Jump to content

Christmas noise


Recommended Posts

I have become a bit braver in terms of uploading images which were taken in dark conditions.

This one (and the rest of the set) worried me a little as they were taken hand held with high ISO (my D7000 isn't too great at noise reduction at high ISO!)

KFDPRE.jpg
But they passed! I like to think that Alamy do apply some common sense during QC, possibly look at the meta-data to see if the image is reasonable for the camera and conditions.
 
I think it probably is worth testing the water sometimes... and 10 days sin bin isn't as bad as the 30 days it used to be.
 
Something I often do is use the brush tool in Lightroom to apply noise reduction selectively to areas of the image. And where it is really called for, develop the image several times with different noise reduction and use layers in Photoshop. So I think there are things you can do in post-processing to help the situation too.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

I know I have had a few images that I hemmed and hawed about submitting

 

I took a few shots of the cattle on a conservation project this a.m. and selected four for post & submission. Then I "hemmed & hawed". One (of a very hairy all black steer)  was not as crisp as I would have wanted, but would probably pass QC. I submitted three. This one was rejected https://www.dropbox.com/s/6f6vxq0x0kuwz5e/Highland Cattle 2017-1.jpg?dl=0

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Russell said:

 

I took a few shots of the cattle on a conservation project this a.m. and selected four for post & submission. Then I "hemmed & hawed". One (of a very hairy all black steer)  was not as crisp as I would have wanted, but would probably pass QC. I submitted three. This one was rejected https://www.dropbox.com/s/6f6vxq0x0kuwz5e/Highland Cattle 2017-1.jpg?dl=0

 

What was the reason given?

I have to admit, my eye is struggling to find a main point of focus to latch onto. I think you are missing being able to see the eyes as they are hidden in shadow and for me.. the eyes of a person or creature which is the main focal point of the image are important.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry I didn't make myself clear. I rejected it not QC and didn't submit it. I was trying to illustrate how careful one must be.

 

Spacecadet, you're correct the POF is on it's side, as are you, Matt the eyes are lost in that mass of hair. An eternal problem with these creatures.

 

Update 5/12/17: FYI, the three images that I did decide to submit all passed QC, so I'm glad I left one out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right. 5492 is  about my native size. I usually downsize to 4500 but might have tried that at minimum, 3250. If you zoom down to about 70% I think it's about that- the warts on the nose look OK but maybe it's one of those where I'd creep the sharpening up to 40- don't tell Alamy.

I might be tempted to go for the nose there, to give QC something to look at.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

5 hours ago, MDM said:

 

Could the Colonel's fury at Alamy's policy have more to do with him failing QC for the first time himself recently as in other post where he admits to be absolutely fuming although Alamy did subsequently point out that the failure for CA was legitimate and not a mistake,

 

Now putting up my shield against an expected shower of red arrows B)

 

4 hours ago, Colblimp said:

I give reds to no one, as giving reds is childish.

 

 

Apologies if I called that wrong. There was somebody slinging red arrows about in that thread and I got one for a very straightforward comment on Alamy QC policy which I thought a bit off as I don't believe in giving red arrows either. I'd rather debate it if it is worth debating or otherwise forget it. You did happen to be active in the thread at the same time as the red appeared which is why I made my false assumption. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Russell said:

Sorry I didn't make myself clear. I rejected it not QC and didn't submit it. I was trying to illustrate how careful one must be.

 

Spacecadet, you're correct the POF is on it's side, as are you, Matt the eyes are lost in that mass of hair. An eternal problem with these creatures.

 

I don't see anything in focus in that shot having downloaded and opened in Photoshop. It looks like camera shake to me. Shooting at 1/30s at 90mm even with IS (VR in my language) can be a bit hit and miss. I would be inclined to use a smaller aperture to get the whole head in focus from the nose to the horns and either higher ISO or preferably support (monopod or tripod)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's perfectly reasonable that contributors should be prohibited from submitting daily batches of images that do not fulfil standard technical requirements. Alamy is a photo agency selling for professional use and we would all suffer if Alamy gained a reputation for stocking unusable images for sale, with buyers heading off for other agencies. There is plenty of advice available if someone wants to learn how to achieve technical proficiency.  Many contributors have had a couple of failures when starting out on Alamy - but you quickly learn to reject images that are unlikely to pass QC and most of us go for years without a failure as a consequence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Colblimp said:

 

Giving advice, nurturing, helping, as opposed to plain banning them!  An email pointing out where the contributor is going wrong, an invitation to ask questions as to where they're going wrong, making them feel valued.  But no, stopping a contributor from uploading pics for 10 days is the way forward!!!

 

If Alamy did as you suggest, QC failure rate would go up. The nurturing workload would be so expensive that contributors that get it right the first time, would be receiving a 40% royalty cut instead of today’s 50%.

 

I think they should go back to a 30 day ban for QC failure.

Two failures in a row and you are banned for a year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I first started to submit I had a few failures, in those days you were not banished, but I quickly learned what was necessary and (famous last words) have not had a failure for years.  Not sure that a more draconian policy would be too helpful, I found it painful enough to have my work found wanting.  Maybe for serial offenders ?

 

Raised elsewhere are those folk who spam the keywords, a sure case for flogging!  Searching for newspaper images I regularly see photos containing irrelevant and misleading keywords. However some of the blame could perhaps be laid at the door of the new AIM, where it is all too easy to inadvertently copy from one image to another.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Bryan said:

When I first started to submit I had a few failures, in those days you were not banished, but I quickly learned what was necessary and (famous last words) have not had a failure for years.  Not sure that a more draconian policy would be too helpful, I found it painful enough to have my work found wanting.  Maybe for serial offenders ?

 

Raised elsewhere are those folk who spam the keywords, a sure case for flogging!  Searching for newspaper images I regularly see photos containing irrelevant and misleading keywords. However some of the blame could perhaps be laid at the door of the new AIM, where it is all too easy to inadvertently copy from one image to another.  

 

The worst case of mis-tagging I've seen is a picture of the Irish Army tagged as the IRA.  Disgraceful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Colblimp said:

 

Giving advice, nurturing, helping, as opposed to plain banning them!  An email pointing out where the contributor is going wrong, an invitation to ask questions as to where they're going wrong, making them feel valued.  But no, stopping a contributor from uploading pics for 10 days is the way forward!!!

Colblimp 

You  object to the banning rule and you say. "We're adults trying to sell our images to make a bit of money, it's not school!" and then you post "Giving advice, nurturing, helping, as opposed to plain banning them!  An email pointing out where the contributor is going wrong, an invitation to ask questions as to where they're going wrong, making them feel valued.  But no, stopping a contributor from uploading pics for 10 days is the way forward!!!" and that sounds exactly like your asking Alamy to be a school. Bottom line is do you want them to be spending time teaching people to take photos or out there selling your photo's ?

 

Cheers and gone

 

Shergar

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Shergar said:

Colblimp 

You  object to the banning rule and you say. "We're adults trying to sell our images to make a bit of money, it's not school!" and then you post "Giving advice, nurturing, helping, as opposed to plain banning them!  An email pointing out where the contributor is going wrong, an invitation to ask questions as to where they're going wrong, making them feel valued.  But no, stopping a contributor from uploading pics for 10 days is the way forward!!!" and that sounds exactly like your asking Alamy to be a school. Bottom line is do you want them to be spending time teaching people to take photos or out there selling your photo's ?

 

Cheers and gone

 

Shergar

 

Oh god, some people can't tell the difference between serious and sarcasm.  Sigh...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.