Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

Why does Alamy QC (who incidentally never rejected any of my previous images, even accidental duplicates) suddenly decide to reject a whole batch upload because one image failed the test ? It seems ridiculous that all the other images should be forfeited just because of one. I don't have that much motivation these days to upload anything because of the lack of sales, less earnings, so this seems to be another reason to not bother as apathy sets in which is a shame.

 

Other stock sites just fail on an image by image basis.

Edited by Marb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 They have not suddenly decided to reject a whole batch upload because one image failed, that is the Q.C policy.

None of your images should fail the test, you are responsible for ensuring your images pass all the Q.C criteria.

Move on, correct the failed image and upload again. 

 

Craig.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Craig Yates said:

 They have not suddenly decided to reject a whole batch upload because one image failed, that is the Q.C policy.

None of your images should fail the test, you are responsible for ensuring your images pass all the Q.C criteria.

Move on, correct the failed image and upload again. 

 

Craig.

Well that told me didn't it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Marb,


I'm genuinely surprised you aren't familiar with Alamy's QC system, it seems you've been around donkey's years and the subject crops up in forum discussions on a regular basis. You can see their explanation of QC here.

 

Basically, Alamy use an industrial type sampling system for QC. Once the contributor has passed their initial submission test, it is assumed they have the skills and workflow to consistently submit acceptable images. The only only check Alamy  make is to examine a small number of images from each batch submitted. It the sample is OK, they assume the rest are OK too. They rely on the professionalism and skill of the contributor. 

 

If an image fails they assume a problem has arisen in the photographer's workflow. They reject all images in the queue to allow the photographer to examine whether the problem is a one off or something which affects several images, and re-submit as required. There is usually a short period of suspension from uploading to prevent contributors from simply removing the bad image and submitting all the rest without checking them further first.

 

The system is the same ass it widely used in industry. No company inspects every nut, bolt and widget they receive at goods inwards. They inspect a small sample and if they find a bad one, they reject the whole batch  and return it to the supplier for them to sort out their problem.

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This has started to happen since I purchased a Ricoh GR II for not having to rely on a DSLR all the time when not practical. It seems noise is the issue but I still think it's a cracking camera, especially for street work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You’ve been here long enough, surely, to have seen this Alamy policy discussed before.

That doesn’t take away the sting of a failure, but develop thick skin and think about the “probably dozens” of others who have failed in a given day. It’s nothing personal.

I cut my teeth here on failures when I first joined. Discouraging enough to not upload for a year. But during that time I read the forum and came to understand I just needed to check more carefully.

I also understand if you’ve never had a fail, or did, but not for several years, it’s easy to get complacent and not do due diligence. That’s probably what caught you out.

Betty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 minutes ago, Betty LaRue said:

You’ve been here long enough, surely, to have seen this Alamy policy discussed before.

That doesn’t take away the sting of a failure, but develop thick skin and think about the “probably dozens” of others who have failed in a given day. It’s nothing personal.

I cut my teeth here on failures when I first joined. Discouraging enough to not upload for a year. But during that time I read the forum and came to understand I just needed to check more carefully.

I also understand if you’ve never had a fail, or did, but not for several years, it’s easy to get complacent and not do due diligence. That’s probably what caught you out.

Betty

No, I genuinely can't see any technical fault and I don't get complacent. I edit every image with the same amount of care. I think I have enough experience over the years to not send out crappy images by now. 

Edited by Marb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

A lot of the people here use the Sony RX100 series, and swear by it, a camera which is similar to yours. I haven't tried one myself, but I have seen one or two comments about the need to use these compact cameras in good lighting conditions to be sure of passing QC. I guess the smaller glass is useful for compactness but a limitation in potential quality. Hey, ho we live and learn.

 

The  QC failure notice should say which image has failed and why.

Edited by Joseph Clemson
Expansion of answer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Marb said:

This has started to happen since I purchased a Ricoh GR II for not having to rely on a DSLR all the time when not practical. It seems noise is the issue but I still think it's a cracking camera, especially for street work.

Yes, some camera’s outputs can get you into trouble. When I bought the Nikon 7000, I loved the color rendition, but began to have failure for “soft and lacking definition. They were soft. I moved on to a different camera and did well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Marb said:

No, I genuinely can't see any technical fault and I don't get complacent. I edit every image with the same amount of care. I think I have enough experience over the years to not send out crappy images by now. 

Then post the full sized version on a hosting site and let us see whether you need a new pair of spectacles. 😊 After all, you are the one who mentioned noise problems with the camera.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Betty LaRue said:

Yes, some camera’s outputs can get you into trouble. When I bought the Nikon 7000, I loved the color rendition, but began to have failure for “soft and lacking definition. They were soft. I moved on to a different camera and did well.

The Ricoh GR has no anti-aliasing filter and the prime lens is tack sharp so images are excellent quality. Its a keeper, if only for personal arty documentary work. To be fair most images I have submitted from it have passed here. It enables you to get more people shots for editorial. Something my port lacks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Marb said:

The Ricoh GR has no anti-aliasing filter and the prime lens is tack sharp so images are excellent quality. Its a keeper, if only for personal arty documentary work. To be fair most images I have submitted from it have passed here. It enables you to get more people shots for editorial. Something my port lacks.

 

Most images????. You need to make your work flow watertight, so all your images pass. I went through this a long time ago, and the fail of a batch feels

personal, so it should motivate you to be your own Q.C and be really disciplined in your camera settings and use of all the sliders in the processing software.

Do that and you will not fail.

 

Craig.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True, that. Having a small “carry everywhere” camera is a boon.

Know it’s limitations. I learned that with my RX100. I doubt many of these smaller sensor camera are great in low-light situations.  Although I saved a series of images taken in a dim room with extremely careful use of noise reduction in the darks. They passed. They would have not done so without the PP.  Of that I have no doubt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Statistical sampling, as used by Alamy QC, is common in many industries. All valid points raised in this thread. All I would add is if you are checking an image at 100% and you think it is borderline, however much you are attached to it, detach yourself from it, reject and don't upload. That's because the small difference between pass/fail can be very subjective.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, sb photos said:

Statistical sampling, as used by Alamy QC, is common in many industries. All valid points raised in this thread. All I would add is if you are checking an image at 100% and you think it is borderline, however much you are attached to it, detach yourself from it, reject and don't upload. That's because the small difference between pass/fail can be very subjective.

I’ve been preaching that for a few years, because if I really loved one of my images, I put blinders on to its faults.  It really hurt to delete those images, but I finally got the guts to do it.

 That's because the small difference between pass/fail can be very subjective.

So true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I recently failed my first batch.  I was getting so successful, I actually forgot to check my photos and there was one terrible one I should have noticed.  I hardly take it personally, haha.  It's a site with millions of photos and it's not like anybody knows me! 😂 Glad to get some feedback.  But now I have a bunch of batches stuck in QC.  Hope to be forgiven.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, The Blinking Eye said:

I recently failed my first batch.  I was getting so successful, I actually forgot to check my photos and there was one terrible one I should have noticed.  I hardly take it personally, haha.  It's a site with millions of photos and it's not like anybody knows me! 😂 Glad to get some feedback.  But now I have a bunch of batches stuck in QC.  Hope to be forgiven.

 

Everyone (mostly) collects some QC failures in the early years, I think you've just ticked the "I don't believe I did that category"; don't worry.

 

Thats one of the many milestones out of the way, but I'm looking forward to hearing about the next ones, first book cover, first magazine cover, first $$$ sale, etc.

 

James

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can recall a few failed batches when I first joined Alamy. The rather unforgiving 'one out, all out' QC judgement did seem rather harsh at the time.

 

BUT... it taught me to be my own QC - a good lesson to learn - and may even have improved my picture taking...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had gone years without a failure but recently have had a number for “Soft or lacking definition” when the main part of the image was sharp but part was out of focus as is often the case with close-ups. In the past I thought these would have passed so wondering if the QC methods have changed.

 

The criteria don't really address this well, but I get the impression now images found in search like C6CT1N, T3YG4R or RKBEF5 might fail maybe because of automated processing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 15/05/2019 at 04:45, Betty LaRue said:

Then post the full sized version on a hosting site and let us see whether you need a new pair of spectacles.

 

Would certainly help, although I have noticed over the years in this place two related situations:

  1. many complaints about QC were not followed up with a 100% view, or . . .
  2. 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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Charles Stirling said:

I had gone years without a failure but recently have had a number for “Soft or lacking definition” when the main part of the image was sharp but part was out of focus as is often the case with close-ups. In the past I thought these would have passed so wondering if the QC methods have changed.

 

The criteria don't really address this well, but I get the impression now images found in search like C6CT1N, T3YG4R or RKBEF5 might fail maybe because of automated processing.

 

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

 

 

Edited by dustydingo
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Mr Standfast said:

 

Everyone (mostly) collects some QC failures in the early years, I think you've just ticked the "I don't believe I did that category"; don't worry.

 

Thats one of the many milestones out of the way, but I'm looking forward to hearing about the next ones, first book cover, first magazine cover, first $$$ sale, etc.

 

James

 

Your encouragement is music to my ears (and heart).  AND...I was forgiven earlier today when I got four new batches approved.  The climb resumes.  (Am I on Everest?) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a newbie joining a professional photography library, I was as nervous as a long tailed cat in roomful of rocking chairs when first submitting my images. (Still am). Never having been involved in the photography industry in any way, shape or form, in previous careers I made sure I didn't make an ass of myself or leave myself open to being flayed by those whose hard learned skills and expertise greatly surpassed mine. Every image gets a good, hard evaluation,  before submission and as Betty says, emotional attachment to an image can damage you professionally.

 

(The Blinking Eye) 'The climb resumes.  (Am I on Everest?)'

 

Nope. From my experience it's a vertical, perpetual motion treadmill...need a tissue, I've got plenty... :P

 

Krisken 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

So why on a number of occasions when I have accidently submitted the same file twice (usually due to the painfully slow and uncertain upload engine) have they both passed QC ? Obviously its automated.

Edited by Marb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Marb said:

So why on a number of occasions when I have accidently submitted the same file twice (usually due to the painfully slow and uncertain upload engine) have they both passed QC ? Obviously its automated.

 

Alamy have stated that their QC is done by real people. Why would we disbelieve them? If it was automated, why would it be switched off during the weekend, unless they were being deliberately deceitful?

 

The situation you have posited here is that a real human inspector would have recognised the duplication. This isn't necessarily so. If the duplicates are in the same batch it would require the inspector to be examining  the entire batch, looking for this kind of problem. We know they only inspect a sample so duplication might easily be missed - it's certainly happened for me.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • 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.