Darkstar

Failed submissions - non-discrimination

Recommended Posts

34 minutes ago, NYCat said:

 

Congratulations on being able to go so many fascinating places. I was intrigued and started looking at your photos. Cute koalas! But I looked at the keywords and was appalled. A koala is not an eagle or a tiger. No sense working to get photos past QC if you are going to do a poor job of keywording. You seem very willing to get to work. I would suggest starting with your captions and keywords. Alamy offers lots of advice. Good luck with it.

 

Paulette

I agree. There is a red beaked bird on a nest, KG3FP2 that simply has Wildlife on xxxxxx island.

No place in the keywords is this bird identified with common name or scientific name. But there are keywords, seal, sea lion, penguin, pelican colony.

YIKES!  The image will never be sold because it can’t be found by its proper name. It doesn’t even have the tag, “bird”. But it will get a lot of views for the wrong animals listed, virtually ruining CTR. Eventually the image will sink to the back pages. 

David, did you group tag all of the images from the same shoot? 

You can group tag words like the place, but you must individually tag each animal. Only use words that fit the image. If you have an image of a bird, you must identify the bird by common and scientific names. If a seal isn’t in the image, that keyword should never be used.

You’ll need to fix captions and tags as Paulette said.

You have beautiful images. Your tags and captions doom them.

Betty

Edited by Betty LaRue

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's always nice to know where the current limits are. Not just for Darkstar, which by all means is a newbie only at posting here, but also for some of the others here, including myself.

In his case it's an iffy camera; in some cases it's iffy pp or iffy ISO or iffy whatever. Usually it's one of those babies one hates to kill bin.

So it's really helpful to show not only images that have gotten through, but also ones that have not.

For gotten through, I obviously do not mean sneaked in with a bunch of others.

 

wim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HI again

 

Yes you have once more identified things I could do to improve - all good advice. My original strategy was to get 500 fully searchable shots online to have some sort of presence and then refine them as you are suggesting. Some of my shots do have the animal and Latin classification name and others I still have to do. I will work through them over time.

 

I have been lucky to travel all over the shop as you say, but my Achilles Heel has been the cameras. The Sony is unacceptable to Alamy, the Canon is a little better and the Nikon is fine. The Mamiya 6x7 is 'slides only' so even if I had each of them scanned, Alamy would not accept them presumably because the Mamiya is a non-DLSR medium format camera and the pixels would therefore be artificially generated by a line scanner?

 

I do have an electronic slide scanner and thousands of slides - for example the Oman stuff is all Kodak slides from a non-digital camera (Yashica) but Alamy proscription would make them upload non grata!

 

Anecdote:

 

I do have one awful claim to fame. I ran a print and packshot studio for commercial leaflets, posters for several years with umbrella lights and a PMT camera for knock-downs. I used AppleMacs and Quark Xpress and did national exhibition typesetting demos for Apple. I was one of the first people in UK to have a laser printer (it cost me £4,400 at the time!!!)  I also did some portrait work (Bay City Rollers (ha!). A man came into the studio and explained that he had developed a special disposal garment for NHS surgeons - head to toe cover - and that the Americans were interested too. Could I please do the packshots for him so that he could show them to the Americans. I did all the work, he paid me. Then I read that he had been found murdered face down in a swamp in Florida! He had been conned by gangsters big time.

 

How about all of you - do you have any dodgy (but true) stories  like that?

 

cheers and all the best

 

David

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

High-res scans can pass QC but they usually need a lot of spotting work, I'm told.

However, as we've mentioned, if your images are unusual or unrepeatable, as opposed to just old, Alamy may grant access to the archival route which bypasses QC.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎19‎/‎11‎/‎2017 at 08:20, Colblimp said:

 

1) File name doesn't matter, only captions and tags are important.

 

2) You can delete any image you want to but it takes 180 days to disappear off the system.

 

3) No.  Submitting the same image 5 times but in different colours would be classed as too many similars.

 

4) No.  You can add all the keywords to the same image, they'll still be searchable under the 'plant botany' and 'philosophy' subjects.

 

HI Colblimp - one quick question on Item 3. Say I have uploaded 100 shots in colour - can I upload the same shots in black and white after processing through Lightroom (book arrived today)? or will they say that they are duplicates?

 

cheers

 

David

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Darkstar said:

 

HI Colblimp - one quick question on Item 3. Say I have uploaded 100 shots in colour - can I upload the same shots in black and white after processing through Lightroom (book arrived today)? or will they say that they are duplicates?

 

cheers

 

David

The client can convert to mono, and any other way they like. It seems there are very few non archive sales of B/W.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's no check on similars across subs.

Edited by spacecadet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

but too many similars may also hurt your ranking, aka CTR 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have we got some new people doing QC?

Just had my first failure for: Poor exposure

Image is of hundreds of starlings sitting on a telephone line in fading winter light

My file correctly exposed slightly to the right (as I always do)

 

Disappointed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, LawrensonPhoto said:

Have we got some new people doing QC?

Just had my first failure for: Poor exposure

Image is of hundreds of starlings sitting on a telephone line in fading winter light

My file correctly exposed slightly to the right (as I always do)

 

Disappointed

 

Perhaps post a high res version of the image (Dropbox is a good place). I think it would be interesting to start a separate thread for failed images especially if the goalposts have moved recently. It is not clear that that is the case although it did seem like there were a few odd failures some weeks ago. However, the last person who reported a surprise failure (over CA) actually got a response on here stating that they had re-examined the image and it did indeed have failure-inducing CA.

 

 

Share this post


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

Have we got some new people doing QC?

Just had my first failure for: Poor exposure

Image is of hundreds of starlings sitting on a telephone line in fading winter light

My file correctly exposed slightly to the right (as I always do)

 

Disappointed

 

We've responded to your email with a screen grab of the histogram showing very clearly an error in the exposure.

 

The goalposts certainly have not been moved - it would make no sense for us to do this without informing our contributors.

 

We hope the clarification via email proves useful and helps with future submissions.

 

Cheers

 

Alamy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Alamy said:

 

We've responded to your email with a screen grab of the histogram showing very clearly an error in the exposure.

 

The goalposts certainly have not been moved - it would make no sense for us to do this without informing our contributors.

 

We hope the clarification via email proves useful and helps with future submissions.

 

Cheers

 

Alamy

Thanks, very helpful to know

Share this post


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

Have we got some new people doing QC?

Just had my first failure for: Poor exposure

Image is of hundreds of starlings sitting on a telephone line in fading winter light

My file correctly exposed slightly to the right (as I always do)

 

Disappointed

 

As it is your first failure, did you think to calibrate your monitor ?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, mickfly said:

Could you post the histogram, please?

 

All you need to know is that a white point of less than 243 will fail QC, hope that helps

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, LawrensonPhoto said:

All you need to know is that a white point of less than 243 will fail QC, hope that helps

 

Not really. There are an awful lot of images on Alamy where the white point is a lot lower than 243 so it would be interesting to see your picture. Needless to say, there are an awful lot of images where the tonal range in the scene does not cover the range from black to white.

 

It's great that Alamy are actually responding to the claims of incorrect failure in this thread so it would be really good if the contributors who made the claims actually posted the failed images. I don't see why this should be a problem at all as it would be very helpful to others.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/20/2017 at 07:30, Darkstar said:

HI again

 

Yes you have once more identified things I could do to improve - all good advice. My original strategy was to get 500 fully searchable shots online to have some sort of presence and then refine them as you are suggesting. Some of my shots do have the animal and Latin classification name and others I still have to do. I will work through them over time.

 

I have been lucky to travel all over the shop as you say, but my Achilles Heel has been the cameras. The Sony is unacceptable to Alamy, the Canon is a little better and the Nikon is fine. The Mamiya 6x7 is 'slides only' so even if I had each of them scanned, Alamy would not accept them presumably because the Mamiya is a non-DLSR medium format camera and the pixels would therefore be artificially generated by a line scanner?

 

I do have an electronic slide scanner and thousands of slides - for example the Oman stuff is all Kodak slides from a non-digital camera (Yashica) but Alamy proscription would make them upload non grata!

 

Anecdote:

 

I do have one awful claim to fame. I ran a print and packshot studio for commercial leaflets, posters for several years with umbrella lights and a PMT camera for knock-downs. I used AppleMacs and Quark Xpress and did national exhibition typesetting demos for Apple. I was one of the first people in UK to have a laser printer (it cost me £4,400 at the time!!!)  I also did some portrait work (Bay City Rollers (ha!). A man came into the studio and explained that he had developed a special disposal garment for NHS surgeons - head to toe cover - and that the Americans were interested too. Could I please do the packshots for him so that he could show them to the Americans. I did all the work, he paid me. Then I read that he had been found murdered face down in a swamp in Florida! He had been conned by gangsters big time.

 

How about all of you - do you have any dodgy (but true) stories  like that?

 

cheers and all the best

 

David

 

 

I have a lot of scans from an RB67 on Alamy, not generally a problem though depending on your scanner and software you may have to look out for 'pepper grain'

 

Alex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, LawrensonPhoto said:

Image is of hundreds of starlings sitting on a telephone line in fading winter light

My file correctly exposed slightly to the right (as I always do)

 

 

 

I have images that sound similar to this that I don't bother submitting because when I set the points to Alamy specs, it completely destroys the look of the image.

Edited by John Mitchell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, LawrensonPhoto said:

All you need to know is that a white point of less than 243 will fail QC, hope that helps

 

O.K., I admit this might be a really dumb question, as I admit to being terribly handicapped with anything technical, but, how does one check the White Point Value (number) in Lightroom CC Classic? 

 

That is what I use 99.8% of the time to fully edit my images and I have no idea how to get that value.

 

Rick

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now that I am taking notice of images online to see who shot them or stocked them,  It seems that different photo agencies have very different standards.  Have a look at this shot if you scroll down in the main article to the image of an explosion of autumn leaves near a post box. There is some rubbish in the leaf pile and also the whole shot seems out of focus. Does anyone know who PA is? I wonder if Alamy would have failed this shot?

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42069508

 

cheers

 

David

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Rick Lewis said:

 

O.K., I admit this might be a really dumb question, as I admit to being terribly handicapped with anything technical, but, how does one check the White Point Value (number) in Lightroom CC Classic? 

 

That is what I use 99.8% of the time to fully edit my images and I have no idea how to get that value.

 

Rick

 

AFAIK there isn't the same range system (0-255) in LR, but it is instead using a percentage system. You can hover over any point and you get the % of the three RGB channels for that point under the histogram i.e. pure black will be 0% on all three channels and pure white will be 100% on all three channels. You can also switch on/off shadow/highlight clipping on the triangles in the top left and top right of the histogram.

Share this post


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

Now that I am taking notice of images online to see who shot them or stocked them,  It seems that different photo agencies have very different standards.  Have a look at this shot if you scroll down in the main article to the image of an explosion of autumn leaves near a post box. There is some rubbish in the leaf pile and also the whole shot seems out of focus. Does anyone know who PA is? I wonder if Alamy would have failed this shot?

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42069508

 

cheers

 

David

That one is coming from Getty - it also has focus on the foreground leaves.

Dont know how it looks in 100% but most probably the shot will have passed Alamy QC. 

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