Jump to content

Recommended Posts

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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...

Edited by John Mitchell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I assume that one was via live news

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Edited by dustydingo
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Edited by Joseph Clemson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Edited by Martin P Wilson
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Edited by John Mitchell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

  • Upvote 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

dele

Edited by Guest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At least removing chroma noise does not affect the image in other ways such as removing luminance noise does.

 

Allan

 

(Back on track)

Edited by Allan Bell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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  :unsure:

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Today's pic of the Queens is even noisier than the one of Katy Perry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

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.

Edited by John Mitchell

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
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • 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.