Jump to content

TokyoM1ke

Verified
  • Content Count

    407
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by TokyoM1ke

  1. Superb article and the comments are a great follow up. Moving into the artistic, rather than stock world, I've decided to try to put technical perfection to one side and think more about the content... telling the story, like some I posted earlier this week: http://www.maudric.com/blog/2016/02/19/tsukiji-when-the-market-closes/). Clearly NOT something to even begin to consider for Alamy!
  2. Lots of Rubioesque errors, our own beloved/hated Tory party dropped a bit of a clanger: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2896164/Tories-road-recovery-actually-photo-GERMANY-Labour-accused-misleading-cuts-claims.html Edit: Out of curiosity, who would the paper have to pay license fees to for that one?
  3. Thanks, easy to give way to paranoia in this company!
  4. Not sure if this qualifies (face is fairly sharp, given it was night)... I hadn't even considered that it might have failed QC. Maybe a good moment to step back and inject some caution.
  5. Sorry for being picky but this is key wording - "Mackerel Sky" ... although the "alternative" spelling of that species of fish might be worth including.
  6. The idea that raw is out of style is silly. JPEGS may have improved but you lose control if you don't shoot raw. These are a few of the reasons to shoot raw: dynamic range (highlight and shadow detail), white balance, exposure latitude, noise control, capture sharpening, bit depth. If you want the definitive on why you should shoot raw, then I recommend reading Jeff Schewe's book http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/0134033175/ref=rdr_ext_tmb. (the UK link but is available worldwide). The discussion on re-saving JPEGs and losing quality in that is irrelevant to the original question. I st
  7. A lot depends on the JPG and this doesn't happen in LR or ACR, of course. But you always lose the additional colour depth on the first save (in camera or out). I really do need to update my knowledge of JPGs . . . I was positive that, as Davey states, every time you save a jpg you lose some data. dd Sorry, wording was sloppy - there is always some loss if you re-encode each time. You only get it once if you save to JPG in camera Then once more if you modify using LR or ACR (but only once, even if you make multiple changes). Is this not the main reason to do jpg on
  8. A lot depends on the JPG and this doesn't happen in LR or ACR, of course. But you always lose the additional colour depth on the first save (in camera or out). I really do need to update my knowledge of JPGs . . . I was positive that, as Davey states, every time you save a jpg you lose some data. dd Sorry, wording was sloppy - there is always some loss if you re-encode each time. You only get it once if you save to JPG in camera Then once more if you modify using LR or ACR (but only once, even if you make multiple changes).
  9. A lot depends on the JPG and this doesn't happen in LR or ACR, of course. But you always lose the additional colour depth on the first save (in camera or out).
  10. True Jill but worth noting that you can import JPGs into LR/ACR and apply the same non-destructive changes, if not as effectively. But on a different point, the real difference, depending on your camera, is that most RAW files have at least 12 bit colour depth (that's 4,096 levels in each of the colour channels, Red, Green and Blue) while the JPGs allowed on Alamy only have 8 bit colour (256 levels in each of the colour channels). Of course you are converting to JPG but before you do you can usually recover detail and generally change with the look better when you have a larger number of s
  11. You sure they're not HDR? That's what I thought for some of them... Or PS combinations of multiple images but all taken in very quick succession, keeping the camera very still and PS combining them? On the other hand, after the plane up the ladder, maybe PS is fine? From the image description.... 'The brown trout has been subsequently added to the scene in Photoshop so this is very much a composite image. The trout is actually shot at a completely different time and location.' Got it... totally bizarre. Makes it all rather meaningless...
  12. You sure they're not HDR? That's what I thought for some of them... Or PS combinations of multiple images but all taken in very quick succession, keeping the camera very still and PS combining them? On the other hand, after the plane up the ladder, maybe PS is fine?
  13. My first ever sale ... over a year ago was one of those. I actually thought the rate was pretty good for a presentation at $25. And it doesn't seem to have turned up anywhere else that I've discovered.
  14. . . . but first, you must demonstrate you can read . . . and count. dd Harsh... but fair!
  15. They are completely amazing, no question. But... don't they seem unnaturally sharp? I presume that's the preferred style for the competition.
  16. Unfortunately the guidance is not clear enough for many people - viz the frequency with which this question is asked in the forum. I think the problem for many people lies in the use of the term "uncompressed file size" which is a term that is only used by Alamy as far as I can see. It might be clearer if the Alamy guidance stated something along the lines of "You can see the uncompressed file size by opening your JPEG file in Photoshop, then clicking Image - Image Size. The uncompressed file size (called Pixel Dimensions in Photoshop) is shown in the top left corner of the Image Size dia
  17. Hang on... doesn't the blue flag belong to Blue Flag? As per: http://www.blueflag.org/menu/awarded-sites/2015/northern-hemisphere/england/southwest/bournemouth-southbourne-beach If so, how can Bournemouth give permission to photograph it? I would have thought that the whole point was for advertising the beach as a "Blue Flag beach"... am I missing something here? Edit: Also, wouldn't it be up to the advertiser to get the permission, not the photographer? I mean, you have no idea what kind of advertising it would be used for when you take the photograph... big difference between
  18. You made me look for this rule on Alamy's pages, too, but I cannot find it neither. Why doesn't Alamy state this clearly any more? This is really not our job.... It's nonsensical but I can't see any reason why you shouldn't. Just different licenses with different conditions - exclusivity would be a different matter! Edit: But, of course Sprocket has found the relevant rule so please ignore me!
  19. I don't see how they possibly can... particularly if they're not recognisable. I once put "people" in a five-shadows photograph so that buyers would know the number of shadows... tricky. Do you lose anything by putting in the number and letting the buyer decide? I presume RM anyway.
  20. I rather go with the others' comments but remember that you can also have camera shake with a tripod and long exposures due to one or more of the following: using the thin legs at the bottom or post at the top, breeze or wind, no weight to stabalise it, shutter release unsettling camera (no timer, no remote release), movement of mirror, flexible surface, earthquake (only had one here in Japan while taking a photograph). I'm sure there are other reasons (beyond avalanche and landslide) as well! If you want to show us some 100% crops I'm sure that someone would offer an opinion. You did
  21. In the absence of a 100% crop we're all shooting in the dark and can't really help . . . dd If literally so then that may be the problem DD. The other thing is that even if you clear your first four images, if you think that the original four were all fine and they didn't pass then they and similar shots probably won't pass at a later date, so it's worth getting to the bottom of what the problem really is and where you and QC are having a clash of perceptions. For the test shots there isn't a sin bin but there is once you're on board.
  22. Great advice - lawyers always seem inclined to get their clients to do everything "just in case"... as it doesn't cost them anything!
  23. I rather go with the others' comments but remember that you can also have camera shake with a tripod and long exposures due to one or more of the following: using the thin legs at the bottom or post at the top, breeze or wind, no weight to stabalise it, shutter release unsettling camera (no timer, no remote release), movement of mirror, flexible surface, earthquake (only had one here in Japan while taking a photograph). I'm sure there are other reasons (beyond avalanche and landslide) as well! If you want to show us some 100% crops I'm sure that someone would offer an opinion.
×
×
  • 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.