sb photos Posted March 5, 2022 Share Posted March 5, 2022 17 hours ago, Betty LaRue said: Yes, that’s what caused my fail. Added grain. QC doesn’t recognize it as an artistic effect. Personally I have never liked film grain, and have where possible, tried to avoid it. Years back I kept 35mm for reportage, but for portraiture, architecture etc I moved to 6x6, 6x7 and then 4x5 to avoid grain in large prints. Grain pockmarked faces looked awful. I can understand how QC may view added grain as digital noise and fail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiskerke Posted March 5, 2022 Share Posted March 5, 2022 12 hours ago, Betty LaRue said: 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? There's something funny with those 15,000 images. 13,023 are by one contributor. And look like this: And they are not archival. Aaand they are being used. Like 3x here. (Which is a pretty good place.) More here and here. I have yet to see an archival image among those 15,000 (15,869 actually). But there are lots of Stockimo images in the first rows. So lots of accepted grainy images. Not too many searches for just %grainy% though: about 20 for the rolling year. wim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Betty LaRue Posted March 5, 2022 Share Posted March 5, 2022 (edited) 1 hour ago, wiskerke said: There's something funny with those 15,000 images. 13,023 are by one contributor. And look like this: And they are not archival. Aaand they are being used. Like 3x here. (Which is a pretty good place.) More here and here. I have yet to see an archival image among those 15,000 (15,869 actually). But there are lots of Stockimo images in the first rows. So lots of accepted grainy images. Not too many searches for just %grainy% though: about 20 for the rolling year. wim This is a bit like what I did, but different subject. Added grain. https://fineartamerica.com/featured/autumn-moon-betty-larue.html. Once I had about thirty of my fine art images here, but when Alamy went to the $20 thing like PU and Presentation, I removed them. I have the above image, only portrait orientation on my wall and nearly everyone who has come into my house has commented very favorably about it. To each, his own. That’s what makes the world go around. Edited March 5, 2022 by Betty LaRue Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Chapman Posted March 5, 2022 Share Posted March 5, 2022 2 hours ago, wiskerke said: There's something funny with those 15,000 images. 13,023 are by one contributor. And look like this: And they are not archival. Aaand they are being used. Like 3x here. (Which is a pretty good place.) More here and here. I have yet to see an archival image among those 15,000 (15,869 actually). But there are lots of Stockimo images in the first rows. So lots of accepted grainy images. Not too many searches for just %grainy% though: about 20 for the rolling year. wim Intriguing. Mark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allan Bell Posted March 5, 2022 Share Posted March 5, 2022 (edited) 2 hours ago, Betty LaRue said: This is a bit like what I did, but different subject. Added grain. https://fineartamerica.com/featured/autumn-moon-betty-larue.html. Once I had about thirty of my fine art images here, but when Alamy went to the $20 thing like PU and Presentation, I removed them. I have the above image, only portrait orientation on my wall and nearly everyone who has come into my house has commented very favorably about it. To each, his own. That’s what makes the world go around. Didn't need to search for it this time. Sorry I can still see the blue in the sea near the base of the tree. If it was mine I would correct it.😉 Allan🥰 Edited March 5, 2022 by Allan Bell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MDM Posted March 5, 2022 Share Posted March 5, 2022 (edited) 3 hours ago, wiskerke said: There's something funny with those 15,000 images. 13,023 are by one contributor. And look like this: And they are not archival. Aaand they are being used. Like 3x here. (Which is a pretty good place.) More here and here. I have yet to see an archival image among those 15,000 (15,869 actually). But there are lots of Stockimo images in the first rows. So lots of accepted grainy images. Not too many searches for just %grainy% though: about 20 for the rolling year. wim It is a very strange collection. If anything ever qualified as archival then this is it. They are covered in scratches and all sorts of other material. They seem to have been scanned or photographed (more likely) very rapidly during 2020 (as far as I went into the collection) with little or no post processing - maybe a pandemic lockdown activity. Certainly intriguing. There is a similarity in style right through the collection suggesting they are the work of a single person - not a professional I would think but a very keen and prolific photographer. Perhaps the contributor somehow got agency access and did not have to go through QC. A search for the contributor name comes up as a Lithuanian business owner. I left it there. Edited March 5, 2022 by MDM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gallery5 Posted March 8, 2022 Author Share Posted March 8, 2022 https://ibb.co/j48rB7Q https://ibb.co/ryzyW28 https://ibb.co/ncGrFL8 Thanks to everyone who gave me advice and comments. Surprised that so much attention is paid to 1 / black and white photo, but just here I have almost no questions. 2 / The advice to use the archive department is logical, but only applies to old photos. I have sent several hundred archival BW photos to Alami, but sales here are exceptionally rare and discounted. 3/ I was advised to send a photo with an artistic effect to the POD, but I don't know what it is. 4/ In recent months, several of my offspring did not pass QC. I send examples of failures - the reason is under the pictures. Your opinion? Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecadet Posted March 8, 2022 Share Posted March 8, 2022 (edited) The CA is very bad on (3) on the buildings and bridge. That lens may not be up to the job, but you may be able to improve it in LR or whatever.. Have you posted the others at 100%? I don't see much noise or SoLD at the size you've posted but that doesn't mean it's not there at 100%. Edited March 8, 2022 by spacecadet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MDM Posted March 8, 2022 Share Posted March 8, 2022 (edited) 58 minutes ago, Gallery5 said: https://ibb.co/j48rB7Q https://ibb.co/ryzyW28 https://ibb.co/ncGrFL8 Thanks to everyone who gave me advice and comments. Surprised that so much attention is paid to 1 / black and white photo, but just here I have almost no questions. 2 / The advice to use the archive department is logical, but only applies to old photos. I have sent several hundred archival BW photos to Alami, but sales here are exceptionally rare and discounted. 3/ I was advised to send a photo with an artistic effect to the POD, but I don't know what it is. 4/ In recent months, several of my offspring did not pass QC. I send examples of failures - the reason is under the pictures. Your opinion? Thanks. It is impossible to tell if there is noise or the image is soft in the first two examples as the images are too small. Downsizing in itself reduces noise and increases sharpness. If you want genuine feedback then you will need to repost the full size images as uploaded to Alamy. If you can't post full size images on that website, try Dropbox which accepts large images. As spacecadet notes, the chromatic aberration is very obvious in the third image so that it is not necessary to post at 100% but that is exceptional - generally it is necessary to see the full size image. POD is print on demand as in Fine Art America for example. Edited March 8, 2022 by MDM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve F Posted March 8, 2022 Share Posted March 8, 2022 Here's one with deliberate grain, but I very rarely add it, so it might just have slipped through... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve F Posted March 8, 2022 Share Posted March 8, 2022 3 hours ago, Gallery5 said: https://ibb.co/j48rB7Q https://ibb.co/ryzyW28 https://ibb.co/ncGrFL8 Thanks to everyone who gave me advice and comments. Surprised that so much attention is paid to 1 / black and white photo, but just here I have almost no questions. 2 / The advice to use the archive department is logical, but only applies to old photos. I have sent several hundred archival BW photos to Alami, but sales here are exceptionally rare and discounted. 3/ I was advised to send a photo with an artistic effect to the POD, but I don't know what it is. 4/ In recent months, several of my offspring did not pass QC. I send examples of failures - the reason is under the pictures. Your opinion? Thanks. https://ibb.co/j48rB7Q Does look slightly soft, marginal for me https://ibb.co/ryzyW28 Sky looks weird. Sky replacement tool? https://ibb.co/ncGrFL8 Sky also looks weird, particularly in the top corners. But anyway, chromatic aberration is really obvious on the objects. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MDM Posted March 8, 2022 Share Posted March 8, 2022 11 minutes ago, Steve F said: https://ibb.co/j48rB7Q Does look slightly soft, marginal for me https://ibb.co/ryzyW28 Sky looks weird. Sky replacement tool? https://ibb.co/ncGrFL8 Sky also looks weird, particularly in the top corners. But anyway, chromatic aberration is really obvious on the objects. I don't think you can judge the first two images at all at the size posted in relation to the reasons given for failure. The first one looks sharp enough on the main subject at the small size posted and the rest is out of focus so it is impossible to say whether it failed because at full size the main subject is out of focus/soft or it incorrectly failed because the background is out of focus. The second one certainly has a strangely coloured sky but it failed for noise not for a weird sky. There is no noise (colour or luminance) visible to my eyes at the size posted but that does not mean it is not there at 100% - so we don't know either way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve F Posted March 8, 2022 Share Posted March 8, 2022 32 minutes ago, MDM said: I don't think you can judge the first two images at all at the size posted in relation to the reasons given for failure. The first one looks sharp enough on the main subject at the small size posted and the rest is out of focus so it is impossible to say whether it failed because at full size the main subject is out of focus/soft or it incorrectly failed because the background is out of focus. The second one certainly has a strangely coloured sky but it failed for noise not for a weird sky. There is no noise (colour or luminance) visible to my eyes at the size posted but that does not mean it is not there at 100% - so we don't know either way. Yeah, I saw the previous comments and request to post full size. First one looked a bit blurred on the hand holding the bottle when I zoomed in on a large screen. Agreed, can't judge the noise on 2nd pic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MDM Posted March 8, 2022 Share Posted March 8, 2022 8 minutes ago, Steve F said: Yeah, I saw the previous comments and request to post full size. First one looked a bit blurred on the hand holding the bottle when I zoomed in on a large screen. Agreed, can't judge the noise on 2nd pic. Yeah the hand could have slight motion blur (impossible to tell at this size) but I think it should be allowed to pass if the guy in the wheelchair is sharp (again impossible to tell at this size) so we are left guessing. What would interest me is if images are being failed because of parts being out of focus when the main subject is sharp. Some people have suggested this has been happening but nobody has posted full size images so there is no useful info. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gallery5 Posted March 9, 2022 Author Share Posted March 9, 2022 As for the first picture. Isn't it enough for the main subject to be in focus. The hand with the bottle in motion is a minor detail. And I deliberately blurred the background. In addition, the picture was not rejected due to blur, but soft-or-lacking-defenition-noise.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve F Posted March 9, 2022 Share Posted March 9, 2022 (edited) 4 hours ago, Gallery5 said: As for the first picture. Isn't it enough for the main subject to be in focus. The hand with the bottle in motion is a minor detail. And I deliberately blurred the background. In addition, the picture was not rejected due to blur, but soft-or-lacking-defenition-noise.... You deliberately blurred the background using software? I would imagine that would be an instant QC fail. Guess we've got to the bottom of it. Soft can be roughly equivalent to blur Edited March 9, 2022 by Steve F Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MDM Posted March 9, 2022 Share Posted March 9, 2022 4 hours ago, Gallery5 said: As for the first picture. Isn't it enough for the main subject to be in focus. The hand with the bottle in motion is a minor detail. And I deliberately blurred the background. In addition, the picture was not rejected due to blur, but soft-or-lacking-defenition-noise.... SoLd (Soft or lacking definition) is a generic term which includes blur. The image should not have been failed if the main subject was in focus (that has always been the case), but we can’t tell for sure without seeing a full size image. You need to post a full size image or this will just keep going round in circles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MDM Posted March 9, 2022 Share Posted March 9, 2022 (edited) 5 minutes ago, Steve F said: You deliberately blurred the background using software? I would imagine that would be an instant QC fail. Guess we've got to the bottom of it. Soft = blur btw Not necessarily a fail if the main subject is in focus. There is no rule against blurring backgrounds in software - perhaps if the processing was very obvious but it looks ok here (again need to see it full size). Edited March 9, 2022 by MDM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve F Posted March 9, 2022 Share Posted March 9, 2022 12 hours ago, Gallery5 said: https://ibb.co/j48rB7Q https://ibb.co/ryzyW28 https://ibb.co/ncGrFL8 Thanks to everyone who gave me advice and comments. Surprised that so much attention is paid to 1 / black and white photo, but just here I have almost no questions. 2 / The advice to use the archive department is logical, but only applies to old photos. I have sent several hundred archival BW photos to Alami, but sales here are exceptionally rare and discounted. 3/ I was advised to send a photo with an artistic effect to the POD, but I don't know what it is. 4/ In recent months, several of my offspring did not pass QC. I send examples of failures - the reason is under the pictures. Your opinion? Thanks. Also, the colosseum image, you've used sky replacement for the main sky (which I don't think personally matches the way the image is shot and the lighting, although that's subjective), but you haven't replaced the plain original sky seen through the colosseum arches. Looks quite strange once you notice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve F Posted March 9, 2022 Share Posted March 9, 2022 1 minute ago, MDM said: Not necessarily a fail if the main subject is in focus. There is no rule against blurring backgrounds in software - perhaps if the processing was very obvious. True, no hard and fast rule, but I think Alamy generally wants 'clean' largely unmanipulated images. By unmanipulated, I mean without many effects added. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allan Bell Posted March 9, 2022 Share Posted March 9, 2022 The second image at the size presented looked soft to me. Allan 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Chapman Posted March 9, 2022 Share Posted March 9, 2022 I suspect the problem with the first image might be that the OP has deliberately tried to blur some of the figures in the background (especially on the left). Although it's hard to be sure on a downsized image. Mark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gallery5 Posted March 9, 2022 Author Share Posted March 9, 2022 (edited) I download my full size pictures ... https://ibb.co/DRQGB3H https://ibb.co/r36gdX6 https://ibb.co/gy21cXW Edited March 10, 2022 by Gallery5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecadet Posted March 10, 2022 Share Posted March 10, 2022 15 hours ago, Gallery5 said: I download my full size pictures ... https://ibb.co/DRQGB3H https://ibb.co/r36gdX6 https://ibb.co/gy21cXW I still can't make those display any bigger than the size of my screen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MDM Posted March 10, 2022 Share Posted March 10, 2022 (edited) 7 hours ago, spacecadet said: I still can't make those display any bigger than the size of my screen. There is an option to load full resolution, then you can right click and download them. I can't see anything wrong with the image of the guy in the wheelchair - he is sharp but the background is blurred. This suggests that QC are failing for blurred backgrounds which can't be correct. I can't see any noise (luminance or chrominance) in the second image but, as Steve pointed out, the sky is weird. It looks like a painting rather than a photo. However, unless I am missing something, I don't think noise is a correct reason for failure. The first image has severe CA so no arguments there. There is also severe noise. Edited March 10, 2022 by MDM 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now