From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of David Riecks Sent: Monday, May 10, 2004 8:39 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [PRODIG] Anyone know about theimagefile
If you are interested in evaluating image distributors, you may wish to check out membership in the Stock Artists Alliance (http://www.StockArtistsAlliance.org/). They have established an "agency database" this is about a year old, and has entries for all the major libraries, including contact info, summary of services, a survey by contributing members as well as their "comments" on these agencies (which can be quite telling). At 09:33 AM 5/10/2004 +0000, Nancy Coroba wrote: >>Have any one heard of theimagefile ? <http://www.theimagefile.com> I have >seen a lot of things about them in the photo press, and even had a phone >call from them. They say that they are just launched - and from what I can see on the site >that seem to offer a good deal - Nancy, My judgement would be that imagefile, a member of BAPLA, is not yet ready for prime time. The key to the effectiveness of these online agencies, or portals, is their user-friendliness, and the quality and variety of their images. I fear that imagefile falls down in all of these categories. As an example of the possible variability of its images, it accepts work from final year photography students. This is a smart move from the imagefile's point of view but these photographers quite likely do not understand what makes a strong stock image. While the work of some of these photographers may, indeed, be excellent, it is likely to be very variable in quality. I have taught quite a few photography students in both the U.K. and the U.S. and I know how variable their work can be. For a further example of image quality: search under 'London' and a page of very blue and undistinguished aerial shots appear. Click on one aerial image, which looks more interesting than the others, and the enlarged view has a seriously angled skyline. Further, the file size for this image is 4 mgb, a size most agencies would consider to be unusable. Sure, storing images of this size is a darned sight easier than housing the 50 mgb images and up demanded by most agencies-Photonica demands images of 100mgb from its contributors. Imagefile suggest that if needed the photographer can provide a bigger file, and he almost certainly can, but what will be the underlying quality of the image, since I suspect imagefile will not have been able to properly evaluate image quality from a 4mbg file? Alamy.com, for example, demands of all submitted images that they be scanned at a minimum of 48mgb, and be examined at 100% for dust, hairs, etc. Sorry, I don't think this one will fly... Brian Seed Chair, Stock Artists Alliance Agency Evaluation Committee. www.stockartistsalliance.org =============================================================== GO TO http://www.prodig.org for ~ GUIDELINES ~ un/SUBSCRIBING ~ ITEMS for SALE
