| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/20/2006 12:09:45 PM · #726 |
I need to get a lot more up, but out of 64 I get a sale every other month. ranging from $1000-$100 per image.
|
|
|
|
03/21/2006 12:49:16 PM · #727 |
Just curious. If you sell a picture on Alamy, is it removed from the database forever? Meaning, the same picture will not be sold again, correct?
|
|
|
|
03/21/2006 01:28:09 PM · #728 |
Originally posted by maggieddd:
Just curious. If you sell a picture on Alamy, is it removed from the database forever? Meaning, the same picture will not be sold again, correct? |
Nope, not unless you sell the copyright along with it.
|
|
|
|
03/21/2006 01:53:43 PM · #729 |
Originally posted by maggieddd:
Just curious. If you sell a picture on Alamy, is it removed from the database forever? Meaning, the same picture will not be sold again, correct? |
As Brent has said, not unless the buyer negotiates FULL and Permanent rights for the image, which isn't common, AFAIK.
When you sell an image as rights-managed (licensed) Alamy base the price to the customer on their required usage. For example, a double page spread in a magazine with a print run of 100,000 and international distribution would cost more than an 8th of a page in a magazine with a print run of 5,000 and a localised distribution. The buyers looking to use images in this way are seldom interested in exclusive usage.
However, a designer sourcing an image to be used in a nationwide or international advertising campaign may well be willing to pay more for exclusivity of use - they could either ask for exclusivity within a particular industry or full exclusivity. They will have to pay handsomely for the privelege though.
According to a travel magazine editor friend of mine Alamy will also keep track of exactly where each image has been used so that two competitor publications don't end up using the same image within a few months of each other...
|
|
|
|
03/21/2006 03:02:47 PM · #730 |
| Thank you guys! It all makes sense now :) |
|
|
|
03/21/2006 03:21:58 PM · #731 |
| I have another question. Do you guys put keywords in your image in photoshop? And if so, are they uploaded together with your pictures? |
|
|
|
03/21/2006 03:55:08 PM · #732 |
I use the Bridge application within Photoshop to add keywords into the file's metadata and they are indeed uploaded automatically into Alamy's keyword field. I also enter a title for the image into what Photoshop refers to as the Description field and this is also automatically copied into Alamy's caption field (provided the length isn't too long, I forget the limit).
|
|
|
|
03/21/2006 03:58:17 PM · #733 |
| great, I'll try that. But once the pictures are uploded to Alamy, are you able to change keywords? |
|
|
|
03/21/2006 04:20:16 PM · #734 |
Originally posted by Kavey:
... what Photoshop refers to as the Description field and this is also automatically copied into Alamy's caption field (provided the length isn't too long, I forget the limit). |
The "typical" limit for this kind of text field is 256 characters ... whatever, it's likely to be a binary multiple (256, 128, 64, 32, etc.). |
|
|
|
03/21/2006 05:06:27 PM · #735 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Kavey:
... what Photoshop refers to as the Description field and this is also automatically copied into Alamy's caption field (provided the length isn't too long, I forget the limit). |
The "typical" limit for this kind of text field is 256 characters ... whatever, it's likely to be a binary multiple (256, 128, 64, 32, etc.). |
The annoying thing is I actually spoke to a staff member about this exact thing only a couple of months ago - I wanted to check that my title would definitely go through automatically as I'd sent in 142 images on one disk so... I really didn't want to have to hand copy them all in if they didn't "take".
|
|
|
|
03/21/2006 10:37:33 PM · #736 |
Thanks.
Once again, I have another question.
How do you interpolate the images to a minimum of 48MB using Photoshop CS2?
Thanks |
|
|
|
03/22/2006 12:20:50 AM · #737 |
How paranoid is Alamy about various forms of chrommatic aberrations, such as purple fringing? Is just a little CA grounds for rejections, or are they more relaxed about it?
In general, what grounds for image rejections have you guys encountered?
Many thanks! |
|
|
|
03/22/2006 12:37:22 AM · #738 |
Originally posted by agenkin:
How paranoid is Alamy about various forms of chrommatic aberrations, such as purple fringing? Is just a little CA grounds for rejections, or are they more relaxed about it?
In general, what grounds for image rejections have you guys encountered?
Many thanks! |
I would not send them anything with "fringe". They really look for good focus, clarity and contrast WITHOUT any additional sharpening. If it is soft in any way don't sent it to them. |
|
|
|
03/22/2006 01:01:33 AM · #739 |
Originally posted by maggieddd:
Thanks.
Once again, I have another question.
How do you interpolate the images to a minimum of 48MB using Photoshop CS2?
Thanks |
I think if you look over around page twelve or so the debate begins about which method is better...
here
Originally posted by agenkin:
How paranoid is Alamy about various forms of chrommatic aberrations, such as purple fringing? Is just a little CA grounds for rejections, or are they more relaxed about it?
In general, what grounds for image rejections have you guys encountered?
Many thanks! |
A good way to get rid of the fringe is to go over it with a small desaturation brush (under dodge & burn in PS)
Good luck!
(edit- linky)
Message edited by author 2006-03-22 01:03:34. |
|
|
|
03/22/2006 01:27:52 AM · #740 |
Originally posted by oOWonderBreadOo:
Originally posted by maggieddd:
Thanks.
Once again, I have another question.
How do you interpolate the images to a minimum of 48MB using Photoshop CS2?
Thanks |
I think if you look over around page twelve or so the debate begins about which method is better...
here |
I think the most common recommendation for PS CS is to upsample in one step using the Bicubic Smoother option.
If you get seriously into these larger images, it may be worth investing in Genuine Fractals, as either a PS plugin or stand-alone program; it has the reputation of being among the best at upsizing while maintaining detail accuracy. |
|
|
|
03/22/2006 05:50:55 AM · #741 |
As I now shoot in RAW I can eliminate a lot of Chromatic Aberrations during conversion but if I am left with obvious colour fringing I will not send the image in.
I'd also ensure all images are naturally sharp and with good detail - check after resizing as not all images resize well.
The two images I have had rejected so far have been for 1) being soft and 2) being insufficiently sized - I must have cocked up the upsizing on that one.
|
|
|
|
03/22/2006 08:47:30 AM · #742 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by oOWonderBreadOo:
Originally posted by maggieddd:
Thanks.
Once again, I have another question.
How do you interpolate the images to a minimum of 48MB using Photoshop CS2?
Thanks |
I think if you look over around page twelve or so the debate begins about which method is better...
here |
I think the most common recommendation for PS CS is to upsample in one step using the Bicubic Smoother option.
If you get seriously into these larger images, it may be worth investing in Genuine Fractals, as either a PS plugin or stand-alone program; it has the reputation of being among the best at upsizing while maintaining detail accuracy. |
Thanks for that. But I am more interested in step by step instructions on how to do it in CS2 than which method is better.
Can anyone help me out? |
|
|
|
03/22/2006 09:10:47 PM · #743 |
| If your images are rejected the first time, can you still resend? |
|
|
|
04/04/2006 01:55:33 PM · #744 |
Do I want to go with Alamy Blue? Is that the most common? i am thinking so...
|
|
|
|
04/04/2006 02:10:46 PM · #745 |
Originally posted by maggieddd:
But I am more interested in step by step instructions on how to do it in CS2 than which method is better.
Can anyone help me out?
If your images are rejected the first time, can you still resend?
|
In the Image Size dialog box, with the Resample, Constrained Proportions, and Bicubic Smoother boxes checked, just increase the number of pixels in one of the dimensions until the file-size field indicates that you are over 48MB. In an 8-bit RGB flattened image (like a TIFF) this will be approximately 3300x5100 pixels.
I'm sure they invite you to resubmit if your first disk fails the QC review -- they still send me their newsletter and all, though there's not much point in my logging-in until I get a bigger camera. |
|
|
|
04/04/2006 02:16:46 PM · #746 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by maggieddd:
But I am more interested in step by step instructions on how to do it in CS2 than which method is better.
Can anyone help me out?
If your images are rejected the first time, can you still resend?
|
In the Image Size dialog box, with the Resample, Constrained Proportions, and Bicubic Smoother boxes checked, just increase the number of pixels in one of the dimensions until the file-size field indicates that you are over 48MB. In an 8-bit RGB flattened image (like a TIFF) this will be approximately 3300x5100 pixels.
I'm sure they invite you to resubmit if your first disk fails the QC review -- they still send me their newsletter and all, though there's not much point in my logging-in until I get a bigger camera. |
thank you for that.
What do you have your resolution set to?
What I've done was bumped the resolution to get the right file size. Would that not be the correct way of doing this? |
|
|
|
04/04/2006 02:21:46 PM · #747 |
Resolution has no effect until you send the image to a printing device -- it does not matter at all in this case. The only thing which affects the file size/quality is the total number of pixels -- it makes no difference if you display them at 72 dpi or 600 dpi, except for how big it looks. The data is exactly the same either way.
If you want to change the resolution so you can see how big a high-quality print would be, uncheck the Resample box first, and change the resolution to 300. Then recheck the Resample box to upsize as previously-described. |
|
|
|
04/04/2006 02:25:17 PM · #748 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Resolution has no effect until you send the image to a printing device -- it does not matter at all in this case. The only thing which affects the file size/quality is the total number of pixels -- it makes no difference if you display them at 72 dpi or 600 dpi, except for how big it looks. The data is exactly the same either way.
If you want to change the resolution so you can see how big a high-quality print would be, uncheck the Resample box first, and change the resolution to 300. Then recheck the Resample box to upsize as previously-described. |
yes, but increasing the resolution does increase the file size, so do I assume that it is OK for Alamy as long as I get the file size at least 48MB? |
|
|
|
04/04/2006 02:41:45 PM · #749 |
Changing the resolution only increases the file size if you check the resample box, because then it changes the number of pixels.
For example, if your image is ten inches long, at 100 dpi it has 1000 pixels; change the resolution to 200 and it becomes 2000 pixels and still 10 inches.
If you uncheck the Resample box and make the same change, it stays 1000 pixels but becomes 5 inches long.
L(pixels) x W(pixels) x 24bits(RGB Color) / 8(biits/byte) = file size in bytes (divide by 1000 to get KB, by 1 million to get MB)
Resolution only determines how many physical inches are covered by that number of pixels, but is no factor in determining file size. |
|
|
|
04/04/2006 02:46:24 PM · #750 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Changing the resolution only increases the file size if you check the resample box, because then it changes the number of pixels.
For example, if your image is ten inches long, at 100 dpi it has 1000 pixels; change the resolution to 200 and it becomes 2000 pixels and still 10 inches.
If you uncheck the Resample box and make the same change, it stays 1000 pixels but becomes 5 inches long.
L(pixels) x W(pixels) x 24bits(RGB Color) / 8(biits/byte) = file size in bytes (divide by 1000 to get KB, by 1 million to get MB)
Resolution only determines how many physical inches are covered by that number of pixels, but is no factor in determining file size. |
I understand that, but my question is pertaining Alamy. As long as I get a file size over 48MB, do they care how I made got to that file size??????
Message edited by author 2006-04-04 14:46:57. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 07/18/2025 08:40:23 AM EDT.
