Jump to content

alphaomega

Verified
  • Content Count

    55
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

23 Forum reputation = neutral

About alphaomega

  • Rank
    Forum newbie

Alamy

  • Alamy URL
    https://www.alamy.com/contrib-browse.asp?cid={248DAF6C-0CB4-4448-BBAB-24BDB9F3706A}&name=John+Peter
  • Images
    11249
  • Joined Alamy
    05 Dec 2003

Recent Profile Visitors

508 profile views
  • MDM

  1. I have five stars and maintain a rigid system of checks before submitting in batches varying in size depending of what is usable from a particular session. All pictures are prepared in Camera Raw with only light changes to 16 bit Jpegs in PS Cloud. Never make changes in 8 bit. All images are checked carefully at 100%. If I feel an image is not up to standard at full size I reduce down to 24Mp. If I need to go below 24Mp it is a reject. I then look at every picture again enlarged to fill the full size of my 27in screen. I look first at all the edges and margins and then check the sky from one side to the other and back. I occasionally find blemishes I missed at 100%. I think this is because of the overall view you get of the whole picture. I use FastStone image viewer for this final check, but open up in PS to rectify. I look out for birds, spots, unsharp, luminance, fringing etc. I never sharpen images in PS. Only contrast type sliders.
  2. Many thanks for your comments. I tried Capture One Sony Express but could not find out how to even export images and gave it up. I guess I was impatient and did not read the instructions. I think I will have another look. Problem is that the Camera Raw/PS development route is 'automatic' for me. No need to learn new tricks. GIMP is complicated and need a new approach. I actually have both installed. I am waiting for LR/PS pricing for 2020 and will make a decision on what to do then. I will not participate in making LR/PS even more of a 'golden goose' for Adobe. I will certainly have another look at the free Capture One. My sales in numbers are up compared with last year, but value down. No wonder when you can make a licence sales like this one of a perfectly good image this month: Country: Worldwide Usage: Editorial Media: Editorial website Industry sector: Travel & tourism Image Size: Any size Start: 10 December 2019 End: 10 December 2024 NU Editorial website and app multiple use, in perpetuity $1.25 A lot of the other sales are below $10 gross. This appears to be the market now so we have to adjust the cost/benefit courve.
  3. I shoot RAW & Jpeg. 99% of files opened are RAW using Camera Raw. I do most adjustments in Camera Raw including shadows/highlights. Mostly I do a very slight shadow/ highlight adjustment together with contrast in PS. I really mean slight just to lighten shadows a little and increase mostly the sky/clouds presence also a little keeping an eye on the histogram. RAW adjustments do not reduce image quality the same way as PS tonal adjustments do.
  4. Currently using Camera Raw/PS for image development and awaiting PS Cloud price increase for 2020. Thinking of moving to Imaging Edge for my Sony A6000/RX100M3 if increase unacceptable. I am uncertain about PS intentions. Looks like newly released Edge has fringe adjustments in Lens Correction section. Has anyone been using Edge with one of the free photo applications such as Luminar 4 and/or GIMP with good results? I actually purchased Luminar 4 at the discounted price and find it useful as long as moderation is employed. It installed itself as a separate program as well as a plug-in to PS so transferring an image from PS to Luminar 4 and back is seamless. With the depressing sales revenue now available, there comes a time when operating costs will have to be looked at. Alamy has licensed perfectly good pictures of mine at less that $2 and most are below $5. The $40-60 and above images are getting fewer and fewer. Definitely not viable to pay serious money to go taking stock images. I am really only taking images mostly as an adjunct to leisure except locally. I don't see any improvements in the future.
  5. Just purchased license to Luminar 4 at £64.00. Planning to use it as a 'plug-in' to Photoshop Cloud to 'improve' on cloudy images or adding more interesting skies without going over the top. Not coming out until November. I would not use it as a stand alone application. Too used to PS now.
  6. I just looked at the sky replacement feature in the forthcoming AI driven Luminar 4 and wondered how Alamy quality control would view these conversions. I presume that if the image still looked realistic then, all else being within their quality control parameters, the image would pass. It seems that one can make a realistic conversion from a grey sky to sunny without going 'overboard'. Looking at some of the images others have uploaded here, quite 'colourful' images seem to be acceptable.
  7. Having been in business all my life I cannot see how a $1.50 gross sale can be cost-effective unless it is fully automatic without human involvement.
  8. Got two of them. One with 10-18 W/A zoom and the other with 18-135 zoom. Gives me 15-200mm in 35mm speak w/o lens change. Great for 99% of what I do. Got 55-210 zoom as well to give me reach to 315mm. A gear stored out of reach. RX100M3 for pocket and walk about. Never any fails with these cameras. All processing in Adobe Cloud Raw and PS. Don't see a need to upgrade now.
  9. A Web site for Sony users Sonyalpharumors has an article about Topaz AI software. https://www.sonyalpharumors.com/150-off-on-the-topaz-ai-software-superbundle/ 'Now you can get all of the best-selling Topaz AI Products for one low price. Get DeNoise AI, Sharpen AI, Gigapixel AI, and JPEG to RAW AI for just $199 for a limited time! Get the superbundle here at TopazLabs.' Sounds expensive to me and I doubt the need of it for my purposes. I am quite happy with Adobe Cloud with LR and PS. Anyone with experience in using this software? Looks to me they are reducing the price because of a lack of customers.
  10. I have the RX100M3 and started with the original model without finder. Before that I used the LX2 and then the LX3, which was fine as long as the sun shined. The small 10Mp sensor could just make 24Mb as was the requirement then. Now 100% Sony. My bag consists of two A6000 with latest .21 firmware update. One has the 10-18/4 fitted and the other the new 18-135mm giving me (in 35mm speak) uninterupted 15 to 200mm reach. I also have the 16-50mm in the bag and sometimes separately the 55-210mm zoom extending my range to 315mm. I am amazed how these four lenses all can provide almost perfect images across from corner to corner at 100% without cropping - 68Mb opened. (In sunshine with ISO400 max I would say). I was reviewing all the digital cameras I have had and some sold again from the venerable R1 with Zeiss 16-80 fixed through A700/A350/A550/A580/A58 as well as NEX-3/5N/6 all because of improvements in sensor size and performance. Actually, the A700 would still be good enough, if I could carry it with requred lenses. I have now reached the buffer stop on the acquisition journey. I cannot see how newer cameras or lenses can make a necessary improvement over what I have for my type of photography. Sure there are better ones such as full frames and single focal lens wonders, but I don't need them and weight is now an important consideration. I went to Sony after having had Minolta equipment for years and have not regretted the move. Sure other makes are good, but not better than Sony.
  11. Theoretically Alamy have not changed their IQ requirements and the size requirement has gone down to 17Mp Jpeg. On the other hand they were desperate for images to start with. I also started with film, but transparancies at 100ASA and they were scanned with a Minolta Dimage dedicated slide scanner. I re-did some, but submitted these at 24Mp after some work in Photoshop. They passed without problems. There is really only one way to find out and that is to re-submit and hope for the best. If you have three stars you may not want to run the risk. If you doubt they will pass then I would recommend you don't do it unless they are rare and might sell at a decent price. If they did not sell before why now?
  12. I have also seen a fall in zooms, but not sure how much of an indication that would be. A reduction in sales would be a better indication. As I recall it, the zooms used for placement of images come from a select number of trusted Alamy customers only, to prevent contributers from going in and zooming their images to improve placement. The majority of my sales are from 'non zoomed' images, but I simply refuse to believe that the purchasers did not zoom in on the image before purchase. They just do not get registered because they are not in the 'trusted pool'.
  13. I wish I knew how to get Alamy to pass a 'gloomy' image without their 'lacking definition' or whatever description they can conjure up. Here is a real problem for me. I dare not submit an image that is not sharp with good definition. I have seen a couple of rejections in the past where I could not fathom why. Have not had a rejection for years. Maybe I am too critical? I don't want a rejection by 'testing' the border between pass and reject. Proud of my three stars. All images have a date taken and some buyers are actually looking for historic images. I have only deleted duplicates uploaded by mistake. I have again uploaded some old images where I have used the PS haze filter, but left the old images in case a buyer actually wanted the mist or haze. You never know. Buyers are often looking to specifically illustrate something and the 'arty' image is not necessarily what they are looking for. I still think I have an awful lot to learn after 16 years at Alamy as very much a part timer. This is definitely a numbers game. I am certain I have missed a lot of picture opportunities because of my vision of wanting 'good looking' images.
  14. Thanks for your comments above. I think that M. Chapman correctly highlights the kind of issues that put me off Luminar. The four points are key to me. You cannot submit images to Alamy which show fringing or CA. I am also concerned about the lack of effective colormanagement and lens profiles.
  15. Thank you for your reply Colin. There is a hype just now about Aurora competing with LR. I think that there is too much emphasis on exaggreating colours. Not my cup of tea. I have read about a lot of satisfaction with DxO. Actually I am happy with Adobe Cloud technally and find their lens corrections acceptable. Between luminance and colour corrections in Camera RAW I am able to control noise so I think I will just stay with Adobe Cloud for the time being. I think that even the new version of Aurora is not for me. I might look seriously at DxO if Adobe increase their prices again in January.
×
×
  • 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.