pierre rochon Posted April 3, 2014 Share Posted April 3, 2014 I wouldn't have dared submitting an image as noisy as the picture of Kate Perry appearing on the welcome page. I guess that I was wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted April 3, 2014 Share Posted April 3, 2014 Prenez garde. I wouldn't have submitted this one either, especially since I've had ISO 100/200 images fail for virtually imperceptible amounts of noise during the past year. There was also an image with a lot sky noise on the welcome page last weekend. It would be very helpful if Alamy could clarify and update its policy regarding how much noise is acceptable. Just my two pixels' worth... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jill Morgan Posted April 3, 2014 Share Posted April 3, 2014 I assume that one was via live news Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted April 3, 2014 Share Posted April 3, 2014 I assume that one was via live news You might be correct there. I doubt if the one on the weekend (girl surrounded by flying pigeons) was, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dustydingo Posted April 3, 2014 Share Posted April 3, 2014 Maybe it's just me, but I'd probably not hesitate to submit the images in question. To my eye they contain absolutely no chroma noise, only some (in my experience) unobtrusive monochromatic "grain", at levels that I've always considered acceptable. Alamy's example also only shows and mentions chroma noise. I see the same "grain", although at a lesser level, in the pic of Liz, and of the racetrack. dd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allan Bell Posted April 3, 2014 Share Posted April 3, 2014 Maybe it's just me, but I'd probably not hesitate to submit the images in question. To my eye they contain absolutely no chroma noise, only some (in my experience) unobtrusive monochromatic "grain", at levels that I've always considered acceptable. Alamy's example also only shows and mentions chroma noise. I see the same "grain", although at a lesser level, in the pic of Liz, and of the racetrack. dd Many thanks for pointing that out. I for one had not looked closely at "Noise" in the guide lines. Now I know it is only chroma I can relax a little as I had been taking out excessive luminance noise too. Allan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jill Morgan Posted April 3, 2014 Share Posted April 3, 2014 Maybe I have been ditching pics that would have passed QC. I see grain and that pic is put in the Do Not Upoad section. I may go over all the kids hockey pics I took and didn't end up uploading any of them because of noise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joseph Clemson Posted April 3, 2014 Share Posted April 3, 2014 I too feel I have a flawed understanding of what constitutes acceptable and unacceptable noise and I'd be grateful if someone could point me towards: 1) The examples of what is acceptable/unacceptable here at Alamy 2) Any external tutorial (at the 'For Dummies' level) which will help me to identify and understand the different types of noise. Ta, Joe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Niels Quist Posted April 3, 2014 Share Posted April 3, 2014 http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/image-noise-2.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin P Wilson Posted April 3, 2014 Share Posted April 3, 2014 Thanks Niels, that explains why we should expose to the right i.e. give it as much exposure as possible as long we don't lose highlight detail. Better to darken rather than lift shadows and even mid-tones whenever possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Ventura Posted April 3, 2014 Share Posted April 3, 2014 I am pretty certain that yesterday's photo of Katy Perry was a "Live News" image so maybe noise is less of a concern for QC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted April 3, 2014 Share Posted April 3, 2014 I too feel I have a flawed understanding of what constitutes acceptable and unacceptable noise and I'd be grateful if someone could point me towards: 1) The examples of what is acceptable/unacceptable here at Alamy 2) Any external tutorial (at the 'For Dummies' level) which will help me to identify and understand the different types of noise. Ta, Joe Whew! Relieved to hear that I'm not alone. I definitely fit the "For Dummies" reader profile. In some of my images, Alamy has found low ISO noise that I'm still looking for. I've never had complaints about noise from my own clients, though, which makes me believe that much of it is in the eye of the beholder. Still, I would love to learn how I can keep my pals/chums/mates at Alamy QC happier in the noise department. I too would like to see some further examples supplied by Alamy. The noise example in the current submissions guidelines is too coarse to be of any real help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted April 3, 2014 Share Posted April 3, 2014 I am pretty certain that yesterday's photo of Katy Perry was a "Live News" image so maybe noise is less of a concern for QC I'm so out of it, I had to Google Katy Perry. Now that I have, I can see why some would consider her big news, so you're probably right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Endicott Posted April 4, 2014 Share Posted April 4, 2014 WARNING - a criticism toward Alamy and I hope it doesn't fall on deaf ears...... I could care less about the noise. Generally, the images are terrific images. What bothers me is all the images are from a secondary source.... Today's image from Image Source Tomorrows image from EPA European Press Photo Agency The next day's image from Zuma Press The next day's image from Cultura The next day's image from Yay Media This business is getting a bit ridiculous. Seriously....what ever happened to agencies pushing the images of their INDIVIDUAL contributors? Instead, it seems like agencies are more pre-occupied with pushing images either TO or FROM other agencies which essentially cuts the individual contributor in the throat and promotes a smaller royalty. I understand this is a tough business and agents must do what they can to survive, but I am growing tired of contributing to an agency, then having that agency contribute to another agency on my behalf, then receiving a royalty that is a portion of another agent's royalty. This business has become too incestuous. Why not take care of the individual contributors that you have and promote their work instead? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotoDogue Posted April 4, 2014 Share Posted April 4, 2014 I tried doing a search but couldn't find it online. All I could find was a similar which appeared to be from the same event and was an 18mb file. Today that one is gone too. Maybe QC saw the main page and removed it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Niels Quist Posted April 4, 2014 Share Posted April 4, 2014 WARNING - a criticism toward Alamy and I hope it doesn't fall on deaf ears...... I could care less about the noise. Generally, the images are terrific images. What bothers me is all the images are from a secondary source.... Today's image from Image Source Tomorrows image from EPA European Press Photo Agency The next day's image from Zuma Press The next day's image from Cultura The next day's image from Yay Media This business is getting a bit ridiculous. Seriously....what ever happened to agencies pushing the images of their INDIVIDUAL contributors? Instead, it seems like agencies are more pre-occupied with pushing images either TO or FROM other agencies which essentially cuts the individual contributor in the throat and promotes a smaller royalty. I understand this is a tough business and agents must do what they can to survive, but I am growing tired of contributing to an agency, then having that agency contribute to another agency on my behalf, then receiving a royalty that is a portion of another agent's royalty. This business has become too incestuous. Why not take care of the individual contributors that you have and promote their work instead? +1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 4, 2014 Share Posted April 4, 2014 dele Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allan Bell Posted April 4, 2014 Share Posted April 4, 2014 At least removing chroma noise does not affect the image in other ways such as removing luminance noise does. Allan (Back on track) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joseph Clemson Posted April 4, 2014 Share Posted April 4, 2014 http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/image-noise-2.htm Thanks for pointing to this, Niels. The whole site looks useful and I'd not come across it before. It helps me a little with understanding noise but if I could see more real life examples, especially from an Alamy perspective, of noise which is acceptable and that which isn't, then I'd be happier still. Martin's comment on Exposing to the Right prompted me to look more into that subject and I'm pleased to have done so - I knew of the technique in name, but didn't realise how helpful it could be in avoiding noise in shadow areas. The CambridgeinColour.com site looks good in all sorts of ways and I'll investigate it further. Now all I have to do is put this new found knowledge into practice Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jill Morgan Posted April 4, 2014 Share Posted April 4, 2014 Today's pic of the Queens is even noisier than the one of Katy Perry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Niels Quist Posted April 4, 2014 Share Posted April 4, 2014 Thanks for pointing to this, Niels. The whole site looks useful and I'd not come across it before. It helps me a little with understanding noise but if I could see more real life examples, especially from an Alamy perspective, of noise which is acceptable and that which isn't, then I'd be happier still. Glad it was useful. The specific and detailed Alamy examples would be helpful to all of us, but I don't think we will be getting more than the exaggerated explanatory ones. Today's pic of the Queens is even noisier than the one of Katy Perry. Could grain have been added deliberately to some of the creative images - especially from other agencies???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted April 4, 2014 Share Posted April 4, 2014 http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/image-noise-2.htm Thanks for pointing to this, Niels. The whole site looks useful and I'd not come across it before. It helps me a little with understanding noise but if I could see more real life examples, especially from an Alamy perspective, of noise which is acceptable and that which isn't, then I'd be happier still. Me too. Alamy's current policy on noise is what counts. Some real life, up-to-date examples would be much appreciated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.