Stock Image Help

Keith Talbot · #1 (**permalink**) 04-08-2009, 06:07 PM

Has anyone heard of or had any dealings with Akm images?

They are an american based stock image website and have contacted me via email saying they have found my website and wondered if i was interested in submitting some of my images to thier library,ive replied asking for more details.

Ive not put any of my pics with a stock image site before and was wondering if theres any do's or donts or anything i should look out for.

Thanks

Keith

big bill · #2 (**permalink**) 04-08-2009, 06:27 PM

Hello keith just had a look at there site not very impressive ,for a library that supposedly supports 50 proffessional photographers with over 40,000 pics on file they only have about 50-60 at the most for viewing on the website .
Myself never heard of them ,they do not give any idea as to how much payment you have to pay for use of an image or if looking to sell an image how much they would try to sell it for and how much the photographer would get paid .
Myself I would give it a miss but the ball is in your court but tred carefully before you make any moves

Keith Talbot · #3 (**permalink**) 04-08-2009, 07:25 PM

Cheers bill,

Ive just had a look around thier site and must admit im not impressed either,the site doenst fill me with any confidence,ive just been sent a word document from them stateing their terms,they pay 50% but they say the price varies on image,usage etc also they want the images sent to them on a cd? is that usual in todays modern world? plus of course they are in the u.s so dont think i'll be bothering to send a cd over there,

Does anyone use any other stock sites with any sucess?

acherontia · #4 (**permalink**) 04-08-2009, 10:09 PM

Alamy is a popular stock site and is used by many pros.

Be prepared to elevate the quality of your images beyond the 'usual' though.
IE - Not much post processing past the RAW stage and they will have to hold up at least 100% scrutiny. No chromatic abberations/ obvious manipulation etc etc etc..

Ghetty images are even more fussy - you'd probably have to be doing a degree in wildlife photography at Blackpool (A 'Wildie') or be an established pro to get in there. LOL

It's a hard life

Acher

Jason Green · #5 (**permalink**) 04-08-2009, 10:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by acherontia

Alamy is a popular stock site and is used by many pros

...except this isn't Alamy. It's AKM - whoever they are!

acherontia · #6 (**permalink**) 05-08-2009, 12:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jason Green

...except this isn't Alamy. It's AKM - whoever they are!

So do you put images on AKM?

I suppose you can go into who they're allied to and who they have deals with - I guess you can find out if you want to. It's all there available but I don't think this answers the OP.

Acher

big bill · #7 (**permalink**) 05-08-2009, 06:02 PM

There are a few one that I dealt with was good and they have a good site its Photographers Direct they have a wants list published every day and you can post pics onto the site ,they operate a type of fair trade system its worth a look if your interested

pressld2 · #8 (**permalink**) 05-08-2009, 07:34 PM

Seconded! My three sales have all been through Photographers Direct. I joined Alamy a few months ago and now have about 650 images with them but so far not a sniff. Still, it's early days!

Dave P.

Deer Hunter · #9 (**permalink**) 05-08-2009, 07:51 PM

Keith -- STAY WELL CLEAR - won't say no more than that

Keith Talbot · #10 (**permalink**) 05-08-2009, 07:58 PM

Thanks Bill and Dave i'll take a look,

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deer Hunter

Keith -- STAY WELL CLEAR - won't say no more than that

Thanks Deer Hunter,i presume you mean AKM?

acherontia · #11 (**permalink**) 05-08-2009, 09:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pressld2

Seconded! My three sales have all been through Photographers Direct. I joined Alamy a few months ago and now have about 650 images with them but so far not a sniff. Still, it's early days!

Dave P.

It's all a numbers game Dave - the more you have the more likely you are to sell. OH has just started to sell after around 700 on there. I've only just started putting on and am trying to diversify from just wildlife.

Ideally you need at least 2/3 thousand and 5000 to earn some. Wildlife is so very competitive these days.

Acher

pressld2 · #12 (**permalink**) 05-08-2009, 10:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by acherontia

I've only just started putting on and am trying to diversify from just wildlife.

That's a good plan - I reckon my images are at least 95% wildlife but of the three I've sold none were.

And you're right about the numbers. The trouble is it takes so long to prepare the images and even longer to keyword them afterwards. It's taken me more than a fortnight to keyword the last lot I uploaded.

The good thing is that it's not my career and I'm not trying to make it my career - I'd starve! I just want to earn a few bob to help pay for the next lens.

Dave P.

acherontia · #13 (**permalink**) 09-08-2009, 12:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pressld2

That's a good plan - I reckon my images are at least 95% wildlife but of the three I've sold none were.

And you're right about the numbers. The trouble is it takes so long to prepare the images and even longer to keyword them afterwards. It's taken me more than a fortnight to keyword the last lot I uploaded.

The good thing is that it's not my career and I'm not trying to make it my career - I'd starve! I just want to earn a few bob to help pay for the next lens.

Dave P.

It's certainly time consuming - I often wonder, if and when you start selling, how long it would take, or how many sold images would cover(considering all the previous hours put in) the attainment the minimum wage!! LOL LOL

And what about when you put 20 images on and they all fail because in a momentary lapse of concentration you put one on that that isn't quite up to scratch?

With the # of images he now has OH tends to copy and paste a lot with the keywording. Especially with repeats of the same bird. Even, say, butterflies can be partly done this way with just the relevant words to a particular species added.

To be quite honest we're not entirely sure that QC system is consistently right either. Just recently the QC has taken 5 days and images that are pin sharp have been failed for 'soft/lack of definition'.

One macro photo in particular was blown up to A1 on his college wall and a guest lecturer from Getty images (that he/the college contribute to) picked it out as an outstanding image!!! And yet Alamy said it was 'soft/lacking defintion' !!

I think perhaps their machinery/QCers may not be up to standard on macro work perhaps? Perhaps they sometimes find it difficult to cope with DOF.

Acher

Jason Green · #14 (**permalink**) 09-08-2009, 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by acherontia

I think perhaps their machinery/QCers may not be up to standard on macro work perhaps? Perhaps they sometimes find it difficult to cope with DOF.

I think I know what you mean... when I was thinking of purchasing my Opteka macro, a lot of reviews said the lens was 'An expensive paper-weight', whereas in fact I think maybe they just couldn't get used to the DoF thing, and blamed it on the object itself. The same perhaps then for GI's QC in part - a lack in having handled macro photography could leave them with not so much understanding in how it works, and the look of the resultant images. Could you upload a scaled-down copy of the work-in-question if it's been rejected, Ach?

acherontia · #15 (**permalink**) 10-08-2009, 12:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jason Green

I think I know what you mean... when I was thinking of purchasing my Opteka macro, a lot of reviews said the lens was 'An expensive paper-weight', whereas in fact I think maybe they just couldn't get used to the DoF thing, and blamed it on the object itself. The same perhaps then for GI's QC in part - a lack in having handled macro photography could leave them with not so much understanding in how it works, and the look of the resultant images. Could you upload a scaled-down copy of the work-in-question if it's been rejected, Ach?

It was definitely not Getty Images that had a problem with the image - they tend to go for more artistic interpretations.
I did give some misinformation though (DOH) - it's actually Oxford Scientific Images that OH contributes to via the college.

I'm not sure if putting on a version on of the image in question would help (because of the WAB's library size/resolution restrictions) but I'll ask when he returns from the library.
He has had quite a few macro shots accepted recently but this one was a bit of an anomaly, all considered.
Also (sorry) - OH tends to agree that Optika don't make the best of lenses - please don't shoot the messenger!!!He said it , not me

.

Acher

Jason Green · #16 (**permalink**) 10-08-2009, 12:13 PM

On to Opteka - see my WAB images, Jason Green Gallery - Wildlife Photography - I'd be interested in some comments or criticism on the lens results, please. All the latest photographs are Opteka-taken, back as far as 08/06/2009 - the flesh fly one.

I look forward to any feedback from your OH

acherontia · #17 (**permalink**) 10-08-2009, 05:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jason Green

On to Opteka - see my WAB images, Jason Green Gallery - Wildlife Photography - I'd be interested in some comments or criticism on the lens results, please. All the latest photographs are Opteka-taken, back as far as 08/06/2009 - the flesh fly one.

I look forward to any feedback from your OH

Jason OH says (quote) -

' It's not so much the equipment that's important as the person using it - although equipment can hold one back as one becomes more knowledgeable and proficient. That's why we should buy new equipment - to move on with our skills rather than expect the gear to do the job for us.
If I have a constructive criticism to offer it's that you should try to increase the DOF on some images. Although this is a subjective area increased DOF shows the skill of the photographer.
Lighting helps - on some images there is a lack of definition and noise/pixilation.'

I shouldn't worry too much - I've not long had a new macro lens and after living/breathing/seeing/assessing his macro stuff for yonks I'm finding it a bit harder than I thought to put the theory into practise!! LOL It's useful having him as regards help/criticism though.

At the risk of straying to far from the OP I'll put a couple of his on the LIs?

Acher

Jason Green · #18 (**permalink**) 10-08-2009, 05:40 PM

Thanks for getting the feedback - it's appreciated. The narrow DoF is already noted, apparently to a degree it's the lens? Not too sure. I've tried lifting it, but if it's anything other than a really bright day the lack of built-in/external image stabilisation is evident! Then, if I up the ISO beyond 400 to compensate it just degrades further anyway...

Oh, and what's LIs?

acherontia · #19 (**permalink**) 10-08-2009, 06:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jason Green

Thanks for getting the feedback - it's appreciated. The narrow DoF is already noted, apparently to a degree it's the lens? Not too sure. I've tried lifting it, but if it's anything other than a really bright day the lack of built-in/external image stabilisation is evident! Then, if I up the ISO beyond 400 to compensate it just degrades further anyway...

Oh, and what's LIs?

Re stabilisation - a tripod may help. My Sony has stabilisation in the body - not the lens and it seems to work well.
I have the same problem re light - bright days are invaluable

If it's indoor macro I can use the lighting/light tent etc but outdoors I really really need a twin light system...

LOL
I meant IL - for Image Library.
Speaking of which I've nabbed some of OH's images - most of which have gone on Alamy. The ones Ghetty liked are the hatching deathshead cater and the Deathshead cater on a stick!

Acher

Jason Green · #20 (**permalink**) 10-08-2009, 06:55 PM

Good shots Ach! So that's where your username comes from - a Lepidopteran genus...

acherontia · #21 (**permalink**) 10-08-2009, 08:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jason Green

Good shots Ach! So that's where your username comes from - a Lepidopteran genus...

Cheers - it's a bit daunting trying to be as good as that.
BTW - he has no image stabilising either as he uses Nikon D300/Nikon D60mm macro hence he has a twin light system. The macro stuff wouldn't make the stock site as often without the added advantage.

Re my moniker - It 'serpently' is that moth genus!! Short for Acherontia atropos/Deathshead Hawk Moth (as opposed to lachesis and styx) - our very favourite moth.
They 'talk' too - I use the term loosely

It's pretty scary the way they do that sometimes!

Acher