Hello from South Georgia USA

[J Stolarski]

New to Alamy... Long time film shooter. Have box of old 1940s estate negatives I was thinking about putting up as stock.

[Jansos]

Dzień dobry! Worth a try, I would have thought.

[MizBrown]

You'd need to own the copyright. 

[Schultan]

Hi,  
I’m new here and I’m from Germany! 
How is it going with the sale? 🤗

[J Stolarski]

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.

[MizBrown]

Basically, if the photos are over the time of copyright, they're in the public domain, and they can't be copyrighted by anyone, and if used, neither you nor Alamy can legally prevent anyone else from using them.  If you have two stars on your contributor's page, go to the Alamy Image Management section and see if your photos passed quality control.  Emails are lagging some time behind passing QC.   To have the images show up, you need to caption and keyword them until they show up as on-sale. 

 

Copyright depends on which country these are from and when that country signed the relevant treaty that controls copyright in most countries.  Was at one point 40 years (20 and 20 renewed), then went to life of author, now life of author plus some number of years.   The heirs could be technically the copyright owner.  You'd have to mark the material "in the public domain" on the optional page in the Alamy Image Management section. 

[J Stolarski]

15 hours ago, MizBrown said:

Basically, if the photos are over the time of copyright, they're in the public domain, and they can't be copyrighted by anyone, and if used, neither you nor Alamy can legally prevent anyone else from using them.  If you have two stars on your contributor's page, go to the Alamy Image Management section and see if your photos passed quality control.  Emails are lagging some time behind passing QC.   To have the images show up, you need to caption and keyword them until they show up as on-sale. 

 

Copyright depends on which country these are from and when that country signed the relevant treaty that controls copyright in most countries.  Was at one point 40 years (20 and 20 renewed), then went to life of author, now life of author plus some number of years.   The heirs could be technically the copyright owner.  You'd have to mark the material "in the public domain" on the optional page in the Alamy Image Management section. 

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.

 

[MizBrown]

1 hour ago, J Stolarski said:

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.

 

 

I've scanned a few medium format shots on an Epson flatbed that worked for photos fairly well (mid-price of two flatbeds that were recommended in their day for photographic scanning).  Clicking on the blue figures will take you to my portfolio.   I also had a range of 35 mm cameras (including a Leica fIII).  I think scanning smaller than medium format tends to be problematic, but some people have made it work. 

 

A lot of us have a Sony a6000, which is a good and reasonably priced entry into mirrorless aps-c, available still from vendors at around  $550 with the kit lens.   The a7II Sony cameras are now under $1K with a full frame kit lens.  And the a7 cameras are probably less if anyone is still selling them.   If you have film lenses, they can be used on a mirrorless body with adaptors.  Some adaptors even provide auto focus for some lenses; most will be manual focus. 

 

Don't know the Nikon or Canon equivalents, or what they're offering in DSLRs rather than mirrorless. 

 

 

[J Stolarski]

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.

 

[sb photos]

8 hours ago, J Stolarski said:

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.

 

My first 5x4 camera was a well used Toyo 45a, (later bought a pristine example) passed down from a photographer who still has his port on Alamy but no longer actively contributes. it came with a Schneider 135mm lens with Schneideritis, with tiny white spots visible on the inside of the barrel but not on the glass. Although this drops the value of the lens, in use I never noticed any obvious flare on scans or prints up to A3+. Sharpness was spot on.  My other Schneider lenses, 65mm, 90mm, 150mm and 180mm are still pristine. Haven't seen mention of Schneideritis for some time.

[Harry Harrison]

46 minutes ago, sb photos said:

Haven't seen mention of Schneideritis for some time.

Never seen it described as that, I'll have to Google. I have it on a Canon FD 35mm Schneider PC-Curtagon shift lens which I bought on a whim many years ago at Fox Talbot at the top of Tottenham Court Road. I've only just dug it out again to see what it's like on Fuji mirrorless, it's soft wide open but seems sharp and contrasty at the optimum apertures so it's hard to say if it has been affected as shift lenses often are soft at wide apertures. I've always thought it might be air bubbles in the balsam on the elements but never knew it had a name or that it was specific to Schneider. Any idea what it is?

[Harry Harrison]

9 hours ago, J Stolarski said:

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

Thanks for bringing it up, never got around to looking into it, I have it on a 35mm PC-Curtagon, but Canon FD not Leica R.

 

1 hour ago, sb photos said:

with tiny white spots visible on the inside of the barrel but not on the glass

Ah, so it's the black paint flaking off the outside of the elements, plenty on Google for me to read. I was going to sell it actually as I mainly use an Olympus, seems I shouldn't expect to get too much for it.

Edited August 6, 2020 by Harry Harrison

[MizBrown]

On 05/08/2020 at 15:57, J Stolarski said:

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.

 

 

I haven't had any film scans fail, but I didn't like visible grain when I was shooting film..  

 

Don't have many up, but I think this was taken with a Minolta Autocord if I remember correctly, probably on Acros.

 

 

This, if I remember correctly, is my only 35mm scan that I've sent to Alamy.   Acros/Diafine, Leica IIIf with a Summitar lens.

 

 

But these were not my first submissions.