first rejection in a year

[dunstun365]

On 14/01/2023 at 16:01, wiskerke said:

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

Thanks' I got rid of the C.A. as much as I could but could try the opposite way with all the colour in the photo (may look arty.) There are still red lines around window panes at the top but I think thy're reflecting light from the red H.R.C. sign

[dunstun365]

On 15/01/2023 at 17:02, Cal said:

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.

I've now plugged in my 21' OLED TV into the computer, zoomed at 100% and there is some jaggies around a red sign but I could have sharpened the photo too much. Photo at 100% https://postimg.cc/F7J1zLg6 

You're right. Downsizing will sharpen it far more easily. I often D.S. but mainly for other realy fussy MS agencies like adobe or SS, if fact I've just about given up on said agencies because they use A.I. to review images and get it wrong all the time. 

Edited January 18, 2023 by dunstun365

[geogphotos]

I had a couple of rejections for winter images with red content and others with deep shade/dark surfaces.

 

I now use DXO PureRaw2 as afirst step in my processing. It is the next thing I do after ingesting the RAW files from camera. 

 

For me it is a wonderful piece of software removing most of the worrries over high ISO, interiors, winter shade, nighttime, images.

Edited January 18, 2023 by geogphotos

[sooth]

.

Edited October 19, 2023 by sooth

[Harry Harrison]

6 hours ago, dunstun365 said:

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

I've only been on here a few years I suppose but I've never been able to build up a mental image of what Alamy QC actually looks like, and of course to an extent it's now 'PA Images' QC so that might have moved the goalposts a bit as well. Probably worth appealing but it's pretty hard to imagine that they can keep a list of unsuitable cameras up to date so I wonder if it is shorthand for 'looks like it might have been taken with an unsuitable camera' because I can't see any way that a Sony APS-C mirrorless camera body could in any way be 'unsuitable' for Alamy. If that's the case then it's just a subjective judgement, and probably they have to keep up a pretty high throughput. You could ask them what is 'unsuitable' about your camera but that might be pinning them down a bit, we all make mistakes.

[dunstun365]

The photo was accepoted I just corrected a bit of C.A on 2nd submission. which luckily only seems to happen on the widest angle lengths of the zoom lens. I have some old prime lenses from the film era which are sharper but they wouldn't have been wide enough for this shot.

[Harry Harrison]

3 hours ago, dunstun365 said:

The photo was accepoted I just corrected a bit of C.A on 2nd submission

That's good, so 'Digital camera not suitable for Alamy' seems to have been used rather carelessly in this instance.