Jump to content

first rejection in a year


Recommended Posts

Filename

Rejection reason

DSC04559.jpg

Soft or lacking definition

Digital camera not suitable for Alamy

Wow, I've used the same digital camera on alamy for 3 years and it certainly is suitable (a sony mirrorless CSC) or have they changed? all my other images were rejected at the same time aswell. I did shoot the picture at f4 but It was only soft on the edges so couldn't believe it. It was converted from RAW to jpeg and came out realy good I think. Is there a new reviewer that doesn't know cameras? I cannot show the photo because it doesn't have a URL

Edited by dunstun365
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You've got SoLD as a reason as well so "unsuitable camera" might be a mistake- it's not the only reason.

You may have to give up on that image but if you really think it's OK, put it up on postimages.org or some other hosting site, post the  link and the forum will have a look.

It's an APS size sensor, isn't it, with the E-mount kit lens? They're certainly suitable.

Edited by spacecadet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

'Unsuitable camera' must be a mistake, which does cast some doubt on the other reasons given I suppose. I've usually seen that reason given when new contributors submit their first 3 and it's always been assumed that there is some kind of black list though even then mistakes are made (Fuji X100f for example). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, spacecadet said:

You've got SoLD as a reason as well so "unsuitable camera" might be a mistake- it's not the only reason.

You may have to give up on that image but if you really think it's OK, put it up on postimages.org or some other hosting site, post the  link and the forum will have a look.

It's an APS size sensor, isn't it, with the E-mount kit lens? They're certainly suitable.

Thanks Mark. yes it's the e-mount sony kit lens but set almost at the widest f-stop. The photo did have some C.A. on edges which I tried to correct in this photo but there is some red edges probably reflected from the red neon sign. Link here: DSC04559 — Postimages (postimg.cc) alamy still won't accept the URL

Edited by dunstun365
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe a bit blocky on the childrens' clothing and a bit pixelated here and there- was it high ISO?- what software are you using? Maybe it has its limits. But not obviously bad, you could ask for a second opinion, or just move on, ditch it as long as the "unsuitable camera" thing is a mistake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had a photo of a temporary road sign on a pavement with hedge behind and a house behind the hedge.  The photo was obviously of the sign and was sharp but the hedge and house were OOF.  I submitted the image and it was rejected as SoLD.

 

I sent an email explaining that the photo was of the road sign and all the keywording related only to the road sign. The rest of the image was only to give a location.

 

Alamy sent a reply saying that they were sorry it was rejected and that someone in the QC department had been a bit overzealous in rejecting it. The photo was allowed through.

 

It pays to talk to the good people at Alamy.

 

Allan

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, dunstun365 said:

Thanks Mark. yes it's the e-mount sony kit lens but set almost at the widest f-stop. The photo did have some C.A. on edges which I tried to correct in this photo but there is some red edges probably reflected from the red neon sign. Link here: DSC04559 — Postimages (postimg.cc) alamy still won't accept the URL

Not sure what sort of tool Gimp (in the EXIF) has for reducing CA, but I would certainly take that out. It's easy to check if it really is CA: than it has the opposite color on the opposite of the white line. And in this case it has. However not everybody will want to check that out, so I would at least limit it to some specks where it may enhance the image, but get rid of it everywhere else. Even when it's only slight as it is here.

 

The new Visual Trend of the Month as Alamy sees it, Glitch Art, is of course all about exaggerating these things.

Maybe your camera and image just fit in with the The Real New Trend. (NYT; Daily Mail).

 

Is Glitch Art a trend? Well it was in 2010 and declared dead in 2015 and every year since.

So of course it is becoming a trend again.

Somewhere.

For some time. 👴

 

wim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At first my thoughts were there is nothing wrong with the photo. But assuming that site (postimg.cc) doesn't compress the photo, there are some possible hints as to why it got rejected if you scrutinise it. Basically, the image seems to have visible jpg compression and because of it some posterisation/slight "blocky" appearance. This is easy to see on my very high DPI monitor but you'd have to zoom in a fair bit and inspect on, say, a bog standard 1080p monitor. I am often still surprised how minor defects like slight subject movement, softness or jagged edges simply completely disappear if I shift the image to my second (1080p cheapie) monitor, so if you're using one of these to review it might lead to "unexplained" QC fails from time to time.

 

You can of course shrink photos down to the 6MP limit, which is still substantial enough in size and within Alamy limits.

 

EDIT: I just looked at the EXIF data. Assuming it's processed from a raw, export it again at max quality. If it's a re-processed and exported JPG, that will explain the quality loss though.

Edited by Cal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess it depends what QC think is the "subject" of the image and hence which elements should be sharp? To my eyes the children look OK, but the edges of the Hard Rock Cafe look somehow slightly soft. I agree with Cal the image does have a slightly gritty blocky appearance. The image on postimg is not over-compressed now (It's 10.6MB which is larger than I get if I resave the image in PS at Level 12). Maybe NR and over-aggressive sharpening has been used?

 

Mark

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems to me that QC is being too picky. The image looks fine for editorial usage, which is what it would most likely be licensed for (and possibly for a very low fee). But what can one say. Such is the Alamy way. 🙄

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, John Mitchell said:

It seems to me that QC is being too picky. The image looks fine for editorial usage, which is what it would most likely be licensed for (and possibly for a very low fee). But what can one say. Such is the Alamy way. 🙄

 

It's interesting isn't it. None of the aberrations would show on a 2-4MP export, which would be fine for almost all editorial uses... and news. Maybe in a parallel universe Alamy has an upload portal for editorial-only images that is a bit more forgiving on QC or accepts smaller sizes - some micros for instance are happy with 4MP images.

 

Incidentally, I find Alamy QC lenient. Some of the micros demand absolute technical perfection, to the point where certain types of shot are just not possible to do. I remember one failure - "excessive noise" for a shot at 200 ISO, and there really was no appreciable noise at all. Any pics I send there now are downsized to the minimum allowed.

Edited by Cal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Cal said:

 

It's interesting isn't it. None of the aberrations would show on a 2-4MP export, which would be fine for almost all editorial uses... and news. Maybe in a parallel universe Alamy has an upload portal for editorial-only images that is a bit more forgiving on QC or accepts smaller sizes - some micros for instance are happy with 4MP images.

 

Incidentally, I find Alamy QC lenient. Some of the micros demand absolute technical perfection, to the point where certain types of shot are just not possible to do. I remember one failure - "excessive noise" for a shot at 200 ISO, and there really was no appreciable noise at all. Any pics I send there now are downsized to the minimum allowed.

 

Yes, Alamy calls the shots of course. However, one does have to wonder sometimes. Interesting what you say about the micros. I experimented with them a couple of years ago (no longer though) and never had any images rejected. I too use Sony kit lenses for the most part. I usually downsize images somewhat, especially those captured with the tiny 16-50 zoom, which is actually quite a good lens if you can learn to live with its idiosyncrasies. I find the Sony 35mm f/1.8 to be a really good lens for low light shots. It's sharp even at wide apertures. I found a used one in pristine condition for a very good price.

 

 

Edited by John Mitchell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Cal said:

<>

Maybe in a parallel universe Alamy has an upload portal for editorial-only images that is a bit more forgiving on QC or accepts smaller sizes - some micros for instance are happy with 4MP images.

<>

It's not parallel at all. There are 2: one is Archival and the other is the one for Agencies.

And then there's S*o the app which makes 3.

 

wim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, John Mitchell said:

 

Yes, Alamy calls the shots of course. However, one does have to wonder sometimes. Interesting what you say about the micros. I experimented with them a couple of years ago (no longer though) and never had any images rejected. I too use Sony kit lenses for the most part. I usually downsize images somewhat, especially those captured with the tiny 16-50 zoom, which is actually quite a good lens if you can learn to live with its idiosyncrasies. I find the Sony 35mm f/1.8 to be a really good lens for low light shots. It's sharp even at wide apertures. I found a used one in pristine condition for a very good price.

 

 

 

That 35mm lens must be excellent! I've used its cheaper cousin, the 35mm f/2.8, to shoot at 2500 ISO at night with similar subjects and had all of my shots accepted (using the full frame 42MP Sony a7rii ). I kept most of the shots at their full size, but did crop a few, though I don't think I downsized any. Looking for a used 35mm prime lens for night images or even more depth of field for landscape shots, is a great idea @dunstun365 but I agree with you that your image would be fine for most editorial uses despite its flaws but Alamy wants images that can also work for print, hence their QC requirements. If you output from RAW to a 6MP jpeg at level 12, perhaps it will be okay? 

 

I see you shot it at 400 ISO -next time, also try some at 800, so you can close the lens down a bit and get a deeper depth of field. I'm not familiar with your camera, but I believe most Sony cameras are good at higher ISOs.

 

If you want to see some of the very high ISO photos I'm talking about, here's the link   It shows you what a decent prime lens can do. 

 

When I shoot at high ISOs of 1200 with my much more expensive Sony G Master 24-105mm f/4, I can't get as clean an image, although I love that lens for many applications. That's why even if I'm traveling light, if I plan any low-light shots, I'll carry the 35mm. A wide angle prime is particularly good in low light because it will give you a decent depth of field even if you need to use it pretty open. 

 

  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, wiskerke said:

It's not parallel at all. There are 2: one is Archival and the other is the one for Agencies.

And then there's S*o the app which makes 3.

 

wim

 

Never knew agencies had a "side door", interesting.

 

I don't think archival is the same as what I meant - unless archive accepts images taken very recently?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Marianne said:

I've used its cheaper cousin, the 35mm f/2.8

 

Depends on your definition of cheap, I thought it was very expensive for what you get! But it is a lovely lens, very sharp, and very small so good for when you want to be a bit more unobtrusive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Cal said:

Never knew agencies had a "side door", interesting.

 

I don't think archival is the same as what I meant - unless archive accepts images taken very recently?

 

You do need to apply for Archival privilege. Like News, it's not automatic.

Initially it may have meant what you think it means, but if you search this forum you will find examples of very strange images that look like they were submitted by a non-intelligent robot.

Agencies simply are supposed to have done their own vetting and QC. Not sure if they are never being spot checked though.

We have lost some forum regulars who also were or had an agency and who might have commented on that.

 

wim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, John Mitchell said:

I find the Sony 35mm f/1.8 to be a really good lens for low light shots. It's sharp even at wide apertures. I found a used one in pristine condition for a very good price.

 

For APSC or Full Frame?   I have the APSC Sony 35mm f/1.8 for my a6000 and the Sony FE 35mm f/2.8 for my a7.  The FE 35mm f/1.8 was reviewed as being sharper, but pricier.   I like the non-obtrusiveness of the FE f/2.8 if I'm out with the a7.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Rebecca Ore said:

 

For APSC or Full Frame?   I have the APSC Sony 35mm f/1.8 for my a6000 and the Sony FE 35mm f/2.8 for my a7.  The FE 35mm f/1.8 was reviewed as being sharper, but pricier.   I like the non-obtrusiveness of the FE f/2.8 if I'm out with the a7.

 

I have the APSC Sony 35mm, which I use on my Sony a6000. Very nice little lens. Overpriced IMO, but as mentioned I got an excellent deal on a used one at a local camera store. It looks brand new.

 

I took this at f/2.2, I  believe, handheld, with the 35mm. It's sharp pretty much across the frame, even at such a wide aperture.

 

canada-place-sails-and-cruise-terminal-dock-at-night-vancouver-bc-J909TE.jpg

 

Edited by John Mitchell
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Steve F said:

 

Depends on your definition of cheap, I thought it was very expensive for what you get! But it is a lovely lens, very sharp, and very small so good for when you want to be a bit more unobtrusive.

 

Yes, none of the Sony lenses are cheap! I chose that one since it cost less than the f/1.8 but also because it is small. I can fit my camera in my purse with that lens. I'm glad I got it. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Marianne said:

 

Yes, none of the Sony lenses are cheap! I chose that one since it cost less than the f/1.8 but also because it is small. I can fit my camera in my purse with that lens. I'm glad I got it. 

 

The Sony SEL 35mm f/1.8 goes for almost $600 CAN, which is a heck of a lot for what is essentially a 50mm standard lens on the a6000. I paid around $350 for my secondhand one. Also glad I got it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 14/01/2023 at 11:41, spacecadet said:

Maybe a bit blocky on the childrens' clothing and a bit pixelated here and there- was it high ISO?- what software are you using? Maybe it has its limits. But not obviously bad, you could ask for a second opinion, or just move on, ditch it as long as the "unsuitable camera" thing is a mistake.

was at 400 ISO but I've shot at that iso many times before and been fine. If there's not much light or it's artificial light, I get more noise/grain even at that ISO.  I used Rawtherapee converted to jpeg at highest quality 

Edited by dunstun365
more info
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 13/01/2023 at 15:21, Harry Harrison said:

'Unsuitable camera' must be a mistake, which does cast some doubt on the other reasons given I suppose. I've usually seen that reason given when new contributors submit their first 3 and it's always been assumed that there is some kind of black list though even then mistakes are made (Fuji X100f for example). 

I think the reviewer doesn't know about mirrorless cameras.

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.