Home > Contributors > Blog

Blog

Editing and enhancing your collection

Permalink Comments (13)12 June 2007 at 14:37 by Alexandra Bortkiewicz
Posted under Advice and tips

Woman looking at photo negatives - Image A2925D © ImageState
© ImageState
If you are preparing a portfolio to sell your work, the 'less is more' approach generally works best. A buyer is more likely to remember the one or two impressive images over the other 15 mediocre ones, so best to include just the memorable ones that will linger in the buyers' mind.

Preparing submissions for your stock photography agency should have a similar approach, though with Alamy unlike some other agencies there is plenty of flexibility with what you can send. Alamy often describes itself as a market place and so contributors are encouraged to 'experiment' with different kinds of content and styles, to play that market place. We have grown on that success and become defined as an agency with more then just the mainstream offerings. Image buyers often come to us because they cannot locate the hard-to-find subjects, specialist collections or alternatives of popular subjects. Alamy do not edit submissions and likewise do not dictate what the customer sees.

So this aspect of the process is up to the photographer. Bearing this in mind, a good place to start is seeing what there is on the Alamy website in areas you are specialising - you can start 'editing' your collection even before it is shot! Filling gaps in content is always a good place to start particularly if your collection is more orientated towards the editorial markets. Picture researchers covering this market will be very specific about what they are looking for.

Imagine what your images will look like populated in a page of images on a computer screen. Graphic and easy to read images are likely to be 'pulled out' more by a viewer scanning the page then a flat toned one. In this respect, remember to check histograms and make the most of levels and curves features in Photoshop to apply the best degree of contrast, brightness and saturation to the image. This is important for all markets but particularly essential for appealing to the commercial market.

If you have been selling your collection directly yourself for some time, start with your best sellers - they have a proven track record and we can extend their shelf life by exposure to more markets and territories that provide additional sales.

If you are struggling to keyword an image or cannot visualise its usage, or did not have purpose in taking the images in the first place, the image is probably not worth submitting.

If you wish to supply us with a series of images, it is best to submit a vertical, a horizontal format and a variation with a different nuance or conceptual angle from each shoot/subject area. This is to reduce image redundancy and improve the visual quality of results when a client performs a search.

If you supply us with a series of very similar images, of almost identical compositions with only slightly different exposures; where the expression on the model is the same, or the frame has not really changed, your images are likely to appear further down the sort order. From a client perspective it takes too long to go through the options and do the edit themselves, filtering out the images they don't require. At Alamy we now only accept a maximum of 5 similar frames, however it's recommended to just send in one or two frames at the most.

On the other side of the spectrum, there are some contributors who are so rigorous in editing their collections, desiring the highest perfection to what they send, that they are very likely to omit images that will sell. It's really about trying to find the right balance and maximising the fact that Alamy can effectively access all kinds of markets globally. If you are a specialist you want to reflect the depth and breadth of the collection: primary, secondary and even tertiary tier of subject matter. If you are generalist, keep the collection lively with variety and diversity of situations, and not overloaded with similars.

Knowing what to send will become easier as Alamy release tools and data designed to allow you to analyse how well your work is performing in the market place. This will hopefully answer questions like why a particular collection is not performing so well and which is, so as to know where to best focus future efforts.

Top

Add your own commentComments (13)

  1. 12 June 2007 at 19:04 Kathy dewitt

    I have reached the point even before I photograph (if time allows) of asking myself what message is being communicated. Often keywords will spring to mind in this initial surveying of a scene or subject.

    The new tools should be so helpful in deciding which images to submit and what has the possibility of selling. Very exciting prospect.

  2. 13 June 2007 at 09:32 Stephen power

    I am someone that probably sends in too many images on a similar theme. luckily so far, I haven't sent too many to have them all rejected, but knowing what to leave out is often a puzzle for me. Can someone point me to information on the new tools?

  3. 13 June 2007 at 10:28 Ian Murray

    Agreed that a balance is needed. But there has been no feedback on image views or search criteria. The only feedback has been sales( or not). And since sometimes the most unexpected image sells achieving balance in editing is difficult.

    I've been reading about the forthcoming beta contributor 'tools' elsewhere on the internet including the British Journal of Photography site.

    Would it not be useful for all concerned to share this information with contributors at this early stage?

    Glad to see the blog back in operation.

    Ian Murray

  4. 13 June 2007 at 13:19 Pearl Bucknall

    Although I understand what Alamy is saying I also agree with what Ian has said above. I am regularly surprised with what actually sells and they are often not what I would consider to be my best images from a particular selection.
    With regards to Alamy's comment about struggling to find keywords or a use for an image I am reminded of a couple of pictures that I took in January 2006. They were very simple images of a bird table in a garden in particularly lovely light but I couldn't think how anyone would use them. I nearly deleted them but decided to submit them anyway then struggled with keywords. Two months later one of them sold for about £500. Enough said!

  5. 13 June 2007 at 14:06 William Robinson

    New tools will be really welcomed, I have had at least two images sell while awaiting deletion.

  6. 13 June 2007 at 16:45 Tibor bognar

    If you pretend to have some qualifications as a photographer you should have an opinion which is the better of any two similar images. Admittedly all such opinions are highly subjective, but you should stand up and assume responsibility for yours instead of flooding the website with zillions of nearly identical images and delegate the task of choosing among them to the poor buyer who has to wade through the mess. Alamy would be a much better place for everyone involved if all contributors considered this!

  7. 13 June 2007 at 19:20 Ian murray

    Tibor,

    I don't think anybody (not many people anyway!) wants to submit zillions of similars. But how do you know in advance where the buyer wants copy space?

    Until now all I have ever heard from Alamy is that buyers like the choice that is on offer compared to tightly edited collections. It's the Alamy business model.

    Perhaps I misunderstood the message but when I went to the Alamy meeting in London ( Nov 2006) they showed a photo which the audience was invited to criticise as being generally poor as a photo- slabs of tuna I recall- and which was then revealed to have been licenced for $10k ( was it $20k?)-What was the message behind all that?

    Regards,

    Ian Murray

  8. 13 June 2007 at 20:25 Tibor bognar

    Ian,

    I agree that Alamy's strenght is that it offers a larger variety of images than other agencies (some of whom edit way too severely). However, Alamy's weakness is the large number of very similar or almost identical images on the site. You only need to look around the site for a few minutes to see this: the best way is to look at the images of a single contributor. Put yourself in the shoes of a buyer: would you like to struggle through all these similars?

    I'm all for diversity, which is good; it's the posting of a large number of very similar images that I'm arguing against.

    Regards, Tibor

  9. 13 June 2007 at 22:38 keith morris

    as Kathy says: 'I have reached the point even before I photograph (if time allows) of asking myself what message is being communicated. Often keywords will spring to mind in this initial surveying of a scene or subject. '

    that's always going through my mind as i photograph: how can i caption this image? what's the story? what does it illustrate? what are the concepts that are being illustrated?

    after a while it becomes second nature..


    keith morris

  10. 15 June 2007 at 18:52 Rudi sebastian

    There is a simple law which unveils when you take a look at the images. The poorer the image the more similars you find of that image. Sorry to be sharp in my opinion. A bad image does not get better, if you put it 10 times in the archiv and if it would be a good image, you would not have the problem to decide. Always when i find a series of similar images and a look at the other images of the same submitter, they all look like snapshots and not very professional. Of course with exceptions.
    It is good that alamy tries to reduce this, but there is already far to much garbidge in.


  11. 19 June 2007 at 18:57 FOTOLINCS

    At random, I just entered "LITTLE TERN" in Alamy's search engine and as usual up come all kinds of 'things' that are certainly not Little tern. On page one (I didn't look further)there is ROYAL TERN, BEMPTON CLIFFS (Little Terns would never even breed here)HORSES,(I mean, what's that all about ??) and a BLACK HEADED GULL. I have even come across a pic of a chicken under similar circumstances, editors must rip their hair out.
    It is time this was stopped and incorrect id is another bigger problem, after all, if an editor needs a picture of a Little tern, he probably has no idea what one looks like so why shouldn't he choose a pic he likes, only to find it is the wrong species later on in spite of the author's caption, incorrect caption !!

  12. 20 June 2007 at 10:12 Ian murray

    I searched for Little Tern and assume that the 80+ pics out of 100 that show the same bird is more likely to be a Little Tern than the horse.

    To confirm I click on a few and tend to trust those with Latin names, accurate seeming information and keywords and especially if I recognise the photographer's name.

    If in doubt I'd probably do a search on the web - RSPB site- just to confirm.

    The apparently irrelevant horse pics show up because the description field is searchable - hopefully a time scale will be set for this to be phased out.

    With the new tools to focus searches more accurately it is counter productive to retain a searchable description field which throws up all sorts of mismatches.

    Ian Murray

  13. 03 July 2007 at 01:57 William caram

    Concerning the "Description Field"...
    I am among those that have and still do use this field as extra image/subject information..Now i know Alamy has stated that words in this field,were being accessed in incorrect searches.As a consequence the submitters may have faced an Alamy Rank Penalty ..

    Now i know that Alamy are addressing this,now has that occurred?...or are we still in transition?...

    Now i also applaud Alamy for their ongoing refining of Buyer and Contributor tools...thanks Bill

Add your own comment
Means that we require this information. We respect your privacy and store your details securely. See our privacy policy for more.
Security code picture
No picture? Reload page.
No picture? Reload page.