Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Alamy can be a really valuable learning experience if you stick with it.

We've all been there (or at least most of us have) when it comes to being frustrated by QC failures.

 

Good luck.

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

 

Yes, we can confirm they are the dimensions of the image. Here is a 100% crop of the tree area, right of centre:

 

image.png

 

And here is a 100% crop of the top of the centre tree area with the roof in the background:

 

image.png

 

Can we just ask - what software are you using to process these images?

 

Alamy

 

Looks like you have blown it up to about 200%, not 100% !

Share this post


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

Looks like you have blown it up to about 200%, not 100% !

 

Liverpix, just a quick question: what do you think is 100%?

 

wim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, liverpix said:

Looks like you have blown it up to about 200%, not 100% !

No.. I make 100% about 140cm across on my monitor. That's about right for 5000px

But it isn't anywhere near acceptable. If you are seeing it as sharp, either there's something wrong with your viewing environment or your definition of "sharp" is very different from ours- or more importantly, Alamy's. The original may be in focus, but the real problem is the processing. You're losing a great deal of detail somewhere.

Edited by spacecadet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, wiskerke said:

 

Liverpix, just a quick question: what do you think is 100%?

 

wim

Well, it tells you at the bottom left of the photo on photoshop  the size of the photo. Also,  know as actual size/pixels, I believe.

Share this post


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

Well, it tells you at the bottom left of the photo on photoshop  the size of the photo. Also,  know as actual size/pixels, I believe.

 

Exactly right.

So there cannot be any discussion about that.

As the others have said, you should re-fresh or re-calibrate your eyes to what's good at 100%.

There's a guide somewhere on Alamy with samples, but I cannot find it, nor my link to it. But someone here may still have it.

Otoh there have been many discussions here about what is sharp enough or what's over-manipulated according to (most of) us, but most importantly according to QC.

 

wim

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

 

Exactly right.

So there cannot be any discussion about that.

As the others have said, you should re-fresh or re-calibrate your eyes to what's good at 100%.

There's a guide somewhere on Alamy with samples, but I cannot find it, nor my link to it. But someone here may still have it.

Otoh there have been many discussions here about what is sharp enough or what's over-manipulated according to (most of) us, but most importantly according to QC.

 

wim

That's what I am trying to say - they have cropped my photo to about 200% instead of 100; that is why it looks bad. I have compared it at 100 per cent on my monitor to what they have posted; it's much closer on here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, liverpix said:

That's what I am trying to say - they have cropped my photo to about 200% instead of 100; that is why it looks bad. I have compared it at 100 per cent on my monitor to what they have posted; it's much closer on here.

I don't think you're right about that- I think Alamy know how to post a 100% crop as it's always been the basis of QC, but it's still falling to pieces at half the size.

Edited by spacecadet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Liverpix,

 

When you are in a hole it is best to stop digging.

 

We all make mistakes. Just accept it and learn. 

 

What are you going to achieve by continuing to argue?

 

Please just accept and move on.

 

Best wishes

 

 

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

why really cares?   Alamy, doesn't want to represent your image.  they don't believe this is what their customers need nor want.  we pay them for this expertise.  this is not personal,  it's their knowledge, i personally am thankful for the rejects I got instead of letting things their clients didn't want and hurting my rating.

Share this post


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

 

Time for a break chaps. 

Edited by Mr Standfast
Sorry can't remove that 4 hours ago thing
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

Liverpix,

 

When you are in a hole it is best to stop digging.

 

We all make mistakes. Just accept it and learn. 

 

What are you going to achieve by continuing to argue?

 

Please just accept and move on.

 

Best wishes

 

 

Just trying to point out a fact. Take your point, I will move on.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Liverpix,

 

Instead of arguing I wonder if you can answer some of the questions that have been asked, then we might be able to help you.

 

1) Post a full resolution copy of the image (add a watermark if you like) since you don't agree that Alamy's crop is 100%. If you don't want to set up an account then use the free image hosting service at https://postimages.org/ and make a note of the delete URL so you can remove later. Posting the complete file will also provide the Metadata which will allow us to check the camera settings and potentially some of the post-processing applied. 

 

2) Please describe your workflow used to produce the image in question. As you know the RX100 is perfectly capable of producing images that pass QC, especially at ISO 125, but the images posted so far (by you and Alamy) look like they may have been massively over-processed, but it's hard to be sure without seeing the actual jpg and the EXIF data.

 

Mark (keen to help) 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Alamy said:

 

Yes, we can confirm they are the dimensions of the image. Here is a 100% crop of the tree area, right of centre:

 

image.png

 

And here is a 100% crop of the top of the centre tree area with the roof in the background:

 

image.png

 

Can we just ask - what software are you using to process these images?

 

Alamy

 

 

These do not look good to me. But thanks for putting up an example of what NOT to do. I've failed QC for far less egregious examples and have been very judicious in my processing of photos ever since.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, The Blinking Eye said:

 

These do not look good to me. But thanks for putting up an example of what NOT to do. I've failed QC for far less egregious examples and have been very judicious in my processing of photos ever since.

Like I said above, those crops by Alamy are near 200%, not 100%. How would you like it if they judged your photos at 200% and not 100%.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Decisions, decisions: do I open another packet of peanuts?

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's the full size file.

 

Can't remember the whole workflow. Usually adjust the contrast, highlights and shadows and a bit of sharpening. Also use auto enhance, sometimes.

 

https://postimg.cc/K1rjPbX3

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, M.Chapman said:

Liverpix,

 

Instead of arguing I wonder if you can answer some of the questions that have been asked, then we might be able to help you.

 

1) Post a full resolution copy of the image (add a watermark if you like) since you don't agree that Alamy's crop is 100%. If you don't want to set up an account then use the free image hosting service at https://postimages.org/ and make a note of the delete URL so you can remove later. Posting the complete file will also provide the Metadata which will allow us to check the camera settings and potentially some of the post-processing applied. 

 

2) Please describe your workflow used to produce the image in question. As you know the RX100 is perfectly capable of producing images that pass QC, especially at ISO 125, but the images posted so far (by you and Alamy) look like they may have been massively over-processed, but it's hard to be sure without seeing the actual jpg and the EXIF data.

 

Mark (keen to help) 

Just posted the info you requested.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, liverpix said:

Just posted the info you requested.

 

OK got it thanks. Alamy's crops are at 100% not 200%. Something has gone very, very wrong with this image. It almost looks like it's had the PS emboss effect applied. I'll take a look at the EXIF/Meta data to see if it reveals anything.

 

Mark

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The EXIF/META data shows that the camera jpg is set to high contrast and hard sharpness. That's not the full story, but I certainly wouldn't set in camera contrast and sharpening that high as it will create artefacts in the jpegs. My Sony RX100 is set to sharpening "soft" and contrast "normal". The EXIF / META data also suggests the image has seen both Photoshop Elements 8.0 and Windows 10 image editor. Besides the in camera sharpening and contrast being set too high it looks to me like something must also have gone wrong with the subsequent processing of this image. Auto enhance may not be helping either. Alamy need pretty "clean" images without too much processing (especially if starting form a jpg). Shooting in RAW gives much more latitude.

 

Do you still have the original jpg (before you did the editing)? If so, can you upload that and I'll take a look at that file? (tomorrow morning)

 

Mark

Edited by M.Chapman
  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, liverpix said:

Like I said above, those crops by Alamy are near 200%, not 100%. How would you like it if they judged your photos at 200% and not 100%.

 Well having looked at your upload and the Alamy 100% crops, I can confirm that the crops are indeed 100% and that you are incorrect. It is astonishing that you are actually arguing that they are 200% when it is a simple matter of just checking on screen. Your image at 100% in Photoshop is exactly the same size as the Alamy crops. It reminds me of certain politicians these days making blatantly incorrect claims that can be easily proven wrong if the evidence is examined and yet they ignore the truth and sizeable numbers of people are taken in by these untruths. In this case there is nowhere to go - you are simply incorrect and the evidence is there for all to see. 

 

Something has gone badly wrong with that image and it is truly ridiculous to expect such an image to pass Alamy QC. You do really need to examine where you went wrong if you want to progress. There is no better way to learn photography than from mistakes but to learn from your mistakes you need to acknowledge that you are making mistakes. First thing to do is to start shooting raw and learn how to process raw images - that is called taking control.

 

 

 

  • Like 3
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I had come to this image without the preceding discussion I would have admired the skill of the artist/engraver/print maker.  Unfortunately, that engraved effect is not suitable for stock photography.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, liverpix said:

 

Can't remember the whole workflow. Usually adjust the contrast, highlights and shadows and a bit of sharpening. Also use auto enhance, sometimes.

 

 

I'm not familiar with the program you are using, but it is probably best to avoid using any 'auto' adjustments. Could you have accidentally applied a huge amount of unsharp mask or some other effect? I've sometimes moved sliders without realising it until I zoom in. If the in-camera contrast and sharpening are High, there can be interaction if those actions are subsequently repeated in post. Alamy's original instructions were to turn in-camera sharpening off, and only apply a minimal amount in RAW conversion to compensate for the anti-aliasing filter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, MDM said:

 Well having looked at your upload and the Alamy 100% crops, I can confirm that the crops are indeed 100% and that you are incorrect. It is astonishing that you are actually arguing that they are 200% when it is a simple matter of just checking on screen. Your image at 100% in Photoshop is exactly the same size as the Alamy crops. It reminds me of certain politicians these days making blatantly incorrect claims that can be easily proven wrong if the evidence is examined and yet they ignore the truth and sizeable numbers of people are taken in by these untruths. In this case there is nowhere to go - you are simply incorrect and the evidence is there for all to see. 

 

Something has gone badly wrong with that image and it is truly ridiculous to expect such an image to pass Alamy QC. You do really need to examine where you went wrong if you want to progress. There is no better way to learn photography than from mistakes but to learn from your mistakes you need to acknowledge that you are making mistakes. First thing to do is to start shooting raw and learn how to process raw images - that is called taking control.

 

 

 

The crops on here do not compare to 100% on my photoshop elements software. We just have to disagree. I may try and get a screenshot done if I can.

  • Downvote 1

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.