John Mitchell Posted June 15, 2014 Share Posted June 15, 2014 Just wondering how many forum members would have submitted today's forklift picture featured on Alamy's front page. I would have assumed that high contrast images like this, with all the blown-out highlights, would automatically fail QC. What am I missing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Niels Quist Posted June 15, 2014 Share Posted June 15, 2014 I wouldn't have dared.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted June 15, 2014 Author Share Posted June 15, 2014 I wouldn't have dared.... Me neither. I'm much too paranoid these days. I now nix images if they have even small patches of blown-out highlights. Mind you, I quite like the "blown-out" effect in the forklift shot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Woods Posted June 15, 2014 Share Posted June 15, 2014 I'd have submitted it. There is a difference I think between blown out background like this and blown out detail that is important to the image. Things like blown out windows or sun on water are OK. Col Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Endicott Posted June 16, 2014 Share Posted June 16, 2014 I would have uploaded it but the danger in that type of image is you risk chromatic aberration. If the image worked out, I would have done it no problem. I see a lot of commercial use potential in that image (from internal presentations to annual reports, etc.). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Rooney Posted June 16, 2014 Share Posted June 16, 2014 I'd have submitted it. There is a difference I think between blown out background like this and blown out detail that is important to the image. Things like blown out windows or sun on water are OK. Col True. One sees this style of lighting in interior magazines all the time. Alamy QC is pretty savvy about various kinds of shots that bust the "rules." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dustydingo Posted June 16, 2014 Share Posted June 16, 2014 I'd have submitted it. There is a difference I think between blown out background like this and blown out detail that is important to the image. Things like blown out windows or sun on water are OK. Col True. One sees this style of lighting in interior magazines all the time. Alamy QC is pretty savvy about various kinds of shots that bust the "rules." I'm with Colin and Ed. There is no reason to not submit strongly back-lit subjects, and there have been several examples on Alamy's splash-page in the past. dd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
digi2ap Posted June 16, 2014 Share Posted June 16, 2014 It crossed my mind too when I first saw the image. I have a very careful approach to blown highlights and it's unlikely that I'd submit similar but it's certainly helpful to see how the 'rules' are flexibly applied. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Gaffen Posted June 16, 2014 Share Posted June 16, 2014 The Jury is out on this one, although I admire the forklift image. I worried about a QC fail, when I submitted an image taken on a ski-run showing the sun low in the Sky with quite a lot of lens flair. I did get it through QC though! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Brook Posted June 16, 2014 Share Posted June 16, 2014 I think Alamy is capable of distinguishing creativity from record keeping. If an image doesn't give at least one 'rule' a poke in the eye then it is probably just a visual record, whereas a dull image with purple fringing or whacked highlights is both dull and incompetent. Not just the rules applicable to QC ... of course. I would say John's ski-run is greatly improved by the flare. In fact some editors would have rejected it without that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reciprocity Images Posted June 16, 2014 Share Posted June 16, 2014 If it's sharp at 100% and no chromatic aberrations, etc, then YES (though personally might have brought it down just a half stop or so). If you're worried about submitting images like this, you're looking at all the wrong things in an image. It is indeed a very commercial oriented image, and as Robert mentioned there is a lot of sales potential. Even more so as it has BOTH a MR and PR available. -Jason Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Brooks Posted June 16, 2014 Share Posted June 16, 2014 Failure is a part of life. A "perfect" record is not perfect. It means you are not taking enough risk. Fear of failure will stop your life. Like a prehistoric insect encased in amber. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
losdemas Posted June 16, 2014 Share Posted June 16, 2014 Failure is a part of life. A "perfect" record is not perfect. It means you are not taking enough risk. Fear of failure will stop your life. Like a prehistoric insect encased in amber. Have a greenie: you've just given me a virtual boot up the backside, thank you ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted June 16, 2014 Author Share Posted June 16, 2014 So, is it fair to say that Alamy is editing images like these for content as much as for technical quality? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dov makabaw Posted June 16, 2014 Share Posted June 16, 2014 I guess the rules are there to create a workable standard. A great pic is a great pic, even if it breaks the standard rules. At the end of the day if it can sell then it would be foolish to reject it on a self imposed technicality. dov Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NielsVK Posted June 16, 2014 Share Posted June 16, 2014 Nothing wrong with the technical quality of that image in my opinion. Here's one of mine, this one has lens flare too. Alamy QC will always have to consider the content to some degree, you can't see the technical quality completely separate from it. Also think about shallow depth of field, sunset silhouettes, motion blur etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted June 16, 2014 Author Share Posted June 16, 2014 Nothing wrong with the technical quality of that image in my opinion. Here's one of mine, this one has lens flare too. Alamy QC will always have to consider the content to some degree, you can't see the technical quality completely separate from it. Also think about shallow depth of field, sunset silhouettes, motion blur etc. Very nice "non-standard" shot. I agree, content has to enter into the equation at some point. It's a bit like the old "form Vs. content" arguments that go on in art schools -- i.e. can you really separate the two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DDoug Posted June 16, 2014 Share Posted June 16, 2014 Perhaps they think that, under some circumstances, a bit of flare gives the image flair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.