Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by M.Chapman

  1. Yes, that's a good idea. Getting rid of that counter-productive "discoverability" indicator would also help..... Mark
  2. The ranking system should deal with it but they seem to have stopped re-ranks.... There appears to be an "alternative" system which Alamy seem to be using. If an image has previously been zoomed using the same search term, it is promoted in the search results (I suspect, along with all the other images by the same contributor). Trouble is that it relies on an image being zoomed previously to operate. Although the ranking system should demote images (if it was being updated), the demoted images still clutter up the system, costing money to host, and slowing down the search engine. Mark
  3. That's why I suggested tackling it on a contributor by contributor basis. This would involve randomly sampling maybe 10 images from each contributor's existing portfolio. If the keywording doesn't meet minimum basic standards, the contributor or agency is asked to make corrections. If improvements aren't made the portfolio is taken off-line. Mark
  4. In my opinion Alamy urgently need to address this. What's the point of technical image QC if they don't also check keyword/captions? Previously the argument was that bad keywording would give unwanted views without zooms, damaging a contributor's CTR% and hence lowering their rank when the next re-rank happened. So their images would end up sinking to the bottom of search results. This is all fine, but re-ranks just don't appear to be happening. So badly keyworded and captioned images can continue to appear higher in search results than they should, wasting customer's time and damaging Alamy's reputation. Alamy's spotlighting of a contributor with so many keywording errors is hardly a good example in such a competitive marketplace. A spot-check on a contributor by contributor basis could soon weed out the worst culprits. Mark
  5. Oh I see what's happened. The filter the search used was [Land] [Pan] and is being (correctly) interpreted as Landscape OR Panoramic and not Landscape AND Panoramic. My mistake, I'll go back to sleep. Sorry for troubling you. Mark
  6. Has it always been the case that 2:3 aspect ratio images are returned in Alamy searches with the Panoramic [Pan] filter set? Seems a bit strange to me. Surely 2:3 format should be categorised as Landscape, but not Panoramic? Panoramic seems like a pointless filter if it includes 2:3 images and so isn't helping customers find what they are looking for... Mark Update: Ignore this post - my mistake!
  7. Keywording and captioning them accurately would help. For example I don't think there's any hawthorn in any of your images. If there are closeups of plants and berries etc. it's essential to include the correct name or you won't get anywhere. Mark
  8. Ensure you have brighton pavilion in the Caption and as a supertag phrase (i.e. enter both words into Alamy Image manger without a comma between, press + to add them, then click the star so it turns blue). After that it's down to your Alamy rank which depends on a number of performance factors which Alamy don't disclose, but are believed to be based on things like your CTR% and possibly sales history. The position of an individual image can also be improved if it's been zoomed before using the same search term, and for some searches Alamy may prioritise newer images. Mark
  9. I did thanks, I've made a note of those ratios for future reference. This is a screenshot of the very useful tool PSE 8 provides together with the image (I also downloaded a copy from the forum posting) after adjustment of the hand area only.. Mark
  10. I also prefer the result after your suggested adjustment, plus I also set an overall WB off the rim of the bowl. I also tried using PSE which conveniently has an "adjust for natural skin tone" eyedropper which produces a result somewhere in the middle (to my eyes anyway). Why hasn't PS CC also got this feature - or maybe it has but I haven't found it. Mark
  11. Previously Alamy only updated "contributor's rank" every 180 days and it's believed that a contributor's rank was based on CTR and other measures of performance (Alamy don't disclose the exact details). So changes in BHZ image position tended to happen every 6 months just after a re-rank. But, so far as I'm aware, there hasn't been a re-rank in well over a year now. Bottom line is don't expect the position of your image to change in response to short term changes in your CTR, unless of course Alamy changes the way they place our images. Mark
  12. 17MB is the minimum uncompressed 8 bit image size required by Alamy. This means the uncompressed image must contain at least 17 MegaBytes (=17,825,792 bytes) of 8 bit image data. Since each pixel is stored using 3 bytes of data (1 byte each for Red, Green and Blue channels) the minimum number of pixels required by Alamy equates to 17,825,792/3 = 5,941,930 pixels So, as a useful guide, just make sure your image contains at least 6 million pixels, and you'll be OK, e.g. a 3000 x 2000 image is fine. When you save the image in a jpg format file the image data is compressed to save disk space, so you will see the file size will be considerably smaller, but that's OK. Mark
  13. Photoshop can convert the TIFF file perfectly (loading a TIFF and storing as a JPG is a straightforward mathematical conversion). But, whether the final JPG will pass *normal Alamy QC will depend on other things:- 1) The quality of the image in the original transparency (depends on exposure, lens quality, focus, film stock, photo technique etc.) 2) The quality of the slide preparation (cleaning and mounting) and the scanner quality 3) Any adjustments (edits) you make in Photoshop (to remove dust, improve colour and contrast, crop edges etc.) and whether you decide to downsize the image (you may want to downsize to 3000 x 2000 pixels to maximise chances of passing Alamy QC) 4) The quality level of the JPG you select to store the converted image in. JPGs are a compressed format which discards information, if you select a low quality JPG the image data will be highly compressed which will loose detail and introduce compression artefacts. For Alamy you should select a JPG Quality level 10 (~90%) or above and use sRGB or Adobe RGB colour space and "Baseline" standard format and ensure the image contains at least 6,000,000 million pixels (for example 3000 x 2000 pixels). *Note that if Alamy deems your images as being suitable for upload via the archive route, they can bypass the normal Alamy QC checks. Good luck. Mark
  14. Looks like you're perhaps a bit more computer "savvy" than you like to admit and you also have a computer that can do what you need. What you need now is a Photo editor and a bit of help to get you started. I think Harry's idea of finding a local camera club is a really good idea. Failing that (and if you don't want to spend any money) then you could try downloading the free 30 day trial of Photoshop Elements 2020 from Adobe and having a play with it. I just tried it and it can do the TIFF to JPG conversion you need either on an image by image basis, or automatically (subject to a key constraint below) on a whole folder of images (using the File>Process Multiple Files option). Constraint - When Photoshop Elements converts a batch of image files from TIFF to JPG it preserves the color space of the original file. This will be fine if your TIFF images are already using AdobeRGB or sRGB colour space because Alamy will accept either of these. But if your TIFF images are using a different colour space it may cause problems. Single images can be converted one at a time though as the convert colour profile option is available during editing if needed. PS. Alternatively you could try the Free Adobe Bridge 2020 software which can also do the conversion (subject to the same constraint above). But this software won't let you edit your images if they need cropping, enhancing or dust spotting etc. which I imagine they will. PPS. I also tried out the free FastStone image program (which Brian mentioned earlier in this thread) which can also do conversion from TIFF to JPG, but it seems to remove the colour profile information during the conversion from TIFF to JPG, so I don't think it's suitable for producing JPGs for Alamy. Mark
  15. Oh dear, sorry I missed that. Duh!! I must learn to read!! Mark
  16. It's not my workflow at all. I don't use FastStone (although I have a copy). I was simply commenting on your suggestion that Flo and Paul could use it. My workflow uses BreezeBrowser (for image culling organising and sorting) and PS CC for everything else, including colour space conversion. Sorry for any confusion. Mark
  17. Good idea although I don't know it will do a better job? Won't the end result be the same? FastStone offers more "bells and whistles”, but the UI is more complex as a result and technically it's only free for "home use" (which I assume therefore excludes commercial use?). I also can't spot any option to convert colour space (maybe you know how) so perhaps FastStone (like Bridge) may rely on the TIFFs already being in sRGB or AdobeRGB colour space. Mark
  18. Yes, I was surprised Bridge can convert image file formats without PS installed. One option that I don't see is colour space conversion so it will only work for Alamy submissions if the TIFFs are already using AdobeRGB or sRGB colour space. I'm now back at my computer so I took a closer look at your copies at https://www.dropbox.com/sh/7i8l15lkro04so7/AACJ-k1UW4ZwslyUD1hav2eda?dl=0. I like the end result and I'd have risked it with Alamy QC too. I guess you don't know whether that image was actually inspected or not. Was it submitted on it's own or as part of a larger submission? I hope to get onto digitising some 35mm Velvia slides and submitting to Alamy sometime this Winter. In the meantime, here's a link to a couple of my attempts from earlier in the year. Setup was Lumix G7 camera + 45mm macro lens on tripod photographing 35mm Velvia slide on top of an upside down B&Q LED downlighter. They were photographed in RAW and then processed using an ACR preset I derived from a Velvia photo of my Passport Colorchecker. I'm not posting these because I think they are particularly good or bad, but more for comment at this stage. Mark
  19. I've done some digging, and from what I can see Adobe Bridge is FREE and could be used to browse through the TIFF format images you have on DVD and then EXPORT any images files you select in JPG format to a new location (e.g. computer hard disk) at a user selected quality level and size. Obviously this wouldn't allow you to edit the images in any way, but it might at least allow you to produce some un-edited jpgs that you could submit to Alamy to see if they pass QC. It's far from an ideal approach, as I suspect your images are MOST LIKELY to need editing to pass QC so it would be best to use Photoshop (Elements) rather than Bridge. But, if you really don't want to spend any money at this stage, and you'd like further help to try Adobe Bridge, please let us know. The first questions will be 1) What computer do you have? 2) Do you know what operating system is it running and which version? (Mac OSX, Windows, Linux etc.) 3) Does it have a DVD reader that can read your dual layer DVDs Mark
  20. So how did you manage to upload over 1,000 images to Alamy?? Something doesn’t add up here. TIFF is a file format which we think has been used to store your scans on DVD. The filenames of each scanned image on your DVDs probably end in .tif or .tiff. JPG or JPEG is simply another file format used for storing images, it uses filenames that end in .jpg or .jpeg. This is the format that Alamy needs and which you have already been uploading. It’s easy to open a TIFF file from your DVD and then save as a JPG file on your computers hard disk using pretty much any image editor (as MDM said). Personally I’d recommend Photoshop Elements because it is cheaper and simpler than Photoshop but still has the batch processing capability that will allow the conversion of many files from TIFF format to JPG format to be automated. Mark
  21. My problem was less about a lack of dynamic range in the sensor, and more to do with creating a default preset which remapped the tonal range of Velvia into something that looks sensible and retrieves some of the detail from the shadows. I currently find that the shadow detail is frequently blocked out in the “as digitised” scan and needs lifting. Mark
  22. Thanks. I’m travelling at the moment, but will take a closer look at your files when I get back, and may post some of mine too. Ouch those Icelights are pricey... Mark
  23. The tool is called Photoshop. In batch mode it can read hundreds of files from your DVD, convert them into a format suitable for Alamy (jpg) using just a few clicks and write them too a new disk. It *really* isn’t that difficult. Whether they will pass Alamy QC is another matter which will depend on the quality of your original slides and the scans. If you have limited computer skills, then you may need to find a friend or someone to do it for you. Although, if you have limited computer skills, how are you participating in this forum, or uploading images to Alamy??? Makes no sense to me, using PS to do the conversion is EASY. Mark
  24. Autofocus (contrast based) works for me using decent macro lens and mirrorless camera. I restrict AF area to central zone. 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.