Digital camera not suitable for Alamy

[Matt Ashmore]

2 hours ago, Harry Harrison said:

I think there's a conundrum there, EXIF is only necessary for the first 3 trial submissions, how will Alamy establish the origins, mobile phone or otherwise, unless they insist on EXIF for every upload? More importantly will they have the capability to check? Will AI step into the breach here I wonder.

 

Ideally you shouldn't even have to even start consider altering the EXIF.. in my opinion mobile phone images should just be acceptable albeit maybe restricted in the size that they can be sold at or maybe flagged to the buyer that the image might not work well if a high resolution image is required.

[Harry Harrison]

5 hours ago, Matt Ashmore said:

Ideally you shouldn't even have to even start consider altering the EXIF

I don’t know what made you think I was talking about altering the EXIF, I’m attempting to point out that your proposal of only allowing modern phones is unworkable as Alamy don’t have the capability to check for that. For ‘S’ any image uploaded from an IPhone was fine and the size threshold was much smaller.

 

 Once they say that phone images are allowed, if they do, that is what they will have to put in place and currently you do not have to include EXIF so they would need to make that compulsory.  Unlike cameras most phones these days have a number of different sensors for the different lenses and so even the quality from a single phone is not consistent.

 

[Matt Ashmore]

17 hours ago, Harry Harrison said:

I don’t know what made you think I was talking about altering the EXIF, I’m attempting to point out that your proposal of only allowing modern phones is unworkable as Alamy don’t have the capability to check for that. For ‘S’ any image uploaded from an IPhone was fine and the size threshold was much smaller.

 

 Once they say that phone images are allowed, if they do, that is what they will have to put in place and currently you do not have to include EXIF so they would need to make that compulsory.  Unlike cameras most phones these days have a number of different sensors for the different lenses and so even the quality from a single phone is not consistent.

 

 

Hmm.. I think I see what you mean. The Stockimo upload route gave them a method of tagging images as coming from phones allowing them to restrict the sizes available when selling as Royalty Free which they would miss if uploading through AIM. It seems that they just need a very slimmed down "upload app" which adds a tag in the image metadata and then the image is keyworded as normal in AIM.

[Harry Harrison]

1 hour ago, Matt Ashmore said:

It seems that they just need a very slimmed down "upload app" which adds a tag in the image metadata and then the image is keyworded as normal in AIM.

Yes, possibly, but then still no quality check that could restrict it to modern phones only, or particular sensor/lens combinations within a particular phone, and presumably restricting it to Iphones still would be just daft, they don't have the best cameras these days. That's why I wondered if they were thinking of using AI. We'll have to wait and see.

[Walrus]

Hi.

Sorry for the late reply. I thought I'd subscribed to the thread (not sure why as originator I have to but I recall selecting an option) but received no notifications.  I just checked in after being away for a few days and found the responses. Too many to respond to individually, so will try and sum up in one post.

 

After QC didn't reply, I emailed Alamy Support and it replied to say images from phone cameras aren't accepted but rejection could also be down to lack of definition (how it can be either makes no sense if images were originated on an iPhone and unacceptable, that should be the only grounds for failure).

 

I was also told QC view submissions at 100%, so I should as well. Considering I have been a member since Alamy was still in nappies, you would think support would have the courtesy to assume I know what I am doing, but courtesy and respect are in small supply these day. Oh, well...

 

Alamy is living in the dark ages by refusing to accept images originated on phone cameras. It's easy to make a list of camera models that produce acceptable quality images and use EXIF data to iD the submissions. At one time, Alamy would only accept TIFFs, when I said full quality JPEGs are just as good (I was using them for double page spreads!). Eventually, Alamy changed its mind, and allowed JPEG submissions (it was actually sending compressed JPEGs to clients!). So, IMV, way behind the curve again.

 

Regarding print size, majority of the images are reproduced <2000px on the long side. The iPhone 15 Pro produces images 4032px on the long side. If a buyer needs more, they have option of NOT buying. IAC, I can upsize to 8064px and 99.9999% of buyers wouldn't tell the difference between the original and the upsized. I didn't see the need to upsize.

 

If anyone wants to view the quality of the submission that failed (only one was marked failed, but all should be as the submission included images only from iPhone, not mixed with D850, my hobby camera!), here it is: http://shangara.me/files/iphone15pro.jpg

 

All Alamy needs to do is ask if you are uploading images originated on a mobile phone. If answer is yes, do not allow upload. There is NO impediment to uploading iPhone photos. I find that disgraceful considering the size of the company. I can hire a coder for $10 an hour to produce a form that asks the question. Heck, you could just add red text, that doesn't even need a coder: http://shangara.me/files/uploader.png

 

Thanks all.

 

[MDM]

 

 

2 hours ago, Walrus said:

Alamy is living in the dark ages by refusing to accept images originated on phone cameras. It's easy to make a list of camera models that produce acceptable quality images and use EXIF data to iD the submissions. At one time, Alamy would only accept TIFFs, when I said full quality JPEGs are just as good (I was using them for double page spreads!). Eventually, Alamy changed its mind, and allowed JPEG submissions (it was actually sending compressed JPEGs to clients!). So, IMV, way behind the curve again.

 

Regarding print size, majority of the images are reproduced <2000px on the long side. The iPhone 15 Pro produces images 4032px on the long side. If a buyer needs more, they have option of NOT buying. IAC, I can upsize to 8064px and 99.9999% of buyers wouldn't tell the difference between the original and the upsized. I didn't see the need to upsize.

 

If anyone wants to view the quality of the submission that failed (only one was marked failed, but all should be as the submission included images only from iPhone, not mixed with D850, my hobby camera!), here it is: http://shangara.me/files/iphone15pro.jpg

 

All Alamy needs to do is ask if you are uploading images originated on a mobile phone. If answer is yes, do not allow upload. There is NO impediment to uploading iPhone photos. I find that disgraceful considering the size of the company. I can hire a coder for $10 an hour to produce a form that asks the question. Heck, you could just add red text, that doesn't even need a coder: http://shangara.me/files/uploader.png

 

Thanks all.

 

 

Thanks for making the failed image available. I've had a look and I don't think it should have failed QC (maybe, maybe not on seconds thoughts). That said, the edges are definitely pretty soft (from about 500 pixels out - easiest to see on the left side because of the building) though should that  be a QC failure as most of the image is sharp.? Downsizing to 3000 pixels on the long edge would probably make that acceptable. I would argue strongly against the idea that this image could cope with upsizing at all though. I'm viewing on a 27", 2560 x 1440 monitor at 100%. There is no way that this image quality would compete with a D850 (with which I am very familiar) and a half-decent lens with good technique even at 3000 pixels long edge.  

 

So while I agree that it is time Alamy got around to allowing submission of certain phone images, they can't make it a free for all for several reasons as discussed above. Maybe the answer is to have a trusted supplier category with photographers who have consistently passed QC with their real cameras being allowed to submit phone images. 

 

EDIT: Just to be clear - the bottom line for me is "would I submit that image as it is?" And my answer is NO. The edges are too soft with loss of detail. I would  probably submit it downsized to 3000 pixels long edge if it was important but I value my QC record which goes back 12 years since I last failed so I would be cautious before submitting a dubious image. 

Edited June 13 by MDM

[Walrus]

5 hours ago, MDM said:

EDIT: Just to be clear - the bottom line for me is "would I submit that image as it is?" And my answer is NO. The edges are too soft with loss of detail. I would  probably submit it downsized to 3000 pixels long edge if it was important but I value my QC record which goes back 12 years since I last failed so I would be cautious before submitting a dubious image. 

 

I would disagree with you very strongly. It's not a dubious image. It's clearly meant for editorial or educational usage. If sold for online use, resized down to 640--1024px, or thereabouts. Viewers rarely click to see full sized, which is unlikely to be larger than 2000px. Subject matter and composition is far, far more important than an image that is sharp over 100% of the frame. If it was of a technical drawing, another matter but it's not.

 

IMV, image can cope with upsizing as well. Again, it depends what you want to use it for and whether there are other images like it that are 100% sharper all over. BTW, I didn't say when upsized image quality would compete with a D850.  🙂 

[spacecadet]

7 minutes ago, Walrus said:

Subject matter and composition is far, far more important than an image that is sharp

No.

As you know, subject matter is of no relevance to QC. Alamy have to guarantee, without qualification, that an image can be used at any scale up to billboard.

The grass is one of the giveaways- it is posterised and indistinct.

Edited June 13 by spacecadet

[Allan Bell]

3 minutes ago, spacecadet said:

Not to Alamy QC. They have to guarantee an image can be used at any scale up to billboard. As you know, subject matter is of no relevance to QC.

 

I fully concur with that statement.  Just look at my images to verify that.  If content was important to Alamy I would not have uploaded a good 75% of my port.

 

I am still surprised at what sells at times.

 

Allan

 

[spacecadet]

13 minutes ago, Walrus said:

it depends what you want to use it for and whether there are other images like it that are 100% sharper all over.

Alamy doesn't want clients to have to make this decision after they've already paid. Hence the high technical standard.

[Walrus]

Whose side are you on, guys? I gave an example of how Alamy thought JPEG images weren't of a high enough quality, but now it's the standard for photos. Alamy also compressed your images before sending to a buyer, so much for top notch quality!

 

On the Alamy home page, 3/4 of one image is soft! Is this sharp from corner to corner: https://tinyurl.com/4c45sycv or this: https://tinyurl.com/372c98dn

 

Nuff said.

 

 

[MDM]

48 minutes ago, Walrus said:

 

I would disagree with you very strongly. It's not a dubious image. It's clearly meant for editorial or educational usage. If sold for online use, resized down to 640--1024px, or thereabouts. Viewers rarely click to see full sized, which is unlikely to be larger than 2000px. Subject matter and composition is far, far more important than an image that is sharp over 100% of the frame. If it was of a technical drawing, another matter but it's not.

 

IMV, image can cope with upsizing as well. Again, it depends what you want to use it for and whether there are other images like it that are 100% sharper all over. BTW, I didn't say when upsized image quality would compete with a D850.  🙂 

 

The image is soft and lacks definition over quite a wide area at the sides as I said above. There is no argument about that. So in my opinion it is dubious as an Alamy submission and I wouldn't submit it myself.

 

Editorial does not mean a small image for web use only. It could be a for a spread in a magazine for example so the argument about resizing to 640-1024 holds no water. 

 

As has already been said, the Alamy QC model does not take account of subject matter or composition and I am surprised that someone who has been on Alamy so long would present that as an argument. This is the Alamy QC model, like it or lump it, and it hasn't changed.

 

I can't upsize and publish your image to prove this but the edges would fall apart completely if upsized. They are soft as they are so upsizing would make them even softer. 

 

I think you have provided a very good argument against Alamy permitting phone images if your example is typical.

 

 

 

Edited June 13 by MDM

[spacecadet]

They are examples of selective focussing which Alamy is well capable of interpreting in QC.

RM images aren't compressed before despatch. They get the full size jpeg as uploaded.

[MDM]

7 minutes ago, Walrus said:

Whose side are you on, guys? I gave an example of how Alamy thought JPEG images weren't of a high enough quality, but now it's the standard for photos. Alamy also compressed your images before sending to a buyer, so much for top notch quality!

 

On the Alamy home page, 3/4 of one image is soft! Is this sharp from corner to corner: https://tinyurl.com/4c45sycv or this: https://tinyurl.com/372c98dn

 

Nuff said.

 

 

 

I'm not on any side. I'm trying to be totally objective and rational. 

 

I'm still surprised you are not getting it. There are loads of rubbish images on Alamy by their QC criteria that have somehow managed to get through QC if they ever went that route (agencies, news, archival). That is not the point. Your image got nicked. It's like breaking the speed limit. It is no excuse that everyone does it if you get caught. 

 

Your image should be sharp all over. It's not and it is pretty soft where it shouldn't be. 

Edited June 13 by MDM

[MDM]

15 minutes ago, spacecadet said:

They are examples of selective focussing which Alamy is well capable of interpreting in QC.

RM images aren't compressed before despatch. They get the full size jpeg as uploaded.

 

i am not sure that is the case. Is this a case of confusing file size on disk with pixel dimensions (uncompressed file size in Alamy speak)? You will get the full size image in terms of pixel dimensions but I would guess they do some extra JPEG compression for downloading. Otherwise why would they show the file sizes on the website? Mark Chapman can probably answer that as he has bought one of his own images for testing colour profile removal. 

Edited June 13 by MDM

[M.Chapman]

26 minutes ago, spacecadet said:

RM images aren't compressed before despatch. They get the full size jpeg as uploaded.

 

I bought a couple of my own RM images during the aRGB versus sRGB investigation in 2019 and found the jpgs supplied by Alamy were roughly 1/2 the size in MB compared to what I uploaded, they had also been converted to sRGB and the profile stripped.

 

Mark 

Edited June 13 by M.Chapman

[spacecadet]

You're right, I've checked an old RF jpeg. It's as Mark C says, a bit under half the original size, equivalent to a LR export quality of about 65 (I use 90). I'm a bit surprised. I wonder if it means we could be exporting at a lower "quality", assuming the loss is undetectable- Alamy must have done its homework, you'd think?

Edited June 13 by spacecadet

[MDM]

10 minutes ago, spacecadet said:

You're right, I've checked an old RF jpeg. It's as Mark C says, a bit under half the original size, equivalent to a LR export quality of about 65 (I use 90). I'm a bit surprised. I wonder if it means we could be exporting at a lower "quality", assuming the loss is undetectable- Alamy must have done its homework, you'd think?

 

I think the homework is likely to be be based on the maths around the amount they would be spending on the extra storage associated with retaiining the original larger files. There will only be serious degradation of JPEGs if they are resaved multiple times. It's not something I've ever tested but I recall David K talking about this years ago.

 

[M.Chapman]

51 minutes ago, spacecadet said:

You're right, I've checked an old RF jpeg. It's as Mark C says, a bit under half the original size, equivalent to a LR export quality of about 65 (I use 90). I'm a bit surprised. I wonder if it means we could be exporting at a lower "quality", assuming the loss is undetectable- Alamy must have done its homework, you'd think?

Yes, I just rechecked on a recent RM image. 2WX7D6D was 4.8MB when uploaded and Alamy say it's a 2.5MB download. So it still seems to be the case that Alamy compresses our images (amount probably depends on the quality level they were uploaded at). 2WX7D6D was exported from PS at jpg quality level 10. I can get a 2.5MB file by exporting at quality level 8. This suggests Alamy compresses from level 10 to level 8. The image quality loss may or may not be detectable, but the savings in server space, cost and system response time will definitely be detectable, and that's probably the key issue.

 

Mark

Edited June 13 by M.Chapman

[Walrus]

1 hour ago, MDM said:

 

I'm not on any side. I'm trying to be totally objective and rational. 

 

I'm still surprised you are not getting it. There are loads of rubbish images on Alamy by their QC criteria that have somehow managed to get through QC if they ever went that route (agencies, news, archival). That is not the point. Your image got nicked. It's like breaking the speed limit. It is no excuse that everyone does it if you get caught. 

 

I got "knicked" as you so kindly put it because I didn't know Alamy doesn't allow good quality images from an iPhone. I have been taking photos for over 40 years, including professional cinematography, and have done graphic design and website design using mine and other photographer's images, so know all about image quality. I use top quality cameras and lenses, know Adobe software inside out ( beta tested for over 20 years). Not your "average" contributor.

 

Quote

Your image should be sharp all over. It's not and it is pretty soft where it shouldn't be. 

 

Well, you are the one who doesn't get it if you think that's how all images should be and are: subject first, composition second, softness third, soft around edges always allowed, unless edges contain some critical information (grass around the edges is NOT a critical element of the composition!).

[MDM]

24 minutes ago, Walrus said:

 

I got "knicked" as you so kindly put it because I didn't know Alamy doesn't allow good quality images from an iPhone. I have been taking photos for over 40 years, including professional cinematography, and have done graphic design and website design using mine and other photographer's images, so know all about image quality. I use top quality cameras and lenses, know Adobe software inside out ( beta tested for over 20 years). Not your "average" contributor.

 

 

Well, you are the one who doesn't get it if you think that's how all images should be and are: subject first, composition second, softness third, soft around edges always allowed, unless edges contain some critical information (grass around the edges is NOT a critical element of the composition!).

 

You are still missing the point despite having contributed since 2005 and with all your experience in photography. What you say may be true about images in general but not for Alamy QC. They use a very simple methodology based on technical quality where content is irrelevant to judge whether an image should pass QC or not. Your image is borderline on that basis as it is soft for quite a significant part of the image, not just the very edges. As I said, I would not submit that myself without downsizing and even then there is a loss of detail. 

[MDM]

Just to add I'm not intending to get into a belligerent argument about this. I am genuinely interested in the topic of Alamy allowing mobile submissions through normal QC as I've been considering buying a new iPhone (probably 16 when that arrives) partly for point and shoot stuff when out and about. However, I would want to be able to shoot a building, for example, and have it sharp across the frame. I would need to test for myself to see if the quality is adequate for my purposes (not for Alamy as things stand at the moment obviously).

 

In the case of your image, it is clearly a scene with a person walking through. I would expect that to be sharp right across the frame. If it was an environmental portrait with the person as the main subject, I would not (necessarily) expect the background to be sharp. My comments are not intended as personal criticisms of you or your photography. 

 

Finally, I'm surprised others have not downloaded the image and commented as well. Perhaps it is because you haven't made the URL as a link in your post and it is not very obvious. It would be interesting to see what others have to say. 

Edited June 13 by MDM

[M.Chapman]

24 minutes ago, MDM said:

Finally, I'm surprised others have not downloaded the image and commented as well. Perhaps it is because you haven't made the URL as a link in your post and it is not very obvious. It would be interesting to see what others have to say. 

It's borderline IMO, but it looks OK downsized to 6MP. However as iPhone images aren't accepted by Alamy QC anyway, (only via St***mo), it's a bit academic. Can the latest iPhones provide high enough IQ, I'd say yes, but perhaps Alamy don't want to be deluged with more contributors and images towards the lower end of their quality range?

 

Mark

Edited June 13 by M.Chapman

[MDM]

21 minutes ago, M.Chapman said:

It's borderline IMO, looks OK downsized to 6MP. But, iPhone images aren't accepted by Alamy QC anyway, (only via St***mo), so it's a bit academic. Can the latest iPhones provide high enough IQ, I'd say yes, but perhaps Alamy don't want to be deluged with more contributors and images towards the lower end of their quality range?

 

Mark

 

I'm sure they have to be considering how to do this without getting deluged by non-photographers trying to submit.

 

Here's an idea that might be workable with little web development costs. They could open up a new avenue for submission in the same way as live news. You would need to apply for that and they would need to have some way of checking credentials. That would be easy with existing conributors. For new contributors, they could request a submission of images taken with "real" cameras, maybe more than the current three and require EXIF. They could apply similarly strict rules to phone submissions as to normal QC but require EXIF for all submissions and labelling in the caption that it is a phone image. If it is too difficult to check EXIF automatically (which it probably would be without some significant programming), they could have a list of acceptable phones and do spot checks as with normal QC. Anyone breaking the rules would lose phone privileges, long term or even permanently. 

Edited June 13 by MDM

[M.Chapman]

11 hours ago, Walrus said:

All Alamy needs to do is ask if you are uploading images originated on a mobile phone. If answer is yes, do not allow upload. There is NO impediment to uploading iPhone photos. I find that disgraceful considering the size of the company. I can hire a coder for $10 an hour to produce a form that asks the question. Heck, you could just add red text, that doesn't even need a coder: http://shangara.me/files/uploader.png

Unfortunately Alamy seem to be pretty short of S/W resource. There are numerous tweaks they could make (e.g. removing the counterproductive "Discoverability" bar) to improve things, but their priorities are elsewhere. It must be quite a challenge just keeping up with the software and hardware mods to maintain system response times as the image database has expanded massively, whilst at the same time $ returns/image hosted continue to fall. I suspect a lot of their code is old and hard to maintain too, so fixing one thing risks breaking something else. It's a tough sector.

 

WRT to mobile imagery Alamy have recently stated;

 

"Currently it’s not possible to upload mobile phone photography direct to Alamy. We believe there’s a bright future for mobile phone photography on Alamy and we’re currently exploring alternative options for uploading this content".

 

Mark

Edited June 13 by M.Chapman