SOLD fail reasons?

[Jeffrey Isaac Greenberg]

if QC reviewer simply zoomed in to 100%

they'd be looking only at man in center &

could see lack of detail in body & face but

MAYBE didn't notice face was pixeled...??

 

Can email QC@alamy.com & ask for clarification.

But I wouldn't debate-argue the fail...

 

 

Edited May 21 by Jeffrey Isaac Greenberg

[Brian Yarvin]

5 hours ago, MDM said:

 

Sensor dust is always dark and generally rounded. Birds in the sky might be confused with sensor dust though. 

 

... and yet, I've been rejected for white spots. I better find out why!

[MDM]

1 minute ago, Brian Yarvin said:

 

... and yet, I've been rejected for white spots. I better find out why!

 

Strange. Can you post the image or a crop at full size.

[Brian Yarvin]

1 hour ago, MDM said:

 

Strange. Can you post the image or a crop at full size.

 

It was a very long time ago! If something comes up, I'll start a new thread.

[Astronautilus]

Thanks everyone for your helpful comments. I finally got feedback from QC and it's the pixelated faces they have a problem with. Maybe this should be a separate topic, but how do you guys handle human faces in public areas? Do you get model releases for everyone? I sometimes see images on Alamy of rooms full of people, or crowds at sporting events.

 

Anyway, it's good to know that they don't consider it to be over-sharpened (until the next time!)

[KitJames]

8 minutes ago, Astronautilus said:

Thanks everyone for your helpful comments. I finally got feedback from QC and it's the pixelated faces they have a problem with. Maybe this should be a separate topic, but how do you guys handle human faces in public areas? Do you get model releases for everyone? I sometimes see images on Alamy of rooms full of people, or crowds at sporting events.

 

Anyway, it's good to know that they don't consider it to be over-sharpened (until the next time!)

I have some photos with people in them, and they're marked editorial.

[Steve F]

24 minutes ago, Astronautilus said:

Thanks everyone for your helpful comments. I finally got feedback from QC and it's the pixelated faces they have a problem with.

 

Hi Rod,

Thanks for following up. Unless you've asked specifically about whether the photo was oversharpened and had a response from Alamy, then don't assume that everything else about the picture is ok.

 

24 minutes ago, Astronautilus said:

I sometimes see images on Alamy of rooms full of people, or crowds at sporting events.

 

I think you've answered your own question. More to the point, I'm sure you see pictures of high streets full of people published all the time in media. No, of course we don't get permission for people in images generally when we're out in public. See the following:

https://www.format.com/online-portfolio-website/editorial-photography/guide#:~:text=Editorial Photography Work%3F-,What is Editorial Photography%3F,or tone for the piece.

 

https://www.alamy.com/blog/understanding-editorial-and-commercial-usage

 

That being said, different countries have different legal requirements:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Country_specific_consent_requirements

etc. do some research if you're shooting outside the UK

Edited May 22 by Steve F

[Steve F]

16 hours ago, wiskerke said:

I see that your Luminance Noise Reduction Detail is set at 100 and Luminance smoothing is at 61 while your sharpness is at 75. (Which is all not that gentle in my book.)

+1 Rodeny, this is not gentle at all and probably caused the pixellation and smudginess in the image.

[Tony ALS]

11 minutes ago, Steve F said:

That being said, different countries have different legal requirements:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Country_specific_consent_requirements

etc. do some research if you're shooting outside the UK

I did think that perhaps the faces were pixilated deliberately due to image rights rules in Spain.

At public events it's fine but there have been legal cases which have resulted in problems for photographers.

I believe Germany is very strict from this point of view (and yes I'm aware of the BILD issue on another thread).

[MDM]

 

3 minutes ago, Tony ALS said:

I did think that perhaps the faces were pixilated deliberately due to image rights rules in Spain.

 

 

That is my understanding about Spain as well. For that reason I don't upload pictures with recognisable people taken in Spain but I am on the cautious side of very cautious. It's not worth the possible hassle, however unlikely, moreover for the potential fees one one is likely to get. I presumed the same with the pixelation in the OP's images but, as I said above, it was utterly pointless as it was so bare bones that it would not stop anyone being identified in any case. 

[Astronautilus]

20 minutes ago, Steve F said:

+1 Rodeny, this is not gentle at all and probably caused the pixellation and smudginess in the image.

Interesting... when I apply the sharpening, even at 200%, I find the difference quite subtle. And at 100% I'm not seeing the pixelation and smudginess that you're seeing. Can you do a screenshot?

[Steve F]

13 minutes ago, Tony ALS said:

I did think that perhaps the faces were pixilated deliberately due to image rights rules in Spain.

At public events it's fine but there have been legal cases which have resulted in problems for photographers.

• It is allowed to propagate graphical information about public events or occurrences when the image of a particular person appears merely incidentally (section 8.2.c).

After minimal research, the above appears to apply in Spain. But have a look at published media in Spain. What do they show?

[MDM]

11 minutes ago, Steve F said:

• It is allowed to propagate graphical information about public events or occurrences when the image of a particular person appears merely incidentally (section 8.2.c).

After minimal research, the above appears to apply in Spain. But have a look at published media in Spain. What do they show?

 

As far as I know, news images are ok when it is just incidental. Public interest is also an exception I think. I researched this years ago, not recently so maybe not entirely accurate. 

[MDM]

18 minutes ago, Astronautilus said:

Interesting... when I apply the sharpening, even at 200%, I find the difference quite subtle. And at 100% I'm not seeing the pixelation and smudginess that you're seeing. Can you do a screenshot?

 

If you're shooting raw and have the Adobe Photography Package, check out Adobe Denoise. It does incredible noise removal as well as very judicious sharpening. It is orders of magnitutude better than messing about with manual noise removal and sharpening. 

[Steve F]

33 minutes ago, Astronautilus said:

Interesting... when I apply the sharpening, even at 200%, I find the difference quite subtle. And at 100% I'm not seeing the pixelation and smudginess that you're seeing. Can you do a screenshot?

 

Hi, I can see something is wrong at 100%. At 200% it's very obvious. 200% crop below. Also, this is a bright sunny day, the best conditions for a photograph like this. Why was all the sharpening and noise reduction applied?

 

Tip for future, F3.5 is unlikely to be the sweet spot for your lens, much more likely to be in the F5.6 to F8 range.

 

Edited May 22 by Steve F

[Steve F]

33 minutes ago, MDM said:

 

If you're shooting raw and have the Adobe Photography Package, check out Adobe Denoise. It does incredible noise removal as well as very judicious sharpening. It is orders of magnitutude better than messing about with manual noise removal and sharpening. 

+1, it's great in LR

[Martin L]

3 hours ago, Astronautilus said:

Interesting... when I apply the sharpening, even at 200%, I find the difference quite subtle. And at 100% I'm not seeing the pixelation and smudginess that you're seeing. Can you do a screenshot?

 

Following on from Steve this might help as well, grass in bottom left corner, looks a bit plastic...........maybe astro turf  

 

[M.Chapman]

7 hours ago, Astronautilus said:

Can you do a screenshot?

The sharp edges of the building have been retained but the fine detail and texture have gone in many areas. Martin's screenshot is a good example. I don't think it's a focussing issue, it's more down to using in camera jpg (too much compression?) rather than RAW and subsequent processing. Try shooting in RAW and applying Adobe Denoise (if needed) and you will see a dramatic difference.

 

 

Might be worth checking your monitor setup and viewing conditions. If you view the above with browser Zoom set to 100%, can you easily see the vertical horizontal bars in the above graphic? Better still download the image and open in PS.

 

What sort of display are you using? If it's a high DPI "Retina" type display then image inspection in PS needs to be carried out at 200% size.

 

I wouldn't have submitted that image to QC.

 

Mark

Edited May 22 by M.Chapman

[Rebecca Ore]

6 hours ago, Astronautilus said:

Thanks everyone for your helpful comments. I finally got feedback from QC and it's the pixelated faces they have a problem with. Maybe this should be a separate topic, but how do you guys handle human faces in public areas? Do you get model releases for everyone? I sometimes see images on Alamy of rooms full of people, or crowds at sporting events.

 

Anyway, it's good to know that they don't consider it to be over-sharpened (until the next time!)

 

If people are in public in US, Nicaragua, UK, people have no expectations of privacy (UK has some weird private lands in unexpected places complications) and the photo can be licensed as editorial.  Some other countries have different rules (Mexico and France of the ones I know about).   Releases are necessary almost everywhere if the photo implies the subject endorses a product and the photo is used to advertise that product. 

[Ognyan Yosifov]

This post looks like a social experiment...

[spacecadet]

6 hours ago, Astronautilus said:

, but how do you guys handle human faces in public areas? Do you get model releases for everyone? I sometimes see images on Alamy of rooms full of people, or crowds at sporting events.

 

 

I do nothing. I have dozens of images taken in Spain with identifiable people and many have licensed. There's an exception for incidental inclusion, and in any case I'm not the publisher, the licenser is.

Mind you, with what's happening in the BILD case, all bets may be off if Alamy will casually throw us to the wolves.

[John Mitchell]

I don't do anything either, but I seldom have images of isolated, recognizable people license. Here in Canada, the rules differ from province to province. Quebec has the most stringent privacy rules.

 

I'd say that the people in the OP's image are incidental (i.e. just part of the scene, not the main subject), so no need to worry or pixelate. Famous last words... 🙃

 

 

Edited May 22 by John Mitchell

[Astronautilus]

20 hours ago, M.Chapman said:

The sharp edges of the building have been retained but the fine detail and texture have gone in many areas. Martin's screenshot is a good example. I don't think it's a focussing issue, it's more down to using in camera jpg (too much compression?) rather than RAW and subsequent processing. Try shooting in RAW and applying Adobe Denoise (if needed) and you will see a dramatic difference.

 

 

Might be worth checking your monitor setup and viewing conditions. If you view the above with browser Zoom set to 100%, can you easily see the vertical horizontal bars in the above graphic? Better still download the image and open in PS.

 

What sort of display are you using? If it's a high DPI "Retina" type display then image inspection in PS needs to be carried out at 200% size.

 

I wouldn't have submitted that image to QC.

 

Mark

Thanks for this... some interesting suggestions! And yes, I can see the vertical and horizontal lines. Really the only thing I think I should have done differently, is shoot it at f6,3 or thereabouts. It's and in-camera jpg set to the highest quality, and I can't see much difference between the OOC jpg and the final version, so I think the grass in the foreground is just a DOF issue. But I will have a play around with RAW and LR Denoise.

 

And as mentioned earlier, the SOLD is apparently because I pixelated the people's faces!

[KitJames]

19 minutes ago, Astronautilus said:

But I will have a play around with RAW and LR Denoise.

RAW can sometimes bring out the best in the resulting image. I use RAW a lot in my photos and incredibly rare to have a JPEG that's better than the processed one.

[Steve F]

I didn't realise you were post processing the in camera JPG. You're generally much better off post processing the raw file.