dustydingo

I can't for the life of me imagine why any library would suddenly exclude itself from accepting images with selective focus. In fact, I'll wager London to a brick on that that will never happen. As long as the main focus of the images you quote is "properly" placed and sharp, of course images like these will continue to be accepted. What automated process are you refering to? May we have a look at a 100% crop of some of the number that were not accepted? DD

Would certainly help, although I have noticed over the years in this place two related situations: many complaints about QC were not followed up with a 100% view, or . . . many complaints about QC were modified a tad after we saw and commented on the 100% view, especially related to noise and dust-bunnies DD

Hard to tell from here, the sound's turned off . . .

Rupert Murdoch's Nat Geo is not the Nat Geo of old methinks . . . DD

If it could cook breakfast, I'd say it WAS perfect . . . DD

I think "several hundred users" is a bit on the conservative side Ian. But I'm afraid your words and the commonsense they contain will run a distant second to those most human of conditiions, the need to find patterns where none exist, the need to find order in chaos, the need to know what will happen tomorrow based on what I think happened yesterday. The fact is Alany receive over 100,000 submissions per day . . . per day!! . . . that has to have a disrupting effect on the predictability of results for any of us . . . or so it seems to me Trends of course are another thing altogether, but to simply compare today to this day last year is stretching the function of trends a tad too far. ☮️ DD

Be that as it may, the thrust of my question remains unanswered: why is it a problem that it always seems to be the same contributors getting $$$ sales? DD

So why is it a problem that according to you it "always seems to be the same contributors getting $$$ sales"? DD

If your technique is sound, having to shoot at that sort of shutter speed for lenses up to around 200mm is a myth and serves only to severly restrict your photography. DD

It is an agency . . . one of the biggest in its particular niche. And to be fair, an agency is simply a collection of individual contributors. Any of us can at least attempt to join any agency if we so desire.

I've been here in one form or another since we had to send hand-drawn facsimilies of our images (the richer contributors had theirs etched onto small wooden tiles), shipped by steamer if you were lucky, to an address in a far off land rumoured to exist somewhere in the Northern Hemisphere, with a turnaround of about 5 months before you found out if your images had been accepted and you then sent the originals copied onto a funny square, stiff plastic thing amusingly called floppy . . . and a disc . . . I certainly do not recall ever being informed where the image was published and by whom. Perhaps that was a premium service for those sending etched wooden tiles? . . .

Ed mate, I owe you an e-mail, coming soon . . . in the meantime, your port still has that touch of an old pro (as I would expect). One thing though: the images of the Basilica Macarena show the ALTAR, not the ALTER 😊 cheers, Sheldon

Well, I think that might actually reinforce my comments above, but hey, we all take what we will from any situation . . . still, that's my tuppeth worth, take it or leave it, it's all the same to me 😊 DD

You'll find most here won't have a problem with your request . . . however, most here expect the same back, so I'm afraid if folk are going to accept your way, you are going to have to accept theirs, including when people don't always only answer a question about one issue DD

Been half-looking at Affinity for a little while . . . haven't really gone too deeply as I couldn't find any reference to how they are going to handle upgrades cost-wise, and it reportedly does not have anywhere near the same 'refine edge' capability as PS, which I often find invaluable. But, maybe time for another look while its price is reduced. DD