Save 15% On Excire Foto Software With Code: EXCIRE-EP

Stock photography


theorderingone 17 2.4k
12 Aug 2004 9:39PM
Does that ,mean Alamy would accept my 26Mb scans?
Or do they only accept lower than 48Mb if it's digital?
UserDeleted 18 3.6k
12 Aug 2004 9:46PM
Scans have to be at > 48MB and cannot be interpolated.

I think this restricts you to using a > 4000dpi scanner.

Mike
theorderingone 17 2.4k
12 Aug 2004 11:04PM
Marvellous!
Can't afford a Dslr or a top spec scanner!
It can be a bit elitest this photography malarchy can't it?! :C
browne 17 127
12 Aug 2004 11:24PM
Have any of you actually sold anything on Alamy? I just joined and was wondering. Also how often do they send their photo 'wanted list'.

Out of 129 images I've seen sales of 1 picture 5 times and 5 others one time each. It took 12 months before anything sold, then sales were consistent (1 a month) for 10 months ending May 2004.

I've had one cheque for 250 and there's 110 in the pipeline which needs to reach 250 before I get paid again.

Some contributors appear to be doing very well. A number of Americans, see groups.yahoo.com/group/AlamyContributors/, sound like they're achieving up to six-figure sales.
UserDeleted 18 3.6k
13 Aug 2004 2:54AM
Gary,

There are plenty of stock agencies that still take original transparencies that you could submit your images to, at no additional cost than film+processing.

Check out the BFP handbook (15) or the BAPLA website for more information.

As for Alamy and elitism. You are looking at 450 for the scanner - hardly elitist, if you are serious about stock photography.

You have to remember that stock photography is still a professional photographers means of income - it isn't just there to serve the casual amateur who fancies making a few pounds on the side with no outlay.

With over 500 images on Alamy you could expect to make in excess of the outlay every year - alllowing for tax that would pay for itself in 2 years - less if you can depreciate the hardware against the profits. Many of the professional stock photographers contributing to the forum mentioned have > 12,000 images on Alamy....soome in other agencies have > 100,000.

Photography isn't elitist - in fact it is one hobby that allows you to achieve great results with a limited budget, and often compete (in terms of image quality) with others who have more expensive equipment. You couldn't do that in many other hobbies - particularly some of the sports....

However, if you are going to be a professional then you need to be able to invest and take risks. That's not elitist - it's just business.

Mike.
FrankThomas 18 2.8k United Kingdom
13 Aug 2004 7:17AM
Of course you could always go up to MF - you can scan a 6x7 slide on a 3200dpi flatbed and it will be waaay over what Alamy's minimum spec is - I know, 'cos I did it with my first CD, the second CD is interpolated images from my S602 so we'll see if they are accepted or not.
theorderingone 17 2.4k
13 Aug 2004 5:11PM
Cheers Mike!

I do understand fully how hard you pro guys work, I didn't ever imply that I could casually send some bog standard scans of casual snaps to a stock library and expect to make money. That would make me a real dullard and I'm only a bit thick! ;D

I do however realise that if and when the hard work I am doing at the moment ever allows my ability to reach that of a pro like yourself, I'm going to have to be earning a damned sight more than I do at the moment and clear the lagoon of student debt I'm wading though! (a 450 scanner would still take me two months to save for even if I had absolutely no outgoings, and locked myself in a box for those two months except to work!)

My comment was made because I think it a bit strange that they will accept a 17Mb file from one ting but not another.
Is a 17Mb file not a 17Mb file whatever youv'e used to produce it? How can it be of acceptable quality from digital, but not scanned from film?

I'm not ranting really, as I'm sure there must be reasons I do not understand yet, I'm just a bit confused by it, that's all!
FrankThomas 18 2.8k United Kingdom
13 Aug 2004 6:34PM
I think the reason for the difference is that in order to get a 48Mb file from a digital camera, you are talking serious amounts of cash, Either an EOS 1DS or a PhaseOne/Imacon/Sinar digital back ( 20K upwards)

This means that you can interpolate from a camera but you should be able to get sufficient size from a scanner without interpolating. I realise this isn't true for all scanners/film size combinations but it does explain why they say what they do
Badger 19 4.7k 20 United Kingdom
13 Aug 2004 7:09PM
The Fuji S2 Pro produces a 12Mb Raw file, when that is converted to a 16-bit TIFF it produces a 69.5Mb file. An 8-bit TIFF is 35Mb.
This is partly due to interpolation done in camera, as selecting RAW automatically sets the output resolution to 12 million pixel.

I plan on submitting a CD of images to Alamy, and possibly a few other companies, so am watching this thread with interest.
Matt
browne 17 127
13 Aug 2004 7:43PM
Alamy publishes guidelines for all to see:

Alamy Contributor FAQ's
agoreira 18 6.0k Wales
13 Aug 2004 9:42PM
"The Fuji S2 Pro produces a 12Mb Raw file, when that is converted to a 16-bit TIFF it produces a 69.5Mb file. An 8-bit TIFF is 35Mb."

Your submissions to Alamy should be 8 bit. So you need to interpolate a bit more.

"Images should be scanned at the highest bit depth but then converted to 8 bit before submission."

Frank W
Badger 19 4.7k 20 United Kingdom
13 Aug 2004 10:20PM
Thanks Frank, I hadn't looked at the Alamy site properly, looks like I may have to invest in GF or similar software.
Matt
phil beale 18 1.5k United Kingdom
13 Aug 2004 10:27PM
I've been reading the threads on here with interest on stock photography, but I do have a couple of questions.

What are the differences between licensed and royalty free and which is the best to chose for someone starting out? Someone has said they make more money with work that is licensed so why offer your work royalty free.

In the details on Alamy site it refers to property and model release. Looking at some of the shots on the site most people answer NO does this mean the photos are not as saleable I'm mainly thinking of places like Corfe castle and other famous landmarks. As would a company purchasing them not be able to use them without permission of the landowners.

Hope someone can clarify the above points

Phil
UserDeleted 18 3.6k
13 Aug 2004 10:45PM
Gary,

It's not immediately obvious from the submissions guidelines but there are reasons.

An original digital file can take the interpolation to 48MB - apart from some dust spots the image is clean. 17MB is the minimum recommended input size - all output digital or slide - for colour images is 48MB.

A scanned slide contains more artificats - dust, scratches, hair etc and Alamy have decided that you can't interpolate it upto 48MB and retain quality.

For both you have to meticulously clean them before submission....

Mike
theorderingone 17 2.4k
14 Aug 2004 1:30AM
As I do anyway.

Thanks for clarifying that, it makes a little more sense now, although I have happily interpolated my cleaned scans way beyond 48Mb before now (in an attempt to see how far I could push it)

I suppose rules are there to iron out those images this doesn't relate to though.

I suppose there may be room for arguement as towhether my interpretation of 'acceptable' meets tat of Alamy though. I suppose only Alamy could answer that, but they wont because my scans aint big enough!

Poo!

Sign In

You must be a member to leave a comment.

ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.

Join For Free

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.