Jump to content
  • 0

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


Ognyan Yosifov

Question

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 by Ognyan Yosifov
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Recommended Posts

  • 0
1 minute 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.

Yes, S. images won't pass QC if one doesn't state about model and property releases and they go straight to "for editorial only" section

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
26 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

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 don't think so, there are far too many images in Vital for it to be curated in any way, Ultimate and Foundation are curated I believe, I think James A said as much. They are in Vital because they are 'safe' for buyers to use so it has been declared by the contributor that they have no models and no property (so don't require releases) or that they do contain Models or Property but if so they have releases. Also they don't contain any of the rather mysterious trigger keywords that would cause them not to be considered.

Edited by Harry Harrison
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
11 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

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

 Edit - sorry, I thought you were referring to the Lake Balacar image, not Kinsale Harbour. We can only wonder, but could it be because they are in Vital, or because that contributor is a big seller overall. I've certainly seen very ordinary images from big selling contributors come out tops in certain specific searches.

Edited by Harry Harrison
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
Just now, Harry Harrison said:

If so then that will be forever a secret I think, but it could be a big seller, so that could be just normal ranking I suppose.

I really hope that those low-quality phone photos (like the one I stated) are not big sellers!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
2 hours ago, Harry Harrison said:

 Edit - sorry, I thought you were referring to the Lake Balacar image, not Kinsale Harbour. We can only wonder, but could it be because they are in Vital, or because that contributor is a big seller overall. I've certainly seen very ordinary images from big selling contributors come out tops in certain specific searches.

 

That S contributor only seems to have about 50 images. By the way I am not criticising the contributor in any shape or form. He/she has done exactly what Alamy has asked.

 

I am surprised now that I understand how Alamy presents these images  - the one I am talking about is from a mobile phone at least 8 years old. I spend days and weeks working in Photoshop to ensure that my image are the best I can make them ( with my limited abilty etc, but I do spend a lot of time and effort.) So then to be outranked by an image which I can see is very low quality and straight off a phone snap is as I have said - annoying to say the least. 

 

Somehow I assumed that these S images were in a seperate collection for those that wanted them not head-to-head with all our pics.

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

  • 0
1 hour ago, Harry Harrison said:

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.

 

The only choice you have when submitting is whether or not they can be used for commercial use. No specific questions.

 

Paulette

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
1 hour ago, geogphotos said:

 

That S contributor only seems to have about 50 images. By the way I am not criticising the contributor in any shape or form. He/she has done exactly what Alamy has asked.

 

I am surprised now that I understand how Alamy presents these images  - the one I am talking about is from a mobile phone at least 8 years old. I spend days and weeks working in Photoshop to ensure that my image are the best I can make them ( with my limited abilty etc, but I do spend a lot of time and effort.) So then to be outranked by an image which I can see is very low quality and straight off a phone snap is as I have said - annoying to say the least. 

 

Somehow I assumed that these S images were in a seperate collection for those that wanted them not head-to-head with all our pics.

My post was an intention to find some answers about that. It is really annoying...

Edited by Ognyan Yosifov
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
2 hours ago, geogphotos said:

Somehow I assumed that these S images were in a seperate collection for those that wanted them not head-to-head with all our pics.

Edited 1 hour ago by geogphotos

No, they’re just the same as ours, except of course we’re not allowed to talk about them!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
3 minutes ago, Harry Harrison said:

No, they’re just the same as ours, except of course we’re not allowed to talk about them!

 

 

It seems crazy to me - does any any other library/agency intersperse its professional quality images with these snaps from mobile phones?

Edited by geogphotos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
2 hours ago, NYCat said:

The only choice you have when submitting is whether or not they can be used for commercial use. No specific questions.

OK, thanks, I was going by this Alamy blogspot and a YouTube video, video was 9 years old though.

 

https://www.alamy.com/blog/stockimo-an-introduction-to-alamys-iphone-app

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
7 hours ago, geogphotos said:

 

 

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

 

I am totally convinced that images that give Alamy 80% are given preferential treatment.

 

Jill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
22 minutes ago, Jill Morgan said:

 

I am totally convinced that images that give Alamy 80% are given preferential treatment.

 

Jill

I'm pretty sure that's not the case. It would not be to clever either, putting your non-bestselling images up-front.

 

wim

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
32 minutes ago, wiskerke said:

I'm pretty sure that's not the case. It would not be to clever either, putting your non-bestselling images up-front.

 

wim

 

 

Perhaps it is to do with the diversity algorthym  algorythm algorithm spreading S images through the field?

Edited by geogphotos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
3 hours ago, geogphotos said:

It seems crazy to me - does any any other library/agency intersperse its professional quality images with these snaps from mobile phones?

Yep, it's been like that since the beginning of s.....o. No clear demarkation between the images (other than the "S" prefix which isn't widely publicised). There were loud complaints at the time (including from me) that this devalued Alamy's collection and made a nonsense of the 1 pixel QC criteria applied to images submitted via the Alamy route. But, a while ago Alamy decided the "pile them high", and be prepared to "sell them cheap" is the way to grow the business. Not an approach I agree with, but, on the plus side, they are still in business when other agencies have fallen by the wayside.

 

Mark

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

The image I looked at only has 'Lake Bacalar in the caption and not in the keywords. Maybe S images have more Alamy Algo juice in their captions and the small number of keywords that is allowed?

 

Who knows and we aren't going to be told so just get on with it I suppose.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

Can you spot the mobile image on page one of this search?   Perhaps you can. It's mine and it just licensed through the app for $$$. 

Some buyers like the aesthetic. And not all mobile images are over processed. I've got two that show up on the first page of this simple search "lilacs in a garden" (without the quotation marks). If buyers like the images then they will buy them. If they zoom in and think the quality is lacking, then they won't. The point of Alamy's collection is that it's eclectic. 

 

I agree that the skies you referred to are over-processed and not to my taste but vivre et laisser vivre.  Unlike the Alamy collection, every single image submitted via the app is reviewed and rated before it's accepted so in effect you'd be telling Alamy that their editors made a mistake, not that a poor image made it past QC because Alamy does not review all images in the regular collection; they only review random batches. 

 

I don't think that they are given preferential treatment.  As an Alamy contributor I get 50%, more than the 40% I get from my regular images.  So they are not giving them higher placement because they'll make more. It would be like placing the images of contributors who haven't made the $250 threshold on top of the search. Alamy's business plan is to sell images and their algorithm presumably touts the images most likely to sell, regardless of where they came from. 

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

  • 0
4 hours ago, Marianne said:

Can you spot the mobile image on page one of this search?   Perhaps you can. It's mine and it just licensed through the app for $$$. 

Some buyers like the aesthetic. And not all mobile images are over processed. I've got two that show up on the first page of this simple search "lilacs in a garden" (without the quotation marks). If buyers like the images then they will buy them. If they zoom in and think the quality is lacking, then they won't. The point of Alamy's collection is that it's eclectic. 

 

I agree that the skies you referred to are over-processed and not to my taste but vivre et laisser vivre.  Unlike the Alamy collection, every single image submitted via the app is reviewed and rated before it's accepted so in effect you'd be telling Alamy that their editors made a mistake, not that a poor image made it past QC because Alamy does not review all images in the regular collection; they only review random batches. 

 

I don't think that they are given preferential treatment.  As an Alamy contributor I get 50%, more than the 40% I get from my regular images.  So they are not giving them higher placement because they'll make more. It would be like placing the images of contributors who haven't made the $250 threshold on top of the search. Alamy's business plan is to sell images and their algorithm presumably touts the images most likely to sell, regardless of where they came from. 

Hi Marianne, This is a beautiful image, and I know about your sale from another thread. My point was about those extremely grainy, off-colour and out-of-focus phone photos that appear even in news-related searches like airport interiors. I've seen quite a few of them. And yes, the S. photos have some kind of priority in search results.

Edited by Ognyan Yosifov
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

Thanks @Ognyan Yosifov  I guess I just felt like you were criticizing all of the images in that collection and a lot of them I've seen are very creative and worthwhile, but I agree that there are low quality ones too. My point was that there's a lot of dreck in the main collection too - with an unedited collection it's bound to happen - but at the same time the huge diversity of images and the fact that Alamy lets the buyer decide if unusual or offbeat images are right for them is what makes Alamy unique. 

 

I'm surprised that you think that collection gets a boost since Alamy is closing it down so it seems counterintuitive. But I'm not privy to the algorithm.

 

@Chris Burrows  Yes, improper keywords are another issue - all of the stock libraries have this problem since they leave it up to the photographer and some people are lazy or they spam the keywords. That should make them fall to the bottom of the list when they get hits for the wrong keywords but the system is far from perfect. 

  • Like 2
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
×
×
  • 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.