Can I re-submit images that failed QC?

[Ron Emmons]

I've just had a batch of 30 or so images rejected by QC, but only the first couple have reasons. So my question is this: is it OK to re-submit the images from this submission that received no comments? And if so, do I need to state somewhere that they have already been submitted before? Thanks for your help.

[spacecadet]

You can resub, but you'd better double check they're OK and that a systematic problem hasn't crept in somewhere. You don't necessarily get a reason for every defective image.

[Joseph Clemson]

You can resubmit images which were in a batch which failed QC. You just need to make sure the images you resubmit are up to QC standard before you do.

 

It is important to remember with Alamy QC that not all images are inspected, only a small proportion and the entire batch is judged on that small inspection. The onus is on the submitter to make sure all images would pass QC if that image was the one singled out for inspection. Alamy expects its contributors to work to the highest professional standards and doesn't treat them as apprentices who have to have every last image closely inspected.

 

The key thing is to decide for yourself whether the image(s) shown as failed are one-off errors which slipped through your own quality control procedures (i.e. not over-processing and inspection of every image at 100% view), or if it is a problem with the failed image which could be found  in others which were not actually inspected and could indicate you have a general problem with the way you are processing your images. In that case, study the extensive and expert advice available in these forums which have addressed at one time or another pretty will every issue a contributor is likely to encounter.

 

 

On a general point, I do think Alamy should go to greater lengths to make new contributors aware of how their QC works, because it differs from the microstock inspections with which many new contributors are familiar. It is clear from regular questions from new contributors that they are confused and sometimes angered by the rejection of whole batches of images, an issue that could be avoided if Alamy made it very clear that their QC works in the way it does. A short exam before new contributors are accepted would be a good idea in my view, which is something at least one of the pioneers of microstock used to do to make sure their incomers had read the technical stuff in their new contributor guide.

[Ron Emmons]

Many thanks for these helpful replies. I agree that it would be a big help if Alamy went to greater lengths to make new contributors aware of how their QC works. I wasn't aware, for example, that 'you don't necessarily get a reason for every defective image'. They claim that with over 50,000 submissions a day, it's impossible to view every one, yet Shutterstock receives more submissions, and still manages to review every image. I am aware that review time depends on QC history, so I'll look carefully at this batch again before re-submitting the best of them.

[spacecadet]

The QC policy is as clear as day.

http://www.alamy.com/contributor/how-to-sell-images/alamy-quality-control/?section=5

This also clearly states that not every image is checked.

SS edit for content, not technical quality. The review takes days, not hours. You can't compare the two processes.

[Joseph Clemson]

The QC policy is as clear as day.

http://www.alamy.com/contributor/how-to-sell-images/alamy-quality-control/?section=5

This also clearly states that not every image is checked.

SS edit for content, not technical quality. The review takes days, not hours. You can't compare the two processes.

 

You are right Mark, it is as clear as day, if you know that you need to look out for Alamy's QC policy and pay close attention to it. 

 

It's also clear as day from many postings in this forum and in forums elsewhere that many new contributors assume that Alamy is just another microstock agency and their QC works in the way that all the microstock agencies work. This is what people are like, and I include myself in this - we're in a hurry and we don't read and digest everything we ought to in negotiating our way though life and business.

 

Given that Alamy are very actively recruiting contributors from the world of microstock, I just feel it would not go amiss for new contributors to be asked leap a small hurdle which requires them to show they have read and digested a short document which describes the areas where Alamy is different, things such as QC, RF v RM licences, what constitutes a person for release purposes at Alamy etc, etc. It would save much anguish later on.

[MDM]

I think the Alamy guidance for QC is very clear as spacecadet says. It's extremely logical and easy to follow in my opinon. As regular forumites, it's easy to forget that this forum represents only a very tiny proportion of new contributors and it can be assumed that the vast majority of people actually have no problem with understanding QC or how Alamy works.

 

We’ll accept any image from you as long as it’s free of any technical faults is pretty clear - there is no editing for content.

 

Similarly the following is pretty clear

We’ll just spot-check a few of your images per submission
If the images we check are ok, your whole submission will pass
If we find a problem with one image, your whole submission will fail

It does not say that if an image fails that the entire batch is bad (the OP question here).

 

Anyway what better way to learn than by making a few mistakes - these are the things one always remembers.

[dustydingo]

 

The QC policy is as clear as day.

http://www.alamy.com/contributor/how-to-sell-images/alamy-quality-control/?section=5

This also clearly states that not every image is checked.

SS edit for content, not technical quality. The review takes days, not hours. You can't compare the two processes.

You are right Mark, it is as clear as day, if you know that you need to look out for Alamy's QC policy and pay close attention to it.

 

It's also clear as day from many postings in this forum and in forums elsewhere that many new contributors assume that Alamy is just another microstock agency and their QC works in the way that all the microstock agencies work. This is what people are like, and I include myself in this - we're in a hurry and we don't read and digest everything we ought to in negotiating our way though life and business.

 

Given that Alamy are very actively recruiting contributors from the world of microstock, I just feel it would not go amiss for new contributors to be asked leap a small hurdle which requires them to show they have read and digested a short document which describes the areas where Alamy is different, things such as QC, RF v RM licences, what constitutes a person for release purposes at Alamy etc, etc. It would save much anguish later on.

I think new contributors are required to leap a small (very, very small imo) hurdle that requires them to show they have read and digested the essential information: they have to meet Alamy's requirements as described. Tens of thousands of contributors have already successfully negotiated that hurdle.

 

Seriously, the number of new contributors who by their questions show they have not read any of Alamy's instructions is, by my reckoning, on the rise over the past few months, and I don't think Alamy should waste too much time spoon-feeding that particular sub-group past the initial hurdle that, again, many tens of thousands of contributors have already successfully negotiated.

 

EDIT: I do not include the OP's question in the "requiring spoonfeeding" category :-) . . . they're reasonable questions that aren't adequately covered elsewhere, and I think raising those questions and the responses received was/is quite appropriate.

 

dd

[John Mitchell]

Many thanks for these helpful replies. I agree that it would be a big help if Alamy went to greater lengths to make new contributors aware of how their QC works. I wasn't aware, for example, that 'you don't necessarily get a reason for every defective image'. They claim that with over 50,000 submissions a day, it's impossible to view every one, yet Shutterstock receives more submissions, and still manages to review every image. I am aware that review time depends on QC history, so I'll look carefully at this batch again before re-submitting the best of them.

 

Make sure that the ones you resubmit are the best technically (not just your favourites) since Alamy's QC doesn't look at content. Good luck.

[Ron Emmons]

Thanks, John, I need to keep reminding myself of this, as it seems such a strange policy. Surely images should be judged on a combination of technical quality AND interesting content?

[John Mitchell]

Thanks, John, I need to keep reminding myself of this, as it seems such a strange policy. Surely images should be judged on a combination of technical quality AND interesting content?

 

Nope, just technical quality based on their guidelines according to Alamy. It's what makes Alamy different from the other big agencies. Not everyone likes this nonjudgmental policy, but it has always made sense to me. Buyers can find images here that they won't see anywhere else. And, after all, customers should be the ones to decide what is "interesting" and what isn't.

[Ron Emmons]

I take your point, John, that customers should be the ones to decide what is interesting, but as a newbie to both microstock and Alamy (though an old hand at photography), I'm still confused by the difference between the two; I don't see it spelled out clearly anywhere. If it is, please point me there. The most obvious difference I see is that Alamy requires much bigger files, but in terms of sharpness of image, avoidance of over-processing etc, I see little difference.

 

 

The QC policy is as clear as day.

http://www.alamy.com/contributor/how-to-sell-images/alamy-quality-control/?section=5

This also clearly states that not every image is checked.

SS edit for content, not technical quality. The review takes days, not hours. You can't compare the two processes.

I don't want to be argumentative, but out of half a dozen batches submitted to SS, my only rejections have been for technical quality (soft, WB issues etc), not content, and I haven't waited more than 24 hours for a response yet. However, I don't really want to compare the two processes, just understand the differences between them. Would one of you long-term contributors to both Alamy and microstock sites care to summarize these differences in an itemized blog?

[MDM]

It's very simple. It's not about the difference between Alamy and microstock, it's about the difference betwen Alamy and most other agencies - traditional as well as microstock. Most stock agencies edit for content and technical quality.

 

Alamy doesn't edit for content (porn etc aside I think) - your images just have to meet a basic technical quality as given in the guidelines: sharp, properly exposed and meeting the minimum file size requirements etc.

 

Other agencies edit for both content and technical quality (spacecadet was incorrect in saying that SS do not edit for technical quality). The fact that you have only had images rejected by SS for technical quality does not mean that they don't edit for content. That's it basically.

[spacecadet]

I take your point, John, that customers should be the ones to decide what is interesting, but as a newbie to both microstock and Alamy (though an old hand at photography), I'm still confused by the difference between the two; I don't see it spelled out clearly anywhere. If it is, please point me there.

 

 

deleted

[spacecadet]

Thanks, John, I need to keep reminding myself of this, as it seems such a strange policy. Surely images should be judged on a combination of technical quality AND interesting content?

From the link I posted:

 

Alamy Quality Control for Images

We’ll accept any image from you as long as it’s free of any technical faults.

 

Alamy do not edit for content. How much clearer can it be?

 

and

 

After your test submission has passed:

• Send us as many images as you like as often as you like
• We’ll just spot-check a few of your images per submission
• If the images we check are ok, your whole submission will pass
• If we find a problem with one image, your whole submission will fail

[Ron Emmons]

OK, MDM and spacecadet, I think I'm clear about Alamy's technical requirements, and will look carefully at these images before re-submitting. Thanks for your clarifications.