|
I've just started using Alamy - UK-based though they price in Dollars, and their pricing and licensing look okay.
Posted 53 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I've been using Alamy for a few months now and haven't sold anything. That said, I've heard you need several hundred images before you can hope to sell anything. I've got about 40 so I'm not too upset about it. :-)
They are, however, very slow to approve images (currently taking between 3 and 5 weeks). Apparently they're due to improve this, so we'll see.
As for international agencies, do a search through the discussions and you'll likely find quite a lot of information.
Originally posted 53 months ago.
(permalink)
Yolise edited this topic 53 months ago.
|
|
thanks guys, i've just registered for Alamy so we'll see how that goes. Other suggestions welcome though!
Also with the pound so low against the Euro is it better to take payment in Euro's do you think? hmm.
Posted 53 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
www.photographersdirect.co.uk
They're more like an introductions agency, putting clients in contact with photographers. Haven't used them myself but a friend has and has had some nice payouts from it.
Posted 53 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
thanks Steve, that site looks quite interesting. I'll check it out at length when I get back home tonight.
Posted 53 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I'm with Photographers Direct as well, as it happens. They send out emails looking for specific images almost daily. Customers tend to be textbook publishers more often than not, so rates aren't huge, but if you've got a good stock of imagery (wildlife is particularly popular), it could work out really well for you.
Posted 53 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Alamy are well-established and still growing. If you fancy a US presence too you could also try new kids on the block Photoshelter Collection. They're just starting out but have generated quite a buzz.
For Scotland specific stock, there's Scottish Viewpoint.
Posted 53 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I've been with Alamy for 4 years, and have a couple of hundred images with them. I've made no more than a couple of grand, but then I've only ever seen stock library work as "pocket money" rather than a major source of my income, preferring to stick with comissioned editorial work.
Like any agency they have their own quirks - in my opinion the worst is their complete lack of aesthetic quality control. As long as your image is 48MB and sharp it'll go in - even if it's utterly unsaleable, bland as f*ck and very, very boring. This makes their boast of "10+ Million images" a little hollow in my book.
All the guys I know who make any serious money out of stock shoot stock full time. They study what the market needs, then go out and shoot things specifically for it, and spend a lot of money on it too. By treating it like a full time job I've known people make a very healthy living from it. The flip side to this (as I've proved) is if you only treat it casually it'll only ever be a small sideline.
Posted 53 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
thanks folks! keep the advice coming. some good comments so far.
at the moment it's just for a bit of extra income but if it starts doing okay i'll hopefully let it take over my life until i get to the point that i can become fully self-employed.
Posted 53 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
If you're doing Alamy, make sure you don't upload batches that have more than a few images in them. If they reject one, they reject the whole batch and when approval takes as long as it does, that can be very annoying.
Some people seem to have a really hard time with their file size and sharpness requirements for some reason. I've only had an image rejected once and that was just because I uploaded the wrong one by mistake. Like Photosmudger says, they're not fussy, but it can still be frustrating if you've waited 4 weeks for 10 images only to have them all rejected.
Posted 53 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I have a hard time with Alamy's requirements because they are complete nonsense, as anybody with the vaguest understanding of file sizing would understand. To say 48MB is meaningless as any file format involving compression (i.e. JPG) will vary its filesize according to the level of detail in the photo.
To say for instance a minimum of 3500 x 2250 pixels saved at maximum JPG quality (12 in Photoshop), and at original native resolution (not rezzed up), is meaningful, and files specced like that would be a whole lot more use to designers and editors than some piece of shit that's been uprezzed just to match Alamy's spec.
Posted 53 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Basically they want a 48Mb uncompressed image. For me, that usually works out to a 5100 x 3300 pixel image or larger. They can't specify a specific pixel size because formats vary. They do say that it should be the highest jpeg quality (i.e., 12 in Photoshop). They also check for up-resolution artifacts and will reject images that have them.
It makes perfect sense to me.
Originally posted 53 months ago.
(permalink)
Yolise edited this topic 53 months ago.
|
|
|
It's really not nonsense but is widely misunderstood.
The 48MB requirement is for the uncompressed filesize, not the compressed (jpeg) filesize .
48MB uncompressed is around 5200 pixels in the long dimension for an uncropped capture from DSLR with a 3:2 aspect ratio sensor (after upressing).
Originally posted 53 months ago.
(permalink)
Schemie Radge edited this topic 53 months ago.
|
|
|
Pipped at the post by Yolise.
Posted 53 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Yours was better explained. :-)
Posted 53 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Alamy is still microstock isn't it. I kinda hold to Dave's initial post that microstock is really not the photographer's friend.
Posted 53 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Alamy definitely isn't microstock. Price up an image and see what they quote you...
Originally posted 53 months ago.
(permalink)
Schemie Radge edited this topic 53 months ago.
|
|
|
"For me, that usually works out to a 5100 x 3300 pixel image or larger. They can't specify a specific pixel size because formats vary. They do say that it should be the highest jpeg quality (i.e., 12 in Photoshop). They also check for up-resolution artifacts and will reject images that have them."
OK, thanks, that explains things, except for who has a camera that has anything near this native res? 1Ds mkIII owners? If uprezzing is verboten, that seems to rule out anybody using less than medium format digital or the most expensive 35mm format cameras. I'd be surprised if 5D or 1Ds mkII or 1D mkIIn owners weren't allowed to join the club, but this requirement of Alamy's has been around for a long time, so who exactly has been supplying their un-rezzed images and from what? Medium format film scans?
PS, correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought I once read on Alamy's uploading FAQs that they accepted, indeed positively encouraged, uprezzing to meet the filesize requirements. Which makes me wonder if they own shares in Genuine Fractals ;)
Originally posted 53 months ago.
(permalink)
SteveFE edited this topic 53 months ago.
|
|
|
Upsizing is not forbidden (except in scans), however artifacts from badly executed upsizing will lead to QC failure. I think that's what Yolise was talking about.
It's all here
Posted 53 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Uprezzing is not verboten. In fact, one of the advanntages of Alamy is that they don't care if you up uprez, as long as it looks OK.
That said, I haven't found a way (yet) to uprez my images without nasty artifacts. I posted about it in the Nikon D80 group (that's my camera) but didn't get too far - unusual for that group! I may buy Genuine Fractals, but haven't decided yet.
I am submitting to PhotoShelter. Had images approved last week, need to finalize them for sale.
Posted 53 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Heh, I was just this second looking at that page Schemie.
All I can say is that iStock explicitly state that they reject for uprezzing (and their mods seem pretty good at spotting it too), regardless of how it's done, which seems somewhat more professional than Alamy's approach.
As regards the wider question, I'll just say that iStock and their ilk have been the saviour of a lot of small print and design shops, giving access to good stock images for prices that their clients can afford. It's all well and good photographers moaning about microstocks destroying the industry and what have you, but the facts of life are that there's a real market for low-priced but good quality stock. iStock contributors who take it seriously and work their portfolios hard with good images (I'm specifically excluding myself here, as mine are uncommercial crap with no people ;) can make serious money at it. Lazy bastards like me will only ever make pocket money.
Posted 53 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I should add that I subscribe to Picture magazine and according to an interview with several art buyers, they all search Getty, Jupiter, Corbis, and....Alamy. Alamy is by far the most accessible of all these.
I agree with the comments made about the lack of aesthetic controls on Alamy, but the fact that it is searched by so many makes it very appealing.
Posted 53 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I have a D50 and so have to up-res quite a lot, but I do have to be careful as not all images lend themselves to it. I use Photoshop, bicubic, as they recommend.
Posted 53 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
No, Alamy certainly isn't the best stock resource out there, but if you don't want to do microstock and you're not of the calibre of the bigger agencies (like me), then it's an option.
As a designer, the prices are reasonable, and there are some good images, so it's an option from that perspective as well. They certainly wouldn't be my first port of call if I had proper money to spend.
Posted 53 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Exactly, Yolise. I think Alamy has a lot of things to recommend it.
I have been a customer of Alamy's and other agencies in the past. Alamy has very good customer service, which does make a difference in terms of repeat business. I liked to buy from sources that I enjoyed working with and that were willing to make my life easier. I'm very glad to have had it as a resource.
One thing I did notice as a buyer was that many photographers are using Alamy, Photographer's Direct, Digital Railroad...the list goes on and on...for exactly the same images. It gets frustrating to see the same images everywhere. Of course I had to make sure I got them to match the best price out there. I understand the temptation to get your images into as many outlets as possible, but I don't think it's a great long-term strategy.
The appeal of smaller stock agencies is that they shouldn't have the same old stuff you see everywhere else...that's not as true as it used to be.
Sorry if I've digressed!
Posted 53 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Well, it sounds like good advice to me.
I only put a few images on PD and use it more to get their emails (the ones looking for specific images), but they're not the same ones I put on Alamy since that seemed a little unfair to me. I suppose I shouldn't be worrying about what's fair for the agency, of course!
Posted 53 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
this thread's really generated some decent discussion. i like this group :)
i kinda agree about the same images appearing on different sites. i'm worried about submitting pictures to smaller agencies who then submit them to bigger ones. for instance i'm applying to scottish viewpoint who also submit their pictures to alamy and i'm going to contribute my own pictures to alamy. now if i submit the same pictures to both libraries will they end up appearing twice on alamy? if i submit different pictures will there be a discrepency between the amount i earn from pictures sold direct through alamy and those sold via scottish viewpoint and submitted to alamy by them? it's all very confusing.
i think i'm best just to submit them first and see if they actually sell first.
Posted 53 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Scottish Viewpoint should most definitely NOT resubmit YOUR photos to anybody else. They're your copyright and nobody else's. Only you should decide where they end up.
Posted 53 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
i don't know the ins and outs of it but from my brief sojourn on alamy's site today there was definitely pictures there submitted by scottish viewpoint as an agent. i guess they try to maximise the sales opportunities but don't know how it affects percentages.
i should probably ask scottish viewpoint i guess.
Posted 53 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
what's the matter with the search function?
75 "stock photography" results:
flickr.com/search/groups/?w=93559805@N00&q=stock+phot...
Posted 53 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Great thread, I agree :)
You should have to authorize the redistribution of your images. That happens a lot - agefotostock.com, for instance, has a distribution deal (it would seem to me) with www.superstock.com. I saw Superstock images on AGE all the time.
Read the fine print of any agreement you sign with Scottish Viewpoint - you should be able to opt out of redistribution. And yes, typically, you make less on these redistributed sales because the agency that actually sells it (Alamy in this case) would take a cut. I don't know the hard numbers, but that's how it would work in general.
Your landscapes are very nice. One agency I like and hope to work with (when I'm ready) is www.auroraphotos.com. I think they have some of the nicest travel content out there. They are not UK based, however.
Good luck!
Posted 53 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Hey Darien. We're just enjoying ourselves. Sorry if it's all been- there-done-that to you ;) I don't recall seeing threads involving redistribution before, if that's any consolation.
Posted 53 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Redistribution wasn't brought up until a couple lines ago. It had nothing to do with the orignial post, which was a typical run of the mill 'which stock agency should I submit to' question that could have been answered by a quick search. The other %90 of this thread has already been covered many many times before in many many groups.
I'll take off since I'm ruining the fun....continue regurgitating.
Posted 53 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
ah you're right enough i should've used the search feature but it didn't occur to me at the time(doh). this thread seems to be going along fine though so i'm sure you'll excuse us this once while we go over some old ground once more.
f8onmyside: thanks and that makes sense re: the redistribution. just have to make sure i read all the fine print no matter how dull it is i guess.
Posted 53 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
As anyone sold via PD? If so, how do you handle payments? Do you take the entire money in advance, and then release the high res files? Or take 50% in advance.
Also many agencies, including Photoshelter and Alamy have a "return" policy where a client could ask for a refund incase the high-res was found to be technically lacking or some such.
How would that be handeled on PD...
Posted 53 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
You're right. The thread is going fine. I really shouldn't be telling anyone what kind of threads to make... Sorry for the tone.
Posted 53 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
"i should probably ask scottish viewpoint i guess. "
That would put your mind at rest. They're very approachable.
"As anyone sold via PD? "
Just the once; you take the full amount, declare it with PD, and they invoice you for their portion (20%) at some point in the future. (Well that's how it used to work)
Posted 53 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Since it was brought up for PD, I'm curious if any of you have sold something at the PhotoShelter Collection yet? I don't have any underwear pictures, so I'm currently submitting into their "pro stock" category. I wondering if that section gets much attention, or if buyers just go there for the "cool" contemporary content. If they don't sell much classic stock, maybe my time and effort would be better invested into getting something into Alamy.
Originally posted 53 months ago.
(permalink)
Michael Nagel edited this topic 53 months ago.
|
|
Be aware that some stock agencies (I thought Alamy did this) require you to submit images exclusively to them. Not saying you cant work with other stock agencies, its just that they want to be the exclusive stock agency for particular images.
It makes sense for stock agencies to work this way and it makes sense for the photographer as well. Based off the client base of a particular stock site you can focus your photos to meet the needs of the clients. It also shows the agencies that you're committed to work with them and not just use them to make a sell. Why should they work with you if you're willing to sell the same image through another stock agency that has a lower price?
Posted 53 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Neither Alamy nor Photographers Direct require exclusivity, however, PD will drop a photographer that they find submitting to microstock agencies, regardless of the images submitted.
Posted 53 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Here's what I don't get about Alamy. They say they want:
-Minimum uncompressed file size of 48MB.
-Maximum compressed file size of 25MB.
(this is copied directly from their uploader, which looks like it ONLY accepts jpegs, i.e. compressed files.) So what is the minimum compressed file size?
Posted 53 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Am not sure Lalitree- as long as ur uncompressed file size is 48MB, it shouldnt matter what the compressed size is.
Posted 53 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Hey Schemie, how did u handle payments? U asked the client to pay in full before u sent the hig rez. OR.....
Posted 53 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
"So what is the minimum compressed file size? "
There's not one as far as I'm aware. If you take a 48mb uncompressed pic of a blank wall, it'll turn into a v small jpeg. That's not a problem.
Posted 53 months ago.
(permalink)
|
Would you like to comment?
Sign up for a free account, or sign in (if you're already a member).
|
Pro Corner: Semi-Pro and Professional Photography / Photographer /
Discuss
Feed – Subscribe to Pro Corner: Semi-Pro and Professional Photography / Photographer discussion threads