Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by MDM

  1. 2 hours ago, shearwater said:

    Country: Germany
    Usage: Editorial
    Media: Travel guides -print and/or e-book
    Print run: up to 5,000
    Placement: Inside
    Image Size: 1 page
    Start: 01 December 2020
    End: 01 December 2023

    RM. Distributor sale. Mid-low $$.

    “Hay mil vientos posibles. hay mil rumbos a elegir” artwork mural painting by Javier de Juan in Los Llanos de Aridane (La Palma, Canary Islands, Spain)




    This pic brings back nice memories of warm evenings and fantastic meals sitting outside a restaurant called Vitaminas in Los Llanos de Aridane. Hopefully will get back that way again before too long. 

  2. 8 hours ago, Mr Standfast said:

    Well you could search the forum...



    For the benefit of the anonomous Robin Hood and his red arrow...


    From the forum guidelines...


    "Before posting, it’s always good to search to see if a similar topic or question has been posted before. You might find that your topic has already been covered"



    In my opinion, it is not in the spirit of the forum to tell newcomers who clearly do not have English as a first language to search the forum. The question was asked in good faith and the OP may have great difficulty finding the answer to what was a vague question, again presumably because English is not his first language.  I am not the giver of the red arrow as I really don't like them but I did give you a sad face. I am unafraid to tell you that and would do so to your face just as well as on a forum.

  3. 7 minutes ago, meanderingemu said:




    now i'm curious.  Does anyone ever effectively scan prints?  


    I take it effectively means of sufficient quality to pass normal QC. I'm sure that would be possible if the original prints were good enough and one had a half decent flatbed scanner plus a bit of skill in post but I am not intending to try it myself as I have no reason to do so. 


    I only asked about prints because the original question was vague (scan analogue pictures?). I think a lot of people do copy printed material for uploading by the archival route (or possibly from other agencies). This could be scanned or photographed. 

    • Thanks 1
  4. Hi jordicubells - welcome to the friendly Alamy forum 😀. I am guessing English is not your first language so it can be difficult especially because there is no direct guidance from Alamy related to your question.  You really need to provide more detail if you want any information that is likely to actually help you. Are you talking about scanning film (slides or negatives) or prints?  What device are you scanning with? 

  5. 16 hours ago, Panthera tigris said:

    I think 90% of their users are sport and wildlife on the bigger telephotos. I use Nikon's 1.4x on the 500 FL (almost permanently attached) and 600  (non FL) and my eyes can't see any degradation. The 2x on the other hand is unusable for me with significant degradation. Never used the 1.7 but it does not have any stellar write ups. Canon TCs are considered better than Nikons and with much less image degradation.



    OK that's interesting. I have had a few different teleconverters years ago (probably Tamron) when I was shooting film but have never had a quality one and have no need for one with the type of photography I do. I just wonder nowadays if sports photographers in particular could get away with using shorter and lighter lenses (never mind a teleconverter) on say a D850 and cropping heavily if the images are only intended for web usage. 

  6. 1 hour ago, Cee Dee Dickinson said:


    Hi MDM


    ." All the analyses indicate that land plants first appeared about 500 million years ago, during the Cambrian period, when the development of multicellular animal species took off." Source Sciencemag.

    The seperating of continents was of course a bit of fun.  European settlers are to blame for many things and this includes the Norway Maple being  in the region, and the name Canada. :)


    Land plants have been around a lot longer than flowering plants (angiosperms) of which maple is one. I believe that the angiosperms evolved during the Cretaceous (around 130 million years ago or so). Palaeontology was never my strong suit and I certainly would not argue the details of this with a palaeontologist. The thing with geology is that it is a continually evolving science. What was held as true yesterday may no longer be true today so it is important to check information properly, Anyway I can't help myself correcting false information whether it is in jest or not which is indeed hard to tell in this instance 😀.  

    • Like 1
    • Haha 1
  7. On 10/01/2021 at 22:32, Cee Dee Dickinson said:

    A few hundred million years ago, before the seperation of the continents the area called Vancouver was a lot closer to Norway than it is now,  so seed distrubtion would have taken place.

    I’m sure you mean well but this is basically complete nonsense. You should probably stick to what you know (identification). Flowering plants did not evolve until about 130 million years ago. Continents have been merging and separating for some billions of years and continue to do so - that sentence about before the separation of the continents is meaningless. Norway Maple is native to what geologists call Eurasia (effectively Europe and Asia which are really a single giant continent geologically speaking) and was brought to the Americas by 17th century settlers according to Wikipedia. 

  8. Buyers can use Date Taken (DT) as a search criterion. Also I heard that there will be a general weighting towards newer images for certain types of images where date taken is important (e.g. travel). I have no idea if this has been implemented but I guess not yet.  I think it would have to be done as part of a general categorisation of images which has presumably been set back due to the pandemic. That said, older images definitely do sell and the more unique they are the more likely that would be. 

  9. 34 minutes ago, Harry Harrison said:

    Yes, on the face of it, but possibly true in some circumstances with high end process lenses. It wasn't on this forum, it was on one about Imacon scanners and the chap was describing a high end copying system with a medium format digital back and some kind of fancy very high end macro/process lens.  Clearly as a statement in isolation it was wrong but I wondered if there might be some element of truth when describing lenses well above my pay grade.


    Sorry about that Harry. I misread your post and thought you were talking about the slide copying thread where most of what was said is accurate although there is some rather dubious unsubstantiated by evidence stuff in there as well. 

  10. 35 minutes ago, Harry Harrison said:

    I was intrigued by this phrase because I'd read someone assert on another forum about high-end slide copying that essentially 'all lenses are sharpest wide open'. You're not asserting that here but it's as if you might have found it to be true of some lenses that you've tested and yet I've never found that to be true, nor have I seen MTF charts of high end lenses which corroborate that. I've certainly found that my enlarger lenses, Rodagons mostly, have a very small range of optimum sharpness, in fact 'range' isn't perhaps the right word, more like 'f8 and be there'.







    I don't know who said that or where it is in that enormous thread but it is nonsense. 

  11. 1 hour ago, wiskerke said:

    This 105mm EL Nikkor is an old 5.6 enlarging lens.  Here (>enlarging lenses >Nikon El-Nikkor 105mm) is a test. Page 2 has a picture. It's indeed best at f8. The performance is a tiny bit under my 2 Rodagons 5.6/80mm, probably because the Nikkor has some haze. This often occurs when enlarging lenses have been left overnight or longer with the lamp still on. Those condensers were quite good at projecting all those hot rays just through that hole were the lens sits. As if they were designed to do that. Oh wait.. 😁


    I don't see any reason why an image from a D850 should be reduced. Other than maybe the quality of the original.

    Those Tamron 90mm SP or DI's are very fine macro lenses.




    OK I wasn't reading that carefully and just saw 105mm Nikkor. I used to have a 50mm El-Nikkor many years ago. I still have a Durst Neonon (50 I think) in a drawer which has not been used in an awful long time. I recall it was a very good enlarger lens though. 


    The Tamron 90 is better than the Nikkor 105 overall. I was going to sell it until I realised how good it actually is - the Tamron stabilisation is much better but then the Nikkor was first generation VR. That has improved massively but they have never updated the 105.


    I guess the reason high MP images can look less sharp than lower MP images both at 100% is the old viewing distance thing that was debated a lot here when Nikon brought out the 36MP D800(E) but yes also no doubt the quality of the original slide.  I wonder also if the grain affects the sharpness. I shoot slide copies  at ISO 64 so what looks like noise must be grain as the D810 and D850 are effectively noise-free at that ISO. I always downsize anyway both for improving apparent sharpness and for grain reduction. 

  12. 26 minutes ago, Rico said:

    I found that the 1.4 is pin sharp on a 300mm 2.8 and some slight degradation with the 2x,but I can fix that up with Topaz sharpener. 

    Since I do a fair bit of sports photography (or at least I used to, thanks covid) it was worth it for me.


    I would like to see a side by side comparison of the same shots with and without teleconverters and focusing on how much detail is captured. Sharpening in software is fine but Topaz or any other software sharpener will not recover detail that is not there in the first place. They will just increase apparent sharpness. Anyway it is just an academic question to me. As for Covid - don't get me going in that one - best of luck whatever 😀


    On 10/01/2021 at 12:10, Stephen Lloyd said:

    I have a Nikon D850 which I know comes with slide duplication attachments for 60mm macro lenses - which I'm also keen to try as my old Coolscan fluctuates between dying, dead and almost dead at will, despite having it in at Nikon. Some things are just old and start to fail beyond repair. I also have a 105mm macro, not it's shorter sibling, which is a lens I like a lot so no plans to change that. 



    4 hours ago, wiskerke said:



    If speed and consistency would have been no criteria, one of my 50mm Rodagons; my 2 80mm Rodagons; 105mm Nikkor; 90mm Apo Rodagon; 40 and 50mm Focotars; 75mm Tominon and surprisingly the Meopta Meogons were all up to the task, but usually only at one aperture.








    I was disappointed in my 105 Nikkor (fairly new one) on my D810 with the ES-1 slide copier and extensions for copying 35mm slides - corner and edge sharpness were poor at all the apertures I tried. The best lenses I found of the few I tested for overall and corner to corner sharpness were the legendary 55mm Micro-Nikkor and the 90mm Tamron (version before the most recent one). Because the Tamron has autofocus which works perfectly on the  D810 even at the very close distances involved and excellent edge top edge sharpness, that is now my preferred lens for slide copying. 


    The D850 does not come with slide duplication attachments but these can be purchased separately. If using with anything but recommended 1:1 macro lenses then adapters and extension rings are required. From experience, the 45MP image size is probably a disadvantage and downsizing in post will be necessary. I downsize from the 36MP D810 as well. I think the sweet spot would be around 24MP. 

  14. 1 hour ago, Rico said:

    You are totally correct. I tried adapters a long time ago and found them unusable due to the quality of the image.

    Right now, I only use 1.4 and 2x teleconverters for sports photography. I find the quality pretty good, especially the 1.4


    I wonder if using a teleconverter degrades the image quality over what you would get if you shot without it and simply cropped to the same size in post. Obviously it would depend on the quality of the lens, the teleconverter and the camera itself. Teleconverters do cause some image degradation in my experience and always reduce the amount of light as well. I tend to think of them as a bit of a relic from film days and I wonder if the main benefit is just seeing the subject larger in the viewfinder. I am not going to buy a  teleconverter to do the necessary experiment though. The Nikon 1.4 is around £500. 

  15. On 09/01/2021 at 10:12, Flash68 said:

    When I started contributing to Alamy back in 2003, I was using a 6mp Konica Minolta Dynax 7D. It was a great camera for its time and all of my submissions were accepted (and many have sold, even fairly recently).

    I've just come across quite a large batch of photos taken with this camera that were not submitted, many of which I'd like to submit.

    My question is, are 6mp photos still relevant today?

    According to the submission guidelines they will still scrape through - just. 

    Dimensions are 2000x3008, uncompressed file size of a sample image is 17.2MB and compressed 3.2MB

    So I'd assume that if I submitted them they will pass QC. Is its likely though that anyone would want images of this size (maybe for web / presentation use). Would I be better upscaling them? If so, has anyone had issues with upscaling, does Alamy check the size of file against that expected from the EXIF data? And if upscaling is acceptable, what are you using? Photoshop, Gigapixel AI etc?

     Nowadays, because the majority (perhaps vast majority) of sales are for web usage, there is much less of a need for large images and upscaling would be pointless given that the uncropped images are already large enough. 


    48 minutes ago, John Mitchell said:

    I'm no expert on these matters, but I think that images from low MP cameras might have upsized well due to the larger pixels (compared to today's cameras). I know that images from my Sony a100 (10 MP) upsized to 48MB very well. I don't think that I ever had a QC failure due to upscaling when we had to do that.

    I have never heard that about lowMP cameras. Not saying it is wrong, just that I have never heard it. 

    Back in those days of minimum 48MB images, there was no sharpening at all permitted so I think maybe Alamy QC took that into account. Images did not necessarily have to look pin sharp - they just had to look like they could be properly sharpened. As sensor sizes went up and Alamy file size requirements went down as well as there seemingly being.a tolerance for some basic sharpening (e.g. Lightroom or ACR default sharpening), I started to aim for sharper looking images. 

  16. 20 minutes ago, Ed Rooney said:

    Is this what was meant by "make America great again"? 


    10 minutes ago, Colin Woods said:

    From their point of view, yes. They feel that to rescue a country from what ails it takes a strongman who is prepared to do whatever it takes, to trample down any and all enemies and the rule of law. Its dictatorship backed up by a lawless group looking for their strongman - a quick browse along the history books section an any bookshop will show exactly how new it is.


    Yes and there is also typically a drive to turn one part of the population against the other often by lies and propaganda which holds one side as somehow elitist and the other deprived by the elite which at its most extreme can lead to civil war. This type of populism, nationalism, racism, xxxism is not an exclusively American phenomenon of course and we don’t have to look too far in space as well as time to see it rearing its ugly head elsewhere. 

    • Like 1
    • Upvote 1
  17. 21 minutes ago, Normspics said:

    This is a really good point well made, I have kept all my images from going digital and I shot RAW from about two months into the digital adventure 17 years ago, now as software has got better and I have improved, just for fun I’m going back to those old files and able to get superior results from digital RAWS I never used as the images couldn’t be rescued back then.


    Definitely. The Adobe Camera Raw engine has improved enormously over the years. For me, even some of the stuff I was processing just 7 years ago looks off, probably because the monitor I was using was set too contrasty so some of the processed images now look dull. Not that I am going to go back and redo everything but it is nice to have the option to do some. 

  18. 1 hour ago, AlexH said:


    I'm in complete agreement with all your points! I can and do edit RAWS, but in the context of producing stock for Alamy what I'm suggesting is I don't think its necessary. Personally I don't enjoy post processing particularly, I would rather achieve a good image straight out of camera whenever possible. I agree that may not be the absolute best version of the image possible but I think if its the right image for a buyer it will still be licensed. I suspect most image buyers care a lot less, or are even oblivious to, the technical elements photographers obssess over. They just want the right image for their need, which could easily be a tweaked JPEG out of a smartphone. 


    Of course if I were producing fine art landscapes for a print site, as an example, I'd be taking a different approach. 


    Not necessary for Alamy stock but shooting JPEG only really limits you down the line. Take any portrait for example and I see in your portfolio that you have quite a few including several that I presume are of your family. The camera (talking Nikon here) rarely gets the white balance right in the JPEG. A little tweak of the white balance on the raw can make a huge difference. Of course you might only realise that the skin tones are off if using a calibrated monitor and attempting to make prints yourself. Ultimately it comes down to what one is happy with but have you met your future self yet? That guy might wish he had shot raw as well even if only to keep them just in case. 

  19. I have Netflix so will put The Social Dilemma on my list. I also want to watch the Trial of the Chicago 7 - seems pretty relevant right now as well. Currently in the middle of Series 5 of Better Call Saul.

  20. 55 minutes ago, AlexH said:

    Yes that's what I was getting at; any time in Lightroom (Darktable for me now I've gone Linux) is more than none at all. I'm shifting back to where I started when shooting film on OM slrs, trying to get it right in camera as much as possible. I've picked up an old fuji xt1 which is more like the old OM shooting experience and has jpeg film simulations. I'm enjoying it. I haven't completely stopped RAW shooting but I'm tempted by the thought of selling up my Nikon gear and then I possibly would! 

    I think a key point here is that editing can and generally does vastly improve images. This was the case when printing negs or slides as well - judicious dodging and burning was essential. If you never did anything in a darkroom with your film then you might not appreciate this. 

    A second key point is that if you are going to edit then it is just as easy to edit raws as JPEGs. It takes a bit more initial learning to understand the concepts but after that it is plain sailing. 

    Going back to film, I always think that shooting JPEG only is analogous to shooting film, getting prints and throwing away the negs. You are stuck with one interpretation of the image with very little leeway for modification.

    • Like 1
    • Upvote 1
  21. 17 minutes ago, Cal said:


    Indeed, I agree with you there (is that a first? :D )


    With regards to your top paragraph, and to carry on slightly from what geog says, I don't think it's necessarily from the fact that someone buys a decent camera that they then think they're a pro - I think it's down to their character purely. I know at least one person I can think of straight away who shot a wedding on a compact camera and was convinced he'd get award winning photos. I just hope the couple didn't have high expectations. When I say compact camera I don't mean a Sony RX100, I mean an ancient powershot/IXUS type of deal that grandma might have used in 2005.

    Possibly a first but no worries 😀. I have strong feelings about Covid as it has pretty much messed up my long term health. Let’s move on. 

    One of the few photography courses I have ever done was a very good course on wedding photography in order to get up to date on modern weddings and what is required. I was amazed at the levels of photographic knowledge  of several of the other participants. Some had virtually no knowledge at all and were about to start a business in wedding photography. That is what I mean. 




    • Thanks 1
  22. 1 hour ago, Cal said:


    I'm not convinced on your last point that anyone sane in the real world actually thinks like that. What I do think is more likely (and I base this on actual experience) is that "pros" who are viciously protective of what they see as "their field" THINK that when ordinary people buy an SLR that those people then think they're now professionals, when in fact they don't at all.



    I think the objections from professional photographers arise when beginners offer services such as wedding photography when they do not have the skills or expertise to provide a professional service. That reflects badly on everyone. I have known more than a few people over the years who buy a reasonably good camera and think that makes them a photographer so they proceed to offer photographic services. There are countless examples of so-called photographers who have ruined couples’ weddings by offering services they did not have the skills to provide.  Imagine someone with no experience buying some quality plumbing tools and offering their services as a plumber. I think the qualified plumbers might be a bit concerned and the clients might not be too happy either. 


    Fortunately It is not a requirement to have a degree or other qualifications in photography to offer professional photographic services and I agree with that. I am totally self-taught as a photographer but I did not learn from the so-called university of life. I learned by reading and practice, initially from books and magazines many years ago, and I have continued to learn up to this day. There is nothing technical in photography that a person of reasonable intelligence could not self-teach from books or online material but everyone learns in different ways. I would not dream of offering a service that I was short of knowledge in though. 

    • Like 2
    • Thanks 2
    • Upvote 3
  • 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.