Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Before uploading, I carefully process the pictures. Some times  I apply filters, some I convert to BW, I add various effects to make the pictures look more interesting and attractive. Perhaps this causes a conflict with Alamy's quality requirements. My  QC rank has gone down. It seems to me that it has become tougher recently. By the way, are there programs that help check quality control?
I would like to know the opinion of colleagues on these issues. Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding BW images I was given to understand that if the picture buyer wants a BW image they will convert it themselves so it is a waste of time for us contributors to do it.

 

I do some careful processing but do not add effects but would not think that adding effects would affect your QC standing.

 

Allan

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Allan Bell said:

Regarding BW images I was given to understand that if the picture buyer wants a BW image they will convert it themselves so it is a waste of time for us contributors to do it.

 

I do some careful processing but do not add effects but would not think that adding effects would affect your QC standing.

 

Allan

 

 

Hey Allan,

I respectfully beg to (partially) disagree. Black and white photography can be an art form in its own right and monochrome images are edited differently than colour images, e.g. often much higher contrast is applied and skies can be unnaturally darkened etc. As to how well that sort of thing sells for stock, then agreed, you're probably better off with a colour image normally, although sometimes b&w is the way to go.

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Tatiana said:

Many filters can add film grain. At the very least, this can definitely have a negative impact on Quality Control.

 

Hi Tatiana,

Your QC rank shouldn't have dropped unless you actually had an upload rejected by Alamy QC. QC will give the reason for rejection. You shouldn't get images rejected for deliberately imposed effects, but rather for e.g. camera shake or blur QC does not think is deliberate. Not sure how appealing against what you think an unfair image rejection goes with Alamy QC, but you can always post an offending image in the forum for feedback.

Steve

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Steve F said:

 

Hey Allan,

I respectfully beg to (partially) disagree. Black and white photography can be an art form in its own right and monochrome images are edited differently than colour images, e.g. often much higher contrast is applied and skies can be unnaturally darkened etc. As to how well that sort of thing sells for stock, then agreed, you're probably better off with a colour image normally, although sometimes b&w is the way to go.

Steve

 

Hi Steve,

I respectfully agree with your comment about B&W conversions, and have the knowledge and experience as I have done a lot of B&W work in the past.

 

I was making a general comment above which I understood was once made by our erstwhile partners in this venture.

 

Allan

 

  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Steve F said:

 

Привет Татьяна,

Ваш рейтинг QC не должен был упасть, если только вы действительно не отклонили загрузку Alamy QC. КК сообщит причину отказа. Вы не должны получать изображения, отклоненные из-за преднамеренно наложенных эффектов, а скорее из-за, например, дрожания камеры или размытия, которые QC не считает преднамеренными. Не уверен, насколько апелляция против того, что вы считаете несправедливым отказом от изображения, идет с Alamy QC, но вы всегда можете опубликовать оскорбительное изображение на форуме для обратной связи.

Стив

I was just suggesting that the graininess due to the use of filters might be the cause of the failure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Tatiana said:

I was just suggesting that the graininess due to the use of filters might be the cause of the failure.

 

Have you had a QC failure and did QC give the reason for failure?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Allan Bell said:

 

Hi Steve,

I respectfully agree with your comment about B&W conversions, and have the knowledge and experience as I have done a lot of B&W work in the past.

 

I was making a general comment above which I understood was once made by our erstwhile partners in this venture.

 

Allan

 

 

Understood. 👍

Maybe Alamy don't sell much b&w....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I only have one conversion and it's a partial à la Schindler's List. It's the OH and I have a crop of it on the wall.

Hasn't licensed though.

DPA3CT.jpg

Edited by spacecadet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Steve F said:

 

Был ли у вас сбой QC и указал ли QC причину сбоя?

I received the following rejection reasons:

- soft or lacking definition

- noise

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Tatiana said:

I received the following rejection reasons:

- soft or lacking definition

- noise


Using your editing software check not only the rejected image, all in the batch, at 100% view for focus, chromatic aberrations, digital noise, especially in shadows and sky, halo’s and dust spots. Failures in any of these areas can cause the image to be rejected. Good luck in resolving the issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, wilkopix said:

Just had a black and white image sell today .. albeit for a dollar!

 

Hopefully the 40 cents will cover the cost of electricity used in doing the BW conversion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Tatiana said:

Many filters can add film grain. At the very least, this can definitely have a negative impact on Quality Control.

 

Sometimes things like adding Clarity, Dehaze, and Texture, and sharpening can increase picture noise.  Digitally enlarging pictures can affect focus and probably would enlarge grain/noise. 

 

My black and white photos were shot on black and white film.  PhotoShop has a way of colorizing those, and is sort of okay, but not enough to submit those as far as I'm concerned.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 02/03/2022 at 11:09, Gallery5 said:

Before uploading, I carefully process the pictures. Some times  I apply filters, some I convert to BW, I add various effects to make the pictures look more interesting and attractive. Perhaps this causes a conflict with Alamy's quality requirements. My  QC rank has gone down. It seems to me that it has become tougher recently. By the way, are there programs that help check quality control?
I would like to know the opinion of colleagues on these issues. Thanks.

I’ll add my 2 cents. I’m sorry you’ve had rejections for doing interesting work to your images. I found Alamy QC doesn’t like that. I had an image of an antique cup and saucer.  I converted it to sepia and added grain.  I loved the “old time” look of it. It was a fail. 
I found anything artistic was best uploaded to my POD place, not here.

I’m not positive QC would understand “artistic effect” if it hit them in the face.

But if they don’t want these types of images, then that is their prerogative and I’m good with that. They do set the rules, we don’t.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Betty LaRue said:

 

I’m not positive QC would understand “artistic effect” if it hit them in the face.

But if they don’t want these types of images, then that is their prerogative and I’m good with that. They do set the rules, we don’t.

238,454 results here for artistic effect.

Only 1 S*mo in first 3 pages. (Which would be an obvious route. The other being archival.)

Searches zero btw.

 

It looks like the team really likes artistic effect: have a look at the Royalty Free showcase on the front page.

Even borders are allowed there.

 

Lots more S*mo on these pages.

Silly funny boys - Stock Image

Caption: Silly boys.

Oh well.

 

wim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 03/03/2022 at 03:26, Tatiana said:

I was just suggesting that the graininess due to the use of filters might be the cause of the failure.

Yes, that’s what caused my fail. Added grain. QC doesn’t recognize it as an artistic effect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Betty LaRue said:

Show me an accepted one with added grain, wim.

Alamy search for "grainy photo" brings up over 15,000 hits...  Some look like they might be processed to add grain, but there's no way to know if they were actually checked by QC as most images aren't inspected anyway.

 

Mark

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Betty LaRue said:

Show me an accepted one with added grain, wim.

Grain is certainly a problem and that has been communicated over and over. There should be no surprises for the client when they unpack the image or view it at 100%. The thumb and the zoom must be a good representation of the final image. Even with a zoom sized image it is impossible to show added grain and that's why it's not allowed. Besides that most people now see it as a technical fault at the photographer's side.

Maybe grain is for boomers.

 

But you do have an easy workaround route: Archival. You then get This image could have imperfections as it’s either historical or reportage added. But it's not in red anymore since the makeover.

It is the same route the agencies are using. And I was going to say: but without that line. However that's not true, so the agencies I have just checked in the past 15 minutes all have the same This image could have imperfections. So having that line probably doesn't matter too much.

 

wim

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, M.Chapman said:

Alamy search for "grainy photo" brings up over 15,000 hits...  Some look like they might be processed to add grain, but there's no way to know if they were actually checked by QC as most images aren't inspected anyway.

 

Mark

Ahh, but are those straight or do they have the line This image could have imperfections?

 

wim

  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

All I was doing is suggesting to the OP why QC might fail his/her images.  This person says they add effects, and none of us really know how many fails took place before those 15,000 images were accepted, do we? In fact, we don’t know if there were 300,000 submissions of effects before those 15,000 skated through, with half or more possibly not being inspected, do we?

Link to comment
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
 Share

×
×
  • 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.