Jump to content

Recommended Posts

You're not a client, you're a supplier.

Still tough though.

True, but without contributors, there would be no clients. Just sayin'...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You're not a client, you're a supplier.

Still tough though.

True, but without contributors, there would be no clients. Just sayin'...

 

 

I would think that strictly speaking we are Alamy's cllients. The buyers are our clients and Alamy is our agent selling on our behalf, same as an actor would have an agent negotiating on their behalf with film producers. If we were a supplier, then Alamy would be buying our images outright and trying to resell them.

 

Jill

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

deleted - 

Edited by Niels Quist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

You're not a client, you're a supplier.

Still tough though.

True, but without contributors, there would be no clients. Just sayin'...

 

 

I would think that strictly speaking we are Alamy's cllients. The buyers are our clients and Alamy is our agent selling on our behalf, same as an actor would have an agent negotiating on their behalf with film producers. If we were a supplier, then Alamy would be buying our images outright and trying to resell them.

 

Jill

 

Good analysis. I would say we are really contributor/clients to/of Alamy's collection/services -- i.e. we wear two hats at once.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 the second I upgraded my gear it all started going wrong. Doesn't make a shred of sense to me. 

 

It may make sense if you subscribe to the widely-held belief that as camera gear gets better (esp increases in resolution), shooting technique becomes increasingly important. Many a new D800 user found this to be the case, as I think David K has commented on here previously (sorry if it wasn't you David :)  )

 

dd

Edited by dustydingo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 the second I upgraded my gear it all started going wrong. Doesn't make a shred of sense to me. 

 

It may make sense if you subscribe to the widely-held belief that as camera gear gets better (esp increases in resolution), shooting technique becomes increasingly important. Many a new D800 user found this to be the case, as I think David K has commented on here previously (sorry if it wasn't you David :)  )

 

dd

 

 

I actually went back the way. I had a 7D and went for a 1D MKIII. Performs far better than the 7D ever did, however, my main failing was to leave all my editing in sRGB mode. This could explain the recent fail waiting for me. It's the first upload since getting my 1D. Been concentrating on wildlife photography recently so Alamy has taken a back seat. A bit rusty. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 editing in sRGB mode. This could explain the recent fail waiting for me.

It's not that. I've never used anything else but sRGB.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hesitate to add to this discussion as it does seem to be a touchy topic for many. I have been around photography for a very long time and although stock is a tiny proportion of my total output, I do understand what customers who buy my prints and clients who have commissioned me require in terms of technical standards. Of course clients vary and some may be more forgiving than others. I have rarely worked or sold to anything other than very - rightly - demanding clients.

 

Alamy's QC requirements are just the basic minimum anyone would expect from a - fully professional - photographer. Images must be sharp, correct exposure, colour balance, free from dust and blemishes etc. etc. None of us are perfect and sometimes things slip through. However, the onus is on us to ensure that our images stand scrutiny. I have to watch prospective buyers of my prints, some Type C colour prints of over a metre wide, examine them from a distance of a few inches. Ditto my B&W silver prints albeit smaller in size. When a gallery customer may be considering spending a few thousand on a print, they have a right to have a good look. 

 

Alamy's requirements are basic in comparison and they don't even check all the images. Of course, they are not perfect either and maybe there is the odd quibble. However, anyone failing Alamy's QC more than very, very occasionally does need to examine their technique. 99% of the problems will not be this or that camera or lens, or it shouldn't be. Alamy gives a list of 'approved' equipment but really, a professional photographer should not need this. They should know what is required and be using the best or close to it. Many here think of Alamy's QC as some sort of gold standard that they aspire to. It's not, it's basic professional standard.

 

OK, I know I will get a few brickbats but hey, I can duck. A bit slower nowadays maybe so lob the bricks underhand to give me a chance!

  • Upvote 16

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

April is income tax return month here in Canada, so I guess that's I'll have plenty of time to concentrate on that detestable annual chore. Last minute as usual...

Edited by John Mitchell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hesitate to add to this discussion as it does seem to be a touchy topic for many. I have been around photography for a very long time and although stock is a tiny proportion of my total output, I do understand what customers who buy my prints and clients who have commissioned me require in terms of technical standards. Of course clients vary and some may be more forgiving than others. I have rarely worked or sold to anything other than very - rightly - demanding clients.

 

Alamy's QC requirements are just the basic minimum anyone would expect from a - fully professional - photographer. Images must be sharp, correct exposure, colour balance, free from dust and blemishes etc. etc. None of us are perfect and sometimes things slip through. However, the onus is on us to ensure that our images stand scrutiny. I have to watch prospective buyers of my prints, some Type C colour prints of over a metre wide, examine them from a distance of a few inches. Ditto my B&W silver prints albeit smaller in size. When a gallery customer may be considering spending a few thousand on a print, they have a right to have a good look. 

 

Alamy's requirements are basic in comparison and they don't even check all the images. Of course, they are not perfect either and maybe there is the odd quibble. However, anyone failing Alamy's QC more than very, very occasionally does need to examine their technique. 99% of the problems will not be this or that camera or lens, or it shouldn't be. Alamy gives a list of 'approved' equipment but really, a professional photographer should not need this. They should know what is required and be using the best or close to it. Many here think of Alamy's QC as some sort of gold standard that they aspire to. It's not, it's basic professional standard.

 

OK, I know I will get a few brickbats but hey, I can duck. A bit slower nowadays maybe so lob the bricks underhand to give me a chance!

 

No bricks being thrown here. It's a very well laid out 'reminder' for folk like me who haven't been round long. I supposed we can't expect $$$.$$ for images if some are failing QC a lot. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi there,

 

Just curious if anyone else is experiencing long lines at the QC window after the holiday weekend.  Waiting on several batches, oldest being from April 18. Hope I didn't register a failure!  :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've a batch submitted on April 18 still waiting for QC. This "Time-out" rule is giving us heart-burn. :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Slightly longer QC time over Easter. Uploaded on the 17th of April and passed on the 22nd.

 

Regards

Craig

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi there,

 

Just curious if anyone else is experiencing long lines at the QC window after the holiday weekend.  Waiting on several batches, oldest being from April 18. Hope I didn't register a failure!  :unsure:

 

Spoke a day too soon.  Batches from the 18th just cleared! ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Batch of 30 submitted on the 21st and cleared this morning, the 24th.

Seems fairly typical of the batches I've submitted in the last month or two.

 

Alan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

QC Conundrum.  Any clues anyone?    I now have a 100% failure rate since February (4 out of 4), with a likely 5th, languishing since 21st.   Serves him right, you'll say.  Useless beginner, should learn his trade.  

 

OK, so let's look at the plus side.  Been earning money from stock since the early 1970s, Alamy since 2001, told I'm in the "top 500" of Alamy sellers, which puts me in about the top 2%.   March sales $1211 gross, April to date $1353 gross.  But now in danger of having my "account terminated for 6 months", as the agreement says, for inability to pass QC.

 

So what's happened?   Well, the problems started when I bought a new Canon 7D.   Until then I'd got some 8,000 images through with barely a quibble.   When the 7D started showing up the reds, I sent it back to Canon for calibration.   Still the reds came creeping in.   And got worse.  Now the QC microscope is so focussed I can't see where the fault lies.   All they say is "Image soft...soft...soft".   So I went back to my tried and trusted 5D, which has NEVER had a failiure.   Again no good.  Once you have a criminal record, there's no way out.

 

So it looks like adios, folks.   Seems a pity as it's people like me who keep Alamy in business.

 

Rolf Richardson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

QC Conundrum.  Any clues anyone?    I now have a 100% failure rate since February (4 out of 4), with a likely 5th, languishing since 21st.   Serves him right, you'll say.  Useless beginner, should learn his trade.  

 

OK, so let's look at the plus side.  Been earning money from stock since the early 1970s, Alamy since 2001, told I'm in the "top 500" of Alamy sellers, which puts me in about the top 2%.   March sales $1211 gross, April to date $1353 gross.  But now in danger of having my "account terminated for 6 months", as the agreement says, for inability to pass QC.

 

So what's happened?   Well, the problems started when I bought a new Canon 7D.   Until then I'd got some 8,000 images through with barely a quibble.   When the 7D started showing up the reds, I sent it back to Canon for calibration.   Still the reds came creeping in.   And got worse.  Now the QC microscope is so focussed I can't see where the fault lies.   All they say is "Image soft...soft...soft".   So I went back to my tried and trusted 5D, which has NEVER had a failiure.   Again no good.  Once you have a criminal record, there's no way out.

 

So it looks like adios, folks.   Seems a pity as it's people like me who keep Alamy in business.

 

Rolf Richardson

 

Well, what difference can you see, when looking at your images at 100%?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a small batch waiting QC since the 13th April.

 

 Should have known better than to load up images on the 13th of any month, Friday or not. :angry: 

 

Allan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

QC Conundrum.  Any clues anyone?    I now have a 100% failure rate since February (4 out of 4), with a likely 5th, languishing since 21st.   Serves him right, you'll say.  Useless beginner, should learn his trade.  

 

OK, so let's look at the plus side.  Been earning money from stock since the early 1970s, Alamy since 2001, told I'm in the "top 500" of Alamy sellers, which puts me in about the top 2%.   March sales $1211 gross, April to date $1353 gross.  But now in danger of having my "account terminated for 6 months", as the agreement says, for inability to pass QC.

 

So what's happened?   Well, the problems started when I bought a new Canon 7D.   Until then I'd got some 8,000 images through with barely a quibble.   When the 7D started showing up the reds, I sent it back to Canon for calibration.   Still the reds came creeping in.   And got worse.  Now the QC microscope is so focussed I can't see where the fault lies.   All they say is "Image soft...soft...soft".   So I went back to my tried and trusted 5D, which has NEVER had a failiure.   Again no good.  Once you have a criminal record, there's no way out.

 

So it looks like adios, folks.   Seems a pity as it's people like me who keep Alamy in business.

 

Rolf Richardson

 

That's certainly a cause for concern.  You certainly have the pedigree, for which reason I'm loathe to offer advice, and I'm sure that you have already been through everything, but...

 

You've tried the hardware - have you eliminated any software problems that may have inadvertently developed and (forgive me, don't mean to be personal, but it happens to all some of us!) what about your eyesight?  My former 'reading' glasses are now my 'computer' glasses :lol:!  I do appreciate that this is unlikely to be a consideration, but just trying to rule out anything which may possibly be a contributing factor.

 

Hope it all comes right for you.

 

EDIT: Just another thought relating to software, after reading a little of the thread re: noise reduction.  I don't know what your system is regarding PP, but have you set any defaults when importing images for processing?  I often have to use NR in LR5 owing to my camera's poor handling of noise at anything beyond ISO100 (really!).  But I have to be very careful not to let any resultant softening of the image become an issue.  Just wondered if you might have set something to automate (even inadvertently) and not be aware of it, without reviewing everything with a fine tooth comb at 100%?

Edited by losdemas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

...

 

EDIT: Just another thought relating to software, after reading a little of the thread re: noise reduction.  I don't know what your system is regarding PP, but have you set any defaults when importing images for processing?  I often have to use NR in LR5 owing to my camera's poor handling of noise at anything beyond ISO100 (really!).  But I have to be very careful not to let any resultant softening of the image become an issue.  Just wondered if you might have set something to automate (even inadvertently) and not be aware of it, without reviewing everything with a fine tooth comb at 100%?

 

 

That's a good thought I recently got unexpected results when I updated some software and the defaults were different. In my case it did not cause a QC issue just strange variable sizing on raw conversions. It made me look at the other defaults especially around noise and sharpening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There have been some good technical suggestions for Rolf, but I hope Alamy doesn't just dismiss his concerns. I would think that it is important for a stock agency not to alienate successful, long-time contributors.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • 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.