Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Klinger

  1. 19 hours ago, CrowingHen said:

    I'm a bit confused and am digging out my camera manual - even in "m", if I raise the flash (that lives inside the camera, I don't have a speedlight yet), it limits the shutter speed to 1/200.  I suspect this is something to do with sinking (sp?) which is a word I heard on youtube and from photographers but filed away under "learn later". 


    Yes the syncing / shutter Sync is why the camera has a maximum shutter speed of 1/200th. But that doesn't matter as the duration of the flash is now the speed. An on camera flash is about 1/500 of a second. Depending on how bright it needs to be, if the camera is TTL flash metering, that number could be even faster. Since you are so close, you could use the on camera flash and a diffuser.


    What you have to consider is flash + ambient light. If the flash is the main light, then your shutter speed could be 1/60th and it wouldn't matter. Say a very dark room. With light balancing, the flash is the fill light, at which point, you are at 1/200th of a second. There are other possible issues with color balance, say the flash is 6500K and your light is 5000K it's not going to be right and pretty much no amount of editing will ever get the white balance right. Mixed light.


    I think the different bits of advice, faster shutter speed, closed down, try to keep the ISO as low as you can, before things get blurred again as the ISO will add noise. Your starting point you mentioned, 100mm, 1/1000, f8, ISO3200 looks pretty good. I'd guess that 1/500th should still be fast enough to stop the motion, in which case you can lower your ISO to 1600?


    Pretty complicated considering it's just a cute little chick? Who'd have thought?


    Here's something to try, if you are interested. Put a white paper napkin over the flash? That will soften the light and at the same time, make it less bright. Close up and on camera flash, where is that flash aimed? Something else inexpensive, is have a white piece of card or paper, over the top, so that more light gets bounced down, which will fill the back and also give some more overhead lighting to the feathers. You can still use the on camera flash.


    If you cut the bottom off a bottle of alcohol, for example, that makes a nice flash diffuser. Any poly bottle and some rubber bands, say a milk bottle, you can make a flash diffuser. White translucent plastic.


    Just suggesting that using the flash will give you much more light, close up and stop the motion, at which point you can use a lower ISO. You'll still want the higher f number because you are so close. Shutter speed with a flash only becomes a problem when the ambient light is enough to produce a shadow or show the motion.


    Good luck, looks like fun.


  2. 12 minutes ago, Tony ALS said:

    Thanks for that spacecadet. Is it normally better to wait until images have passed QC before uploading more in your experience?


    If you are positive the first upload batch will pass, there's nothing to stop you. If you are unsure, One Fail = All Fail includes ALL pending batches.


    I'm a three star, there's only room for 3, that's not unusual. Seems like the software upgrades when someone gains the higher status. It also seems to be at the discretion of the reviewers, not based on a calculation. I have no problems at the level I'm at and you are correct, reviews do not occur on weekends.


    I'm not one to worry that a photo that hasn't been anywhere, essentially forever, since the beginning of time, might take a couple more days to be seen by buyers. The exception would be News or current events.

    • Thanks 1

  3. 21 minutes ago, Romie Miller said:

    Thanks to everybody answering.  I still have 64 photos that are marked "not on sale", other than the ones that are on sale.  The 64 are parts of series that have several on sale.  I don't know if I need to delete the ones that are not on sale, or what.  They have good descriptions and plenty of key words,  so I don't know why they seem to be accepted, but are not on sale.  The exception is one that is redundant.  It's too much like one that is on sale.  I may have to email Alamy & find out what to do about these.


    None of that should matter, series, similar, redundant, if they are accepted, they are accepted.


    Make sure all have pseudonym, caption, tags/keywords, license type and image type.


    Wait at least overnight.


    Just guessing but some data isn't there, or they would be on sale.

  4. On 06/04/2020 at 09:03, Harry Harrison said:

    Cokin P Series adapter for their filter holder system, originals were metal, not sure about the copies that are readily available. There's plenty of originals around.


    Thanks, never used those, but I remember them. Never would have associated that Cokin with P mount. Now I'm starting to see how this is being done. 👍


    This has really been an interesting thread to read and see various good ideas.

  5. 5 hours ago, geogphotos said:

    Yes, Mark is absolutely right. The set up is fine for QC but it all depends on the quality of the slides. These old ones I have shown here are very mucky but of some historical significance so worth doing for Archive.


    Doing comparative scans/photos of the same slide produces very similar results as far as I can see - so that debate dos not interest me. The photographed images have a lot more spots, dark digital 'grit'  marks where the emulsion has been affected and also long superficial scratches. Using the scanner software removes much of that but does not do such a good job on the cobweb like/mottled marks which appear to be fungus type growths.


    So one way or another all these old 1950s/1960s slides need  a good clean, even ones that have been well stored over the years often have 'growths'.


    I have decided to suspend operations until the Pec pads and fluid arrive. It is the preparation of the slide, and obviously the photographic quality of the original that matters most not the digitising technique.


    Just wondered what you thought. Just being able to digitize old slides for myself is where I am at this point. I have done some old ones and they were disappointing, but with better digital cameras, and years later, working like you have, the results keep getting better. Eventually, even a "poor" quality image that's never going to be good enough for resale anywhere can be good for sharing.


    I'd say find a slide that's the last one you really care about, before using anything, pads, contact or chemicals. At least that way if the image comes off, sheds, distorts or anything else, you won't lose one you care about. One thing that's similar to sensor cleaning. One direction only, always the same, so if you drag some debris, it's going off the slide, not dragging back and forth.


    I did like the color and contrast results from yours so far, maybe you can add the specifics of editing or are you getting them that well, in camera now? Nice!


  6. On 04/04/2020 at 10:44, Alan Gallery said:

    I think that the P adaptor is not seated properly  on  the thing.  The only thing different between my test for alignment and your result is the 67mm P adaptor.  It may be slightly thinner and not wedging in totally square as it should. 


    I might not be following all of this, P mount or P adapter is? Plustex slide holder? Are you making the extension tube with slide adapter on the end?


    On 04/04/2020 at 10:16, geogphotos said:



    Looks nice, also looks a bit skewed, (I don't mean the tilt I mean the right side of the slide is closer to the lens) but later shots look square to the lens, perfect rectangle. Nice color.


    Here's the big question. Have you uploaded anything and has it passed Alamy review?


  7. 2 hours ago, BobD said:

    If you have ever had any failed images they will be counted in the total. Under the quality control tab you can select the passed only images this should match the images on sale.


    Yes, that's what I concluded as my numbers are similar to what @lorenza is seeing. After going back and counting, round numbers, by pages, adding, anything else, I finally came to the conclusion, or best guess, that every single upload, deleted file, rejection, failed for size, upload error, or whatever else, in Image Manager, is in my All submissions Images: 2584 while my portfolio shows 2501


    As far as I could determine, nothing is missing. 👍

    • Upvote 1

  8. 31 minutes ago, Allan Bell said:

    Now you have got me worried as I am expecting a package today.😷





    Most flu viruses can live one to two days on nonporous surfaces, and 8 to 12 hours on porous surfaces. Don't open it for a day? 👍


    20 hours ago, Bill Kuta said:

    After a bit more messing about, I've eliminated the Sigma close-up lens and captured a little bit more (almost all) of the visible frame in the slide mount.


    Now it's:


    Canon SL1 APS-C

    Vello 21mm extension tube

    Canon 50mm f2.5 macro lens

    Nikon ES-1, extended most of the way out


    Sounds good! Very short version of M.Chapman's fine description. 35mm films have an image format of 36 x 24 mm. Digital cameras have the same ratio.


    But the cardboard mount doesn't.


    If I'm measuring and doing the math right, the opening in the mount is, 1.31" x 0.90" or 33.274mm x 22.86 = 1.45 instead of 1.5 ratio (3:2) So yes the image is cropped a bit on the top and bottom, which would make the edges go beyond the full image width, fitting on the sensor.


    Your idea to over shoot and crop sound good. 🙂


  9. Not sure how to do this? And I'll guess in advance, this is something I like and might have no appeal to anyone else here. Took me until March to get around to editing and uploading some of these.




    Takuma Sato Indycar driver at Road America 2019.

    1/100th of a second


    • Like 1

  10. 20 hours ago, BobD said:



    Interesting setup, you inspired me to by a scissors stage, I've always struggled to get an exact height.


    Thank You, just some ideas to kick around. I got that one on eBay, hardly expensive, has sharp edges on the bottom of the tray. I don't know if I want to tape them or get out a rasp. 🙂 I only got that, after I got the rail working and discovered, alignment was important, all directions. I use it for the copy stand, overhead macro and shots too.


    Part of my problems with this has been, the camera moves sometimes as the stepper adjusts the camera distance. Weight. A smaller lighter camera, balanced, wouldn't have that as much. There's also some play in the screw, so I start short of the point I want to allow the lash in the drive to work out. Then shoot a few extra, in case.




    Here's a real stack and a mess. Step down rings, and a polarizing filter. Mounted the microscope objective to a lens.



    Close up of a sugar cookie. 🙂


  11. I think this is a useful page for Extreme Macro  http://extreme-macro.co.uk/focus-stacking/

    And for general, and larger subjects  http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html


    I've been dabbling in this recently, nothing wonderful or amazing. I hit projects, work on them, move to something else, move to something else.


    I've been told by someone who does extreme macro and some amazing work, (in other words I haven't reached that point yet) that moving the camera is best, because the lighting stays constant.


    Recent project, home made, the rail which is controlled by Arduino, and has a stepper motor that moves in very small increments. AKA macro rail. 😉




    Lab scissors stand is very useful for getting the subject in the right place, straight on to the camera.


    The Aluminum blob is a poor subject and the rock wasn't much better.




    The microscope optic on the macro lens, wasn't the best idea either. So I had to order adapters and tubes.

    Software, free = I like free:  http://www.picolay.de/

    Not as good as the pay software that has been suggested, but it works.


    Listed as free for non-commercial purposes.



    Not Mine, example on the Picolay site


    I hope there's something useful in all that for someone just interested in the adventure and trying.


    Oh I left out, I also have a macro lens and extension tubes, so no added equipment or expense for the average person with a macro lens and tubes. Everything manual.



  12. On 29/03/2020 at 18:16, Jill Morgan said:

    Here is the link to selling ectors on Alamy https://www.alamy.com/contributor/how-to-sell-vectors/how-alamy-sell-vectors/?section=6 . 


    You aren't betting much of a response as all the people on the forum here contribute images. I'm pretty sure at one time Alamy stopped accepting new vectors but judging by the link, they must be accepting them again.


    I'm not sure how it affects CTR, probably the same as images.  Best to email CR and get it from them.




    Thanks Jill, in case someone else is looking, that will be helpful. Let me add, I uploaded vectors this week, they were accepted and I have managed the information. They went live overnight.


  13. On 11/03/2020 at 09:35, peter_m said:



    Up to now i uploaded only photos here (from 15 months, and not very successful ... just 7 sales for 7 $ net total, all distributor and low price).


    Just because i know that vector are also acceptable here i think to try, i have ~ 3000 vectors.  I read everyday forum about sold pictures, but i not see someone to talk about Vector sale. Can someone share some experience with vector sales ?  And how this will affect my CTR (already very low) if  i upload vectors, and specially they haven't sales. ?


    Hello, anyone? I have the same question. I see that there's not much of a response. Maybe a bump will let someone notice the question?


    Also while we're at it, I saw a question about previews, being cropped? Someone else said I might want to upload with JPGs because the generated preview isn't very good. Those are things that can change, so I'd wonder what anyone with experience in Vectors on Alamy has to say?


    ps to Peter (and I'm also Pete) I used a different pseudonym from my photos for the illustrations and my vectors. I actually have three pseudos, one for Editorial, one for other photos and one for vectors and line art drawing. I'm not entirely convinced that doing that makes a difference to my rank, since people are reporting re-ranks are not common. But I did that, just in case.


    Most of what I do is so specific that the search does the job for me, not the rank and placement. Alamy diversity helps also. Everyone can't be on the first page, just by playing the rank game. 🙂


  14. Just now, DCSmith said:

    What the hell  are you talking about?

    Go put your tinfoil hat on tighter.


    Nevermind, it appears you didn't want an answer, you just want to be insulting?


    On 02/03/2020 at 15:24, DCSmith said:

    Alamy doesn't currently included results for people who have not licensed images.

    I'm asking them to provide results from people who have not yet purchased licenses.


    OK is that clear enough? No they don't want to include results for people who have not licensed anything and I've tried to explain logically why they wouldn't and why you shouldn't care about random views.



  15. On 16/03/2020 at 19:27, DCSmith said:

    There are two ways to analyze the search. One is to look at what people are buying and copy those images.

    The other way is to look at what people are looking for and not finding and try to meet those needs.

    In that case, the bigger the pool of data the better.

    Good thoughts, thank you.


    Yes, and if there's invalid data, which I mean, someone just looking or worse, if other artists could sandbag the people with similar images, to ruin their rank, what would be possible is "everyone" who searched and looked was recorded. There needs to be a standard to qualify who is searching. In my opinion, someone who actually buys images, is a good way to separate that from the curious or anyone trying to manipulate results.


    Valid data, quality information, that is meaningful, is more important than just looking for more data.


    Are there other sources, outside of Alamy that show what people are searching for? That might be a resource as well?


    For example, but we'd need to weed out the words that don't apply to photos.  https://www.pagetraffic.com/blog/most-popular-keywords-on-search-engines/


    Here's another?  https://www.stockphotosecrets.com/stock-agency-insights/most-downloaded-images-2018.html


  16. On 08/03/2020 at 15:56, M.Chapman said:


    Simple but effective, especially as I don't think we know whether Alamy's compression level is relative.

    • For example upload at jpg level 12, Alamy compress to level 10. Upload at jpg level 10 Alamy compress to level 8

    Or absolute

    • For example upload at jpg level 12, Alamy compress to level 8. Upload at jpg level 10 Alamy still compress to level 8

    I suspect their compression is absolute (always to a fixed level), but currently have no evidence to support that.

    But it's always good to upload a quality that's higher than Alamy needs methinks, so that any losses their processes introduce don't cause problems.

    I'm sticking with uploading at level 10.




    Same here, I'm always at level 10, sRGB, but that doesn't mean anything scientific, just that I'm happy with that size for storage and uploading.


    Note: metadata can be removed, without changing the image. I think someone had asked about that? Lossless operation, where the image data is not altered.


  17. I've found some messages here saying there hasn't been a re-rank in ages. If that's true, anyone trying to make their images more visible, instead of letting the system just work, might not find any success in placement enhancement, after doing much fruitless effort.


    How much does rank matter right now. My BHZ test is the same as it was probably ten years ago. My images show up just fine, because of Alamy diversity.


    I'd rather work on better keywords, descriptions, and better images than spend time worrying about rank? Anyone care to correct my viewpoint or elaborate?


    And yes I realize that page placement, towards the first pages, will make for better exposure. I'm saying that, I don't know that RANK is terribly meaningful or something that anyone can manipulate, or should be overly concerned about?



  18. On 14/03/2020 at 07:12, Harry Harrison said:

    Edit: Actually a vacuum cleaner might cause more dusty air to be sucked in.


    Very good point. I clean my sensors on my own DSLRs, I wouldn't try to work on the RX100, too many small parts. I don't like those ribbon cables either.


    Did I read the prices right on eBay, cheaper to just buy another one or two, used, than clean one? Sad situation. Nice camera!


  19. 20 hours ago, MDM said:


    Because it is ancient and it was the first film scanner I ever used back in 1994 so I know what the quality is like. I had a fondness for it as it was amazing to be able to digitise some slides for the first time - the closest thing in the digital world at that time to seeing a print develop in a darkroom. I didn't own it though. It was bought by the computer guy in the place I was working at the time. Do post some of the scans at full res somewhere if you want as it would be interesting to see them.


    I don't expect that anything from the LS 1000 scanner will be suitable for Alamy or stock. The old T mount duplicator has a lens inside the tube, I don't trust that to make best quality images.


    That's why I had concluded that the answer to the original question, had pretty much come back as the Nikon duplicator adapted to make it work on geophotos Canon equipment. That's best for two reasons I can see. Quality and cost.


  20. 51 minutes ago, MDM said:




    That scanner is ancient and the quality on the other side of terrible by today's standards. More noise than detail. If you are going to spend time on copying slides I would think you would be better to use something else, anything else, or send them out as you say.


    Yes, but I own it. 🙂


    I was just listing my current options. Why are you so negative and looking for things to be wrong?

  21. Just a note.


    I sold the Canon slide duplicator. Still working on the black mask for the slides, so I can use a digital camera, back lighted. I located my LS-1000 in storage, and have one SCSI card in an XP computer. With Vu-Scan by the way. I have the old T-mount slide duplicator, bellows, adapters, it's OK.


    LS 1000 = 12-bit A/D and 2,700-dpi optical resolution, which is supposed to make 10MP images from a slide or 35mm film.


    If all of those fail, I'm still thinking of just sending some out. 🙂


    After all these messages, to answer the question that was asked, the Nikon Slide duplicator looks like the best answer for slide copying with a digital camera.


    ----> fork


  22. 1 hour ago, MDM said:


    Generic is sensible. It is definitely not quartz which is a mineral, not a rock type. Quartzite is a rock that is composed predominantly of quartz and can have various origins. Klinger's document is very interesting but somewhat complex (it looks like a presentation from a conferencel) and not sure how it directly relates to the various photos. There is a lot more than quartzite in the area as the document makes clear. Looks like an amazing place. I'll stick in on the bucket list if I ever make it back out to Australia. 


    There you go, I learned something new and it's only 8:30AM here.


    "Quartz can be classified as a crystalline rock whereas quartzite can be classified as metamorphic."


    The paper relates to the area and the geology of the area where the rocks came from. It identifies the predominant types of rocks. A clue.


    1 hour ago, gvallee said:

    Thanks for that Klinger. I have decided to remain generic as a precaution. Safer that way. Thanks anyway for your research.


    You're welcome, I like a good mystery. I would have thought that you knowing the area, and me clueless about the specifics, (I am 9,673 miles away) you might find out what the rocks of that region are known to be. And make that, it looked like quartz, to me, because of the crystals, but now I've been corrected, it's more likely quartzite.  👍


    You can safely say the rocks have a crystalline structure which could be a search advantage, and still stay generic.


    Nice site and beautiful location.

  • 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.