Fred Blogzz

Verified
  • Content count

    11
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Forum reputation = neutral

About Fred Blogzz

  • Rank
    Forum newbie

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Alamy

  • Alamy URL
    http://www.alamy.com/contrib-browse.asp?cid={69DA1C57-E7CE-4292-A123-68F82534E080}&name=Clicksmith+Shutter
  • Images
    133
  • Joined Alamy
    08 Jun 2014
  1. Thanks for the replies folks. It appears an over exposed white background may be accepted by QC. I'll find out in due course. Thanks again.
  2. I refer to the triangles at the left and right ends of the histogram in ACR, in this instance the right hand triangle at the highlight end of the histogram. My apologies for not being clearer. I prefer window light for table top work. Often the sun is in an inconsiderate mood and mischievously dodges out from behind clouds just as the button is pressed. In these conditions I use AV exposure mode with + compensation because of the white expanse background. It's early days for my tabletop stuff, but the problem is how to get a pure white background without breaching Alamy's white point requirements. To get the background pure white seems to mean going off the right hand end of the histogram and therefore having a white highlights triangle.
  3. Hi, With ref to alamy's requirements re the black and white points of an image. I have just recently invested in a photography table with a permanent white vinyl cover, (plus a black vinyl overlay). Experimenting, it does seem desirable to deliberately introduce some subtle shadows. However for the rest of the background, it seems to be impossible to obtain both a full pure white background and a black right hand triangle. Has anyone ever got a submission with a white background through QC with a white highlights triangle and highlight peaks through the roof? It seems best to ask the knowledgeable people on here rather than risk losing the three stars by adopting a suck it and see what happens approach.
  4. Dark patches on submissions

    Thank you for your explanation, spacecadet.
  5. Dark patches on submissions

    Thank you very much for that explanation John. I had no idea they did that.
  6. Hi, I'm not a prolific photographer. Apart from a couple of false starts I've had no trouble with QC and I often only submit one image so I guess that one image always gets full scrutiny. My latest submission was uploaded at 0925 30.06.17. Now when I go to my image manager and look at those submissions there are large dark patches in the centre of all three. These are the only images that show such a dark patch. The images are marked 'Image in QC'. The original jpegs, with profile Adobe 1998, that were uploaded to Alamy are on my hard drive and they display no such dark patch. The three images are on sale elsewhere and display exactly as they should be, no dark patch. However, for that other site they have been converted to srgb. The other difficulty is i that have some news images taken today 01.07.17. If the already submitted images are presenting to Alamy QC having somehow acquired a central dark patch, they will have absolutely no chance of passing. In fact nobody in their right mind would have submitted them looking like that. I have emailed contributors help but it is Saturday and I suppose it will be at the very least Monday before there is a reply. By that time the Saturday news images will be out of date. That's why I am posting here in case any forum members can shed some light on what might have happened before Monday. Any help would be much appreciated.
  7. Freedom of Panorama - European Commission

    Survey completed. Although I have to say I'm a bit confused by the terms EU Commission and European Commission, and whether the possible loss of Freedom of Panorama will apply to EU countries, or to the whole of Europe.
  8. Newbies fumbling in the dark

    Thank you for that succinct explanation. Your post exactly clarifies the position. I can now consider some images that were hitherto considered too risky. Thanks again.
  9. Newbies fumbling in the dark

    The confusion here, (for me), is when a full face image has the nearer eye and that side of the face in the DOF, but the farther eye is softer. I suspect that no matter how appealing the image is, QC would fail it. When you've already had three fails, it's not worth the risk.
  10. Newbies fumbling in the dark

    Thank you for the responses. My latest submission has now passed QC, which clarifies some of the points for me as an individual, but I feel the limits of the QC parameters will not become clear until more submissions have been assessed. I understand, (and agree with), the need for technical excellence, but do wonder if it would be advantageous to cut newbies some slack until they get a full understanding of what is required. I refer here to the 30 day penalty for several QC failures.
  11. As a newbie I find myself fumbling in the dark. Re QC's comments about white and black points What about a portrait with a deliberately over exposed white background? This is a recognised technique, but does such an image fail the Alamy 5% white point test? Re images must be sharp How much must be sharp? The entire image from front to back? In some circumstances, it seems not possible to ensure tack sharpness throughout the image. Take the case of a close up of a small subject. To get the entire image sharp from front to back would require a very small aperture. However, going smaller than F11 often means increasing diffraction effects, which makes it impossible to obtain crystal clear sharpness, anyway. Therefore, one is left with only the option to focus on a zone within the frame and let the rest go soft. Does that mean a QC failure on account of a soft image. Then take the case of an extreme close up of a portion of a model's face, possibly on full zoom. If the nearer eye is clear, but the other eye is outside the depth of field, does this mean the image fails QC? Then take the case of a screw on lens diffusion filter which covers the entire frame, including the model's eyes. Does that deliberate skin-kind softness automatically mean a QC failure?