M.Chapman

I've got a selection of images on a well known American "product on demand" art website that now has "fulfilment centres" in UK and Europe. It offers everything from canvas and framed prints through to mugs, mobile phone cases, bags, cushions etc. But sales have been disappointing (one canvas print in 4 years). I wonder if many folks only want one of their own pictures the "giftware" style products (and you can get those in Boots). Nevertheless I will be uploading some more there shortly as there's no additional cost to me. I think improving control of image data would be great. e.g. Restricting the size of image the customer can download according to the usage/fee would be a good start. More pixels = higher fee. Mark

I thought they already had... although I think they only offers prints (not mugs, calendars etc) See https://www.alamy.com/customer/help/alamy-photo-prints-art-com.aspx Or have I misunderstood? Mark

Not sure if noise was the cause, but something seems to have robbed you of critical sharpness on the monkey fur. The young monkey fur especially lacks some detail to my eyes. QC may have liked the heads of both monkeys to be sharp, which would need slightly more DOF than this shot has, sharpest point seems to be adult monkey's hands. I'd have though SoLD might have been a more sensible categorisation. If I downsize to 17MB it looks quite a bit better. Did you start from RAW or in camera jpg? I often find starting from RAW gives a cleaner result than the in camera jpg. Mark

It wouldn't save time for Alamy as they would have to check the rest of the batch (if one image is faulty it's not unlikely that there maybe others). The onus is placed on the contributor to recheck the whole batch before resubmitting. Mark

You're welcome. FX<pedantic mode on> I think it should be a capital M to denote "Mega" (small m denotes "milli") and a capital B to denote "Bytes (small b denotes "bits"). So I suppose it should really be MP for megapixels too FX<Pedantic mode off> Mark (sorry to be a PITA)

You might find this site interesting. They have a really amazing 3D graph plotting widget - click on the 3D graph and move the sliders for aperture and zoom. Results at 55mm show sweet spot around F16. I think I'll recheck what this site shows for my lenses. Mark

Is that at the centre of the frame? Mark

How are you checking sharpness? Mark

That's interesting . My micro 4/3 lenses start softening due to diffraction from about f11 onwards, and the lens test charts I've seen also seem to show the same. I tend to find a sweet spot at around f8. What format lens are you using? Mark

If you can't upload them (having tried) this suggests the Alamy's uploader has rejected them as being too small (not enough pixels). Check your jpeg export settings in Lightroom aren't set to resize the image. If your image contains over 6 million pixels (for example is at least 3000 x 2000) it should be fine. Recommend downloading the AlamySizeCheck tool from here. Many Alamy forum members use this tool as a final check before uploading. Mark

Hi Betty, you may want to edit your post. 17mp, 3mp and 7mp should be 17MB, 3MB and 7MB (ie. megabytes not megapixels). The 6mp is OK. Mark

Thanks for that idea. I've often focus stacked several exposures taken at F11 with different focal points, but this sounds a useful (and easier) alternative which may give a better blend of sharpness. Mark

Oh good grief! Many of us here have been taking photos since way before digital was introduced and are very familiar with how digital cameras have evolved and their costs. A number of us have tried to offer you help but you seem intent on throwing it back at us. I wish you luck elsewhere. Mark

Alamy is geared towards professional standards which are common in the industry. Mark

You've missed Niels Quist's point. Take 3 new images with a suitable camera and submit them to Alamy QC to "get your foot in the door". Once you've passed QC then apply for the archival route for your older "unique" images so they can bypass QC. Mark