Jump to content

Recommended Posts

All of my images have been accepted. Then, yesterday I uploaded 7 different submissions for a total of about 50 images. They were photos of Fall and Halloween. Every single one was rejected. I already know that when one is rejected the entire lot gets rejected. This tells me that either they didn't want these, someone didn't know the rules, or someone didn't want to be bothered to do a quick look at each submission by looking at one or two of each.

Help - this is quite upsetting!

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not a matter of someone "not bothering"- if one image fails, all batches then in QC are automatically failed. You say you already knew that.

There's no editing for content, so it's nothing to do with "not wanting" the images either.

  • Upvote 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Christine, it's not clear to me what question you're asking. Are you saying that you have not been given a reason by Alamy for one or more of your images being rejected?

 

It's quite clear in the submission guidelines that all of a submission will fail if at least one single image fails - perhaps you're asking why your other submissions failed too. Alamy treats all submissions on a single date as a single submission, so you can't get around the risk of failure by splitting your submission up into separate uploads.

 

I'd worry more about fixing whatever technical problem cause one or more of your images to fail.

 

Good luck!

Stephen

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think you understand what I'm saying. The message was that ONE image was soft (they gave the image number). There were 7 different submissions. I believe they viewed all of the submissions as one which tells me that it was probably a newbie reviewing these. I have been shooting for over 40 years. I use a Nikon D810 (not a phone) and these images were all accepted by another large agency.

  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Steve

I just looked at the image that was rejected. It is tack sharp! They said it was soft! The background is blurred, as usual, for a person that is the focus. Unreal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What do you recommend now?

This is pretty frustrating.

I still think it's a newbie and I'm not opposed to criticism.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you would care to post the image, or a crop, at full size opinions could be offered. But I have to say that QC are vanishingly rarely wrong.

I've been taking pictures for over 40 years as well, but it doesn't stop me missing the odd one. I have plenty on here with motion blur and QC understand it perfectly.

Edited by spacecadet
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Christycc1 said:

What do you recommend now?

This is pretty frustrating.

I still think it's a newbie and I'm not opposed to criticism.

 

Could you post your exact file somewhere for us to look at? Maybe put a watermark or a cross over it if you're afraid of image theft.

In general the rules here are indeed different from the other stock and micro-stock agencies. So if another agency accepts phone and drone images, that sell like hotcakes, they will still be banned here in the main collection. You can apply for archival privileges, that will bypass QC btw. It's on your dashboard under Additional revenue options. This is how agencies that do phone imagery get their collections in.

Also in general: QC knows it's stuff. They are photographers themselves as Alamy has assured us and it's not farmed out to Mechanical Turk or some other 'crowdworking' platform.

Having said that, sometimes QC does withdraw a fail after appeal. Especially with known contributors with a good track record quality wise, there can be some discussion and suggestions even.

 

wim

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I spent over 12 hours putting key words in. Thank  you Wiskerke. I will request that they review before I upload anything else. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Christycc1 said:

OK Steve - now I know not to submit too many in one day. That's a little ridiculous, but OK.

 

Thank you 

 

No problem. Every agency has different submission requirements. Alamy doesn't have a QA team large enough to view every single photo submitted so they do spot checks and expect the photographer to have checked all images carefully before upload. I'm supportive of their system in principal, as I think it helps to keep the standard of the entire collection up;  actually, I wish they were more stringent, there's a lot of images uploaded that I don't believe meet the technical requirements!

 

Regarding your particular image, as others have said, it might be helpful to post a watermarked full size version of the image here; but in any case, you'll get a definitive answer from Alamy's QC team at some point.

 

p.s. the other way of looking at this is that if you upload separate submissions on the same day, you don't need to wait for them to pass QC individually,, they all pass (or fail!) as one. I've had one QC failure in 6 years uploading and it was for a soft focus on the main subject  - and they were correct.

Edited by Steve F
Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Christycc1 said:

Spacecadet

Your response isn't helpful.  "Vanishingly rarely wrong"? Nobody is that - whatever that means.

 

Hello Christine, the phrase 'vanishingly rarely' simply means 'hardly ever', 'extremely rare'. It is a turn of phrase which crops up occasionally in British English - I noticed our esteemed Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, used it just the other day.

 

In this context Spacecadet was referring to the experience of many well established contributors here that QC very rarely get their decision on image quality wrong. They are not superhuman but they are usually very good at their job. Most of us here have suffered one or more rejections and found that it was a problem we'd missed an they had spotted.

 

If you would like to seek the opinion of fellow contributors, they will be happy to give their insights (truthfully, for better or for worse) if yo can post a full sized copy of your image somewhere on the web where we can view it. Or you can try referring it back to QC, though if they reject it again you may be no wiser than before.

 

And finally, just to emphasise the occasionally crossed lines we encounter in communications across the pond, when I referred to our 'esteemed Prime Minister' I had my British tongue firmly in my cheek.😉

 

Carry on with your work. You should do wll here, in time. 

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

2 hours ago, Christycc1 said:

now I know not to submit too many in one day.

As a note of clarification, QC regard all batches being held in the QC queue as a single submission: ie if one image fails, then they'll stop looking at any more pix and just reject the whole submission. The batches don't have to have been uploaded on a single day...

  • Upvote 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Steve F said:

Thanks for clarifying John 👍

You’re welcome, Steve. Happy to oblige. Is there anything else I can help with? The offside rule? Mobile phone tariffs?? String theory???  😄

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

You’re welcome, Steve. Happy to oblige. Is there anything else I can help with? The offside rule? Mobile phone tariffs?? String theory???  😄

 

I have a squirrel that keeps stealing my suet feeder and taking it up a tree.  Want to come and catch him? 😀

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Jill Morgan said:

 

I have a squirrel that keeps stealing my suet feeder and taking it up a tree.  Want to come and catch him? 😀

Greys spit roast very well, I understand..........

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, John Morrison said:

You’re welcome, Steve. Happy to oblige. Is there anything else I can help with? The offside rule? Mobile phone tariffs?? String theory???  😄

 

I (sometimes!!) like reading about theoretical physics in my spare time, but Brian Greene's The Elegant Universe, I got about 75 pages in and read half a page. And I was like, what??! And I read it again. Could have been written in a foreign language for all the sense it made to me. I assume it got worse after that... 🤣

 

How about 'how many engineers does it take to fix a light bulb?' Or why do some new builds work like the Tardis, but opposite, they're even smaller on the inside than you can possibly imagine?

 

It's been a long (hot) day...! Everyone's been moaning about the lack of summer. A few more days of this, everyone'll be begging for autumn!

Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, John Morrison said:

You’re welcome, Steve. Happy to oblige. Is there anything else I can help with? The offside rule? Mobile phone tariffs?? String theory???  😄

 

String theory

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Steve F said:

I (sometimes!!) like reading about theoretical physics in my spare time, but Brian Greene's The Elegant Universe, I got about 75 pages in and read half a page. And I was like, what??! And I read it again. Could have been written in a foreign language for all the sense it made to me. I assume it got worse after that... 🤣

Ah... you missed a treat. The second half of the book  is much better. Unless I'm think of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy...

  • Haha 2
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.