Jump to content

diarmuid

Verified
  • Content Count

    14
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Forum reputation = neutral

About diarmuid

  • Rank
    Forum newbie

Alamy

  • Alamy URL
    https://www.alamy.com/contrib-browse.asp?cid={157CD989-C974-45DA-9163-2DD4C65243B8}&name=Diarmuid+Toman
  • Images
    1814
  • Joined Alamy
    03 Apr 2009

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Thanks Wim, I understand there is software available on some cameras that can show you an existing photo (on memory card) in the view window, which is superimposed on the scene you are about to shoot. Providing your lens is the same, it permits perfect matches of before and after. Unfortunately I no longer have my original lens, nor that camera software, so held an iPad in one hand, showing the 'then' photo, and did my best to match up the scale/angle in the camera view-window for the 'now' version. And yes, I noticed those shooting position and angle differences on Sieger's photos t
  2. My conclusion is that this was never an Alamy 'rule' before, was never documented in the QC manual (pdf), was never a reason for failure before, and has never been applied to all instances of multi-photo jpgs before (e.g. panoramas and montages). This suggests to me that this type of 'QC' (Quantity & Content - as opposed to Quality Control) restriction has just been made up recently, and is not being applied consistently. Maybe Alamy.com are struggling for IT capacity (e.g. cancellation of their video sales project). As I understand it, most 'photos' (aka jpg upload f
  3. Oh dear! I've just realized that a very large number of my already 'on-sale' images should actually have failed QC, for being illegal, unwanted, multiple 'images' in a single jpg! They include all my pesky panoramas (2-7 separate photos stitched together) and my puerile, kaleidoscopic efforts at art (2-4 photos mirrored/flipped/conjoined). A veritable crime-wave of conflagration; conflation; juxtaposition; border-less belligerence; montage-n-ization..............'you be the judge' :).
  4. Thanks Miz, I honestly suspect that no discerning 'end user' (aka potential Alamy Customer) would ever take a second glance at that bland, 10-years after photo (on the right), never mind go reading the 'Description', or go looking for the corresponding '10 years before' photo (on the left). It only makes sense when the viewer sees both images side-by-side - as with Peter Sieger's excellent photos in Harry's Paris history link above. It's obviously not a QC (as in 'Quality Control') issue, it's an as-yet unpublished 'Quantity' and 'Content', "we at Alamy.com don't want..." ruling.
  5. Thanks Vincent. I will consider that for a few pairs of photos but am confident the visual impact will be totally lost, compared with the side-by-side images. It would be like those classic 'spot the difference' sketches, but you're only given one sketch! Perhaps a better option will be to follow the Pete Sieger approach, and upload (with borders; mosaics; separators; artistic license; freedom of vision...) to a different URL!
  6. Thankfully, the Alamy QC team have now clearly stated their objection to photos that contain multiple 'images':- "Unfortunately, we don’t accept these kinds of 'montage' images. We'll likely fail images that feature more than one image or as you said side-by-side imagery, our decision has nothing to do with upload restrictions. In regards to the "montage" images already online, we don’t check every image in a submission so it is possible that some problematic images slip through". So, montages; side-by-side images; mosaics; patch-works; film-strips; contact sheets;
  7. Thanks for the tips and encouragement. As for 'accidental conflation of two jpgs', I can assure you that presenting two photos side-by-side, in Adobe Lightroom 6, was a major mission, and took me ages to accomplish (using the print, and print-to-file functions.) In Photoshop that would be easy, but I only have Lightroom. That was another reason why I didn't want to align horizons or truncate photos as the 'quality' would have been impaired. In reality, the council have dug up the old damaged road and laid new tarmac, have dug up the old damaged pavement and laid tarmac in
  8. "QC aren't presented with something that looks like a failure item, even if it isn't. " Agreed. I did ask QC if I used a white strip, or even inserted a power pole or other null strip from another photo, would that be acceptable. No response as yet - just another 10-day ban on uploads. I then removed the offending separator and it failed again due to "number of images" (refer my other forum post). It seems QC don't believe that those two photos are of the same subject, the same street corner 10 years later. 'number of images' (according to the QC pdf) is a failure
  9. Thanks for the feedback folks. Had it been accepted, the description would certainly mention 'montage' and explain the 'before-and-after' comparison nature of the two photos of the same street, 10 years apart in time. However, you can't add the description unless it passes QC. I tried a vertical 'border' between the two photos, but that failed QC due to 'film rebate/not cropped' (see my other forum post). Agreed that it looks like 'two totally different pictures within one jpg', but that is not documented in the QC pdf as a failure reason, and surely that is what a 'montage
  10. Thanks Meanderingemu. I can't add a caption/description until it passes QC, which it failed! I too searched current Alamy photos for examples of montages, borders, frames and before-and-after combos and found many good examples. Agreed, they may all have slipped through, or QC rules may have changed since they passed QC. It has been a new and interesting project for me, and I have enjoyed taking new shots of the damage that I photographed ten years ago. I do hope Alamy clarify their issues for me, and hopefully eventually accept this type of photo.
  11. Thanks folks for your replies, Here is one of the failed photos, a montage of two photos (before and after) of an earthquake-damaged suburban street. All those houses were levelled and the road repaired. It is now called earthquake 'Red Zone', and no buildings are allowed on this land. QC failure reasons given: 'film rebate/not cropped' and 'number of images' The 'number of images' QC failure is clarified in my other forum post. My conclusion is that QC do not approve of that black strip separator, and that they do not believe that those two images (in one photo) are
  12. Thanks folks for your replies. The QC failure (in the pdf) actually states 'number of images' (not 'quantity of images') and appears to relate to initial 'test' submissions from a new contributor only (they just want 3 photos, no more no less, for your very first upload). I now suspect that my QC failure has nothing to do with the actual number of photos that I uploaded in that batch (3 photos). I also agree that there appears to be no minimum number of photos required for subsequent uploads (after initial 'test' QC). I think QC have objected to one of my photos appear
  13. I just had a small batch of photos rejected due to 'Quantity of Images'. The QC pdf states that only 3 images are required for your first QC submission - which sounds fine, and was many moons ago - in my case. I have never spotted a requirement for a minimum number/quantity of photos in one upload. Does anyone know if there is a minimum number of photos required per upload? If there is, what is that minimum number? If there is a minimum number of photos, then shouldn't that be stated in the QC pdf? Perhaps QC is referring to multiple images within a 'montage'!
  14. I understand the QC issue with 'borders' where black/white/blank/picture-frame strips surround the photo (Customers can add their preference later). What I wanted to do was to separate two images in a montage; before-and-after images of the same subject, ten years apart. I left a narrow, black/blank vertical gap between the two side-by-side images, as leaving no gap looked visually odd to me - with clashes of edges and colours and truncated objects. The montage failed QC due to 'rebates and borders': "we don't want borders" - according to the QC pdf. Does my central, visual
×
×
  • 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.