Jump to content

Recommended Posts

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'!

Any clarification would be appreciated.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

In the past I have uploaded a single image as well as two or three images in a batch but usually upload more. I have not found an upper limit YET.

 

Allan

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 appearing to have two totally unrelated subjects within it.

It is a before-and-after montage of earthquake damage to a suburban street.

A street corner lined with houses has since had all the houses levelled, and the road repaired (Called 'Red Zone' here, as the land can no longer be used

for buildings). The street corner changes makes it look like a totally different landscape, but both 'images' in the photo are of that very same street corner, just ten years apart in time.

Thus, I suspect that QC have used that 'number of images' failure reason inappropriately - as it already relates to a different upload issue.

A more appropriate reason might have been 'more than one subject in a single photo' or equivalent - which isn't currently a failure reason in the QC pdf.

Also, those two 'images' are definitely of the same street corner, and are the very purpose of the photo: a comparison of 'before and after'.

I have emailed Alamy to have this clarified, and await their response (I appreciate they are a bit flat out this time).

 2D9GMDW.jpg 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello again,

 

First of all forget the intial QC 3 images thing it's a total red herring.

 

The picture you have posted looks to me, like two totally different pictures within one jpeg, therefore too many images.

 

Hope this helps.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, diarmuid said:

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 appearing to have two totally unrelated subjects within it.

It is a before-and-after montage of earthquake damage to a suburban street.

A street corner lined with houses has since had all the houses levelled, and the road repaired (Called 'Red Zone' here, as the land can no longer be used

for buildings). The street corner changes makes it look like a totally different landscape, but both 'images' in the photo are of that very same street corner, just ten years apart in time.

Thus, I suspect that QC have used that 'number of images' failure reason inappropriately - as it already relates to a different upload issue.

A more appropriate reason might have been 'more than one subject in a single photo' or equivalent - which isn't currently a failure reason in the QC pdf.

Also, those two 'images' are definitely of the same street corner, and are the very purpose of the photo: a comparison of 'before and after'.

I have emailed Alamy to have this clarified, and await their response (I appreciate they are a bit flat out this time).

 2D9GMDW.jpg 

 

 

 

 

i have seen montage accepted before, clearly indicating at start of description it was a Montage, or with clear border between images.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

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' is.

There are acres of such residential areas in my local town, that were filled with houses 10 years ago and are now empty grasslands: 'Red Zones'.

 2CK039W.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello, again.

 

I think you've got a story thats worth pursuing, don't give up.

 

I've just put "montage" into the the search engine and there are some amazing images there, borders, different formats, everything.

 

May I re-phrase my comment; "two totally different pictures within one jpg".  The point I was trying to make was you have "Two totally different pictures accidently within one jpeg", I think QC have seen what looks to them an accidental conflation of two jpegs. The examples on Alamy are clearly intended to be montages.

 

I have tried to imagine a re-composition with changes that make the left image resemble the right one.

  • Equalise the horizons.
  • Move your viewpoint.
    • Pavement should be nearly straight up.
    • Try to emulate the curve of the pavement.

 

I come to this forum to think about pictures, thanks for the opportunity to think about montages and also the opportunity to use the word conflation!

 

🦔

 

 

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't help but think that the 'montage' definition would be more effective if the images were more similar, just as Mr. Standfast suggests in fact. As an example see these amazing pictures by Pete Sieger showing how Paris has changed (or not changed) since Atget took his pictures over 100 years before:

 

https://siegerarchphoto.com/paris-atget-then-now

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Harry Harrison said:

I can't help but think that the 'montage' definition would be more effective if the images were more similar, just as Mr. Standfast suggests in fact. As an example see these amazing pictures by Pete Sieger showing how Paris has changed (or not changed) since Atget took his pictures over 100 years before:

 

https://siegerarchphoto.com/paris-atget-then-now

 

"Atget is our Mozart"  Joel Meyerowitz

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

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 instead of concrete slabs, replaced the old lamp-post with a different design, de-commissioned all the underground infrastructure (hence no drains), removed all the damaged houses and driveways, re-levelled the land, planted new grass and added new fencing, so only the trees in the distance are still in the same location - and they have grown taller in the past 10 years. It will always look like a totally different subject/location. That's the reality of 7.3 magnitude earthquakes!

Great photos of Paris before and after. Unfortunately Alamy QC would fail all of those Paris photos due to 'borders/film rebate/not-cropped' issues (refer my other forum post on this failure). Before-and-after photos look way better when separated and surrounded by such borders/rebates/cropping 'issues', imho.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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; before-and-afters; conflations; composites and any other multi-image jpgs are not acceptable.

Thus ends my exciting and cathartic post-earthquake photography project 😪.

 

I have made the following recommendations to them:-

"I recommend that Alamy update their QC pdf, and QC failure reasons, to clearly state:-

1. Montages, or any jpg that incorporates more than one photo or subject will be rejected (and please give an example - use my failed uploads if you like).

     Failure reason: 'Montage or multi-photo jpg'

2. The only restrictions on number of photos uploaded are:-

   (a) Precisely 3 photos must be uploaded for your initial QC. (failure reason: 'mandatory 3 photos for your first upload') 

   (b) Thereafter, there are no restrictions on the number of photos that may be uploaded at a time e.g. 1, 3, 24, 230 ...

    (  (c) If there is an upper limit (e.g. 500, as some contributors think) then state this as a rule (failure reason: 'maximum of 500 photos per upload')).

3. Please add examples of failed photos that had borders/rebates/non-cropping issues, including internal 'separator' borders, as well as external borders. Feel free

    to use my failed photos as examples.

All the best for all your team during these challenging times.

Regards, Diarmuid"

 

 

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

Thus ends my exciting and cathartic post-earthquake photography project 😪.

 

No need to to do that - just upload as individual images and add a note in the 'additional info' to cross reference to the 'before/after' image.

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

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!

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

At least I now know that it's not my $5k Canon 5DMk II and Prime 200mm Macro Lens and Lightroom skills that are at fault, just my attempts to show potential customers

something potentially interesting and informative, that just happens to require a ready comparison of two high-quality photos simultaneously.

Perhaps someone high up in Alamy.com will look at Peter Sieger's portfolio (link above) some day, and revisit their content and format restrictions.

 

2D9GME1.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

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' :).

 

2CK01K0.jpg

CXWMKC.jpg

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting that Alamy said we don't accept THESE kinds of montage images, which I would interpret as two dissimilar photos side by side? 

 

Clearly multiple image panoramic shots are acceptable, while I have previously uploaded a montage which shows numerous varieties of one genus of flowers as a single photo. Maybe that sneaked through QC?  Obviously news images can't have their content modified in any way, but for general use further clarification would be useful.

Edited by Bryan
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Vincent Lowe said:

 

No need to to do that - just upload as individual images and add a note in the 'additional info' to cross reference to the 'before/after' image.

 

Vincent, this is similar to what I sometimes do. An image of a popular canal side English pub closed during our first lockdown, beer garden over grown, steel shutters over windows. Linked to a more recent image, sun shining, pub reopened, beer garden grass cut, around 80% of tables occupied. Each image stands on its own, but with text linking before and after image. I only wish a shot I took at the time at 17mm of a waitress passing me my lager on a tray wasn't spoilt by bad flare shooting into the sun. More long term planned, current images of roads and footpaths that will be cut by HS2, then later linking to same location and construction work and possibly the completed project.

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

Interesting that Alamy said we don't accept THESE kinds of montage images, which I would interpret as two dissimilar photos side by side? 

 

Clearly multiple image panoramic shots are acceptable, while I have previously uploaded a montage which shows numerous varieties of one genus of flowers as a single photo. Maybe that sneaked through QC?  Obviously news images can't have their content modified in any way, but for general use further clarification would be useful.

 

more interesting i seem to remember Alamy News promoting a couple of montage on the twitter account over the last year, one the time lapse progression of a eclipse (which surprised me as it was manipulated) and the other a set of doors decorated for christmas. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 files) have multiple 'images' within the single 'photo' e.g. cup; saucer; table; plate; patron; glass. These are all 'images' of separate 'objects'.

Multi-image photos are the norm.

All panoramas that I am aware of are multi-image, and are also multi-photo, rendered into a single photo (jpg file for upload).

 

From your comments and links, I also conclude that most photographers would see the merit in presenting multiple photos in combination, when the subject matter would

not be properly presented if the individual, original photos were displayed separately (e.g. panorama; montage; before-and-after; then-and-now; two-sides-of-same-coin; time-lapse; growth; evolution; change; spot-the-difference).

 

Perhaps it's purely a financial consideration!

It may be construed by Alamy.com as a loss of income if a customer buys a jpg with 2 or more 'photos' within it ('two for the price of one').

In my view, it actually may generate more sales revenue for Alamy.com, and contributors, if two or more good photos are allowed to be packaged together into a single jpg, especially if they are complementary views of the same subject e.g. fish in a fish market, or Bryan's flower montage (mentioned above).

 

If Alamy.com have good reasons for implementing this new restriction, then I hope they let us know what those good reasons are, someday.

Many thanks for your comments and support.

Regards, Diarmuid

 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Some of us probably do remember Alamy asking for before&after and seasons changing images and montages. I remember selling one with 9 different signs, clearly all different images in a grid. I think it even sold a couple of times. At that time every image was inspected.

 

If combining of images like this has become verboten, I certainly have missed the tweet. Probably because I do not use twitter.

 

In this case I think the before & after was not very well executed. Personally I think before after images ideally should be like mouse-overs with shots from the exact same viewpoints. Something even not always achieved by Sieger in his Atget revisited images btw.

 

wim

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.