Mark Baigent Posted March 11, 2014 Share Posted March 11, 2014 Hi Alex > Reporting had 800 images uploaded. I would rather know which one out of those failed straight away rather than having to wade through them all trying to second guess QC. I agree that faster information re QC failure would be useful. But I assume knowing that there was a failure would be reason to recheck other images in the pipeline anyway. My comments were aimed more at "I sent 1, yes that's right One image in at the end of February thinking it might not pass." I do not understand why anyone would do that, I also did not agree with.. "It's also stupid and ridiculously archaic" As for Reporting, I envy his energy and work ethic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gervais Montacute Posted March 11, 2014 Share Posted March 11, 2014 Fan boys never do though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex Todd Posted March 11, 2014 Share Posted March 11, 2014 I agree that faster information re QC failure would be useful. But I assume knowing that there was a failure would be reason to recheck other images in the pipeline anyway. Yeah but with QC taking so long recently, no-one knows if it's a fail or just slow for about 5 or 6 days. If you don't know the reason it's impossible (certainly with 800 images) to know what you're looking for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Baigent Posted March 11, 2014 Share Posted March 11, 2014 > Yeah but with QC taking so long recently, no-one knows if it's a fail or just slow for about 5 or 6 days. If you don't know the reason it's impossible (certainly with 800 images) to know what you're looking for. Fair point Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Baigent Posted March 11, 2014 Share Posted March 11, 2014 Fan boys never do though. What? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted March 11, 2014 Share Posted March 11, 2014 > I do not work with an iPhone Me neither... yet > My goal has never been to send a photo of lower quality. I can see that from your images :-) > But block all lots for 28 days and prevent photographers continue their work, I find it exaggerated and real shame. Assuming that there is a QC failure ask what reaction you would get from a client who had commissioned you and then received a below par image.... they would want their money back and they would probably never use you again. If/when I have an image fail QC I would kick myself hard and then get on with double checking all the other images that were in the QC queue. I do not want to upset you as you are plainly a good photographer, but if the fault is with you you should be the one to put it right and bear the consequences. How would you feel if the "duff" image had sold and then been rejected by the paying customer? Since Alamy cannot possibly inspect all images submitted, I'm sure that plenty of "duff" images pass QC, especially when some contributors upload 100's of photos at the same time. The chances of a client rejecting an image due to what is usually a slight technical error viewable only at 100% is very slim IMO. It certainly has never happened to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gervais Montacute Posted March 11, 2014 Share Posted March 11, 2014 Fan boys never do though. What? What!!!!, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Baigent Posted March 11, 2014 Share Posted March 11, 2014 Hi John > Since Alamy cannot possibly inspect all images submitted, I'm sure that plenty of "duff" images pass QC. The chances of a client rejecting an image > due to what is usually a slight technical error viewable only at 100% is very slim IMO. It certainly has never happened to me. That is no reason not to act like a professional at a personal level, I am probably putting this badly as I am not good with words (maybe some one could translate me into English) A working pro who deals with his/her clients direct strives to supply the highest quality image that they can. Possibly because they have a personal relationship with the client and want his/her repeat business. Possibly because they do not want to let a client down. There seems to be a disconnect with a very few Alamy photographers and the end client, they seem to forget that there is a paying client in the purchase chain and because of that we hear of people trying to slip possibly substandard images past QC ie I sent 1, yes that's right One image in at the end of February thinking it might not pass. I think that personal pride would mean that most of us try to get the best IQ, ok some duff images may get through but that does not effect my personal desire to act like a professional. Should I decide to buy a print from you of the Guadalajara Cathedral I am sure that you would want that print to be the best that it can be, no dust spots etc. If I found a dust spot you would not blame me you would fix it in a professional manner. All I am saying is for people to act in a professional way and not blame others, or the system, when something goes wrong, again if I gave a duff image to a client stood in front of me I would not blame him/her I would apologize and get it fixed. This is not aimed at Reporting it is a general point Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Baigent Posted March 11, 2014 Share Posted March 11, 2014 Fan boys never do though.What? What!!!!, OK let me take a stab in the dark and assume that are suggesting I am a "fan boy"... I do not follow football so that cannot be what you mean. I am a fan of professional standards, especially as they pay my mortgage. I am fan of Mitsusuke Harada and Billy Connolly that is about it as a fan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith Douglas Posted March 11, 2014 Share Posted March 11, 2014 I'm OK with the way that Alamy do the QC and put the onus on the photographer to submit work that meets the published standards. They're not going to be checking every single image to make sure that we've done it properly, so if a fault gets picked up in one photo, I should expect a longer 'time out' than perhaps a fault in a single image would justify. The one thing I'd like Alamy to change is to provide feedback that a batch has failed as soon as they know. That way, the longer period for QC that happens sometimes, and appears to have become more common recently, is no longer so much of an issue. If it says 'Awaiting QC' then that's what it means and I don't have to spend a week progressing through: 'Awaiting QC' 'they might have failed' 'they have almost certainly failed' 'spending 3 weeks redoing my keywords might improve my sales after all' 'I knew all along that they would pass' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted March 11, 2014 Share Posted March 11, 2014 Hi John > Since Alamy cannot possibly inspect all images submitted, I'm sure that plenty of "duff" images pass QC. The chances of a client rejecting an image > due to what is usually a slight technical error viewable only at 100% is very slim IMO. It certainly has never happened to me. That is no reason not to act like a professional at a personal level, I am probably putting this badly as I am not good with words (maybe some one could translate me into English) A working pro who deals with his/her clients direct strives to supply the highest quality image that they can. Possibly because they have a personal relationship with the client and want his/her repeat business. Possibly because they do not want to let a client down. There seems to be a disconnect with a very few Alamy photographers and the end client, they seem to forget that there is a paying client in the purchase chain and because of that we hear of people trying to slip possibly substandard images past QC ie I sent 1, yes that's right One image in at the end of February thinking it might not pass. I think that personal pride would mean that most of us try to get the best IQ, ok some duff images may get through but that does not effect my personal desire to act like a professional. Should I decide to buy a print from you of the Guadalajara Cathedral I am sure that you would want that print to be the best that it can be, no dust spots etc. If I found a dust spot you would not blame me you would fix it in a professional manner. All I am saying is for people to act in a professional way and not blame others, or the system, when something goes wrong, again if I gave a duff image to a client stood in front of me I would not blame him/her I would apologize and get it fixed. This is not aimed at Reporting it is a general point Agreed, although I think most most failures are due to minor oversight rather than to contributors wanting to slip substandard images past QC. Anyway, Alamy's failure notification system is what it is. Personally. I only upload small batches (12-30 images) and wait for one to clear before submitting the next. No point in overloading Alamy's QC any more than it already is IMO. I really have no idea how they keep up with the flood of submissions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inchiquin Posted March 11, 2014 Share Posted March 11, 2014 The other point which I don't think has yet been mentioned is that if you have an excellent (and I mean excellent) QC record you will not have to wait 28 days or anything like it. So I assume that 28-dayers are contributors who have failed several times, which in any industry indicates inability to meet rigid standards consistently. So with 45 million pics already in the pot why on earth would Alamy encourage them to upload more potentially substandard images quickly? Alan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted March 12, 2014 Share Posted March 12, 2014 Well, I guess the good news is that with over 45 million images now in the Alamy collection, there really isn't any reason to be in a big rush to upload more images. As mentioned, the best way to avoid "blocking" IMO is to make only one submission at a time and then wait for it to pass QC before uploading the next one. Perhaps there should be an unwritten rule about this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Mayall Posted March 12, 2014 Share Posted March 12, 2014 ( John Mitchell) Well, I guess the good news is that with over 45 million images now in the Alamy collection I agree John, when i compare my sales from smaller suppliers to Alamy i would think that Alamy's collection is to big to be seen for the photographer with a average sized collection here., therefore it should not be such a rush to upload multiple times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allan Bell Posted March 12, 2014 Share Posted March 12, 2014 ( John Mitchell) Well, I guess the good news is that with over 45 million images now in the Alamy collection I agree John, when i compare my sales from smaller suppliers to Alamy i would think that Alamy's collection is to big to be seen for the photographer with a average sized collection here., therefore it should not be such a rush to upload multiple times. Moving away from the OP but it surprises me that any of us with "smaller collections" on Alamy sell/licence anything. Back to OP I agree with Alamy's strategy re QC and the holding/blocking period for fails, and I have had a few, but would also like to know earlier what had failed and why. Even if I could still not upload more until Alamy released me from detention. Allan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dustydingo Posted March 12, 2014 Share Posted March 12, 2014 As mentioned, the best way to avoid "blocking" IMO is to make only one submission at a time and then wait for it to pass QC before uploading the next one. Perhaps there should be an unwritten rule about this. It's a rule I'd ignore. I've had up to 3 submissions awaiting QC, and I really can't see any reason to have a rule against doing so again. dd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dustydingo Posted March 12, 2014 Share Posted March 12, 2014 The current system may be in place because, if Alamy informed earlier, they'd then have to monitor you to make sure you didn't upload any more (assuming there was an enforced period during which you couldn't upload, as suggested earlier in this thread). I'd imagine that would require more resources than the current system. And with the number of submissions to check daily, resources have to be maximised . . . hence the current less-resource-demanding system of simply delaying notification of failure, then cancelling all awaiting submissions. dd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ian cruickshank Posted March 12, 2014 Share Posted March 12, 2014 Alamy's policy of 'fail one,fail' all is perfectly logical and well established. It's up to the photographer not to hide any dodgy pics in a big batch hoping they'll pass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reporting Posted March 12, 2014 Author Share Posted March 12, 2014 Alamy's policy of 'fail one,fail' all is perfectly logical and well established. It's up to the photographer not to hide any dodgy pics in a big batch hoping they'll pass. As I said above, I find it quite logical that alamy blocks a lot when it falls on a photo of poor quality. Since September 2012, I submitted 24,230 photos on 149 different lots. On 24,230 photos, 26 photos were rejected in 11 different lots. The reasons for each photo rejected "image processing error" Do you think I tried to hide pictures dubious? Do you think it's useful for me to make me wait 28 days without being able to work on my 800 photos waiting? More in the past, whenever I submitted several lots on the same day, if a lot had a doubt, the others were nevertheless approved the next day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jill Morgan Posted March 12, 2014 Share Posted March 12, 2014 Image processing errors will not delay your QC approval. It just means that particular photo did not upload properly. Since this is obviously your first "sin bin" then, just go out and photograph and you will have to wait it out. You can keyword them before you upload so that they are ready to go next time. So if all the 800 will end up failing due to one flawed photo, do the keywording for them now in Photoshop or Lightroom so it will already be done by the time Alamy officially lets you know about your fail. It's either they inspect every image uploaded, or put the fear of delay into the hearts of contributors so they won't try and slip something buy. I am not saying you are trying to do that, but I think overall if Alamy did not have any punishment for poor photos, contributors would get lazy and let Alamy do the sorting for them. Jill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inchiquin Posted March 12, 2014 Share Posted March 12, 2014 if Alamy did not have any punishment for poor photos, contributors would get lazy and let Alamy do the sorting for them. I don't give green arrows, but if I did... Alan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted March 12, 2014 Share Posted March 12, 2014 ( John Mitchell) Well, I guess the good news is that with over 45 million images now in the Alamy collection I agree John, when i compare my sales from smaller suppliers to Alamy i would think that Alamy's collection is to big to be seen for the photographer with a average sized collection here., therefore it should not be such a rush to upload multiple times. Moving away from the OP but it surprises me that any of us with "smaller collections" on Alamy sell/licence anything. Back to OP I agree with Alamy's strategy re QC and the holding/blocking period for fails, and I have had a few, but would also like to know earlier what had failed and why. Even if I could still not upload more until Alamy released me from detention. Allan Those are changes I would welcome as well, Allan. They would be a big improvement IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.