JeffGreenberg

me new QPQT (quick process quick tag) strategy

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
quick process-tag strategy: first (429) results have gone live...
 
new backlog avoidance scheme to cut down a wasteful aspect of regular shooting;
assumption: better to have backlog auto-processed initially-tagged & online for licensing,
at some later date more detailed processing & tagging; proof of worthiness in $$ results...
these (429) would not be offered for months due to increased travel time; another (~1200)
currently undergoing quick-process-tagging (being edited down from 3300);
a pending trip will produce another ~1500 edited down to ~600+, get the idea?
BACKLOG BACKLOG AND MORE BACKLOG!!!
RAW processing, same setting ALL images, then quick skimming for WAY off
exposures & white balance & high ISO fixes; 16bitTIF==>JPGs27MB total auto-action;
still check all JPGs27MB @100% to delete QC-failers...
 
Seeking related comments-advice on (429) which should be first to appear here:
(first 4 pages set to 120/page)  120288 (at back end are 77 RF, first since 5/2005)
Am aware there are some artificial lighting images way too yellowish...
Thanks in advance...
Edited by JeffGreenberg
after further thought

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Maybe get yourself a gray card and shoot for each scene so you can then synchronise all shots taken in same light for very quick white balance correction, also helps with exposure of course. Your images look like the Saturation Fairy has gone wild. Biggest timesaver - get Lightroom, far quicker than messing about with Photoshop/ACR for working on batches of images.

Edited by MDM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Processing fine, don’t worry about tungsten warmth, downsizing for QC good idea. This all makes sense for high volume producer.
Saturation fairy is OK as it is North America and caters to local taste and local reality.

 

Your caption words very relevant to image, but some tags are not. Why not use only the caption words as tags as well? Do you believe the caption is as important, or even more important than tags? I think the caption will become more and more important, over tags, to the general stock photo industry search in the future.

Just look at some of the irrelevant tags from big stock producers or aggregators. Something has to give, regarding tags. Big producers and aggregators, who are now dominating the industry, do not have the resources to do tagging. New entrants from Flickr and the like, are not interested in tagging.

 

This tagging deficit is also being driven by low return per image due to low market prices.

Your future tag cleanup day may never happen. Add extra words like USA to the caption/tag and you should be good to go

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I auto process using Canon DPP. Tweak images either individually or in groups. Batch process and name. Then open each in Photoshop for dust busting, correcting horizons, boost Vibrance as required. Upload to Photoshelter. Caption and keyword in Photoshelter, FTP to Alamy. 

 

Am struggling with super tags but if I send in batches it is possible to super-tag most important shared tags such as location, main content. I assume that many others especially agencies are not bothering with super tagging.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for quick comments!

Normal processing = Clarity +20, Vibrance +35, Saturation +8, clipped colors unclipped

Fast processing = Clarity +20, Vibrance +35, Saturation 0, clipped colors ignored**

**big time saver, maybe need to take fast saturation to -10???

(but that could clearly undersaturate already unclipped colors...?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I believe Alamy said individual tags within a phrase is searchable. Whether one tag within a phrase (or in Jeff's case, a string) carries the same weight as one by itself is up for debate.

i believe all of Jeff's tags are searchable.

Betty

edited to add, the fact is that individual tags within a phrase presents erroneous results. A phrase "elephant ear plant" will cause that image to come up in a search for "elephant". :(

Edited by Betty LaRue
Text addition

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would take Saturation to 0 as it is a very blunt tool for modern post-processing. Just use Vibrance (in ACR on the raw) and add Saturation to specific images if required.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, geogphotos said:

Jeff,

 

You have some like this a sone tag:

 

 sightseeing visitors travel traveling tour tourist tourism landmark,

 

I also see some merged keywords like this with mine but don't know why it happens. I assume that none of these is individually searchable?

The merging happened when keywords were transferred automatically from the old system. You may have missed out on the extensive discussion about this.

As Betty says the constituent words are searchable, but an important word should have its own tag as well. I don't worry too much about phrases as long as images have good individual tags.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, JeffGreenberg said:

Thanks for quick comments!

Normal processing = Clarity +20, Vibrance +35, Saturation +8, clipped colors unclipped

Fast processing = Clarity +20, Vibrance +35, Saturation 0, clipped colors ignored**

**big time saver, maybe need to take fast saturation to -10???

(but that could clearly undersaturate already unclipped colors...?)

Similar to mine, I do find a bit of extra saturation helpful, but I'll add a +1 for LR- it's very quick. What with import presets I rarely spend more than a minute or two per image.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
20 hours ago, Bill Brooks said:

a. Your caption words very relevant to image, but some tags are not.

b. I think the caption will become more and more important, over tags

 

 

a. have ~25 "always" keywords-tags, a workflow time consumption

compromise, any one of which apply to over 50% of my images,

some over 80%; they appear now as tag clusters which, IIUC,

reduces their individual ranking strength down to as weak as

possible whilst still being searchable...?

 

b. easy peasy to adjust Excel doc if that happens...

 

A phrase "elephant ear plant" will cause that image to come up in a search for "elephant". :(

 

Expected, AFAIK.  But being in tag cluster lowers ranking strength of individual tags AFAIK...?

(ergo, increased chance of NOT being viewed)

In your example, if "ELEPHANT, EAR PLANT" OR "ELEPHANT, EAR, PLANT", image would

be returned higher in ELEPHANT search...?

Edited by JeffGreenberg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JeffGreenberg said:

 

 

a. have ~25 "always" keywords-tags, a workflow time consumption

compromise, any one of which apply to over 50% of my images,

some over 80%; they appear now as tag clusters which, IIUC,

reduces their individual ranking strength down to as weak as

possible whilst still being searchable...?

 

b. easy peasy to adjust Excel doc if that happens...

 

A phrase "elephant ear plant" will cause that image to come up in a search for "elephant". :(

 

Expected, AFAIK.  But being in tag cluster lowers ranking strength of individual tags AFAIK...?

(ergo, increased chance of NOT being viewed)

In your example, if "ELEPHANT, EAR PLANT" OR "ELEPHANT, EAR, PLANT", image would

be returned higher in ELEPHANT search...?

Yes, I believe Elephant within the phrase "elephant ear plant" has less importance than elephant,ear,plant.

Jeff, you are putting out an amazing number of images, and anything you do to streamline it is ok in my book. 

 

I just wonder if your face has grown connecting skin to your camera. :P

Betty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Betty LaRue said:

...wonder if your face has grown connecting skin to your camera.

 

 

No issues other than occasional camera strap burn...:o :o :o 

 

>Your future tag cleanup day may never happen.

 

Quick process-tag scheme fairly fast, will often be "caught up."

There will often be time to slowly convert quick-images to thoroughly process-tagged images.

But THAT may never get caught up...

At least those images will now have infinitely greater chance of deriving $$ vs. $000,000,000.00

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, JeffGreenberg said:

 

 

No issues other than occasional camera strap burn...:o :o :o 

 

>Your future tag cleanup day may never happen.

 

Quick process-tag scheme fairly fast, will often be "caught up."

There will often be time to slowly convert quick-images to thoroughly process-tagged images.

But THAT may never get caught up...

At least those images will now have infinitely greater chance of deriving $$ vs. $000,000,000.00

The catching up part. Cherry pick your best one or two from each subject and give those the attention first.  Wait for a rainy day or downtime (do you EVER have any?) and catch up. maybe, possibly, unlikely....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

First QPQT license today!  $89 gross.  Its a start.

How much gross, how soon, makes QPQT** worthwhile, not sure yet...

But this image would not have yet been available via me normal workflow, AFAICT...

**QuickProcessQuickTag

Edited by JeffGreenberg
upon further reflection
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Second QPQT license today!

$48 gross...

Not available yet if not for QPQT...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, JeffGreenberg said:

Second QPQT license today!

$48 gross...

Not available yet if not for QPQT...

 

NTTR = No time to reply.

 

Using micro-seconds to research micro-second saving techniques to find ways of auto-responding to time consuming discussions about saving time.

 

$48 gross potentially reduced now by $0.002 respond time.

 

Love Ya Jeff xxx

 

:D

Edited by geogphotos
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

$48 gross potentially reduced now by $0.002 respond time.

 

Touche.

 

Worrying about micro-seconds ==> eventual insanity;

Finding seconds per image compromises = common sense AFAICT = maintaining ?sanity?...

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, JeffGreenberg said:

$48 gross potentially reduced now by $0.002 respond time.

 

Touche.

 

Worrying about micro-seconds ==> eventual insanity;

Finding seconds per image compromises = common sense AFAICT = maintaining ?sanity?...

 

We've all known for years that sanity and you are only kissing cousins, Jeff. :D:P kidding....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Next step - a picture per second intervals from camera strapped to your head, automatic FTP via wifi or 3G/4G/5G. In camera jpeg processing, combined with voice commands and intermittent automatic "speech" recognition tagging and you're golden!

 

No chance of slowing down? You're putting us all to shame when it comes to efficiency/productivity!

 

PS - any chance of a vlog/video of your typical workday - would love to see it!

Edited by Martin Carlsson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're putting us all to shame when it comes to...productivity!

 

One individual contrib has 1.3M images, mostly free art AFAICT, but...

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, JeffGreenberg said:

You're putting us all to shame when it comes to...productivity!

 

One individual contrib has 1.3M images, mostly free art AFAICT, but...

 

1.3 million? 1.3 MILLION! from an individual (AFAYCT)??? 

 

1,300,000 images - at the very very least 1 minute per image from moment of ingestion, to (pre-set)edit, to upload, to keyword.... works out as;

 

1,300,000 minutes = 21,667 hours = 1805 workdays (12 hour workdays) or basically 5 years. For a normal human (not that I am), on average, still counting low, spending 30 minutes doing the same thing - that works out at 150 years.

 

I'm speechless. I'm sure one already can via wifi/bluetooth enabled camera in FTP mode and cellular hotspotting just automatically/continuously upload images into the collection straight from camera, only intermittent breaks due to shutter replacements.... Never heard about an upload limit, but perhaps there is a ceiling up there somewhere. It will be so efficient that there will be beautiful images of someone keywording the image of themselves keywording the very same image, real time stock images!

 

Wonder whatever happened to stacking? Wasn't that on the cards a few years back? When thinking about the "hazards" of an enormous collection becoming even more so, and perhaps needs a bit of taming...

 

PS - hope you get out of Irma's way, stay safe!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stacking was a nightmare. Fortunately, Alamy stopped it. I wish they would do something about the nightmare that is the new Image Manager. I guess I'm complaining too much about that but I really, really think it's a shame that we can't just have the old one with larger thumbnails and the ability to append and delete without losing work.

 

Paulette

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stacking might have worked if it had been simple to allow us to put the best one on top. Usually, that didn't happen. I guess it could have been a way to push people away from uploading marginal images.  Whatever, it didn't  work.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/31/2017 at 14:07, JeffGreenberg said:

Second QPQT license today!

$48 gross...

Not available yet if not for QPQT...

 

And #3 @$7.50 net...

Buys (1) lunch on the road

whilst on the run from Irma...?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now