Failed submissions - non-discrimination

[spacecadet]

There's always been a sanction for QC failure. That's not new either.

[MDM]

33 minutes ago, Colblimp said:

 

I appreciate some older cameras don't cut it any more, but banning someone because of the camera they use is childish and pathetic.

 

He hasn't been "banned" for the type of camera he used, he has been penalised for multiple QC failures (read back this thread), one of which is  Digital camera not suitable for Alamy. He has also failed due to SoLD and over-manuipulation (I'm presuming) according to his earlier posts. A 10 day penalty is not such a bad thing if somebody is serious about submitting to Alamy -  it should help tt focus the mind among other things. It is clear from this and another thread about JPEG sizes that the OP is not entirely knowledgeable about various aspects of the technical side of digital photography so it is perhaps not surprising that he is failing. Hopefully he will learn by his mistakes - always a great way to learn when they are not fatal.

 

[Darkstar]

Hi

 

The comments were : 'soft or lacking definition and camera not suitable for Alamy' 

 

These are the facts and you have all made good points about the limits of cameras back in the 'old days'. My first camera was a Box Brownie! My first photo was of a Robin in the snow when I was seven years old and that was 64 years ago!  I have had many cameras over time and even used to operate the Linotronic Imagesetter for the printing plates for Mac User Magazine - look how things have changed!

 

This photo looked very sharp on screen - I've been trying to upload it to show you but I can't find how to make an attachment to the post as it just says there is no attachment to post and it does not link to my files.

 

The photo is of a unique silver cash register used in a shop in the Lofoten Islands, North Norway which I took on 27 July 2009 using a Sony DSC W210 camera with a file size of 4000 x 3000 pixels at 72 dpi.

 

I am just going to be patient and ask for permission to upload historic shots. I have a shot of a Norwegian typewriter dated 1920 and that is one heck of a weird machine!

 

Thanks to all for your concern and support remarks. As usual the other 49 shots got dumped - some of them are amazing - dried fish with gaping mouths and huge teeth - good old Norway  - I lived there for three years.

 

David

[Darkstar]

12 minutes ago, MDM said:

 

He hasn't been "banned" for the type of camera he used, he has been penalised for multiple QC failures (read back this thread), one of which is  Digital camera not suitable for Alamy. He has also failed due to SoLD and over-manuipulation (I'm presuming) according to his earlier posts. A 10 day penalty is not such a bad thing if somebody is serious about submitting to Alamy -  it should help tt focus the mind among other things. It is clear from this and another thread about JPEG sizes that the OP is not entirely knowledgeable about various aspects of the technical side of digital photography so it is perhaps not surprising that he is failing. Hopefully he will learn by his mistakes - always a great way to learn when they are not fatal.

 

 

This is not completely true. What happened is that I wrote to the Contributors desk asking if I could upload my art and they wrote back saying yes, so long as you have full copyright.

I take shots of tree bark, sand and stones on UK beaches, spiky bushes in the Oz outback etc and re-colour them to make what I feel are amazing backgrounds in an artistic way. I have had my art photos rejected despite their agreement that I could upload them. Obviously ti went wrong because they didn't know what kind of stuff I do.  I have given up uploading my art but I';m still very proud of the images.

 

Here is their message:

Hi David

 

We do accept photographs of paintings but you need to make sure you own the copyright of all the paintings you are photographing or you have permission from the copyright holder.

 

As you are the artist then you don’t need to worry about this.

 

Hope this helps.

 

Thanks,
Shelley

 

Alamy Contributor Relations

 

I am okay - it is all a learning curve - a bit like life - and something about a box of chocolates... cheers D

 

[tarsierspectral]

12 minutes ago, Darkstar said:

Hi

 

The comments were : 'soft or lacking definition and camera not suitable for Alamy' 

 

These are the facts and you have all made good points about the limits of cameras back in the 'old days'. My first camera was a Box Brownie! My first photo was of a Robin in the snow when I was seven years old and that was 64 years ago!  I have had many cameras over time and even used to operate the Linotronic Imagesetter for the printing plates for Mac User Magazine - look how things have changed!

 

This photo looked very sharp on screen - I've been trying to upload it to show you but I can't find how to make an attachment to the post as it just says there is no attachment to post and it does not link to my files.

 

The photo is of a unique silver cash register used in a shop in the Lofoten Islands, North Norway which I took on 27 July 2009 using a Sony DSC W210 camera with a file size of 4000 x 3000 pixels at 72 dpi.

 

I am just going to be patient and ask for permission to upload historic shots. I have a shot of a Norwegian typewriter dated 1920 and that is one heck of a weird machine!

 

Thanks to all for your concern and support remarks. As usual the other 49 shots got dumped - some of them are amazing - dried fish with gaping mouths and huge teeth - good old Norway  - I lived there for three years.

 

David

Ohh so the images were not up to par, and the fact that they were produced on a camera that was not approved was secondary, probably to let you know that it's your camera and not you.  If the images were "soft and lacking definition" produced on the latest, greatest model of a camera, approved by Alamy they would have failed too.  So you were banned for submitting subpar images.  

[tarsierspectral]

1 hour ago, Colblimp said:

 

I appreciate some older cameras don't cut it any more, but banning someone because of the camera they use is childish and pathetic.

The images were "soft or lacking definition".  He didn't get banned for using old camera.

[Darkstar]

Hi  - yes I was failed for subpar image on wrong camera but on screen at 100% it looks really sharp - you can read the machine keyboard and Norwegian writing no problem. I uploaded a whole range of items from that camera so they are sadly no good now unless I get special permission. They all look sharp at 100%. I am using a high spec LG monitor 24 inches wide and 18 inches high to examine the shots.

 

cheers

 

D

[tarsierspectral]

20 minutes ago, Darkstar said:

Hi  - yes I was failed for subpar image on wrong camera but on screen at 100% it looks really sharp - you can read the machine keyboard and Norwegian writing no problem. I uploaded a whole range of items from that camera so they are sadly no good now unless I get special permission. They all look sharp at 100%. I am using a high spec LG monitor 24 inches wide and 18 inches high to examine the shots.

 

cheers

 

D

Please post 100% crop of your image for us to take a look.  What is sharp seems to be subjective.  The fact that you can read something is not an indicator of an image being sharp.

[Darkstar]

4 minutes ago, tarsierspectral said:

Please post 100% crop of your image for us to take a look.  What is sharp seems to be subjective.  The fact that you can read something is not an indicator of an image being sharp.

 

Yes I have been trying to do that - there does not seem to be a way to upload it. The insert other media button does not explain how to attach anything. A previous correspondent posted a similar query a while ago but no-one replied to him. He was from the Eiffel district. He consulted help. The forum help of 2013 for the 'new forum' is no longer operating as it says the help button is not connected.

Any clues?

 

thanks

 

David

[Martyn]

You need to host the image on another site such as Dropbox and then link to that to get it to appear here.....

If you apply to Alamy for archival upload privileges they will ask to see some of the images you wish to use so they can approve or disapprove of your application so you will need to upload some to an external site anyways.....

[wiskerke]

2 minutes ago, Darkstar said:

 

Yes I have been trying to do that - there does not seem to be a way to upload it. The insert other media button does not explain how to attach anything. A previous correspondent posted a similar query a while ago but no-one replied to him. He was from the Eiffel district. He consulted help. The forum help of 2013 for the 'new forum' is no longer operating as it says the help button is not connected.

Any clues?

 

thanks

 

David

 

That is a function that's not working. It has been allowed for a couple of days when the new skin for this forum came into place.

Currently, the solution is to put your work online somewhere and link to that.

A different solution is to put a file online somewhere for download. Like on Dropbox.

 

wim

[wiskerke]

1 minute ago, Martyn said:

You need to host the image on another site such as Dropbox and then link to that to get it to appear here.....

 

Afaik Dropbox applies it's own sharpening when you link to it. It's ok for download.

See this post and further on in that thread.

 

wim

[Darkstar]

here it is: https://www.dropbox.com/preview/Lofoten Islands - Norway - Historic Cash Till.jpg?role=personal

[Darkstar]

Well I put it into Drop Box but you can only see it if you click on the hyperlink because the Alamy bit goes pink but does not insert it into the  text box.

Thanks for being so patient with me.

 

https://www.dropbox.com/preview/Lofoten Islands - Norway - Historic Cash Till.jpg?role=personal

[Darkstar]

Here's the fish - to compare sharpness (of image - not teeth!):

 

https://www.dropbox.com/preview/Lofoten Islands - Norway - Dried Fish (1).jpg?role=personal

[wiskerke]

38 minutes ago, Darkstar said:

Here's the fish - to compare sharpness (of image - not teeth!):

 

https://www.dropbox.com/preview/Lofoten Islands - Norway - Dried Fish (1).jpg?role=personal

 

I'm afraid you have to create a link rather than copy the link from your address field.

Click on Share next to your image; click Create a link and click on Copy link.

 

wim

 

edit: missed a step

edit2: just to be complete: the Share button is visible when you hover over the name of the file.

[Darkstar]

okay thanks

 

then

 

Ancient cash register is:  https://www.dropbox.com/s/3pukkteefy99y28/Lofoten Islands - Norway - Historic Cash Till.jpg?dl=0

 

and fish teeth is: https://www.dropbox.com/s/e1jld2gc0ftq68l/Lofoten Islands - Norway - Dried Fish (1).jpg?dl=0

[mickfly]

21 minutes ago, Darkstar said:

okay thanks

 

then

 

Ancient cash register is:  https://www.dropbox.com/s/3pukkteefy99y28/Lofoten Islands - Norway - Historic Cash Till.jpg?dl=0

 

and fish teeth is: https://www.dropbox.com/s/e1jld2gc0ftq68l/Lofoten Islands - Norway - Dried Fish (1).jpg?dl=0

Nothing pin sharp on the fish photo, looks like slight overall movement blur, also bad CA on the image, and although the Cash register looks better I can see CA in that also.

The archive route may be the best, but you would need to fix the CA and not send blurred or soft images at all.

[MDM]

The cash register is partly sharp - you have used too wide an aperture (f 2.8) so the depth of field is too small to get it all in focus. However, the greater problem with this image is that it there is horrendous colour noise and the image is very pixellated. Unless it is of great historical interest, I would suggest binning it as far as selling is concerned.

 

The fish is completely out of focus - definitely SoLD (soft or lacking definition) as well as being totally washed out in the bright areas.

 

If you can learn from books, I would suggest you get a good book about raw processing such as Martin Evening's Lightroom Book. Your question about pixels deteriorating with time (impossible) as well as your not understanding that raw images cannot be modified from an earlier interaction with me suggests you do need to learn some basic stuff about raw processing which would undoubtedly greatly improve your photography. Technical skill taking and processing images is extremelyl important when using a high MP camera such as a D800.

[wiskerke]

I'm afraid in both there's quite a lot that Quality Control doesn't like.

Blown highlights; lots of CA; color noise; smearing of luminance noise in the low contrast somewhere in the process.  I'm assuming these are jpgs not RAWs.

The fish has some motion blur.

With a lot of work on the noise and sharpness, if this was a really important image, with no contenders you should be able to get that cash register through.

Not sure why only the center has some sharpness though. Probably a really bad lens. The sides of the register should be well within the plane of focus at 2.8 for such a small sensor. It must be the equivalent of f8 for 35mm. But the image quality there is really poor if you compare it to the passable center. Extreme field curvature probably.

 

I would bin them both.

-1044 images for Norway dried fish on Alamy

-1176 images for old cash register on Alamy

 

wim

[Darkstar]

Yes thanks to all. I know two things - one I have a lot to learn compared to all of you and two I love photography and will never give it up.

 

So is this the best book for Lightroom? : 

 

Lightroom Transformations: Realizing your vision with Adobe Lightroom plus Photoshop Paperback – 11 Apr 2016

Amazon Prime ?

 

or this one:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[MDM]

I was suggesting the Lightroom 6 book as the LR Classic CC book, which is the updated version, is not released yet. It is really a very good reference manual covering theory and practice of processing raw images in LR. I would say there is no need to wait for the new book as there is not a lot new in LR Classic CC that you can't pick up from a tutorial.

 

The Lightroom Transformations: Realizing your vision with Adobe Lightroom plus Photoshop I've not seen but it is more about exploring different ideas as far as I can see - probably worth a read as Martin Evening is basically brilliant but not what I was intending.

 

Scott Kelby's books are also very good in general - more practical tuition than reference but I've not seen his Lightroom ones. Jeff Schewe's The Digital Negative is also excellent.

[Colblimp]

I don't care what David was banned for, he shouldn't have been banned at all!  Banning a new contributor isn't going to make them feel very welcome, is it now?!  If I'd had QC failures in my early days and had been banned, I would have told Alamy to f**k off and not bothered any more.  So what if he's had a few QC failures, is banning him going to help?  Of course not!!!

[gardenbush]

I agree with Colblimp - banning to me seems archaic and fulfills nothing...as there is a qc process, all images that do not meet the criteria should be rejected...but to be put on the 'naughty step'? Silly I think and Alamy misses out on potential future sales during the banning period...

[tarsierspectral]

18 minutes ago, Colblimp said:

I don't care what David was banned for, he shouldn't have been banned at all!  Banning a new contributor isn't going to make them feel very welcome, is it now?!  If I'd had QC failures in my early days and had been banned, I would have told Alamy to f**k off and not bothered any more.  So what if he's had a few QC failures, is banning him going to help?  Of course not!!!

what is this? kindergarten?