Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by alphaomega

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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?
  8. 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'.
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. With the impending 40% left after all the hard work I thought I could save money long term by switching from Adobe Cloud monthly to Skylum new issue with 10% off or less that £50. Looked good but concerned about the lack of lens profiles and suggestions that the colour management is a bit strong i.e. exaggerated colours. I tend to shoot raw and some of my lenses definitely need a lens profile, which are all covered in Camera RAW. Skylum certainly looks attractive, but I do not think that the perspective aspects are as well cared for as in LR/PS. I am not keen on strong colours as I tend to do images that look 'realistic'. Anyone with experience of both products who would care to comment?
  13. So here it is https://www.sony.co.uk/electronics/cyber-shot-compact-cameras/dsc-hx99/specifications#features Sony's new compact camera with a tiny sensor, 8.82mm across, and able to do the 'impossible' as per the specifications. It even has RAW output. I wonder if Adobe will bother. I would love such a camera for a 'walk about' if a longer reach is required than my RX100M3 can achieve. I guess Alamy's immediate response will by Njet, Nein, not in our backyard. Will be interesting to see full size images when they become available. At some point Alamy will probably have to retreat to 'if they pass our quality control' pose. I never imagined, when I started with Alamy, that the quality available with say an RX100 and one inch sensor would ever happen.
  14. I was puzzled by this statement below, where comments are not permitted (Sorry about the double-quote. Not intentional. Can't amend) I have not seen anything posted by the now departed CEO and wonder what is behind this. I am constantly being asked to fill in a questionnaire and I really do not have much to say other than with 145 million images available for sale the prime consideration for me is an increase of the customer base world wide so that those of us who have a decent number of images available on Alamy get a higher ratio of sales to total uploaded. I am not convinced that the addition of millions of extra images, many of which are probably just repeats of what is already available, will do anything other than making selection more complicated for buyers. Filling any gaps and increase active buyers would seem to me to be the way forward.
  15. Interesting discussion. I thought about buying it as it would make my "camera load" easier reducing from two A6000 with 10-18, 16-50 and 55-210 to A6000 with 10-18 F4 and RX100M6 I already have the RX100M3 I have for casual use just in case something turned up. Two things put me against the "upgrade". The RX100M6 from a EU source dealer is £1,149 ($1462). Not a realistic price as far as I am concerned. The RX100 series produce good results easily passing Alamy QC, but the camera is fiddly and the viewfinder small compared with the A6000. Also I have two RX100M1 both with the lens half in/out and not usable. Won't pay for repair as I need a viewfinder. My RX100M3 just been repaired by Sony for £117. The lower lens shutter blade refused to work. So I will stay with what I have got and just use the RX100M3 as a walk about. Hopefully it will last longer that way.
  16. As most contributors know, Alamy will not allow images taken by smartphones. I wonder when this ban will be lifted. I have a feeling that this Sony sensor could make a difference. I can imagine that based on the specification below, a 17Mb image made by this sensor in a well designes smartphone surely will pass inspection unless Alamy remain against smartphones on principle. https://www.sonyalpharumors.com/sony-releases-stacked-cmos-image-sensor-for-smartphones-with-industrys-highest-48-effective-megapixels/
  17. I vaguely recall that Alamy a long time ago pronounced that only a select group of users had their zooms recorded. this was to prevent contributors from going in and zooming their images to get a better rank placement. I think that the zooms have an influence on your ranking. That will partially explain the variation on zoom ratios. If your image has not been prior zoomed then this could be because the person buying the image is not one of the select few being counted.
  18. There is just one problem for Nikon compared with Sony and Canon. They don't make their own sensors. Here is a bit from sonyalpharumors.com https://www.sonyalpharumors.com/pictures-of-d850-internal-cmos-sensor-clearly-shows-its-made-by-sony/ Top Nikon camera with a verified Sony sensor. Doubt if Sony will make a superior sensor for Nikon although I understand that Sony's fab division is separate from the Digital Imaging division. So if Nikon could design a better sensor then Sony might justs make it as long as Sony's own patents are not infringed. They are truly late with Sony having the DSC 10 and 100 series as well as A6000 series and A7/A9 full frame cameras. Everybody is now making lenses for the Sony full frame cameras. How can Nikon actually better the A7 Mk3 and the A9? Maybe a more ergonomic body, but is that enough? What is the point of offering mostly full size lenses with an adapter (at least to start with) when there are now so many lenses dedicated to the E mount? Nikon is not a giant company with endless resources. The future could be tough for them. Sony/Fuji/Pana are not going to stand still. Where is Canon on this?
  19. That is what I surmised was happening to my sales when I started this particular thread. I am evaluating the risks of simply removing this restriction. I think I will ask Alamy if they have any cases of contributors being pursued for images with no model and property releases indicated, but without the 'editorial use only' box ticked. It is encouraging to learn that some of you are carrying on with that format.
  20. Had a quick look at the Contract before reading through the whole thing (28 pages). 1.5 clearly states " You accept that you are solely and exclusively responsible for all Images that you submit and for all data that you store on Alamy’s servers. You acknowledge that Alamy does not and cannot review all Images uploaded and is not responsible for the Images. Where Alamy makes available Images this should be considered only as a courtesy and does not limit your responsibility for the Images." So, essentially they will pass any legal approach received straight to the photographer. It would be interesting to know if there are instances of contributors having been sued by the publisher trying to pass on the buck.
  21. Thanks for your replies so far. I am toying with the idea of removing the restriction on 'editorial only', but I need to re-read the agreement with Alamy first to see what liability that puts on me in this context.
  22. With the introduction of the optional 'editorial only' box I went for it across all images earlier this year. Since then I have seen a measurable reduction in sales. I suspect that images were previously sold for commercial purposes despite me showning no releases for people or property. Basically I do not want any problems with my images being sold for commercial purposes in case anyone objects and a court case or other claims are launched. I actually do not care what they are used for as long as I don't get into trouble as a result thereof. Although I am behind first the user and then Alamy I suspect they will try and pass the buck to me if the 'editorial use' box has not been ticked. Anyone with the same issue and how are you handling it? I would be keen to know. On the one hand I want to maximise sales, but not at the risk og being sued. I am an amateur without insurance for these kinds of problems.
  23. I have used the RX100M3 extensively since purchasing it a couple of years ago. Never had a problem of the nature listed. Most of my images of architecture, travel or landscape pass through Alamy QC at full size. Sometimes I reduce to 30/35 Mb in overcast weather or the corners are not perfectly sharp. I use Aperty priority around F7.1. This 1" sensor does produces luminance noise in RAW. This is a fact. I simply move the Camera Raw slider until the noise level is gone in the most obvious areas and compensate with the sharpness slider also in Camera Raw. As said, if there is still too much noise in dark/shadowy areas then I simply downsize. Will not go below 24Mb. If I have to go lower I reject the image as being not suitable. Simply put, if one cannot get this camera to produce acceptable images for Alamy under most conditions, then either read the manual or send the camera back for repair. This is a wonderful tool for getting acceptable Alamy images in a tiny package. Given up on LR as PS Camera Raw will do all I require. I just open in ACR and then go into PS from there as I have my own file system. I am certain that my images would pass in most cases if I used the Jpeg, but I like to do my own adjustments without starting with a Sony Jpeg. Don't understand how anyone can "hate" Sony. They are now the "mould" breakers. Just look at the reviews of their A9 and A7M3 cameras. Nikon is trailing and only have prof. cameras due to Sony produced sensors. Canon sensors struggle to match Sony sensors for dynamic range. My A6000 with Sony zooms give me DSLR quality at a great weight and size advantage. What is there not to like about Sony?
  24. Could be a good man. The way I see it, Alamy now have the largest selection of images available on line. Right/Wrong?. They need a chap who understands how to leverage this strength. This means a bit more diversification and actually killing off smaller competitors by going for their customers. I don't think that Alamy has used its strength in image numbers to get a big enough market share. the right chap at the top should be able to increase sales with what he has got available by eliminating smaller competitors. that should benefit us contributors. I have seen my sales increase every year for the last three years and I have already sold more than last full year. Prices are not going to increase so the answer is more volume sales from what we have already uploaded. A predator (aimed at competitive sites - not contributors) would be great. Let's give him a chance to show what he can do for us.
  25. Never actually seen Alamy stating that their quality requirements have been raised. On the contrary, they have reduced size requirements from 48Mb TIFF to Jpeg, to 24Mb Jpeg and then finally to 17Mb Jpeg. I would assume that If I reduced all the TIFF 48Mb images I had passed by Alamy then to 17Mb and re-submitted they would pass. I unconsiously think they have and probably make my submissions better than the minimum now, but then the better they are the better it will be. Provide the customer with the best you can do will probably enhance sales opportunities - everything else being equal.
  • 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.