing and commissions difference between the two)
so I am still trying to find out a middle wayin order to  to keep might profit as high as possible without upsetting the buyers.

btw if your first application can be done online than it's fantastic news:)
« Last Edit: August 15, 2007, 08:14 by stokfoto »

« Reply #12 on: August 15, 2007, 08:38 »
0
First application? Does it mean if you fail the first aplication you have to send the images via CD?

« Reply #13 on: August 15, 2007, 08:54 »
0
Don't think so, I submitted my "first application" by cd and got rejected for size (thought they required 40mb). Then I got an email stating the FTP was activated and submitted my "second application" via the site.

« Reply #14 on: August 15, 2007, 08:57 »
0
this a little off the topic but I'd like to know if you upload same files that you also upload to micros,is it allowed and how good idea is it?

A very bad idea in my view. If a customer buys an image for a high price at Alamy, only to discover later that it's available for a dollar or two at a micro, he will probably not be happy. I wouldn't have been, and I wouldn't even consider buying from your portfolio at Alamy again.

I agree with that but there is one thing though. by uploading same files  to a macro site you offer your files as RM not only RF (which is mostly not available on micro sites)so that should mean you are giving a different buying option to the buyers.and to my point of view this  should be the main point of considering such a thing.

You can't submit an RF image that's on a micro and put it as RM on Alamy or anywhere else. The image is either RF or RM.

« Reply #15 on: August 15, 2007, 10:53 »
0
this a little off the topic but I'd like to know if you upload same files that you also upload to micros,is it allowed and how good idea is it?

A very bad idea in my view. If a customer buys an image for a high price at Alamy, only to discover later that it's available for a dollar or two at a micro, he will probably not be happy. I wouldn't have been, and I wouldn't even consider buying from your portfolio at Alamy again.

I agree with that but there is one thing though. by uploading same files  to a macro site you offer your files as RM not only RF (which is mostly not available on micro sites)so that should mean you are giving a different buying option to the buyers.and to my point of view this  should be the main point of considering such a thing.

You can't submit an RF image that's on a micro and put it as RM on Alamy or anywhere else. The image is either RF or RM.
you are right.sorry I got confused with the terms.RF and RM just opposites and can't go together.what  I was tryign to say you may offer exclusive rights of the image (like exclusive buy out that FT used offer,full ownership that DT offers.)

after all I guess it depends on your marketing strategies,which photo of your to put in a macro and which one to micros.now I am convinced that it certainly isn't good idea to shuffle things and you have to be certain which files go to micros and which goes macros.

thank you all for your help
much appreciated.

budgaugh

« Reply #16 on: August 15, 2007, 17:37 »
0
Can you submit photos to Alamy the same way as the micros or do you have to upsize the photos before you submit?

« Reply #17 on: August 17, 2007, 02:52 »
0
You need at least a 6mp camera 8 mp would be better and you need to upsize to about 3455 x 5150 which would be a 50.5 meg uncompressed TIFF (mimimum is 48 meg) but we can send JPEGS now  ;D.

If they still wanted TIFFS the online upload would be fairly pointless (2 photos per hour with my broadband).

Payment is by cheque
British pounds, US Dollars, euros or other currencies?
I know my cheque came direct from their bank so you might be able to get cheques in quite a wide range of currencies

They charge $8 for a cheque and there was another charge for the currency conversion so much for the 65/35 split.

Payment also by direct bank transfer but you have to give them your bank details (scary!)

no paypal as far as I know.

For those of you who moan about having to wait a week for payment from Microstock beware Alamy make you wait (I was told up to 10 weeks) after you clear the $250 barrier as they give their clients 30 days credit.

For example I sold a photo in September 2006 another in April 2007 which brought me over the magic number but it was early August before a cheque arrived though strangely the first of my June sales was cleared in time so was also included.

Total sales five photos  ;D from an entirely RM portfolio of about 2,600

If the photo is of a popular subject I usually send to the micros.  If in doubt search the Alamy site. As remember as a Newbie your Alamy index will be low so your photos will go to the back and their is only one search criteria no searching by contributor, age, Dls etc.

« Reply #18 on: August 17, 2007, 08:15 »
0
Steve, great info there, well done. You answered a lot of questions and your info is clear. Thankyou.

Just one thing:

Quote
Payment also by direct bank transfer but you have to give them your bank details (scary!)

It's a common concern, giving out your bank account numbers, but it's actually a great thing to do.

The only risk you run is that people will give you money. They cannot make withdrawals. Why do you think it's safe to have your account numbers printed on the bottom of every check you write?

Why is it great? It's automated, instant, and entirely online. I run a business in Australia, but I haven't been there for almost a year. All my clients pay me by direct deposit as I put my bank account numbers on my invoices (which are emailed in PDF). If a client ever asked, I'd accommodate alternative arrangements, but it hasn't happened yet. It's also more secure than checks. It's why many governments tax your bank account if you have a checking facility attached - they need to recover the cost of investigating check fraud.

I realize this is WAY off topic, but I hope the information is of value to everybody. The less time you spend banking checks the more time you can spend creating great photos! 

« Reply #19 on: September 10, 2007, 13:59 »
0
You need at least a 6mp camera 8 mp would be better and you need to upsize to about 3455 x 5150 which would be a 50.5 meg uncompressed TIFF (mimimum is 48 meg) but we can send JPEGS now  ;D.


That's confusing.  If you save an upsized image at 5150x3455 in TIFF format in order to make it 50megs (which is what I once tried with a Canon 10D image) , how in the world would you meet their 48mg minimum if you saved it in JPG form?   Since JPG is compressed, how would that fly with their minimum file size?



« Reply #20 on: September 10, 2007, 14:37 »
0
JPEG is compressed. When you have a JPEG image open in Photoshop it tells you the uncompressed size in the bottom left-side corner.  If your camera is 6MP it'll be 48MB uncompressed.

Thankfully you can upload it uncompressed! ;)

« Reply #21 on: September 10, 2007, 15:03 »
0
JPEG is compressed. When you have a JPEG image open in Photoshop it tells you the uncompressed size in the bottom left-side corner.  If your camera is 6MP it'll be 48MB uncompressed.

Thankfully you can upload it uncompressed! ;)

No it won't... I shoot with a 8MP EOS 20D and still have to upsize it by 144% to meet the minimum requirements. With this i end up with a image that's roughly 5000x3350 pixels which in fact is 16,75 MegaPixels. So that's more or less you're minimum requirements. But there are things that people normally confuse, is that the demand an uncompressed size of 48 MegaBYTES, which means 16,75 MegaPIXELS. And the file shouldn't be bigger than 25 MegaBYTES in a compressed form (actuakky my files, saved in Photoshop JPEG 12 vary from as little as 2 MegaBYTES to as much as 17 MegaBYTES, until now...)

Regards

Francisco Leito

dbvirago

« Reply #22 on: September 10, 2007, 15:36 »
0
And to make it worse, I can shoot an 8MP file in two different MB ranges

« Reply #23 on: September 10, 2007, 16:24 »
0
i still don't get why they don't just say how many pixels they want, because the image size depends a lot on if there is dark or white or colored pixels in the image.

« Reply #24 on: September 10, 2007, 16:35 »
0
i still don't get why they don't just say how many pixels they want, because the image size depends a lot on if there is dark or white or colored pixels in the image.

It doesn't Leaf... when you measure uncompressed pixels, they always occupy the same amount of data (the maximum). What is affected by the value of the pixels is the compressed size, due to the JPEG algorythm.
So an uncompressed image of all white or all black pixels with 5000x3350 always has 48MB uncompressed (you can see this if you save tiff uncompressed).

Regards

Francisco Leito

« Reply #25 on: September 10, 2007, 16:53 »
0
then why does the Raw files that come out of the 5D range from 12 - 17 MB.  They aren't compressed.

« Reply #26 on: September 10, 2007, 17:22 »
0
then why does the Raw files that come out of the 5D range from 12 - 17 MB.  They aren't compressed.

Hi again,

Just because RAW files save 4096 levels of luminosity and JPEG only has 256 (for each pixel). That's why RAW files take up so much space, and when you save to JPEG it shrinks... And that's also why you can adjust so much more on a raw file than on a jpeg... you have so much more to work with... 16x more data (even tough it doesn't necessarily reflect 16x more space occupied because it's just a matter of adding 4 bits to each color channel and 4 more for the luminosity channel). RAW is 12 bit data while JPEG is 8 bit data.

Regards

Francisco Leito

« Reply #27 on: September 10, 2007, 20:23 »
0
Ok then, since this seems to get MORE confusing with every post. LOL...

Just let me ask this... if someone wanted to upload an image to Alamy then via their web site upload feature, and they're using a 10D (6MP) or XT (8MP) camera - what exactly should they do?   Resize the image to 3455 x 5150 (abouts) first, then just save it as best quality as a .JPG, then send it that way?     I use Paint Shop Pro, not Photoshop, but you can of course save it as quality "1" which in Paint Shop is the least compressed save.


« Reply #28 on: September 10, 2007, 20:50 »
0
Ok then, since this seems to get MORE confusing with every post. LOL...

Just let me ask this... if someone wanted to upload an image to Alamy then via their web site upload feature, and they're using a 10D (6MP) or XT (8MP) camera - what exactly should they do?   Resize the image to 3455 x 5150 (abouts) first, then just save it as best quality as a .JPG, then send it that way?     I use Paint Shop Pro, not Photoshop, but you can of course save it as quality "1" which in Paint Shop is the least compressed save.

What i do is after i done all the editing to the photo i upsize it by 144% if it is an original 8MP file, or as needed if i cropped or is some other file. I can see that through Photoshop resize dialog, where it shows the uncompressed size when you select the percentage or pixel number you want. Photoshop shows what you had and what you will get in terms of pixel size (which is no more than uncompressed size). I don't know about PSP, but probably there is something similar also on the resize dialon, no ?

Regards

Francisco Leito

ianhlnd

  • tough men are pussys
« Reply #29 on: September 15, 2007, 20:22 »
0
Alamy gets a big kick out of all the questions about Mb, as a matter of fact, I think the word they use is "flabbergasted".  I used to think the file had to be 48Mb on disk, that ment I blew it up til you couldnt see anything at 100%, then I got their idea.  It's a problem with us English speakers, you never know what the heck the other persons talking about.

Pixels, Mb's, it's a British thing.  Go figure.

« Reply #30 on: September 16, 2007, 08:20 »
0
I thought I knew what was wanted... now...  i'm confused......... ???

My files come out of the cam  at 18meg.

My understanding was that I had to uprez them to 48meg. (pixels approx 5100 x 3300 )

That's what I did ....and uploaded them to Alamy.

Did I do the right thing ...or will I be getting a fat reject from the other side of the big pond?  :-\


signed, confused in  new jersey.    8)-tom

« Reply #31 on: September 16, 2007, 13:21 »
0
If the size is to small the upload will warn you before uploading. The problem is with a dvd/cd, they can't warn you ;)

Olga

« Reply #32 on: September 16, 2007, 14:09 »
0
I got the email also but I have only a Canon 300d *sigh* SY

« Reply #33 on: September 16, 2007, 14:41 »
0
Tom - you may be ok.  Think of it this way....

48mb TIFF file at 8bit
96mb TIFF file at 16bit
17mp JPG (approximately 5100 on the long side)

I shoot with a 16.8mp camera and upsize to about 5100 x 3400


« Reply #34 on: September 16, 2007, 17:07 »
0
then why does the Raw files that come out of the 5D range from 12 - 17 MB.  They aren't compressed.

my point with this post was that the image size depends on what colors are in the photo - ie the images range in size from 12-17mb. 

« Reply #35 on: September 19, 2007, 16:01 »
0
..........guess I did it right...   I got accepted on Alamy.... 

« Reply #36 on: September 19, 2007, 18:10 »
0
ol.
 My English is very poor... 

But I want, if possible, a reply for my doubt: I was invited to send photos for test in Alamy. It will be that I can send the same images that already I sent for other sites microstock?

  Very obliged for the reply inaquim

I am only uploading new photos to Alamy that are not on the micro sites.  They sell for a lot more on Alamy and I don't want someone paying $200 for a photo and then finding it on a microstock site for $5.  They might ask for a refund and that wouldn't be nice.

« Reply #37 on: September 20, 2007, 12:03 »
0


Total sales five photos  ;D from an entirely RM portfolio of about 2,600

If the photo is of a popular subject I usually send to the micros.  If in doubt search the Alamy site. As remember as a Newbie your Alamy index will be low so your photos will go to the back and their is only one search criteria no searching by contributor, age, Dls etc.

Hmm, why do you bother submitting there then? You know what one can make on SS for example with a good portfolio of that size... and sometimes things that you don't think would be popular do really well on micros - just because there is less competition. Maybe I am missing something but submitting there doesn't seem like a good deal at all.

« Reply #38 on: September 26, 2007, 22:11 »
0
Maybe someone already said this and I missed it, but the 48MB image size Alamy calls for is the file resolution (MP,  WxH) times 3 (r, g, b). Each pixel needs 3 bytes, one each to describe r, g, b of the pixel.

So a 16MP file would be 48MB, as reported by Photoshop in the bottom of the window. It has nothing to do with the file's storage size as a JPG or TIF or RAW file.

I wonder why Alamy doesn't upsize this themselves, like some of the micros indicate they'll do if they want to offer XL sizes on files that were a little smaller than XL.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
19 Replies
7557 Views
Last post August 06, 2009, 05:37
by madelaide
7 Replies
2137 Views
Last post December 27, 2013, 16:19
by Stu49
3 Replies
1904 Views
Last post July 31, 2016, 03:14
by Rick D
7 Replies
3698 Views
Last post July 10, 2018, 03:46
by LinaCo
3 Replies
867 Views
Last post September 14, 2018, 09:58
by MatHayward

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors