Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'digital'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • Forum rules and announcements
    • Rules and announcements
  • Alamy discussion area
    • Introductions
    • Alamy Quality Control and technical queries
    • Ask the forum
    • Let's talk about pics
  • Suggestions and ideas
    • Alamy
    • The Forum

Group


AIM


MSN


Website URL


ICQ


Yahoo


Jabber


Skype


Location


Interests


Alamy URL


Images


Joined Alamy

Found 4 results

  1. Black and White

    20% of my port is black and white film scanned images. The issue i'm facing is false positives, i.e. the query "iphone X black" returns to buyers a "black" and white picture i made recently of a "white" iPhone X giving buyers about 15 images of mine they don't want. This is just an example, other images have been affected either by the word "black" or "white" ("africa black" has been used by buyers looking for africa black people while i was referring to africa black and white film picture). Sometimes this issue applies also for "obsolete" or "nostalgic" words; actually i use these tags to define the film technology not the image content itself (which could be a new Iphone X taken on b/w and then scanned). How to avoid this issue?
  2. digital cameras - what do you think?

    What are everyone's thoughts on the rule that digital cameras are not suitable for alarmy?
  3. Quality control issues

    I have contributed to Alamy almost 10 years now and have well over 15,000 images online. I average a minimum of several image license sales every week of the year. I have been shooting professionally for over 30 years, using digital capture and Adobe Photoshop for almost 15 years, and have never had a digital image rejected for quality reasons by any other stock agent, including Getty, except by Alamy. In recent months I have experienced what I perceive to be inconsistencies in the Quality Control measures. After going years without a QC Failure, I have had two batches of images fail in recent months. The images were captured with a Canon EOS 1DX and Leica M9-P. In both cases I made (from the original files that Failed QC) beautiful 16x20” prints and sent them in to Alamy for further consideration. In both cases Alamy QC said the images were not up to their standards. I completely disagreed with their assessment, but to no avail. I am seriously considering pulling my images from Alamy. The amount of time spent properly preparing & submitting images against the increasingly low fees is not providing a very good return on investment. I am wondering if anyone else is having similar, inconsistent, problems with the quality-control group? Mark Weidman _______________________________ H. Mark Weidman Photography 24 Trailside Circle Salida, CO 81201-7011 USA Studio: 719-207-4713 Mobile: 719-221-5585 email: mark@weidmanphoto.com web: http://www.weidmanphoto.com/
  4. In 2006, when Alamy insisted on upscaling DSLR images when were then (almost) all below 17 megapixels up to 17 megapixel size, I filed a 2004 shot taken on a camera which was permitted then but now is not - Sigma SD9 or 10. I had a good number of sales and the 5000 pixel+ images looked just a touch softer than 6 megapixel DSLR shots on Bayer sensors treated the same way. Yesterday I made a $400 travel brochure cover sale from one of these and decided to look at the image, as I was curious to see if I remembered the origin of it correctly - and I had considered, last year, trying to locate the shoots on this and several other early 2002-2004 camera choices. My standards today are so high I expect to see pin-sharp detail at pixel level. Boy, was/is this image different. I know it will reproduce perfectly well on an A4 cover, as repro and print are my business in effect and I'm aware of the potential for quite soft large files to look perfect when correctly handled. But I am a little worried about what the client may think if Alamy provides the full size file from these early images - pretty much all my output from 2002 to mid 2006 being sub-10 megapixel. Then again I do not want to remove images when sales like this, $400 ten years after the (visible to the client) capture date, can still happen. Weighing the risks - of refund, versus of no sale at all?