these are the some links of alamy sold images are used, it makes me rethink what kind of images one should submit to alamy.

It seems as long as a photo serves its purpose for buyers, it is a deal.


http://aksesasia.com/pans-and-pots-at-a-delicious-price.html

http://paidcontent.co.uk/article/419-nokia-chairman-ollila-prepares-will-resign-in-2012/

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/peterwedderburn/100054449/halal-meat-we-should-know-when-were-eating-it/

http://www.slashfood.com/2010/09/22/pairing-cheeses-with-apples-and-pears-cheese-course/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/expat/expatnews/7977361/South-Korea-introduces-fingerprint-scans-for-suspicious-foreign-visitors.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/road-safety/7985111/Britains-pothole-problems-continue.html
 

Each month somebody starts a new thread on the Alamy forum where people can report images they've seen from Alamy, plus there's a more extensive version on the Alamy yahoo group, I'm not sure what use your blog would be.

Alamy don't edit their collection for content so in theory (and in practice) anything and everything sells on Alamy if a buyer desires a photo of it.

ok, i just find it interesting to know there are some kind of images are selling instead of technically okay images.

Those are images that won't get into most microstock agencies, not much newsworthy too.

Micro is all about fantasy/perfection; that is a big market, but there are others.

what i am trying to say those alamy sold photos are more like editorial, or just some photos that simply to accompany some essays or news. I don't think the buyer think about how it looks, is it eye-catching, noise, sharp.

most aren't used as advertising, it is just a photo that snapped by anyone.

it is not creative, not newsworthy, not eye catching, not difficult to take, and to my surprise that kind of images get sold aren't just random and low percentage.

what i am trying to say those alamy sold photos are more like editorial, or just some photos that simply to accompany some essays or news. I don't think the buyer think about how it looks, is it eye-catching, noise, sharp.

most aren't used as advertising, it is just a photo that snapped by anyone.

it is not creative, not newsworthy, not eye catching, not difficult to take, and to my surprise that kind of images get sold aren't just random and low percentage.

That's the difference between 'real' and 'fake'. Take the photo of dishes in the sink. Looks fairly 'real'. I've seen pics of so-called untidy rooms on micro which have clearly been set up to look untidy. Again, on Micro, you can't have reality because of logos and recognisable things etc. For some purposes, that's totally useless. That's why you have to say whether you have digitally altered an image. A micro buyer has to accept that the tog may well have altered salient features of an image.
I've sometimes wondered what would happen if, say, a guidebook used a micro photo of a tourist location with some possibly-trademarked feature cloned out and the owner of said feature objected. In the UK, you certainly couldn't use a 'perfected' photo in certain adverts. For example, a few years ago there was a case in which a hotel or guesthouse had cloned out a pylon from their photo of 'the view from our dining room' or suchlike and were 'done' for misrepresentation. (If they'd been able to find a suitable angle from which the pylon was obscured, this would have been OK!)
I guess RF on Alamy must follow micro-type rules, but I don't look at RF there, for now at least.

In my kitchen, it would be pretty difficult to take the sink shot because of lack of space to set up a tripod.

You and me both, Sue.  Can't swing a gnat in mine...

are you seriously think that dirty sink photos are technically more difficult than taking some attractive models in studio?

that sink photos can be creative if someone use it in some ways, but it is definitely just serves as a dirty sink in that website.

Quote from: mtkang on November 05, 2010, 05:55

it is not creative, not newsworthy, not eye catching, not difficult to take,

Totally disagree.
The 'creativity' is in realising that a certain shot might have a value.
What's less creative about composing a pile of dishes in a sink than sticking a lot of fake-looking 'businesspeople' in front of a white background?
A pile of dishes in a sink certainly catches my eye (more than said fake businesspeople every would), because it has relevance to my life.
Who'se to say how difficult pics are to take. Maybe it's easier for someone with plenty of attractive models, a big studio and all the equipment to take the fake businesspeople shot. In my kitchen, it would be pretty difficult to take the sink shot because of lack of space to set up a tripod. Even though I almost never use a tripod, I know it would be necessary for that.
Of course, there will be many more sales for the FB shot. That's why I said originally, it's a big market, but not the only one.

ok, i just find it interesting to know there are some kind of images are selling instead of technically okay images.

Those are images that won't get into most microstock agencies, not much newsworthy too.

It isn't about technical "okay" it's about useful images. And Alamy images are run through QC so I'd say they are better than OK in quality. You just won't see the ridiculous requirements or rejections for lighting and color balance, where there is no problem with either. Micro is absurd with their sterile environment and photos that lack emotion or creative shooting in most cases.

Bland is what the market lemmings seem to see at the micro agencies. Some day, some micro agency will figure it out and start taking "okay" images that the buyers want, with some meat, instead of feeding them a constant assembly line of the same pablum.

Alamy: Well over 400 new photographer registrations over the last couple of weeks.

Something tells me that micro shooters are finding a new home for their images. Darn I was hoping that the competition would stay away. I blame iStock for pushing them over the edge! That and the removal of the 48MB requirement. Now I can shoot and edit right from the camera, and not blow up to some large size, that a buyer doesn't need or want. And if they do want it, they can make the change themselves.

Plus the reduction from 48MB really helps with the quality of the photo. Not nearly the noise you'd have with the other size. It helps the 10mp camera shooters.

No doubt about it. I have 10D images that were accepted back in the early years, which was what - three years ago?  I have a grab-cam that's a 20D now and I always wondered if I could get something accepted from that. I suppose I should try, but the usual fear of rejection is stopping me.

What I do with a "questionable" shot, is send it in alone to Alamy. I mean it's asking for a rejection, because I know with one image, the QC person is going to look at it. Nothing about trying to sneak something through. I did get one rejected last year, or was it 2008? Really crappy photoshop effort to add a reflection, plain stupid on my part. I went back to the original TIF, didn't do the dumb-ass, poorly executed PS editing and it passed.

Funny how a bunch of food photos that micro has rejected, have all gone through on Alamy. My mistake to try some bright colors instead of following the bland program and flat lighting. I admit they aren't the best. But hey, they are passed and for sale on Alamy!