sk0gr Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 Are these examples of images that do not pass quality control (like today, the television tower and the bokeh blobs)? Forgive my cynicism, but who dares to upload such an image and risk to be punished? Are there others who feel that Alamy should reconsider quality control policy and refrain from their bizarre form of punishment of images that fail? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecadet Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 No need to double post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Crellin Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 Hang on what QC rule is broken by the image ? There is definite allowance for intention in what they say and do and as far as one can see the background is sharp and the flare / out of focus lights or whatever they are are obviously part of the composition. I failed a long while back on an image where the focus of the composition was slightly off-focus but plenty around it was pin sharp and I wrongly judged that "it would do". (It does for most uses of the photo but it wasn't one for Alamy.) But I learnt a valuable lesson and Alamy were right and I realised then that they do take the composition and intent into account. John Crellin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SShep Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 I was hoping we'd get that Labrador from the Images Found thread a while ago . . Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Morrison Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 I was hoping we'd get that Labrador from the Images Found thread a while ago . . Oi... stop it. Last time I was having breakfast. Now I'm having my tea. Cumberland sausage... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Niels Quist Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 If only the Labrador would wipe off that grin .... I hope she has signed a model release. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sk0gr Posted January 17, 2014 Author Share Posted January 17, 2014 No need to double post. What double post?? Obviously, there is no need, did I double post? In that case it was not intentional. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sk0gr Posted January 17, 2014 Author Share Posted January 17, 2014 Hang on what QC rule is broken by the image ? There is definite allowance for intention in what they say and do and as far as one can see the background is sharp and the flare / out of focus lights or whatever they are are obviously part of the composition. I failed a long while back on an image where the focus of the composition was slightly off-focus but plenty around it was pin sharp and I wrongly judged that "it would do". (It does for most uses of the photo but it wasn't one for Alamy.) But I learnt a valuable lesson and Alamy were right and I realised then that they do take the composition and intent into account. John Crellin I am not sure what is in focus in that image. For me it is neither the tower, nor the blobs. The colors are cool, but I would assume it would fail with about 70% likelihood. Not 100%, but risky. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted January 18, 2014 Share Posted January 18, 2014 Hang on what QC rule is broken by the image ? There is definite allowance for intention in what they say and do and as far as one can see the background is sharp and the flare / out of focus lights or whatever they are are obviously part of the composition. I failed a long while back on an image where the focus of the composition was slightly off-focus but plenty around it was pin sharp and I wrongly judged that "it would do". (It does for most uses of the photo but it wasn't one for Alamy.) But I learnt a valuable lesson and Alamy were right and I realised then that they do take the composition and intent into account. John Crellin I am not sure what is in focus in that image. For me it is neither the tower, nor the blobs. The colors are cool, but I would assume it would fail with about 70% likelihood. Not 100%, but risky. The background looks to me as if it is probably in focus. I thought the "bokeh blobs" were Xmas lights at first, but I guess it's a bit late (or early) for that. This image obviously fits into the "creative" category, so I guess QC allowed it some leeway. Not sure how it might be used or who might use it, though. Any thoughts on that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dustydingo Posted January 18, 2014 Share Posted January 18, 2014 If the tower and building are as sharp at 100% (you know what I mean) as they appear at normal viewing, I'd not hesitate to submit. And I certainly wouldn't obsess if it (or any other image I submitted) failed. The rejection of whole batches based on the appearance of a flawed component is not bizarre in the world of quality control, far from it. I would like genuinely to hear what better quality control policy the OP suggests, keeping in mind the environment in which it must operate, mainly: a ) thousands of submissions daily, including some from folk who've yet to come to grips with the basic operation of their equipment and manipulation/correction of digital images; and b ) incorporating some degree of incentive for folk to either not try to sneak sub-standard images through, or for them to subject each and every one of their images to the level of scrutiny and objective assessment necessary to avoid errors. dd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joseph Clemson Posted January 18, 2014 Share Posted January 18, 2014 I'd be interested and very much helped to know what experienced contributors feel about the amount of noise in this image. I know the lighting conditions for this image would make noise hard to avoid, but would other people here feel comfortable about passing QC if they were submitting a similar image? I learned what bit I know about image standards when I began submitting to iStockphoto (boo, hiss etc.) years and years ago. At that time rejections were commonplace and virtually any noise In an image was a surefire way of getting one. I've carried that level of judgement over to my submissions to Alamy, but I've wondered on a few occasions if I'm too cautious about submitting even a modestly noisy image. I've seen people here referring to shooting with ISOs well in excess of 400 and I know full well that such a setting for me would produce an image I feel is unsubmittable. Should I be more adventurous? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dustydingo Posted January 18, 2014 Share Posted January 18, 2014 Joseph, if submitting at ISOs above 400 is for you "adventurous", then I offer a resounding YES to being more so :-) dd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Robinson Posted January 18, 2014 Share Posted January 18, 2014 Unless "looking a bit 1970s" is a new reason for failing QC, I don't see the problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted January 18, 2014 Share Posted January 18, 2014 Unless "looking a bit 1970s" is a new reason for failing QC, I don't see the problem. Yes, those coloured blobs remind me of lava lights that were popular during the 60's and 70's. Kinda groovy, baby. I like it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.