Jump to content

MDM

Verified
  • Content Count

    4,944
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by MDM

  1. The reason for making the location field non-searchable is very valid - to prevent spurious searches when the location field is irrelevant (studio shots etc which could have been taken anywhere) - I totally agree and I think it is definitely a good move to make it non-searchable. But this is quite distinct from the question as to what should go in the location field where it is relevant, as for landscapes. That is the only thing I have been discussing - the original question considers a distant mountain. Whether the location field is searchable or not is also irrelevant in the pedantic dis
  2. I'm not sure if the 24 hour message still holds as a warning of a possible fail like it used to. Lately I've had that message pop up a few submissions, only to eventually turn to "awaiting QC" and then an all pass. Yes that is what usually happens - it can take several days for it get unstuck to awaiting QC. What I meant is that, because of the delay, she may have time to email member services and tell them about the mistake image before they get around to looking at it. They may be very nice and not sinbin her. That is what happened to me last year but I realised I'd sent the bad imag
  3. I think it's the same with many so-called compositional rule breakers (tops of heads chopped off for example). It's got to look intentional That is really interesting.
  4. I realised I'd uploaded an image with a big dust spot within a few minutes and I immediately emailed MS. They got it sorted out with a partial fail of that image but the others went through straight away and I didn't get punished. The 24 hour message usually indicates that there is some sort of file error so they may not have been seen by QC yet. You could try emailing them and explaining. Better than a month in the sinbin.
  5. Mirco - I'm happy to have an lighthearted pedantic discussion (a discussion just for the sake of discussing) . So what about a case where you have two or more mountains (to keep it on the mountain theme). I have lots of shots like this including sweeping panoramas which go maybe up to 270 degrees with numerous mountains. What do you call the location in this case. I think there should be just one location and then there can be multiple subjects in the scene. There could also be legal issues at stake here as the exact place where you take the picture can often be important - e.g the dis
  6. I have to disagree. For example, I've hundreds of pictures of El Teide, the huge volcano on Tenerife, taken from four different other Canary Islands, in some cases more than 100 km away from Tenerife and up to almost 200 km apart from each other - e..g Gran Canaria to El Hierro. To say that the location for that was Teide itself would not make sense to me. I want to know where I was standing when I took the pictures and, as I said above, I want to be able to embed GPS data in the metadata. A second example is where I've taken pictures of the Welsh mountains of Snowdonia from Dublin in
  7. Glad you cleared that up David and that Adobe have not restricted us all to the red end of the spectrum. I tend to be careful updating Photoshop as it can be difficult or impossible to go back sometimes. II use Lightroom now mostly for my raw conversions and have stayed with version 4 for now as I'm not clear there is any benefit for me upgrading to 5. But I like to keep the ACR versions in sync to prevent getting annoying messages when going from LR to PS. Multiple camera type settings are not a problem for me but I can see how they would be for you.
  8. I have to disagree. For example, I've hundreds of pictures of El Teide, the huge volcano on Tenerife, taken from four different other Canary Islands, in some cases more than 100 km away from Tenerife and up to almost 200 km apart from each other - e..g Gran Canaria to El Hierro. To say that the location for that was Teide itself would not make sense to me. I want to know where I was standing when I took the pictures and, as I said above, I want to be able to embed GPS data in the metadata. A second example is where I've taken pictures of the Welsh mountains of Snowdonia from Dublin in
  9. David - what are you referring to when you say it is no longer possible to drop the ACR WB? I just downloaded it to see what you mean and can't see any change in the WB control in ACR (at a quick glance in any case). For the first time in many years I've stuck with my existing version of PS (CS6) rather than move to subscription and I'm not keeping up to date with developments.
  10. Vincent - you may already know this but I was just looking at some of your images and there are several of the Scotland images on the first page that are showing up as "Sorry, we didn't receive any image". I know that this is an occasional prroblem here and several people were reporting it recently.
  11. I try to always use the location from which I took the picture in the Alamy location field and in the metadata for my own system in Lightroom. You could take a picture of a mountain, for example, from tens of km any side so using the mountain as the location can be meaningless, moreover if you are embedding GPS data in the metadata, which I have started to do where possible. I'll have the name of the mountain in the caption and the keywords.
  12. It's quite the opposite - total control is what you get in manual mode - the other modes are the more likely hit and miss ones. With manual, you take a meter reading, set the controls and take your pictures without worrying about the camera changing the settings if you move it. Of course it is important here to understand the metering process and the metering mode used is probably just as pertinent here. I expect many of the people who said they use manual also use spot metering - I do almost always. This allows one to take an accurate reading from a particular small area of the scene and hold
  13. Just to be clear on what I meant, I was only referring to images such as straightforward architectural shots or scenes with buildings where it is a simple matter to correct the verticals in software. I am not frowning on shots like the one above, which is a perfectly good shot, could not be taken any other way and the effect is intentional (for aesthetic reasons). But there are a lot of building shots here on Alamy which could be improved very easily by a minute's work in LR or PS.
  14. You need to allow space when taking the picture or take more than one and stitch. The correction can sometimes cause slight deterioration of the image quality but is usually not noticeable.
  15. I've been recently pondering asking this question myself. As one who strives (but frequently does not achieve I hasten to add) technical perfection, I think unless it is intentional or cannot be done any other way (as in the case of the image above), then converging verticals look sloppy, as if the photographer can't be bothered. It is so easy to correct most images in LR or PS now - a few minutes work at most. I don't know what the buyers think - that would be interesting.
  16. It seems incredible that the people producing an ad like this would use a library image of a person in such a context without checking it out really thoroughly. Surely ads like these call for commissioned shots only with the models knowing exactly how they would be used.
  17. If you shot raw, then the best way I think is to use the noise control (particularly the color noise control) in Lightroom under the Detail panel (LR4) and make sure you are not applying any sharpening. Alternatively in PS you could select the sky and apply a slight gaussian blur or similar to the sky area only - no need to use layers for this but you could make a copy of the background layer if you want to make sure it is non-destructive.
  18. I'm not familiar with the Spyder so don't really understand what you meant. As I said, I'm far from being an expert in colour management. I certainly didn't mean what I said to be in any way offensive to you so I hope you didn't take it like that - it's so easy to be misunderstood through this medium.
  19. Does ME's CS6 book have any practical suggestions/advice on this issue of iMac monitor? Sung Yes. Get the brightness way down and hardware calibrate is fundamentally what he is saying. A bit too much for me to condense here. The CS6 book is available as a Kindle download for around £17. I buy a hardcopy one about every three versions of PS to see what he is saying as he is very clear and knowledgeable. I don't claim any major expertise in the area of monitor calibration by the way. It's one of those things I got a practical working solution for years ago but have too much else to thi
  20. Not really I have to say. I hope you are using a good sunblock . Everything I have ever read (e.g Martin Evening's excellent PSCS6 book) about modern Apple displays and personal experience suggests setting the brightness very low. EDIT: I should add that your Alamy images look fine on my Apple display which I have at lowest possible brightness.
  21. That is definitely the case. The camera histogram is not important if shooting raw. The histogram that is important is the one in Lightroom or whatever raw converter you are using. I hardly ever use anything but manual exposure for the stuff I shoot which is mainly static (landscapes mostly) except for changing light. I would be happy with a manual exposure only camera if Nikon made an FM2 equivalent with sensor quality as in the D700-800. There is so much latitude now with exposure when shooting raw on many modern cameras in that it is possible to recover highlight and shadow detail that
  22. Yes I just checked and I'm seeing the same. Must be a problem on Alamy's side. No daily keywording session today then - what a disappointment.
  23. I'd agree it's not a very good editor but editing is not its main job - LR is really an image management database and raw converter with some basic editing capabilities. I think it's very good at what it was intended to do and not the best at some of the additional things that have been added to it.
  24. Probably not necessary, sometimes i like everything to be perfect although not always possible, i normally get away with cropping a little but this is not always practical depending on image composition. This all started with me along time ago when i was viewing images from a Digital Mamiya 645 where the images were sharp from corner to corner and was then frustrated that my full frame Canon could not achieve the same. In fairness i never have had images rejected for edge or corner softness, never the less it would be good if it was possible to have a completely sharp image. Pau
  25. Given the number of images you have on Alamy you are obviously an experienced photographer so you probably know all of what to do anyway but here goes. Use the optimum apertures for your lens-camera combos. Test for the optimum aperture with practical subjects - e.g buildings or the like at different distances where you can see any falloff in sharpness. Focus carefully - if you use hyperfocal techniques, then check the lens-camera combo in practice, don't just rely on barrel markings or tables. Edge sharpness can be more senstitive to slight changes than centre sharpness I find. Needle
×
×
  • 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.