Quote from: PecoFoto on March 06, 2008, 16:26

Of course if you don�t have a model or property release then also set them as RM.

You can only sell an unreleased image with an editorial license - not with a commercial stock, RM or RF, license...

Yes you're right, but on Alamy you can specify that a release may be required but that you haven't obtained one. You can do this without setting an editorial restriction although Alamy suggest you do.

A quick search on Alamy produces lots of licensed (RM) images depicting people and places without releases, I think in the past it was left up to the buyer to decide if an image can be used.  As we have all seen on other stock sites the requirement to secure releases has been tightened up and this has been discussed at length on the Alamy forum.

Quote from: kkart on March 04, 2008, 05:12

All in all, I say yes, go for it, it's free afterall. Nothing to lose!

Yeah, nothing to lose except your non-watermarked images that almost anyone can hijack.

Thanks but no thanks.

Like I said, anyone that doesn't respect copyright infringement and theft will never see my images.

I was contacted through RedBubble by the copyright collection agency VISCOPY.  It seems one of my photographs on Redbubble was used possibly by an educational or government institution and that I was owed a royalty payment.  They got back to me today to arrange payment 

So it does look like images on RedBubble are being used for purposes other than intended, I guess I just got lucky!

I registered there at the beginning of February and I had my initial submission accepted within 5 working days, my latest batch is taking a lot longer.  Unlike Alamy they do review your submissions for content as well as technical issues.  Some of their photographs in the Creative section are a little �off the wall�. This opens up possibilities for photographs rejected at microstock sites for being �not stock�.

It seems to me that with the microstock sites, Alamy and now Photoshelter there should be an outlet for all types of photographs as long as the technical quality is up to scratch.

What do you know about VISCOPY?

http://www.viscopy.com/

I have to agree with Mikhail

Here are some examples of creative use of shadows in nature/landscape -

http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-8578651-light-through-tree.html

http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-3509315-low-setting-sun-in-green-park-casting-long-shadows.html

http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-7305613-foggy-morning-in-park.html

and shallow DOF -

http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-9329668-a-glass-full-of-flowers-with-special-focus-technique.html

http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-9110167-super-macro-shot-of-orange-gerbera-flower-petals-with-dew-shallow-depth-of-field.html

http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-6301921-ripe-orange-on-a-tree-close-up-shallow-dof.html

They are all cracking photos, pity none of them are mine 

Quote from: MikLav on February 28, 2008, 05:20

I think your are focusing on a wrong point with your question. Instead of thinking on how to get more pictures at SS, it would be more useful and efficient to work on "how can I produce better photos". Just MHO.

Quote from: basti on February 28, 2008, 05:12

Never got single image refused for noise or artifacts. Most refusals are "poor light/wrong WB" or "focus". In most cases it seems to be just excuse for "we dont like this". Poor light usually occurs with more creative images and out of focus mostly happens with shallow dof images. I must admit that about 30-40% rejections were correct reasons - the rest was obviously nonsense.
So better avoid any specific or creative light conditions or shallow dof, they seems to go beyond "SS reviewer guidelines" and become rejected.

These two quotes tend to run directly counter to each other, especially if one considers themselves a "photographer" and not a "microstock photographer", as the use of creative lighting and selective focus/DOF effects are primary elements of good photography in general.  I don't really consider taking every picture at an aperture of f/36 just so I have maximum DOF to be good photography, I consider it sterile photography, though it still has applications in normal photography...

We are all photographers, but when taking photographs for microstock agencies then you need to have your microstock photographer hat on.

If the photograph you are submitting is more fine art and of a creative style you are limiting it's use.  Designers like something to work with so a sterile image may well be more suited to them.  In my view the more arty type of photograph would be better submitted to Photoshelter, myLoupe or a similar agency.

I'm surprised that you feel SS reject images for bogus reasons, in my experience their reason for rejecting an image is usually valid.  If SS reject an image for artifacts, noise, focus or uneven lighting/poor white balance then this is the genuine reason.

My portfolio is quite small just over 100, I have no isolations or model shots but other than that it is quite diverse. I don't feel they favour or frown on a particular subject as long as it's technically good enough they seem to accept them.

Perhaps you could link to the images you feel aggrieved about?

Quote from: PecoFoto on February 21, 2008, 18:42

How many sales of one image are you likely to need to get into the top 50?

last I heard probably sept / oct??? I think people were talking around the 50 mark depending on the week.

I've reached the 30 mark in the past couple of days but I can't see it going up to 50.  I'm on the first page of the transport category (as long as you select small thumbs  ) which is a bit of a milestone for me.

But how can we know if a buyer saw it in Alamy and they purchased in another site?   

Regards,
Adelaide

I think it only applies if the customer tells you they saw it on Alamy and you negotiate a price with the customer and sell it directly without going through Alamy or another agency.

Thank you for you reply. These submissions were taken on a 10mp Canon Powershot A640 - PhotoShop 7 to resample.

...I have read elsewhere that Alamy are not as hot on noise as other stock agencies. I am wondering if it is worth, for my next test batch, to not bother removing noise in order to preserve the sharpness...

You have enough mega pixels but I would imagine the sensor will be quite small and produce more noise than a DSLR. So if you're removing the noise with a noise ninja or something similar its possible you're making the image soft, its a catch 22 situation.

I had the same problem with my old Fuji S5600 the raw files were very noisey and soft after noise reduction.  IS didn't like them much and I didn't attempt getting into Alamy, surprisingly they were accepted at Shutterstock.

Unfortunately the only solution may be to buy a DSLR, I can recommend the Nikon D40 and now the D60 is on the market you may get it at a better price.

All the best.

Peter

They check all 4 images, and all have to pass, they will give reasons for each one that failed.  If it indicates all 4 failed then I think its safe to assume they may all have been soft.  Don't be tempted to sharpen any future submissions as they will fail them for this also.

Are you using a 6MP or above DSLR and something like Photoshop to do the resampling?

Good luck.

Do you are happy of your light tent? What improvement do you notice? More light, easier white background? I'm interested to buy one also...

I haven't as yet used the light tent.  With all the sunny weather we've been having here in the UK I've been out taking RM stuff for Alamy and Photoshelter.

For your 200$. Do you have softboxes? It can be very useful in case that your light tent is too small for a subject.

I've got some very old Phototax Interfit tungsten lighting