famousbelgian Posted October 9, 2017 Share Posted October 9, 2017 When I saw this, I couldn't help but ask the question - why do we worry? No doubt this image was uploaded through the "archive" route as part of a gigantic upload (just look at the total number of images for this contributor) but still, it is disheartening to see this kind of material slipping through. Image ref = KCT8F1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joseph Clemson Posted October 9, 2017 Share Posted October 9, 2017 An excess of 1.7 million images from one contributor competing with my mere 3042 would be something to be worried about IF they were properly keyworded. A quick scan of this portfolio suggests to me that few of these images will ever be seen in a relevant search because the keywording is just generic for every image and bears little or no resemblance to the content. If the images were well processed and appropriate metadata added they would represent a good addition to the Alamy library, extending its range and enhancing the reputation of Alamy as the go-to source for all kinds of imagery. It may be that someone is busy at work on this archive doing just that, but for the moment the collection looks destined to be lost in the deepest recesses of the search results. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Morrison Posted October 9, 2017 Share Posted October 9, 2017 Posting a pic by a fellow contributor, and making disparaging comments about it, is kinda "disheartening" too... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jill Morgan Posted October 9, 2017 Share Posted October 9, 2017 It is quite possible this came through the archival route as it was posted through the Germany site and full size is only 7.1 mb 1400 x 1800 at 150 dpi. Since that doesn't meet any criteria, then it quite possible is, although usually it mentions it. Or the German site is experimenting with other sizes of images for other purposes. Edited to add: It does state that it is through historical or archival images. Jill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jill Morgan Posted October 9, 2017 Share Posted October 9, 2017 2 minutes ago, Jill Morgan said: double post Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joseph Clemson Posted October 9, 2017 Share Posted October 9, 2017 2 minutes ago, John Morrison said: Posting a pic by a fellow contributor, and making disparaging comments about it, is kinda "disheartening" too... This is true, but I feel we might draw a distinction between a fellow individual contributor striving to earn a crust through their photographic skill and artistry and what appears to be a mass import of an existing archive of material on a commercial basis - I can't imagine someone has sat down with the Alamy Image Manager and brought these in piecemeal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
famousbelgian Posted October 9, 2017 Author Share Posted October 9, 2017 2 minutes ago, John Morrison said: Posting a pic by a fellow contributor, and making disparaging comments about it, is kinda "disheartening" too... John, I would normally agree with you but this to me is an example of uploading anything and everything on your hard drive with no regard or even knowledge of what is being uploaded, and that to my mind is unforgivable. This is not good for Alamy's reputation and not good for other contributors either. Anyway, it matters little who uploaded this image, the fact that it and many others like it can go unnoticed is the point. Marc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted October 10, 2017 Share Posted October 10, 2017 This is an archival image, so it never went through QC. Don't see a problem myself. Buyers have been warned that it may have imperfections (e.g. clearly visible CA, which is easy to correct). P.S. This contributor has a lot of interesting old photos. I don't see why that would be an issue either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hdh Posted October 10, 2017 Share Posted October 10, 2017 6 hours ago, John Morrison said: Posting a pic by a fellow contributor, and making disparaging comments about it, is kinda "disheartening" too... 2 hours ago, John Mitchell said: This is an archival image, so it never went through QC. Don't see a problem myself. Buyers have been warned that it may have imperfections (e.g. clearly visible CA, which is easy to correct). P.S. This contributor has a lot of interesting old photos. I don't see why that would be an issue either. +1 and nothing to add from my side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotoDogue Posted October 10, 2017 Share Posted October 10, 2017 I could definitely see this selling for Personal Use where the buyer thinks s/he's buying the object in the photo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecadet Posted October 10, 2017 Share Posted October 10, 2017 Out of itnete 9 hours ago, famousbelgian said: When I saw this, I couldn't help but ask the question - why do we worry? No doubt this image was uploaded through the "archive" route as part of a gigantic upload (just look at the total number of images for this contributor) but still, it is disheartening to see this kind of material slipping through. Image ref = KCT8F1 Out of interest, how did you find the other images? I couldn't by searching on contributor name. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pearl Posted October 10, 2017 Share Posted October 10, 2017 2 minutes ago, spacecadet said: Out of itnete Out of interest, how did you find the other images? I couldn't by searching on contributor name. Search the image number then click on contributor's name underneath it. Pearl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecadet Posted October 10, 2017 Share Posted October 10, 2017 Thanks. I never realised they were hyperlinks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Futterwithtrees Posted October 10, 2017 Share Posted October 10, 2017 "When I saw this, I couldn't help but ask the question - why do we worry? No doubt this image was uploaded through the "archive" route as part of a gigantic upload (just look at the total number of images for this contributor) but still, it is disheartening to see this kind of material slipping through." When I go to this contributors collection I see that there are hundreds of archival photos so to suggest that this particular one has slipped through QC is just not true. I may be wrong but I think Alamy know their business even if we don't and so have permitted the upload of thousands of similar type image content that even random sampling would have detected. They all didn't just slip through QC. There is obviously a market for this type of content and because you or I don't see it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Best to stick to what we know or maybe even what we just think we know and try not to discourage any one else. This particular contributor is probably laughing all the way to the bank. Me I'm still struggling to make my first sale. Any Tips Famous Belgian??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colblimp Posted October 10, 2017 Share Posted October 10, 2017 It looks to me like the contributor shoots for auction houses. Anyway, whatever about the image quality, to have 1.7 MILLION!!! images in his port means it must be worth his while. Imagine the work involved! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
njene Posted October 10, 2017 Share Posted October 10, 2017 This guy have blown through a few cameras Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
famousbelgian Posted October 10, 2017 Author Share Posted October 10, 2017 Maybe I gave the impression that I had a problem with the content or quality of the photograph ... I don't. It is the exposure card and reference number at the bottom that bothered me, the fact that someone would upload without cropping this. I, along with hundreds of other contributors, spend hours and hours inspecting each image individually at 100%, removing dust spots, correcting exposure, cropping, editing, etc. This contributor, and others like him/her, just uploads the content of a hard drive (several of them more like), job done. I could do the same as him, I have a similar number of images and the same extremely wide range of subject matter, but I would not feel able to upload the contents of my hard drives without editing. Perhaps I am too much of a perfectionist, perhaps he is right and I'm wrong. Marc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Futterwithtrees Posted October 10, 2017 Share Posted October 10, 2017 Marc, It's not really a question of who is right and who is wrong but more a question of what you want and what gives you personal satisfaction and rewards you financially. This is a market place after all. Supply and demand. What our friend does doesn't interest me at all but every man to his own. We might think that this is not the right market place for this type of content and may not even be able to imagine a use for it. Alamy does, at least up until now, and it is Alamy that decides what is suitable and marketable content with some perceived commercial value. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecadet Posted October 10, 2017 Share Posted October 10, 2017 Oh come on, there are dozens of pages of the likes of this Thousands of pages of junk uploaded over one weekend? Someone's having a larf, surely? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Russell Posted October 10, 2017 Share Posted October 10, 2017 I agree, some of the content is interesting, some I'm less sure - hundreds of pages of old music scores for example - however it looks like there are 1.7m images from this contributor with identical tags - "ancient, art, book, copy space, cover, drawing, editorial, editorial photography, historic, history, illustration, map, news, old painting, photo, photograph, stock, stock photography, textbook, vintage". I think buyers are going to be really p***** off when they search for say a "vintage map" and get 2.6M hits, or "art textbook" and get 1.6m hits including " Large jar, China, Tang dynasty, 8th century AD," or "Le Roi George V, Le General Joffre et le President de la Republique sur le front" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted October 10, 2017 Share Posted October 10, 2017 8 hours ago, Futterwithtrees said: "When I saw this, I couldn't help but ask the question - why do we worry? No doubt this image was uploaded through the "archive" route as part of a gigantic upload (just look at the total number of images for this contributor) but still, it is disheartening to see this kind of material slipping through." When I go to this contributors collection I see that there are hundreds of archival photos so to suggest that this particular one has slipped through QC is just not true. I may be wrong but I think Alamy know their business even if we don't and so have permitted the upload of thousands of similar type image content that even random sampling would have detected. They all didn't just slip through QC. There is obviously a market for this type of content and because you or I don't see it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Best to stick to what we know or maybe even what we just think we know and try not to discourage any one else. This particular contributor is probably laughing all the way to the bank. Me I'm still struggling to make my first sale. Any Tips Famous Belgian??? Images uploaded via the archival route automatically bypass QC. I don't think that there is any limit on how many you can submit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Brooks Posted October 10, 2017 Share Posted October 10, 2017 Clients buy this stuff for history books. If it is historic enough, and rare enough, image quality is irrelevant. The exposure card should be in every copied photo as a quick way for the client to obtain colour balance accurate to the original at the time of photography. Client can crop it out later When I copy anything, I always include an exposure card in the image. Its a feature and not a bug. The caption contains specific information. Caption counts in the search, so if you search for an image of “Geronimo” it will turn up because it is in the caption. I doubt if any client would search on the generic keywords like “history” all on its own. There are a lot of public and private historic collections in partial disarray. The collection could be part of an estate. It is better to publish them on Alamy, than lose them to future generations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Kuta Posted October 10, 2017 Share Posted October 10, 2017 Now I can't bring them up in a search. Are they gone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joseph Clemson Posted October 10, 2017 Share Posted October 10, 2017 4 minutes ago, Bill Kuta said: Now I can't bring them up in a search. Are they gone? No. I can still see them by finding the image ref mentioned in the OP and then clicking on the contributor name. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Kuta Posted October 10, 2017 Share Posted October 10, 2017 OK, all good now, some weird hiccup on my end. All the images of places would benefit from identification of where. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.