Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by M.Chapman

  1. Looking thorough the various images of the phenomenum, it appears that the seperation between the finges gets wider the further in front or behind of the point of focus the area of the image is. As the point of focus the fringe spacing becomes so small it disappears. Long focal length mirror lens bokeh (and other lenses) show the same effect as shown admirably here. https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4077/5394380056_55d1a78863_b.jpg It suggests there's some non-uniformity in some filters (micro-waviness in the polishing or coating, or maybe the UV filtering bit is a polymer laminate with oriented polymer chain molecules)? Polarisers often have a sandwiched plastic film inside. No idea about UV filters. Mark
  2. Same here. First QC for a while - batch submitted last night, hopefully they will pass later today. Mark
  3. Similarly, if one image fails QC, then all images in that batch (and any other batches you have waiting for QC) will be failed. You will be told the reason why the inspected image failed. Mark
  4. Where they in a supermarket? If so which one? Mark
  5. Fascinating. I have some experience in diffraction and interference effects with lasers, but this effect is puzzling. The interval between the "fringes" is quite small and nominally linear unlike newtons rings caused by interference between the stray refletion and main beam between nominally parallel surfaces. Others who have seen the effect report that rotating the filter rotates the effect by the same amount, perhaps suggesting the origin of the effect lies entirely within the filter (and not interference with a stray reflection of the camera sensor for example). But it also only seems to occur in out of focus areas, which would rely on effects outside the filter... Weird. There's probably a simple explanation, but it escapes me at the moment. Must check my filters on a long lens. Mark
  6. There is a possible workaround. Download the free Adobe DNG convertor from here which will convert your RAW files to DNG format that LR 5.7.1 will be able to open. The DNG converter is fast and efficient and can process RAWs individually or in batches. Mark
  7. Yes it’s working. But it only records views and zooms from specific customers. So don’t expect your views and zooms to change if you look at your own images. Also these measures are only updated once every working day. Mark
  8. It only seems to affect the out of focus areas. Could it be bad lens bokeh due to an aperture blade not working correctly/damaged? Set the camera to a long exposure (1 second or longer), fire the shutter and look into the front of the lens to see whether all the blades are stopping down correctly. Repeat at a range of apertures. Mark
  9. That’s good news. Congratulations on passing QC and good luck. Mark
  10. That’s unusual. Try waiting another day to see if the problem clears. Perhaps try a different browser or clear your browser cache? If nothing works try emailing contributor services. contributors@alamy.com Mark
  11. You can’t. Deletion takes 6 months. The only way to partially “hide” them from search results is to remove cation and most tags, but that is against Alamy rules And they can still be located by Alamy Ref no. You could try emailing contributor services and asking them to delete them immediately (if you have a good reason for this) but at the moment they may not respond due to impact of Covid-19. Mark
  12. As a rough guide, images should contain at least 6 million pixels. Mark
  13. But that's all we would expect to recover (i.e. only the tax originally paid and not the full amount of the refund). The system in the UK is the same. Mark
  14. Reasonable month for me. 6 sales for $244 gross, $116 net. 🙂 Net sales revenue at the "other place" continues to rise in spite of major change to their commission structure and not adding any new images. Mark
  15. I never said you were. I didn't say that either. Sorry if I caused offence. I didn't mean any. Agreed. The old Alamy Image Manager used to ask if images contained property that needed a release. With the new AIM Alamy have simplified it, which makes life easier. But you're right there's a limit somewhere and your method of leaving the boxes blank avoids the need to think about it. But, there maybe some downsides. I suspect such images are excluded from search results where the customer has ticked that they require model released or property released images. If the customer ticks the "Property Released" box, I believe the search results will include images that contain property with releases and also images that are marked as not containing property. It not a big deal, just something to be aware of. In my case I rarely see searches with [MR] or [PR], although that's probably got more to do with my portfolio which contains very few shots with people in. More significantly though, not filling in the optional "Number of people" box will presumably exclude those images from any search results where the customer has specified the number of people they want to in the image. I see quite a few searches where [WOP] has been selected. So whilst there maybe advantages to leaving those optional boxes blank, there may also be downsides. Mark
  16. It's really simple on Alamy. The questions asked in AIM are not "Does you image contain people or property which require releases". The question is simply "Does your image contain any property or people?" You don't need to make any complex judgements about whether the people or property need releases (which can vary from one country to another depending on local laws). If there are people (or even parts of people) or property, then simply answer yes and say you don't have releases. I only tick the "Editorial only" if I specifically want to prevent an image from being used commercially. Mark
  17. Fine Art America? https://fineartamerica.com Mark
  18. For your first submission of 3 images- Use a good digital camera with a sensor that is APSC size or above, and a good lens. Pick something relatively large (i.e. not a macro shot) and flat to photograph which contains clear sharp features (not a sketch) and a range of colour and contrast. Shoot in good light with medium aperture f/8 to f/11, ISO of around 200. Be careful to ensure accurate focussing and to avoid camera shake. The camera will automatically include the meta data with the image that Alamy need for your first submission. Don't try submitting scanner images of sketches for your first submission. Mark
  19. Alamy may not be for you until you have learnt some more... Mark
  20. Have you read this? https://www.alamy.com/contributors/alamy-how-to-pass-qc.pdf Mark
  21. You need to be patient. Sales take a while to be reported. The customer may have download an image and be preparing an article or book but they won't declare use until article is published (or even later if newspaper/magazine). This is very different to SS where sales appear as soon as the image is downloaded. Quick comment on your portfolio, I think you have too many similars and some images would benefit from lightening the shadows. If you are getting views and zooms, then hopefully sales will follow. Mark
  22. GDPR turns a model release form into a 6 page document... 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.