Jump to content

J Stolarski

Verified
  • Content Count

    10
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Forum reputation = neutral

About J Stolarski

  • Rank
    Forum newbie

Alamy

  • Alamy URL
    https://www.alamy.com/contrib-browse.asp?cid={88E4E1BD-2512-4CE4-88BE-B0CA0F38C3AE}&name=Joel+Stolarski
  • Images
    0
  • Joined Alamy
    16 Jul 2020

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Funny...I was just looking at the Sony A5000. With adaptor and leica r, that's a sharp combo. I've had Sony pocket cameras form way back. They really are nice value. Used to always shoot my Ebay pictures with them, and then started using my Galaxy Note 9 to list. I've been enjoying shooting film again. I'm in a small town, and bit of a drive to Savannah, GA. I looked through the Alamy want list, but not much I can think offhand is on it. Was going to get a Schneider Curtagon shift, to shoot some of the historic houses in Savannah, but then read about Schneideritis affecting that particular lens, which isn't terribly cheap...so trying post processing on what I have shot, and the sharpness degrades pretty quick. Have Luminar and the DXO and have to process twice because each has a useful set of tools to do this. Still not acceptable at 100 % magnification. I'm sure what fails QC is film grain, in part. Shoot film and there's going to be grain at high magnification. QC is probably people that have only experience with digital, so they have no idea, nor does it matter that the noise is grain.
  2. All three failed. They were out of focus and noise. Have to decide if getting a mirrorless and using my Leica R's to shoot with for awhile is worth the investment in yet more gear. I'm recently back doing film photography and spent quite a bit to get some decent film bodies and lens, to shoot film. Images are sharp, but the processing is the weak link, for the time being.
  3. I think your last line is what I'm reading from Alamy contributor documentation. They don't ask for property or people releases , but cover by saying when you agree to site rules, that you have releases on hand. It is on the contributor to see that you are in compliance. All is not lost. Some of the old shots would make nice wall decor atmospheric retro decoration. Submitting here, for archival, is another option, and selling them again at auction is another option. Using the images on a website is acceptable, even if it's a photographer promotion website, or as a retoucher to showcase one's skills. Selling for stock purposes is a nice option. but not the only option.
  4. Lately with this pandemic thing, the government, businesses, society in general isn't working well. I am going to research contacting the copyright office as well, and see about clarification. Maybe call my state senator as well...which in past has been a waste of tiem. Don't worry things are just as goofed up here, if you haven't noticed. Now I think I'm remembering why Inever bothered doing stock :(. Sent an email to Alamy help for clarification, I guess, it's been covered in other threads. I would think they have a legal staff that could give us heads up, yet again. Google copyright use , and this isn't the only forum on the topic of use.
  5. Hi guys. I just had forgotten to follow my own threads. So up to speed with replying. Sorry for late reply. I am bilingual French English and un poquito de espagnol. No Polish sadly. copy to forum : So...I received no letter about not passing QC, in about three weeks. Have two stars on my Contributor page, and have no idea what that means. Additionally, and concurrently to posting for Alamy to reach out to forum to give us some additional information on copyright. Hi, I'm really new to submitting to stock agency and I have exhaustively read thru the submission docs. I didn't receive a letter saying the images were unsatisfactory. It took me many days to scan through some extremely old and in very poor condition medium format negatives that I have been able to identify as having 1939 era automobiles. so I can conclude they are from the forties, if not earlier. I really have more questions to ask, but for the sake of brevity, these are negatives I purchased at an antique store. I am still confused after reading copyright law, if I can use the images at a stock agency. I am not looking to copyright the images, and most of the forum threads are also questioning how we can use these orphan works legally. Perhaps, Alamy can reach out to us to clarify what we can and cannot do with these images. There are a few of us diehard film shooters that recognize that these images should be available for preservation, and an added bonus of being able to get even some small compensation for time and effort involved in scanning them , would be just a little bonus for time spent. I'm registered as J Stolarski on Alamy.
  6. At least I'm getting the forum notifications, so something is going right. I think I'm beginning to remember why I've hesitated for 40 years in actually contracting with an agency. I did get involved in some film productions years ago, and didn't have to deal with anything more complicated than showing up , shooting, and handing off the prints. Didn't think about model releases at the time or even property releases. Now, you have a whole class of professional litigators, crawling overtop everybody else, in search of something to sue for. Sadly indeed, for those of us that rescue these negatives cast off by families by the trunk load. I come across a lot of old pictures, undeveloped rolls, prints on a fairly regular basis. Mostly, scan and sell on auction sometimes, and keep some just for enjoyment. I agree with you about the orphan works. Due to the all the recorded images being lost, there is no telling, what has hit the landfills... because the previous owners found them and couldn't sell them or monetize them. There is a Paris film producer that bought some of a lot of about 200 Kodak red borders that I bought at the flea market. He is archiving the slides to preserve the images for posterity, which is pretty neat. For the rest of us I think the cut off from 1932 should be amended to a later date. Not sure with this time of pandemic that this would be a priority for those that deal with the laws concerning copyright. Off topic, I guess since I got two stars, I might consider doing some specific photography, generic in nature, and at least follow through getting my account on here. Just one other question, do the 2 stars mean I can post images, or am I still having to resubmit three images for approval ? Tried to submit the url to one of the 40's scans on flickr, but the forum doesn't allow me to. Anyhow, my profile handle here is me actually, and you can see a few of them I uploaded to there, in 1940 old negatives album.
  7. I don't own the copyright. These are from the 40's , 1932 being the cutoff. Can't be copyrighted by me. Did read on the Alamy, that the images then need to be classified as editorial use only. I've done some reading. Didn't realize a lot about shooting people or property. The negatives I purchased at an antique store. I can reach out to the seller and see if I can find out the estate that sold them , and see about getting a release. If I can't use them then that's fine. Rather not get litigated against.
  8. Sorry for late replying. I thought I had set up notifications to my email for the forum, will have to get that solved. Anyway, I spent a long time fixing three of the scans, and it is showing that I have two blue stars, and didn't receive an email that there was an issue. Still not sure if the QC submission passed or not. Has been at least three weeks. Probably should have read about doing submittals with a decent digital, which I don't own. Only have film cameras. Followed thread, missed marking that at the top. Used to be common in some forums, that if you started a thread you got notifications automatically by default.
  9. I've looked at the guidelines for first submittal. More geared towards digital. Have old negatives from the 40s I was thinking about putting on Alamy. Is QC less stringent on some dust marks or scratches showing up in the 100% views ? Many of the shots, although large, 2.5 inch by 4.5 inch medium format film, are not sharp at 100%. The camera was most likely not of very good optical quality, or photog wasn't of good quality. Scanned at 300 dpi with a Perfection v600, which does really nice scans if the negatives are flat. These are stubbornly lateral curved, so it has been a nightmare of frustration, trying to scan them.
  10. New to Alamy... Long time film shooter. Have box of old 1940s estate negatives I was thinking about putting up as stock.
×
×
  • 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.