spacecadet

That's a late one. Still, Ker-ching.

IME saturday is indistinguishable from Monday, so they'll probably clear quite soon- in the last year nearly half my subs have passed after 5pm.

I didn't think the Red Arrows could fly in weather like this. Seriously, whoever it is, if you have something to say, say it, but will you stop giving red arrows to truthful statements by experienced contributors whose input most of us actually value?

OP hasn't said that.

17MB is the minimum uncompressed size. You're quoting compressed.

Well, there's some debate about it but supers are supposed to rank higher and I've worked on the assumption that they do.

They will if you only supertag "buckinghamshire" for images where the location is important. "A Georgian house in Aylesbury" probably doesn't need Bucks. as a supertag.

Ken Rockwell's full size jpegs look sharp to me. Exactly what does the rejection say?

I've only ever found a couple of this sort of licence and I must have a couple of dozen of them. It's some specialist print magazine and it probably never went online so Google won't find it. It may be worth searching on "your name, Alamy" as they can sometimes turn up in Google books after a couple of years. That's how I tend to find them.

Ooh, just realised I have a few old tear sheets. I don't think they'd get me into a higher category though. They're a couple of orders of magnitude fewer than yours.

You will need to demonstrate that the images have some historical merit. Some images simply couldn't pass QC- copies of old prints, for example- but archival is a way of allowing images that are of interest to be offered on Alamy even if they don't meet the usual standards. I doubt that an image on, for example, pushed HP5 could ever pass QC. No-one, I'm sure, uses archival as an excuse not to get the best scan they can. Scanning can also show up technical flaws that were always present in the images. My archival images license regularly, so it would be a disservice to Alamy's clients to exclude them by applying an unnecessarily strict standard.

I think I followed this advice of yours originally, but didn't revisit what I'd already done. I then perpetuated it by copying between images. Anyway they're all gone now.

Just a heads up which may help some. Before AIM was refined, I copied and pasted a lot of tags via Word and found that many copied over with a stray bullet point character (• , alt 7) in front of the tag. I carelessly assumed that this was ignored in search, but yesterday I found out that the entire tag is ignored if there's no space between the bullet and the tag. I have hundreds of affected images so a manual fix is out of the question, but MS are sending me a spreadsheet so I can do a find and replace.

Mine probably wouldn't pass QC so I go the archival route- I don't know if you still have to apply for this, but if the box appears on your web upload page, then these images bypass QC. It should only be used for images that actually have some historical or archival value, not if they're just old. My own rule is that if the scene would look different today (buildings demolished, vehicles, etc) then it's archival. A picture of the Dunes in Las Vegas would qualify (demolished 1993), an image of Buckingham Palace in 1993 probably wouldn't.

In RAW the EB isn't baked-in- as a convenience I have it set to flash using the Illumitran, but I usually take a WB with the eyedropper off a neutral midtone. Even Auto WB in LR can work quite well. I have an import preset with a "medium contrast" curve and a bit of saturation on it but that can be a bit much for Kodachrome. Try linear to start with. And definitely RAW. I also let LR set Auto Tone, but I know that's not popular with everyone.

What? Never heard of this before. The light still has to pass through the base so what's the difference? The base is transparent. You still focus on the grain. Of course the emulsion faces the lens in projection, as it does in photography- if it didn't the image would be flopped.

Been a while since you had the projector out, at a guess.

The way you'd view them, base side to camera. Usually the side with the date and number, if process paid. The maker's name is usually emulsion side. Otherwise you'll have to flop them in editing.

Commercial electronic, $$, 5 years. As you can see, taken 9 years ago. Cull my port of older images? Not on your nelly.

In case you weren't aware, the BBC have used this on the Radio 4 website.

The site is back up now. Beware of the 20-minute logout.

I don't think you can. The Payback contract requires you to appoint DACS as sole agent. https://www.dacs.org.uk/for-artists/payback/membership/terms-and-conditions

I've just realised that my post on this had an incomprehensible title. The post, however, might be useful to some so I'm repeating it. Stray characters in legacy tags inherited from the old Manage Images may prevent those tags working in search. In my case, it was nearly 17000 bullet points. https://discussion.alamy.com/topic/10971-warning-legacy-tags-not-ignored-in-search/

I tried that for a few dozen images before realising exactly what you did- it would take ages even if I could find all the stray characters- search doesn't find them. So I asked MS if they could do it, and the reply was that they couldn't, but they could send me a spreadsheet of my entire metadata and I could do a find and replace (replaced with a space character) in Excel. it took seconds. I sent the sheet back and they'll replace my old metadata with the new version. It occurs to me that this thread title didn't make a lot of sense. Or perhaps it was so intriguing that you clicked on it to see what the gibberish was about..

All done and dusted. Quite glad I did it, there were nearly 17,000 stray bullets