Jump to content

Images on Alamy homepage


Recommended Posts

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.