<RANT> QC Failure

[kimba]

 

I understand the ins and outs of QC (I used to be a QA Engineer, sort of similar) but I do not for the life of me understand the inconsistency of Alamy QC.

 

A few weeks ago, Alamy put out a call for everyday images from France. No particular style or description other than "everyday sort of images". I replied that I have a lot of images from France, they are posted on my own site, were taken with a small (read: unqualified) camera, but I told them that if they see anything on my site that they think would work, I'd be happy to upload them and see if they pass QC. Alamy actually looks at my site and writes back and says, yes, please upload - but does not say which images, so I just start editing. I probably have a thousand images if not more just from France. 

 

These were all taken with a Canon point and shoot (experimental on my part at the time to see if I wanted to switch to digital) that started using about five years before I got a better camera and started uploading to Alamy. 

 

So I'm plugging away and seriously working and uploading hundreds of images that pass and get through QC. Yay! Either my editing skills are better, or they aren't so picky about cameras anymore. 

 

Until this week.

 

Suddenly, my old camera isn't good enough, images are soft, and it's always one image in the middle of a batch. I have a three star QC rating and my images go through QC rather quickly while I'm sleeping. I don't want to lose that rating.

 

I thought that QC at Alamy was performed by AI, so I figured at this point it would be really consistent. Am I wrong about that? 

 

Anyway, this is just a rant, no need to respond ... If nothing else, I'm getting better edited images to put on my own web site, so it's not all for naught. 

 

</RANT>

[Allan Bell]

Hi kimba,

 

We are always told that QC of our images is done by people not by machine.

 

Allan

 

Sorry you had a failure.

 

Allan

 

[wiskerke]

5 hours ago, kimba said:

Suddenly, my old camera isn't good enough, images are soft, and it's always one image in the middle of a batch. I have a three star QC rating and my images go through QC rather quickly while I'm sleeping. I don't want to lose that rating.

 

Maybe upload those images using the Archival route? If the option is greyed out on your Upload page, just ask member services to give you access.

 

wim

[M.Chapman]

On 17/11/2023 at 17:34, kimba said:

So I'm plugging away and seriously working and uploading hundreds of images that pass and get through QC. Yay! Either my editing skills are better, or they aren't so picky about cameras anymore.

..

Suddenly, my old camera isn't good enough, images are soft, and it's always one image in the middle of a batch. I have a three star QC rating and my images go through QC rather quickly while I'm sleeping. I don't want to lose that rating.

QC only inspect some batches. Unfortunately, just because a batch gets through QC, with the "Congratulations you passed QC" message, it doesn't meant that Alamy actually looked at any of them. This can easily lead to a false sense of security and generate and impression of inconsistency when a fail subsequently occurs. The best QC is to inspect your own images at 100% and if in doubt, don't upload.

 

Mark

Edited November 20 by M.Chapman

[geogphotos]

Ranting isn't going to help.

 

Swallow it and move on. 

[kimba]

7 hours ago, M.Chapman said:

QC only inspect some batches.

 

This I did not know. 

 

I did get a false sense of security towards the end there. I was surprised at every batch of 40+ images that passed QC from that camera.

 

I've stopped editing and uploading For Alamy, anyway. 

[sooth]

really nice set of images in your portfolio. here's one more "found" comstock saloon https://www.bbc.com/travel/article/20231119-a-tour-of-san-franciscos-best-cocktail-bars-from-mixologist-josh-harris

[kimba]

17 hours ago, sooth said:

really nice set of images in your portfolio. here's one more "found" comstock saloon https://www.bbc.com/travel/article/20231119-a-tour-of-san-franciscos-best-cocktail-bars-from-mixologist-josh-harris

 

Thank you!!!! 

 

That one doesn't show in my sales history yet! 

Edited November 20 by kimba

[kimba]

Addendum: Weird though that the only image I sold in November was from one of the accepted uploads with "A digital camera not suited for Alamy"

[Mr Standfast]

1 hour ago, kimba said:

Addendum: Weird though that the only image I sold in November was from one of the accepted uploads with "A digital camera not suited for Alamy"

 

 

Alamy would not have known, until now.

[kimba]

33 minutes ago, Mr Standfast said:

Alamy would not have known, until now.

 

That's not exactly what I meant ...more of an ironic thing. 

[aphperspective]

On 19/11/2023 at 22:47, geogphotos said:

Ranting isn't going to help.

 

Swallow it and move on. 

True enough, I have just had an image fail "soft or lacking definition". Its a lorry driving through a badly flooded road, lots of spray. Looks ok to me but A thinks not. Its not worth arguing over. On to the next image, more important things to worry about.

Andy.

[Allan Bell]

On 19/11/2023 at 22:47, geogphotos said:

Ranting isn't going to help.

 

Swallow it and move on. 

 

I think having a rant on the forum helps in clearing personal tensions even if it is ignored. Always helps to get nice replies though.

 

Allan

 

[kimba]

9 hours ago, Allan Bell said:

 

I think having a rant on the forum helps in clearing personal tensions even if it is ignored. Always helps to get nice replies though.

I think the same way! I could sit and stew for days, or I could rant once in public and be done with it - because whether or not anyone is listening, I feel heard. 

[Mark Scheuern]

I had a submission fail because a very sharp picture of a building had people walking in the foreground, with deliberate motion blur. I know they try but I don't think photographic intent is always understood. 

 

I recently bought of book of Alex Webb photos and thought "man, none of his stuff would get through Alamy QC!" Not that I'm any Alex Webb, for sure. 

Edited 23 hours ago by Mark Scheuern

[Mr Standfast]

15 minutes ago, Mark Scheuern said:

I had a submission fail because a very sharp picture of a building had people walking in the foreground, with deliberate motion blur. I know they try but I don't think photographic intent is always understood. 

 

Would you care to post the image?

[Mark Scheuern]

I would, but I just tried using a Dropbox link and it's not working. Anyway, looking at it again, I'm thinking that the blur isn't obvious enough to make clear that was the intent. It might look like I wanted to make the whole thing sharp but failed. I've definitely submitted other image with motion blur and/or selective focus in the past and it's been okay. 

 

[Allan Bell]

27 minutes ago, Mark Scheuern said:

I would, but I just tried using a Dropbox link and it's not working. Anyway, looking at it again, I'm thinking that the blur isn't obvious enough to make clear that was the intent. It might look like I wanted to make the whole thing sharp but failed. I've definitely submitted other image with motion blur and/or selective focus in the past and it's been okay. 

 

 

I had a QC fail some time ago and took it up with them through CR explaining my intentions in taking the image . QC looked at it again and agreed it should be passed.

 

Might be worth doing similar.

 

Allan

 

[Mark Scheuern]

Thanks, Allan. I might do that. Not a particularly special image but then you never know. 

[Dave Richards]

3 hours ago, Mark Scheuern said:

I had a submission fail because a very sharp picture of a building had people walking in the foreground, with deliberate motion blur. I know they try but I don't think photographic intent is always understood. 

 

I recently bought of book of Alex Webb photos and thought "man, none of his stuff would get through Alamy QC!" Not that I'm any Alex Webb, for sure. 

I’ve uploaded quite a few images with motion blurred people and never had a fail. Maybe I’ve just been lucky and I’ll get caught out sooner or later!