M.Chapman

Verified
  • Content count

    1,320
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by M.Chapman

  1. 79 pages viewed & ZERO zooms

    Pseudos are no longer ranked individually....
  2. Type of Camera

    +1 Agreed most of my early shots on Alamy were taken with the Canon 18-85mm IS lens. A very good lens with a good zoom range. A few things to be aware of. 1) It can show enough CA to cause an Alamy QC fail at the wide end, strongly recommend you turn auto CA removal ON in Lightroom or DPP (if it has it). 2) It's quite a bulky and heavy lens (it's very solidly built with reasonably wide aperture). 3) It takes a 72mm filter so factor that in when checking pricing or negotiating a deal. 4) If buying secondhand watch out for de-centered copies. I bought secondhand and discovered (too late) that the left and right sides of the frame focussed at slightly different distances at 15mm end. I had to adjust the lens mount with a shim, then it was most excellent. Therefore, if you buy secondhand, go for some sort of warranty and, in any event check, the lens out thoroughly ASAP. Mark
  3. A request about reporting actual usage

    Yes, if Alamy were to capture this info at the time of sale and include in the sales report it would help them (if they are making a DACs claim on our behalf) or us (if we are making our own DACs claim). Simples! Mark
  4. Alamy Measures broken?

    12:00 noon UK time, databases now back in sync (at least for my test image).
  5. AIM down

    Working again here too.
  6. Alamy Measures broken?

    OK it's happened again this morning (inconsistent search results suggesting databases are out of step), so I've just sent all the details with a screenshot to contributor services. Mark
  7. It seems to be taking longer than usual for Alamy's "overnight" database updates to complete at the moment resulting in inconsistent results the next day until everything catches up and gets back in sync. You may want to give it another day. Mark
  8. Alamy Measures broken?

    Thanks. The database has now completed its update so everything's back in sync. I've made some more keyword changes tonight (to the same image) and will wait to see what happens tomorrow morning. I'll post a screenshot to contributor services if I see the same effect again. Mark
  9. Images Sold in February (Max. 1 per day)

    I took a picture of an Adder sunning itself by the North Cornish coastal path in March last year. It came as quite a surprise. I'll be uploading it before too long (still catching up on last year's pics). Mark
  10. Alamy Measures broken?

    Things seem to be behaving erratically at the moment. The search engine database isn't reliably updating overnight, and sometimes it only partially updates. This morning I have an image appearing in a particular search where the search term was removed from my keywords and caption a day ago in AIM. The term has correctly disappeared from the viewed image and its keywords in the search results, but the image still appears. It would appear to the customer like an impossible result. i.e. why has this image appeared? The search term isn't anywhere to be seen for this image. Suspect there are some gremlins behind the scenes, things aren't running quite as smoothly at the moment... Mark
  11. Type of Camera

    Any camera & lens can give soft images... it really depends how you use them I assume you have one of the Canon 18-55 kit lenses? There have been several versions of the Canon 18-55 kit lens. If you have the 1st version (18-55 USM) then I believe that could have some issues, especially when shooting wide open (max aperture). Later versions were much better. You can tell which lens you have and its performance by looking at the reviews here (scroll down towards the foot of the page for the 18-55 lenses). I had the Canon 18-55 IS Mk I (which replaced the original USM version) and it was sharp enough for Alamy when used with care, although chromatic aberration was an issue. If you're getting soft images that you wouldn't expect, then try the following. For maximum sharpness try shooting at around f/8 in good light at around ISO 200-400 possibly using a tripod. If you're still getting soft images, then try contrast detect autofocus (live view focus) as this will eliminate any front/back focussing issues that might be present in the phase detect AF. Also try checking the in camera sharpness setting. Try with IS ON and OFF to check that's working OK. Mark
  12. Good point.. and Numbers can save in Excel format (you can choose .xls or .xlsx format). Select the File>Export to... option. Owners of older Macs may still be able to get Numbers (and the other iWorks apps) for free using the free trial and then free upgrade route. See article here. Not sure if this still works, but it did for me a couple of years ago. Mark
  13. CA on front page image yet again

    Crazy isn't it. Hardly a good advertisement of quality. Mark
  14. Your Alamy sales report is downloaded as a .csv file which both Excel and LibreOffice can open. If you don't want to edit it, then you could try sending it to DACs as it is. If you want to edit it (for example to remove non-UK publications and anything that's not a book or magazine or TV useage) you can open the downloaded sales report .csv using libreoffice spreadsheet app or Excel for Mac. You can then edit it like a normal spreadsheet and save in Excel .xls or .xlsx format (or .csv format if you haven't done any cell formatting) and send to DACs. Mark
  15. Thanks, I'll be very interested in that. If you're happy to put the RAW there too, I'll see what happens when I process it in my PSE. Wise move to keep your perpetual licence LR and to save the xmp files. But... as LR CC gets updated, isn't there a danger that XMP files produced from the latest version of LR CC will contain process steps that are incompatible with the older perpetual licence version? Mark
  16. The polygonal lasso tool with 250 pixel feather is my favourite way of creating an appropriate selection of any shape/areas I chose to define. I find it's best to zoom out so the image is smaller than the screen so you can click well outside the image (if needed) to avoid feathering in the corners of the image. Mark
  17. I do use LR to process all my images, but only to do batch related processing using presets and export a whole batch (shoot) to PSD files which I then finish off in PSE. This batch processing is usually left running unattended, so there's no real time penalty for me. I agree LR is better on highlight and shadow recovery than PSE but IMHO the difference only becomes significant when larger adjustments (almost HDR) are required or if working at high ISO (which I very rarely do). Personally I'm unconvinced that LR sharpening and NR is significantly better than PSE. I have spent ages experimenting with LR (which IMHO has too many sliders/options) and in the end concluded that I was getting equivalent or even better results more quickly and simply in PSE. If LR had some sliders that allowed alteration of the amount of NR or sharpening based on the local luminance level so that shadow areas didn't need treating separately I might change my mind (PSE doesn't have this facility either, but some other programs have it). An area where I found LR excels is CA removal, so I have that built into my LR presets. I believe CA is removed before demosaicing which is really the best way. Is there a document that discloses which operations (sharpening, NR, WB, etc.) LR carries out before demosaicing and conversion into conventional colour space? This would make it clear which operations can benefit from working on RAW rather than 16 bit RGB data. Finally, I'd be very happy to pay £10 a month if Adobe didn't disable the software if you stop paying. If they had a contract term that said something like "After 12 months of continuous subscription you are allowed to cancel your subscription. You will be able to continue using the software at the Version / revision applicable at that time but will not receive further updates". What I don't want to do is to invest all my images/processing in a tool that I have to keep paying for indefinitely. I refuse to be held to ransom by Adobe. £10 a month mounts up. If they changed the subscription terms I'd consider converting more of my workflow and image organisation into LR. But as it stands... there's no chance. Apologies if I've misunderstood anything. Mark
  18. Helloooo, anyone home?

    Search engine database doesn't seem to have updated for a couple of days now. New images which I tagged on Sunday are still not appearing in search results, nor are changes made to tags on older images.
  19. May not be on a RAW file but I do make adjustments on the 16bit TIFF or PSD and can make all the adjustments you mention. I agree LR6 tends to make slightly cleaner job on lightening deep shadows and is sightly better at recovering highlights than my ageing PSE8... Nevertheless, for most of my images I'm very happy with the results in PSE. Mark
  20. It's pretty easy to generate a similar effect right back to the early versions of PSE using a well feathered selection mask. Mark
  21. Ignore discoverability and also see the Alamy help video here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_DeGewd73uw It takes 24 hours for image at actually go "on sale" (database updates overnight). Mark
  22. AIM - filters and a search term

    +1 It would also be very useful when keywording new images (that aren't yet on sale) by allowing us pull up earlier images of same or similar subject so keywords can be copied between them. Mark
  23. Oh... Mine was done with 2 main steps. A LR preset (adds a bit of vibrance and applies X-Rite Passport calibration profile for my camera) which I apply to all my images automatically followed by opening up the shadows and foreground and reducing highlights in PSElements. I probably used a mask, to localise the adjustments, but I thought it was a good example of going from pretty unsaleable to saleable. I could show some more extreme cases (replaced sky etc.) but thought I'd stick to the processing of a single image. Mark
  24. Here's my before and the after (which has sold) Mark