Jump to content

M.Chapman

Verified
  • Content Count

    1,884
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

902 Forum reputation = excellent

About M.Chapman

  • Rank
    Forum regular

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Alamy

  • Alamy URL
    https://www.alamy.com/contrib-browse.asp?cid={72CEF26C-BD33-43B9-830D-8FE28CE464C7}&name=Mark+Chapman
  • Images
    4292
  • Joined Alamy
    12 Jan 2010

Recent Profile Visitors

3,906 profile views
  1. Not yet... Until Alamy leads customers to our portfolios (following an image search) I probably won't be bothering to populate mine. Mark
  2. That's proved a very useful set of test images. My monitor is calibrated with an i1Pro. But the "Gradient" test image revealed some slight banding which turned out to be due to the Look Up Table corrections in the monitor calibration profile created by my i1Pro. The "Black Level" test image also revealed that my i1Pro generated profile was slightly too contrasty causing some loss of shadow detail. So, in the end I just used my i1Pro to help adjust my monitor's WB and Gamma using the controls built into the monitor and stopped using the i1Pro profile. The test images also revealed differences in how sRGB and AdobeRGB render deep shadow detail (previously I thought changing profile only affected the colour gamut). I also discovered that the Color Calibration App (built into Mac OSX System Preferences>Displays>Color) has a hidden "expert" mode. Hold down Alt (Option) key when clicking calibrate to allow adjustment of Gamma and tone at 5 different brightness levels. I was very surprised how effective this App is (much better than the Gamma test image at www.lagom.nl). In the end I didn't use the profile the App generated, but it was very useful for comparison purposes and would provide a good low cost alternative for those who might not have access to a calibration device. Mark
  3. OP could try changing the background colour in LR to white to see if their perception changes, or try switching to soft proofing mode (click S) in LR. Potentially try having both LR and Alamy windows open at the same time, displaying the same image and take a screenshot and then compare both images side by side, using an eyedropper if necessary to sample the RGB of a neutral grey area. I tend to make my final adjustments in PS where I have set the working space to Adobe RGB so that the histogram remains consistent between editing and the saved image, I believe that soft proofing in LR can be used to achieve the same consistency. This page may prove useful https://www.damiensymonds.net/color-space-settings-for-the-lightroom-user.html. Just set Adobe RGB or sRGB whichever is your choice. Mark
  4. They may appear to be darker on Alamy than they do in LR because of the background colour. On Alamy they appear with a white background, whereas you probably have your LR set to a dark background? So it's a bit of an optical illusion. However... Alamy's customers will be choosing images based on how they see them on a white background, an that is how most images are used/displayed. So it's important that they look good with a white background. That being said, the above images look OK to me 🙂 Mark
  5. That's a very useful set of tests. If I apply my i1 Pro calibration profile I see a little gradient banding that isn't there if I apply the monitor standard profile. I'll perhaps try tweaking my monitor settings so the i1Pro profile needs to make less correction to see if that reduces the banding. I'd been using the factory settings on my monitor (which are pretty close) and letting the i1 Pro profile do all the necessary correction. Mark
  6. That looks OK to me. Have you tried checking/adjusting the Gamma of your monitor? Take a look at the picture below. Screw your eyes up so it goes a bit blurry and check which vertical bar disappears or is least visible. I believe you should be aiming for a Gamma of 2.2. I think Windows software allows gamma to be adjusted. If your monitor is way off and can't be adjusted, then it's very difficult to offer advice (other than go and buy a monitor, and/or calibration device). The histogram will allow you to ensure your peak highlights and deepest shadows are sensible levels but, depending on the subject, the highlights, shadows and mid tones may need a tweak so they look "good" (i.e. the subject of the image has sensible lightness and contrast). Looking "good" is hard to assess if the monitor is way off. Some images (e.g.a snow scene) will have a histogram that shows a broad peak that is well to the right. But a bright yellow flower with darker foliage behind is likely to have a small narrow peak towards the right and a broader bump to the left. Mark
  7. Yes I fill the optional tab in. But, I rarely enter anything into the description field. Now that the hook-up to Google maps has gone I'm beginning to question if the location field is worth completing either as it's not directly* searchable by customers. If the location is important, then it goes in the caption and potentially the tags (depending on how important it is). So is there any point in also adding it into the non-searchable location field? If the location isn't important, what's the point in entering it anywhere? I did wonder if Alamy was going to start adding geo-location data based on the Google map info, but that seems to have fallen by the wayside? *QUESTION - how does Alamy decide which images to display when the customer ticks location UK/USA/Europe or Australia filter? Maybe Alamy could tell us which field(s) it uses to determine if the image was taken within the selected region. Mark PS. One thing I'm coming to realise is that it takes far longer to enter all the info Alamy asks for than the more concise info required by some of its competitors...
  8. I'm not an expert on the legal side, but my reading of the Wikipedia copyright page suggests that giving a credit to the Wikipedia URL where the pasted text came from maybe sufficient to keep Wikipedia happy? However, Alamy contributor contract clauses 4.10 and 4.11 state 4.10 You will ensure that all Metadata including without limitation captions, keywording, descriptions and Pseudonyms, rights management or other information pertaining to the Images is and will remain accurate and factually correct and does not infringe the copyright or other rights of any third party, and are not defamatory or pornographic. 4.11 Any information supplied for display with any Image, including captions, keywords, Pseudonyms, agency names and descriptions only includes information that is pertaining to the specific Image itself, and does not include contact details, web addresses, Uniform Resource Locator’s (URL’s), copyright and rights management information or, except in cases of journalism or news reporting or where the consent of any person shown in an Image has been obtained or another legitimate reason exists, any personal details from which a living person can be identified. So it appears URLs aren't allowed and copyright mustn't be infringed. It might be worth checking with Alamy on this specific point to see whether they would accept pasted Wikipedia text accompanied by relevant Wikipedia credit as a URL, as this seems (to me) to be quite sensible and useful information to include that could increase the saleability of images. Mark
  9. Is there a copyright issue with doing this? Mark
  10. A fine collection, lots of work on keywording and captioning too. It looks like some are copies from transparencies? One image that doesn't look up to the same standard as the others is GK72AD. The reds look blown (on my display anyway), the resolution doesn't look up to the 50MB size and the grain is more noticeable. Maybe it's a problem with Alamy processing/display or an AdobeRGB sRGB conversion issue, or perhaps it's a crop of a scan of a very saturated 35mm transparency? Mark
  11. Safari (12.0.3) and Chrome (72.0.3626.119) on a Mac 10.13.6 (High Sierra) both working fine with AIM for me full screen on a 1920 x 1080 display. Could this be a Mojave issue? Mark
  12. Did the same solution (set zoom level to 100%) fix it? Mark
  13. It's an HP 23xi monitor, calibrated with i1 Pro. I've now set up 2 profiles (200cd/m2 and 160cd/m2) so I can easily swap between them. I'll probably use 160 when it's slightly darker in my room (evening/night) and perhaps the 200 when it's brighter. 50/50 black white. That's an interesting idea. I could display a black/white checker board. I suppose I could also print one to use as a grey card, possibly even suitable as a WB card if my black ink is dark and neutral enough and the photo card is a good white? Although deciding on a suitable fine-ness for the checkerboard has tradeoffs. Too fine risks messing up the 50/50 ratio. Too coarse risks metering issues. Then there's moire.... Mmmm.... not sure it's worth the hassle. It would have to be used with the camera defocussed. I already have a small white balance colour checking target, I just don't have an 18% grey card I trust. There was one in the back of Scott Kelby's book, but it seems too light to me. Thanks for the comment on my image brightness. Mark
  14. This thread might help? https://discussion.alamy.com/topic/11212-problems-with-image-manager-and-safari/ Mark
×
×
  • 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.