pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: 1st sale in Alamy  (Read 38269 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #75 on: November 26, 2011, 13:17 »
0
What do you people mean by "geting zoom".. do you mean the number of views for photos ?


« Reply #76 on: November 26, 2011, 13:22 »
0
At Alamy, a view means your image came up in a search.  A zoom means the buyer actually clicked on your image to take a closer look.  Zooms are calculated into your placement ranking.  Alamy is the only place that has views, zooms and placement rankings.  On the micros, a view means someone clicked on your image. 

« Reply #77 on: November 26, 2011, 13:23 »
0
What do you people mean by "geting zoom".. do you mean the number of views for photos ?

Alamy's terminology is different.  A 'view' means only that your image was pulled up in a search, so presumably the buyer's eyes passed over the thumbnail.  A 'zoom' means they clicked your thumb and looked at your image.  Alamy gives you both these numbers.  One thing that confused me at first is that by default, the displayed statistics include just the recent past. To see all your views and zooms since day 1 you change the starting date for the display.

« Reply #78 on: November 26, 2011, 13:29 »
0
Thank you Karin and Stockastic..
 please do me another favour and tell that if one guy fails his 1st QC then is he informed by alamy in time and after how many days/hours can he retry the QC...?
is alamy very specific or strict for noise ? as i posted 4 pix last night and now when i look one of those pix i found moderate level noise in a portion of photo.. damnn i could not see that.. but its not that much as shown by alamy QC help section in an example photo... what are the chances that they don't qualify my 4 pix ?   ???

« Reply #79 on: November 26, 2011, 13:38 »
0
Go for it, Baldrick!  I wish I could find the photo, but I remember a few years ago there was a $10,000 sale of probably the ugliest snapshot I've ever seen.  It was of an outdoor Asian market, horrible lighting, and it was so underexposed I could hardly tell what the subject was.  Whatever was in that photo, a buyer wanted it so badly they paid $10,000 for the copyright!       
Their biggest ever sale was an atrocious snapshot of a Spanish fishmonger's shop, more than $20,000. The things people want are truly odd.

That's the photo!  OMG...it was really bad.  LOL  Wish I could find it so newer folks could see it. 

« Reply #80 on: November 26, 2011, 14:04 »
0
Thank you Karin and Stockastic..
 please do me another favour and tell that if one guy fails his 1st QC then is he informed by alamy in time and after how many days/hours can he retry the QC...?
is alamy very specific or strict for noise ? as i posted 4 pix last night and now when i look one of those pix i found moderate level noise in a portion of photo.. damnn i could not see that.. but its not that much as shown by alamy QC help section in an example photo... what are the chances that they don't qualify my 4 pix ?   ???

Can't really answer that because I initially submitted a bunch of images that had already been approved at the big 3 sites so I had little doubt Alamy would approve.   I then submitted photos in small batches because if Alamy rejects one image they reject the whole batch.  I think I had one rejection, on an image which was admittedly questionable in certain ways.   None of my images had noise problems, of that I'm certain.   I was able to get 100 approved quite easily.

« Reply #81 on: November 26, 2011, 14:06 »
0
Go for it, Baldrick!  I wish I could find the photo, but I remember a few years ago there was a $10,000 sale of probably the ugliest snapshot I've ever seen.  It was of an outdoor Asian market, horrible lighting, and it was so underexposed I could hardly tell what the subject was.  Whatever was in that photo, a buyer wanted it so badly they paid $10,000 for the copyright!       
Their biggest ever sale was an atrocious snapshot of a Spanish fishmonger's shop, more than $20,000. The things people want are truly odd.

That's the photo!  OMG...it was really bad.  LOL  Wish I could find it so newer folks could see it. 

Yeah, dreadful ambient light from the wrong direction and all the heads of the people chopped off by the top of the frame. I remember it well. I've been working hard to create fish stall shots like that ever since but they just don't seem to create the same level of interest.

ShadySue

« Reply #82 on: November 26, 2011, 14:08 »
0
Well, I've managed to sort, process and keyword 52 in about 24 hours, so it's possible - though the uploading will take several more hours and so will the final processing at Alamy. Presumably, I'm just slow (and so is my net connection).

And remember these were just 21 things you had at hand. You will have to go to the bother of finding the next 21, and the next, it will just get harder.
But congrats: if I sat on my couch, all I could photograph would be 'untidy room facing left', 'untidy room facing right', 'untidy room straight on'

« Reply #83 on: November 26, 2011, 14:10 »
0
Go for it, Baldrick!  I wish I could find the photo, but I remember a few years ago there was a $10,000 sale of probably the ugliest snapshot I've ever seen.  It was of an outdoor Asian market, horrible lighting, and it was so underexposed I could hardly tell what the subject was.  Whatever was in that photo, a buyer wanted it so badly they paid $10,000 for the copyright!       

Their biggest ever sale was an atrocious snapshot of a Spanish fishmonger's shop, more than $20,000. The things people want are truly odd.


That's the photo!  OMG...it was really bad.  LOL  Wish I could find it so newer folks could see it. 


Yeah, dreadful ambient light from the wrong direction and all the heads of the people chopped off by the top of the frame. I remember it well. I've been working hard to create fish stall shots like that ever since but they just don't seem to create the same level of interest.


   

« Reply #84 on: November 26, 2011, 14:13 »
0
Well, I've managed to sort, process and keyword 52 in about 24 hours, so it's possible - though the uploading will take several more hours and so will the final processing at Alamy. Presumably, I'm just slow (and so is my net connection).

And remember these were just 21 things you had at hand. You will have to go to the bother of finding the next 21, and the next, it will just get harder.
But congrats: if I sat on my couch, all I could photograph would be 'untidy room facing left', 'untidy room facing right', 'untidy room straight on'

In all that untidiness resides some rather interesting objects, let me tell you!  LOL  Have we stumbled upon a new method of cleaning house?  Shoot an object before putting it away in its proper place!   ;D

« Reply #85 on: November 26, 2011, 14:37 »
0
Hey, Sue, give me credit, it was 52 not 21.

I think there is a mindset where I might be able to produce 300 or 400 a month but it would probably come down to shooting jpgs in volume and not worrying about composition etc.

Sure, if it was products just to slap on a table with a vaguely acceptable lighting set-up for editorial, that would be fairly easy but a lot of my satisfaction comes from improving my skills, not just doing barely acceptable stuff.

ShadySue

« Reply #86 on: November 26, 2011, 15:18 »
0
Hey, Sue, give me credit, it was 52 not 21.
I thought it was 52 shots of 21 objects?

« Reply #87 on: November 26, 2011, 15:29 »
0
Hey, Sue, give me credit, it was 52 not 21.
I thought it was 52 shots of 21 objects?

52 travel shots from the same old folder. It was Karimala who was doing objects.

« Reply #88 on: November 26, 2011, 15:31 »
0
Yep...that's me.  40 shots (now 60) of 21 subjects (now 27).   ;D

ShadySue

« Reply #89 on: November 26, 2011, 15:40 »
0
You're all too fast for me, my old brain can't keep up!

« Reply #90 on: November 26, 2011, 15:42 »
0
Another note on the views and zooms at Alamy. I think that only certain registered buyers count towards these views and zooms - so it is technically possible to have a sale without any zooms or views (This could have changed or maybe I heard wrong).

for the last 2 years or so I seem to be at the ratio of 1 sale to 10 zooms to a bit under 1,000 views. I did get quite a bit more than 10 zooms before my first sale though, so there might be a big lag or maybe I was statistically unlucky at first.

« Reply #91 on: November 26, 2011, 15:43 »
0
You're all too fast for me, my old brain can't keep up!

I'll lay odds I'm older.

ShadySue

« Reply #92 on: November 26, 2011, 15:58 »
0
Another note on the views and zooms at Alamy. I think that only certain registered buyers count towards these views and zooms - so it is technically possible to have a sale without any zooms or views (This could have changed or maybe I heard wrong).

That's absolutely right, it's only the top customers which are registered as zooms.  I'd say about half of my sales haven't been zoomed. And of those which are zoomed, it can be months before the sale registers.

Ed

« Reply #93 on: November 26, 2011, 18:46 »
0

That's very interesting Ed.  I'm not sure that churning out snapshots by the thousand (as someone just called his work) is "thinking like a photographer", maybe it is thinking like an old-time stock shooter - though wouldn't the waste of chromes have argued against that? Maybe it is shooting like a old-time stock shooter who has got his hands on a digital camera. It doesn't seem to be the norm, or Alamy would have 100 times as many shots.

I agree with you about editorial on the micros. It's not their market and their attempts to break into it don't seem to have had much success.

The hard bit with Alamy is the keywording, captioning and box ticking. If you are going to do it right, then you can't even bulk process that job, as each photo needs to be independently checked for how many people it has in it and whether or not it would need a property release. I suppose that if you are machine-gunning images to upload you just choose "more than four" and "no release" for property and let it go.

Do you check images for CA, sensor dust, WB adjustment, exposure, tone curve, vignetting, level horizons and noise before uploading, or do you just shoot a jpg and shove it up the tube uncorrected, despite the rejection risk? Basic corrections would take at least 10 minutes per image but must make it more saleable.

I must take issue with the idea of buying two bottles of wine, opening one, shooting it and then going to look for nine other subjects.... I would have to shoot the nine subjects first THEN open the wine ;)

Anyway, great information from a different perspective and as I've got a few thousand unused snapshots of different places I'll have a go at trying to monetise some of them.

Yes, I do check for CA, dust, and all that stuff.  I've been processing images all day today in fact (and I have a ton more to go through).  My comment about thinking like a photographer as opposed to shooting for the micros relates to too many instances where I've read people on forums (or heard them personally) say "I can't shoot that because it has a label" or "I have to clone out this or that".  Go out and shoot...it doesn't have to be a snapshot, but it doesn't have to follow the micro rules...

When it comes to editorial newsworthy images, I shoot raw and jpg.  The jpg generally doesn't get edited and the images are submitted through the editorial/archival route.  You just have to cull out the bad ones.

« Reply #94 on: November 27, 2011, 13:54 »
0
[....]  I think you have to be accepted as a news photographer to get into their news stream and then you can't send them commercial work. [....].

If you have News Route uploading priviledges, you can use that news Route only to upload current news photos.

But you definitely can still submit other types of images, including commercial, using the regular "submit stock images" route.  
« Last Edit: November 27, 2011, 13:57 by ann »

Ed

« Reply #95 on: November 27, 2011, 22:39 »
0
[....]  I think you have to be accepted as a news photographer to get into their news stream and then you can't send them commercial work. [....].

If you have News Route uploading priviledges, you can use that news Route only to upload current news photos.

But you definitely can still submit other types of images, including commercial, using the regular "submit stock images" route.  

x2 - I missed this.  I am approved for the new route...commercial (non-newsworthy) images are still submitted the normal route.

Paulo M. F. Pires

  • "No Gods No Masters"
« Reply #96 on: November 29, 2011, 10:03 »
0
I'm have +300 images RF ( will start sending some RM in 2012 ), 100% acceptance rate, almost one year there and have one sale... novell use... 0,41c

Anyway, only last month I start re-keywording all images and start getting more zooms , better CTR.. lets hope ;D

 ;D

Ok, this month I get 3 zooms over 2 f-16 pictures, and one of them get a sale ( 3mb - 1350 x 900 pixels ): 131,40$ of Commission 

I love Alamy @_@

BTW, get same time 2 on SS, 1 on FT... I refuse say how much I get over these 3 sales LOL

« Reply #97 on: November 29, 2011, 10:09 »
0
I'm have +300 images RF ( will start sending some RM in 2012 ), 100% acceptance rate, almost one year there and have one sale... novell use... 0,41c

Anyway, only last month I start re-keywording all images and start getting more zooms , better CTR.. lets hope ;D

 ;D

Ok, this month I get 3 zooms over 2 f-16 pictures, and one of them get a sale ( 3mb - 1350 x 900 pixels ): 131,40$ of Commission 

I love Alamy @_@

BTW, get same time 2 on SS, 1 on FT... I refuse say how much I get over these 3 sales LOL
Hey you sold pic in alamy. Did not know that Congrats. :-)

« Reply #98 on: November 30, 2011, 20:54 »
0
Thank you Karin and Stockastic..
 please do me another favour and tell that if one guy fails his 1st QC then is he informed by alamy in time and after how many days/hours can he retry the QC...?
is alamy very specific or strict for noise ? as i posted 4 pix last night and now when i look one of those pix i found moderate level noise in a portion of photo.. damnn i could not see that.. but its not that much as shown by alamy QC help section in an example photo... what are the chances that they don't qualify my 4 pix ?   ???

I've submitted a few ISO 640, 800 and 1600 images to Alamy with no QC failures yet. I did remove the chroma (color) noise but left the luminance noise slider alone in the RAW convertor. No noise reduction software used after either.

« Reply #99 on: November 30, 2011, 21:54 »
0
Thank you Karin and Stockastic..
 please do me another favour and tell that if one guy fails his 1st QC then is he informed by alamy in time and after how many days/hours can he retry the QC...?
is alamy very specific or strict for noise ? as i posted 4 pix last night and now when i look one of those pix i found moderate level noise in a portion of photo.. damnn i could not see that.. but its not that much as shown by alamy QC help section in an example photo... what are the chances that they don't qualify my 4 pix ?   ???

I've submitted a few ISO 640, 800 and 1600 images to Alamy with no QC failures yet. I did remove the chroma (color) noise but left the luminance noise slider alone in the RAW convertor. No noise reduction software used after either.

But i was informed last night only that my 1 pic was disqualified due to "soft or lacking definition"...

I wanna ask you people that can i just replace the failed pic with new one and resubmit with rest 3 old pix for my 2nd QC ?


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
4 Replies
3922 Views
Last post June 21, 2007, 07:31
by fintastique
110 Replies
46257 Views
Last post April 28, 2010, 02:58
by Oldhand
My first sale on Alamy

Started by AstburyD Alamy.com

16 Replies
8222 Views
Last post August 30, 2010, 07:41
by ann
0 Replies
2570 Views
Last post November 21, 2010, 20:15
by JGAdams
15 Replies
5658 Views
Last post July 02, 2012, 12:35
by wordplanet

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results