Reporting very low quality (and I mean extremely unacceptable low quality) photos found in the database, to Alamy

[Ognyan Yosifov]

Guys, I wonder what you think about reporting very low-quality photos found in the database to Alamy? While browsing today, I found awful photos positioned high in the search (photos uploaded through the S. channel) for a specific tourist destination. Is this action ethical having in mind that a potential customer would run away and away from the search ( and away and away from my and your photos) when stumble upon those files? 

Edited May 3 by Ognyan Yosifov

[NYCat]

Without knowing your criteria for low quality, I know there is an entirely different method of choosing which photos to accept with that app. They seem to require a certain amount of "creative" filtering. I'm not terribly good at it and have had few sales that way.

 

Paulette

[Reimar]

You can try, but I doubt it will amount to anything.  If technical quality is acceptable, regardless of esthetic quality, the image can be accepted.  If by S.channel you mean S*****mo  it's likely even the technical quality standard can be quite a bit lower than normal.

[Ognyan Yosifov]

4 minutes ago, NYCat said:

Without knowing your criteria for low quality, I know there is an entirely different method of choosing which photos to accept with that app. They seem to require a certain amount of "creative" filtering. I'm not terribly good at it and have had few sales that way.

 

Paulette

I wish I could post those files here as a reference, but I never would. I know it is hard to be judged so c'est la vie, I guess ...

[Ognyan Yosifov]

6 minutes ago, Reimar said:

You can try, but I doubt it will amount to anything.  If technical quality is acceptable, regardless of esthetic quality, the image can be accepted.  If by S.channel you mean S*****mo  it's likely even the technical quality standard can be quite a bit lower than normal.

The technical quality is not acceptable, so I'll try (it is S******mo, yeah)

[spacecadet]

S*mo isn't subject to QC on technical quality. As I undestand it the accept what they like the look of. It's a stylee thing apparently.

Edited May 3 by spacecadet

[Ognyan Yosifov]

4 minutes ago, spacecadet said:

S*mo isn't subject to QC on technical quality.

We are doomed in this case, then since S*mo files are mixed with the QC-passed ones ...

[NYCat]

The reference numbers start with S so they can be distinguished from "regular" submissions. I don't know if regular buyers are aware of this.

 

Paulette

[wiskerke]

56 minutes ago, Ognyan Yosifov said:

Guys, I wonder what you think about reporting very low-quality photos found in the database to Alamy? While browsing today, I found awful photos positioned high in the search (photos uploaded through the S. channel) for a specific tourist destination. Is this action ethical having in mind that a potential customer would run away and away from the search ( and away and away from my and your photos) when stumble upon those files? 

 

If those images appear high in results, it must mean they are selling well.

Do you have some search phrases for us to try? Is this using any of the Ultimate; Vital etc categories? Any other filter? Like MR PR etc?

 

wim

[Ognyan Yosifov]

11 minutes ago, wiskerke said:

 

If those images appear high in results, it must mean they are selling well.

Do you have some search phrases for us to try? Is this using any of the Ultimate; Vital etc categories? Any other filter? Like MR PR etc?

 

wim

OK.

Thanks, Wim for the encouragement.

Just type "Kinsale Harbour" - no filters, no collections. There are 1300 photos and, on the first page, the two files will be easily recognised....

Edited May 3 by Ognyan Yosifov

[Reimar]

I see what you mean.  I kind of like the first one in spite of the over-processing and noise.  The second one with the hole in the sky looks weird, but I say: live and let live.

[Ognyan Yosifov]

3 minutes ago, Reimar said:

I see what you mean.  I kind of like the first one in spite of the over-processing and noise.  The second one with the hole in the sky looks weird, but I say: live and let live.

Yeah, Life's short! Thanks, Reimar!

[StokeCreative]

Looking at the rest of the guys portfolio they are all too over processed for my taste even though via stockimo, but thats just it, they might appeal to some random buyer out there (Side note: Whilst I get anonymising rival brands on the forum , is there a reason for doing it to this brand and its mobile sibling? - asking for a friend)

[Ognyan Yosifov]

1 minute ago, StokeCreative said:

Looking at the rest of the guys portfolio they are all too over processed for my taste even though via stockimo, but thats just it, they might appeal to some random buyer out there (Side note: Whilst I get anonymising rival brands on the forum , is there a reason for doing it to this brand and its mobile sibling? - asking for a friend)

If I got your question right yes, we shouldn't mention the mobile sibling on this forum. Weird, right?

[antonsrkn]

With the number of images on here and the constant influx of new content, policing quality seems futile. At least in this case, someone who buys the image knows what they're getting- not so easy to catch some other quality issues such as factually incorrect captions which the database is rife with. 

 

A search for any sort of wildlife apart from the instantly recognizable species like lions, typically produces multiple images on the front page that have been incorrectly identified whether by accident or intention.   For example, in a search for 'cobra': just on the 1st page I see a rubber toy that is meant to pass as a real snake, and a harmless rat snake labeled as a king cobra.  A search for 'bee' reveals a bad cartoon image attempting to pass as a photo, and 3 images of insects that are not bees mislabeled as such just on the 1st page.   As you get more specific or to wildlife that isn't as easily recognizable the incidences of factually incorrect captions increase.  A search for 'water moccasin' a very common venomous snake from the Southeast USA yields 15(!) mislabeled images just on the 1st page.  Anyways, all this to say - quality control is quite bad here.  I guess the best we can do is hope for savvy buyers who select higher-quality images and have the know-how to discern accurate captions. 

 

Over the years, I've seen numerous magazines, a textbook cover, etc... get publicly shamed after licensing an incorrectly captioned image and the editor not catching it. I've heard hearsay that at least 1 nature magazine swore off purchasing images from major stock libraries and instead choosing to work with smaller specialist agencies. 

[Ognyan Yosifov]

9 minutes ago, antonsrkn said:

With the number of images on here and the constant influx of new content, policing quality seems futile. At least in this case, someone who buys the image knows what they're getting- not so easy to catch some other quality issues such as factually incorrect captions which the database is rife with. 

 

A search for any sort of wildlife apart from the instantly recognizable species like lions, typically produces multiple images on the front page that have been incorrectly identified whether by accident or intention.   For example, in a search for 'cobra': just on the 1st page I see a rubber toy that is meant to pass as a real snake, and a harmless rat snake labeled as a king cobra.  A search for 'bee' reveals a bad cartoon image attempting to pass as a photo, and 3 images of insects that are not bees mislabeled as such just on the 1st page.   As you get more specific or to wildlife that isn't as easily recognizable the incidences of factually incorrect captions increase.  A search for 'water moccasin' a very common venomous snake from the Southeast USA yields 15(!) mislabeled images just on the 1st page.  Anyways, all this to say - quality control is quite bad here.  I guess the best we can do is hope for savvy buyers who select higher-quality images and have the know-how to discern accurate captions. 

 

Over the years, I've seen numerous magazines, a textbook cover, etc... get publicly shamed after licensing an incorrectly captioned image and the editor not catching it. I've heard hearsay that at least 1 nature magazine swore off purchasing images from major stock libraries and instead choosing to work with smaller specialist agencies. 

I get your point. QC here is based on technical appearance only, though, not on content

[StokeCreative]

4 hours ago, Ognyan Yosifov said:

If I got your question right yes, we shouldn't mention the mobile sibling on this forum. Weird, right?

Yes, sorry, my english was a bit tortuous there!

[Ognyan Yosifov]

9 hours ago, StokeCreative said:

Yes, sorry, my english was a bit tortuous there!

OK.

[geogphotos]

I see what the OP is talking about now that I look. I see mobile phone images of a very low standard without any warning that they might have imperfections etc.

 

The search I looked at had one of these about second in a search of several hundred images. 

 

I used the filter to search by contributor name 'Stockimo' and that brought up a small number all of which in my opinion would fail QC.  Fair enough if the client is told that they are low standard but they aren't. 

 

This is annoying to say the least.

Edited May 8 by geogphotos

[Ognyan Yosifov]

25 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

I see what the OP is talking about now that I look. I see mobile phone images of a very low standard without any warning that they might have imperfections etc.

 

The search I looked at had one of these about second in a search of several hundred images. 

 

I used the filter to search by contributor name 'Stockimo' and that brought up a small number all of which in my opinion would fail QC.  Fair enough if the client is told that they are low standard but they aren't. 

 

This is annoying to say the least.

That's the point, and according to my observations, the S*****o images are positioned quite well in searches. It seems like they have some kind of priority...

[geogphotos]

49 minutes ago, Ognyan Yosifov said:

That's the point, and according to my observations, the S*****o images are positioned quite well in searches. It seems like they have some kind of priority...

 

Yes, 591 images for 'Lake Bacalar' - number two slot is a low res, low quality phone image which would not pass QC in a month of Sundays. 

[Harry Harrison]

16 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

number two slot is a low res, low quality phone image which would not pass QC in a month of Sundays. 

It is over the normal 17MB uncompressed threshold though, I find it quite hard to judge quality from the Alamy enlarged view, it's different to the ones mentioned originally by the OP in that it seems to be a straightforward representation of the scene, unencumbered by special effects and filters. It's marked for editorial only.

 

In that case it could be a good seller I suppose, it's simple and graphic. I find it harder to believe that those 'Kinsale Harbour' images could be big sellers but could it just be that the contributor's images sell well in general.

[geogphotos]

13 minutes ago, Harry Harrison said:

It is over the normal 17MB uncompressed threshold though, I find it quite hard to judge quality from the Alamy enlarged view, it's different to the ones mentioned originally by the OP in that it seems to be a straightforward representation of the scene, unencumbered by special effects and filters. It's marked for editorial only.

 

In that case it could be a good seller I suppose, it's simple and graphic. I find it harder to believe that those 'Kinsale Harbour' images could be big sellers but could it just be that the contributor's images sell well in general.

 

I understood that this collection was for a different sort of aesthetic rather than competing head-to-head for placement with images that have to go through the QC threshold.  I had assumed that they came with some sort of health warning similar to that for Archival/Reportage images.

 

Edited May 8 by geogphotos

[Ognyan Yosifov]

10 minutes ago, Harry Harrison said:

It is over the normal 17MB uncompressed threshold though, I find it quite hard to judge quality from the Alamy enlarged view, it's different to the ones mentioned originally by the OP in that it seems to be a straightforward representation of the scene, unencumbered by special effects and filters. It's marked for editorial only.

 

In that case it could be a good seller I suppose, it's simple and graphic. I find it harder to believe that those 'Kinsale Harbour' images could be big sellers but could it just be that the contributor's images sell well in general.

It could be, I have no observations if S*****o images' positions in searches depend on the overall contributor's ranking.

Edited May 8 by Ognyan Yosifov

[Harry Harrison]

1 hour ago, Ognyan Yosifov said:

That's the point, and according to my observations, the S*****o images are positioned quite well in searches. It seems like they have some kind of priority...

The images of Kinsale Harbour that I think you are referring to are in Vital, that could I suppose help them rise up the rankings, certainly it would be possible for the algorithm to help them along. It's interesting that 87% of that contributor's almost 3000 images are in Vital. One thing about 'S' is that I think the Property & Model questions are compulsory so if eligible (no models, no property perhaps) they are immediately eligible for the Vital and Ultimate collections. Ours are only eligible if we fill in the 'optional' fields.

[geogphotos]

3 minutes ago, Harry Harrison said:

The images of Kinsale Harbour that I think you are referring to are in Vital, that could I suppose help them rise up the rankings, certainly it would be possible for the algorithm to help them along. It's interesting that 87% of that contributor's almost 3000 images are in Vital. One thing about 'S' is that I think the Property & Model questions are compulsory so if eligible (no models, no property perhaps) they are immediately eligible for the Vital and Ultimate collections. Ours are only eligible if we fill in the 'optional' fields.

 

 

So these low quality images are actually given preferential treatment??