Steve F Posted April 28 Share Posted April 28 maligne lake - Search (bing.com) The current background image for Windows. Lovely lovely image. But... very noisy for some reason and a lot of chromatic aberration on the edges of the mountains. This leapt out at me straight away. But maybe the average viewer wouldn't even notice and we're too picky after living with Alamy QC. Any thoughts...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Ventura Posted April 28 Share Posted April 28 I have definitely seen Windows 10 background screens that look pretty doggy, coming from other sources than Alamy. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alexander Hogg Posted April 28 Share Posted April 28 Probably wouldn't have noticed it before being on here A lot of images that I've done are a lot worse than this It's not being picky Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Standfast Posted April 28 Share Posted April 28 The standard we work to allows this:- Country: New Zealand ; Usage: Advertising and promotion ; Media: Outdoor display – billboard/transit ad ; Industry Sector: Media, design & publishing ; Print run: up to 5 ; Start: 20-October-2016 ; End: 20-January-2017 Occaisionaly...Sometimes...Oh all right....Once! 😉 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiskerke Posted April 28 Share Posted April 28 Wow that CA; the sharpening and those smear marks from cleaning the sensor in the upper right hand corner. It would never pass QC with this. And what's that round bubble on the slope just left of the trees on the island? Oops TinEye says it is available on Alamy. But somehow it does not show up when I click on the link from TinEye. With 4,179 images of Maligne Lake I cannot find it by hand. On Firefox searching from the Alamy front page I get: The page isn’t redirecting properly. No results at all. Just a blank page with that warning. No such thing on Chrome. Could be a cookie problem. I have not changed my settings though. It must be at the other end. Let's hope there are no clients using Firefox. Aha now Chrome too says: This page isn’t working www.alamy.com redirected you too many times. Try deleting your cookies. ERR_TOO_MANY_REDIRECTS wim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted April 28 Share Posted April 28 We're being picky because we've been trained to be picky (and some of us are pickier by nature than others). Most people don't know anything about -- or even notice -- CA, over-sharpening, noise and the like. They just respond to the content of the image, which is understandable. P.S. Could the round bubble be a UFO? 🛸 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Chapman Posted April 28 Share Posted April 28 (edited) Image (without overlays) is here https://www.bing.com/th?id=OBTQ.BTC78C48D67A88D00FFC2ACC581C75B9B15A7C4A0EB6929038747B5F1CDBCA2CC2&rs=2&c=1 Strange arc of spots in sky too (top right). I don't mind the "grain" and, apart from the artefacts, I like the image.... Mark Edited April 28 by M.Chapman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IKuzmin Posted April 28 Share Posted April 28 I like the image. I do not think that a lock-screen image that lives a couple of days must be ideal. I used to see unsharp, noisy etc images in this place, and this never bothered me. One my friend had his image in this Windows lock screen, it was purchased by Microsoft from a microstock site for peanuts, as always.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffrey Isaac Greenberg Posted April 28 Share Posted April 28 IMO, the correct issues are: "Were Alamy's previously queried customers too picky when QC was established?" & then "Do Alamy's QC determinants evolve as customers' tastes evolve?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve F Posted April 28 Author Share Posted April 28 5 hours ago, wiskerke said: Wow that CA; the sharpening and those smear marks from cleaning the sensor in the upper right hand corner. It would never pass QC with this. And what's that round bubble on the slope just left of the trees on the island? Didn't see the green bubble, lot of faults with the image! 2 hours ago, IKuzmin said: I like the image. Ditto! 2 hours ago, Jeffrey Isaac Greenberg said: IMO, the correct issues are: "Were Alamy's previously queried customers too picky when QC was established?" & then "Do Alamy's QC determinants evolve as customers' tastes evolve?" It wasn't so much a reflection on Alamy's processes, so much as, can we still enjoy images that we spot a lot of 'QC errors' in? Not sure about Alamy's QC evolving, it's been the same since 2014 when I joined (I originally failed QC bc I didn't know what I was doing so I read up on editing etc. for a year and then passed a year later). Alamy's original clients being too picky? Well, if you're used to dealing with professional photographers, then probably not too picky. I've always thought Alamy's QC let too many images through that don't match their QC requirements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted April 29 Share Posted April 29 (edited) Interesting question. My OCD hasn't progressed to the point where I can't still enjoy images that have some technical issues. Frankly, I doubt that that most stock photo clients are all that picky about technical errors unless they are so glaring that they make an image unusable. Publishers, especially editorial ones, are more interested in finding images that meet their needs than in technical perfection. Edited April 29 by John Mitchell 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geogphotos Posted April 30 Share Posted April 30 Alamy is certainly way more 'picky' than any other agency that I have experience of BUT only when it comes to technical details. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cal Posted May 2 Share Posted May 2 I think it's likely the average viewer wouldn't notice. Most of the time when I point out technical flaws like this to my non-photographer friends they think it's either a non-issue or just can't see what I'm talking about like a trained eye can. I have been known to "go off" a photo I previously quite liked when I spot a flaw in it, which annoys me. Regarding the photo in the OP, I know I could show that to 20 people and they'd have nothing but positive things to say. The CA, noise, fact that it's over processed and the dust spots would either go unnoticed or be a non-issue. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ognyan Yosifov Posted May 2 Share Posted May 2 On 28/04/2024 at 17:58, Steve F said: maligne lake - Search (bing.com) The current background image for Windows. Lovely lovely image. But... very noisy for some reason and a lot of chromatic aberration on the edges of the mountains. This leapt out at me straight away. But maybe the average viewer wouldn't even notice and we're too picky after living with Alamy QC. Any thoughts...? Alamy database contains a lot of technically worse images than this, some of which were sold for $, $$, $$$, and $$$$. It's not about the quality, it's about the editorial needs... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin L Posted May 2 Share Posted May 2 Most non-photo people will view the image at the 'normal' distance where technical flaws are less visible or not noticeable, they don't get a magnifying glass to look at an A2 poster. I'm a bit schizophrenic in this regard. Picky for images I send to Alamy because they have certain standards that need to be met. Totally non-picky for non-Alamy images. If I like the photo and it illustrates the concept I want I don't really care about minimal technical errors like SOLD, motion blur etc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay D Posted July 15 Share Posted July 15 It's horrendous. Everything i dislike about photography in one image Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jose Decio Molaro Posted July 15 Share Posted July 15 We are more demanding, but it really is very confusing, a lot of information and I agree with you, but they edit the photo because they put a lot of things in front...it's confusing...but a sign of the times, maybe for young people it's normal... Are we boring!?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rebecca Ore Posted July 16 Share Posted July 16 On 28/04/2024 at 11:58, John Mitchell said: We're being picky because we've been trained to be picky (and some of us are pickier by nature than others). Most people don't know anything about -- or even notice -- CA, over-sharpening, noise and the like. They just respond to the content of the image, which is understandable. P.S. Could the round bubble be a UFO? 🛸 I can't stand any of the Microsoft wall paper photos. Always use something of my own that may have flaws, but has some meaning for me. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffrey Isaac Greenberg Posted July 16 Share Posted July 16 as a stock photographer there's only one way to judge such photos: IT GOT SELECTED, ONE OF MINE DIDN'T, WHY...? 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted July 16 Share Posted July 16 1 hour ago, Rebecca Ore said: I can't stand any of the Microsoft wall paper photos. Always use something of my own that may have flaws, but has some meaning for me. Yes, "stunning" and exotic images tend to get boring after awhile. The ordinary is often much more interesting. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecadet Posted July 17 Share Posted July 17 15 hours ago, John Mitchell said: Yes, "stunning" and exotic images tend to get boring after awhile. The ordinary is often much more interesting. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Scheuern Posted July 17 Share Posted July 17 2 hours ago, spacecadet said: Worthy of Eggleston. I like it. It also made me think that "new topographics" stuff, like Stephen Shore and Robert Adams, would work well, too. Though I do like MacOS's drone videos, especially how, at whatever point you interrupt the screen saver, that becomes the wallpaper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted July 17 Share Posted July 17 6 hours ago, spacecadet said: That actually looks pretty "exotic" to me. I have no idea what it is and don't even want to speculate. 🤢 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffrey Isaac Greenberg Posted July 17 Share Posted July 17 11 minutes ago, John Mitchell said: I have no idea what it is its cruise ship buffet food take a little bit of several things you think you may like & put them all on one plate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Posted July 17 Share Posted July 17 (edited) 23 hours ago, Rebecca Ore said: I can't stand any of the Microsoft wall paper photos. Always use something of my own that may have flaws, but has some meaning for me. That wallpaper image looks AI generated to me. All bright/strong color desktop wallpaper images can be distracting as well as bleed thru plus the bright colors can be tiring on my older eyeballs. I use a nice neutral gray solid color for wallpaper. Edited July 17 by Phil 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now