Jump to content

M.Chapman

Verified
  • Content Count

    2,222
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by M.Chapman


  1. 12 hours ago, Jo Kearney said:

    I'm a bit confused about property releases.  I can understand it if it is someone's house or possession but does property that is state owned need a property release?  For example in former Soviet republics does a statue of Lenin need a property release or an abandoned port?

     

    On Alamy it's now* simple. The question in AIM is "Is there any property in your image". If the image contains recognisable property which is owned by anyone (NB. Also includes design, brand or artwork which maybe owned by it's creator), then tick the box. So, for statue of Lenin, tick YES for Property and NO for release. Images marked like this will still sell as editorial, and sometimes as commercial too as the user/publisher can make their own judgement depending on their intended use and local legislation. If you want to prevent commercial use, then tick the editorial only box.

     

    *A few years ago Alamy AIM used to ask "Does your image contain property that requires a release". That often required a more complex judgement, but Alamy have now simplified it.

     

    Mark


  2. Just now, John Mitchell said:

    Because checking keywords/captions would be so time-consuming for Alamy, perhaps they should concentrate

     

    Or, at this point,  concentrate on new contributors (and agencies) -- i.e. include a keyword/caption check of their first submissions in the acceptance process, so that they get started on the right foot. This might at least stop the problem from getting worse.

     

    Yes, that's a good idea. Getting rid of that counter-productive "discoverability" indicator would also help.....

     

    Mark


  3. 15 minutes ago, Phil Robinson said:

     

    In theory the ranking system does deal with this.
    I have always thought that the way the search engine decides which images are seen first is THE MOST IMPORTANT feature of the whole Alamy business.

    I'm not sure how this works now - it doesn't seem to be as straightforward as it used to be.

     

    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


  4. 39 minutes ago, John Mitchell said:

     

    However, it would require that contributors add metadata before uploading, which apparently some people don't like to do.

     

    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


  5. 1 hour ago, John Mitchell said:

    Poor keywords / captions seems to be a growing problem on Alamy. Not sure what can be done about it, though, as Alamy doesn't have the time or inclination to police contributors.

     

    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

    • Like 1

  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. 2 hours ago, C3CDG said:

    Excitedly I have now had my first two submission passed. Thanks to your help on the forum I have managed to tag and super-tag them and half are now showing as 'on sale'

     

    How do I find them on the site? Clearly they must be last on the pages in their subject matter and I realise that not all of us will get images on the first pages, so what do I do next to bring them forward for attention?

     

    Thanks, in advance, for any help

     

    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

    • Upvote 1

  8. 8 minutes ago, Karl said:

    Hi,

    I recently uploaded some images of Brighton Pavilion, and when I did a search, I found them on page 22. How do increase my chances of getting them onto page one, where I assume they have a better chance of being spotted and purchased?

     

    Regards

    K

     

    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

     

    • Like 1

  9. 2 hours ago, MDM said:

    If that hand colour looks reasonable to spacecadet, then he has a problem either with his monitor or his vision. It looks like it has been taken out of a freezer. 

     

    Just used an adjustment brush on the hand only in Photoshop's Camera Raw Filter. Took about 1 minute to correct the hand and leave the rest. Settings were Temp +70, Tint -55, Highlights - 80, Saturation -40. It has a red cast, not magenta, hence the need to add some Yellow. This is just approximate but it does the job.

     

    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.:unsure:

     

    Mark


  10. 31 minutes ago, JaniMarkus Hasa said:

     

    I've had good number of zooms during past 7 days, especially for images under pseudonym. My pseudonym is actually doing much better CTR-wise than me with my "better images". Pseudonym 1.81, me 0.69. 

     

    Good zooms and better CTR haven't however affected the position of my BHZ-images. Still on the same pages. Alamy algorithm moves in mysterious ways.

     

    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. :unsure:

     

    Mark

    • Like 1

  11. 13 hours ago, Marta38 said:

    Hello,

     

    I am Marta from the Netherlands and a new member of Alamy. I have some confusion about the file requirements. 

    Somewhere down the road I read that it needs to be a JPG and of a size of 17MB or higher. Even a TIFF format of 62,9 MB comes out 8 MB as a JPG. So it looks like I am missing something?

    Is it that the original photograph (RAW to TIFF) needs to be higher than 17 MB or is it the JPG? Please help me out, I have been looking at it for hours after my first submissions didn't pass QC due to the image file size (blowing up the JPG that I really don't like to be blowing up, showing interpolation artefacts and softness, while the image is crisp sharp in TIFF). Hope someone can clear the sky for me?

     

    Best, Marta

     

    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


  12. 17 hours ago, Old school said:

    We still won't know if any of the recommended tools will convert our very large TIFF to JPEG and do so with sufficient quality to get ALAMY to accept.

     

    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   


  13. 6 hours ago, Old school said:

    Hi Mark, We thank you again.  Our computer is: ENVY; BANG & OLUFSON

    Operating system: WINDOWS 10

    Yes. The ENVY has the ability to 'read' our dual layer DVDs at it created them.

     

    6 hours ago, Old school said:

    When we bought the ENVY, we opted for the maximum Terabyte of 3 available at that time.  We gobbled that up in 3-years with images.  We added an additional 4-terabyte with the option of one more addition.


    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


  14. 3 hours ago, Brian Yarvin said:

    Mark, my workflow is really different than yours! I set (and re-set) color spaces in Capture1. FastStone is for sorting, evaluating and re-editing. (in my world)

     

    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


  15. 3 hours ago, Brian Yarvin said:

    FastStone Image Viewer will do a better job (in many ways) than bridge and is free.

     

    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 

    • Upvote 1

  16. 1 hour ago, MDM said:

     

    Mark I didn't realise that Bridge had the capability to export as JPEG on its own but that is a very simple solution if it works. However, you may still be talking way over their heads, mainly because of a serious mental block rather than any inability on their part. You will have to do very basic step by step guidance. Good luck.

     

    My image passed QC by the way. So that is a baseline for me if I do it again as I sent it on its own so it would have been examined. 

     

    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


  17. 5 hours ago, Old school said:

    PHOTOSHOP is an ALAMY CONTRIBUTOR frequent recommendation and while we know-of the software, neither of us have actually seen it work and whether the software is readily learned by us.  Our worst fears are 'jumping' into some software, making great headway in the wrong direction...again...and in the end, doesn' help us to successfully 'convert' TIFF to JPEG and do so without going broke.  We won't know how well whatever we finally select will make the 'conversion' and still pass quality control at ALAMY or any of the other stock photo companies.  We dread 're-doing' 1000s of slides...a dilemma folks with slide boxes just gathering dust are facing. 

     

    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


  18. 3 hours ago, Old school said:

    Hi MDM, 

    Again, our thanks...We read recommendations but many times the words mean nothing to us...this is an example of our knowledge throughout the replies and recommendations from other ALAMY CONTRIBUTORs: open a TIFF file in any basic image editor.  We have no idea what those words mean.  What 'basic image editor' do you mean?  Nor do we know how to 'open a TIFF' from what source...we have dual-lay disks with perhaps 40-TIFF images with huge files...150 to 250MB each.  Is that the 'TIFF' file your are referencing?  Then what?  "and save as a JPEG'  in what? Our computer's hard drive?  This is easy for you as you have done it for a lifetime; but, a real challenge for us.  Yes. Our distinct lack of knowledge doesn't help folks who are trying to help us.

    Again, our thanks.

    Cheers Flo and Paul

     

    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

    • Upvote 1

  19. 7 hours ago, spacecadet said:

     

    I'd read all sorts before hand about transparencies exceeding the capabilities of sensors, and of course one was always supposed to kill some contrast when duplicating slides, but it proved not to be a problem. No Velvia though, but a bit of Fuji in there somewhere. But in my case it was probably flare in my setup that took care of it- not something you'd expect from a Nikkor, I dare say. In some cases I even had to increase contrast to get a bit more "snap"- especially with b/w negs, but that's not what you asked about.

     

    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


  20. 17 hours ago, MDM said:

     

    I used an Icelight 2 LED (purchased at a bargain price just after they launched) very close in to the copier and auto WB on the camera but warm it up a lot as the D810 as well as a lot of other Nikon cameras default to a very cool WB. You can see the difference in colour between the unprocessed raw and the other two images. I actually took the WB in this case off a neutral grey patch of limestone as I recall visiting the same spot a few years ago and shooting a grey card which gave a very similar reading to the limestone - in other words, unweathered Burren limestone is pretty much a neutral grey.

     

    The absolute WB values are not really relevant as they will depend on the light source as well but for what its worth the as shot WB was 4800, +4 and the value I got from using the eyedropper on the limestone was 5900, -11. The Icelight has a temperature around 5000 I find. I didn't use any presets. 

     

     

     

    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

×
×
  • 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.