Jump to content

sk0gr

Verified
  • Content Count

    13
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

4 Forum reputation = neutral

About sk0gr

  • Rank
    Forum newbie

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://northlapse.wordpress.com

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Female
  • Location
    Eastern Norway

Alamy

  • Alamy URL
    http://www.alamy.com/contrib-browse.asp?cid={CB76DC25-44F6-4344-A758-67C96D248455}&name=Anna+Nilsen
  • Images
    368
  • Joined Alamy
    05 Jan 2006
  1. By excluding those who have less than 1000, Alamy forces those to upload to those microstock sites.
  2. I am not sure what is in focus in that image. For me it is neither the tower, nor the blobs. The colors are cool, but I would assume it would fail with about 70% likelihood. Not 100%, but risky.
  3. What double post?? Obviously, there is no need, did I double post? In that case it was not intentional.
  4. Thanks. I am not worried about this one image in particular, more about if I can use the only (one of the few) MFT tele available (the 100-300). This is without any sharpening and the best that I get out of this lens. There are small detail, just no good local contrast, so I am looking for a way to fix it somehow. And yes, the policy is ridiculous. They could just say why at least. I never had much trouble, but it is some years since I was uploading and need to find a new workflow, which is impossible when having to wait 4 weeks in case something went wrong.
  5. Are these examples of images that do not pass quality control (like today, the television tower and the bokeh blobs)? Forgive my cynicism, but who dares to upload such an image and risk to be punished? Are there others who feel that Alamy should reconsider quality control policy and refrain from their bizarre form of punishment of images that fail?
  6. Hi, I had an image fail due to lack of definition and got punished by 4 weeks not being able to upload, while this in my opinion silly "awaiting QC" was shown, so I did not even know the reason why it failed. A so completely nuts policy if you ask me. Anyways, I would appreciate input on how to sharpen, I put the unsharpened version that failed below. Or is it so lacking definition beyond possibility to fix? Advice much appreciated.
  7. Thanks everyone! (BTW. Technically, it is ISO 200 (If I remember correctly, but max 400) from a current model MFT camera, they are quite terrible regarding noise and dynamic range)
  8. It has been a very long time since I was uploading, so by now my old workflow is no longer useful. I wonder if the following would pass or not because of too much noise. It is a 100% crop, image processed with DxO. Thanks for help!
  9. This image here was just something I was wondering about content-wise in terms of possibility using as stock, since 1. it shows people as main subject who are not aware of being photographed and 2. I have no release from the subjects. Concerning why image is in B&W at all: sometimes (depending on light) I use filters that are not useful with color but give good B&W images and I just like to do that, but the output will always be B&W. Also, when doing the conversion, it oftentimes emphasises aspects that are not that salient in color and hence the result is somewhat subjective. But that are, of course, just general issues and not really applicable to stock. So thanks for pointing that out!! One really has to remind oneself to upload only stock and use other stuff elsewhere if possible (when submitting years ago, I was not thinking "stock"...).
  10. First of all: thanks for the feedback (should probably also say "hi" to forum)! Interesting to hear that uploading would be ok. Well, I am re-thinking uploading such "private" moments photographed in public where this is allowed. After all, it shows what was there and the subjects talk for themselves. I think I myself would not mind finding an image of me like that on Alamy (after the first shock). Ann: I am not sure: do you mean there should be a watermark? If so: there is a watermark in the lower right and the jpeg is very low size. Same with video I post, visible compression artefacts. If that gets used as is, such users would not pay for use no matter what.
  11. I am wondering about this as well as I like to do street photography once in a while. I do have some RM shots here, which are neither typical street shots nor snapshots, but more or less "documents", which I am trying to get more and better of as a personal project, but it is difficult. Here I have what I think is a typical street shot and which I never would consider appropriate for uploading to Alamy, but maybe this is totally wrong (sorry for the big image, I do not have a smaller version online). I am not hesitant displaying these shots on the web and it theoretically is allowed where I live. I would be grateful for advice if shots like this one can be uploaded as RM (but I would still feel very bad using e.g. this one), thanks.
  12. At least some people claim to feel bad about what was done to the victim. And there will be an investigation. This is a sign that there are some good elements in this society after all. When such things are done to those who are termed the "weak" people here in Norway, nothing is really being investigated and no one will apologise. The wrongdoers walk free and unpunished and scare the c*** out of everyone who might want to speak up. This is truly scary and hopeless.
×
×
  • 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.