Jump to content

Recommended Posts

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?

Edited by John Mitchell
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Edited by John Mitchell
Link to post
Share on other sites

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 post
Share on other sites

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 post
Share on other sites

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 post
Share on other sites

 

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

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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 post
Share on other sites

E09MJ0.jpg

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 post
Share on other sites

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.

Edited by Robert Brook
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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 post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

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 post
Share on other sites

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 post
Share on other sites

Nothing wrong with the technical quality of that image in my opinion.

 

Here's one of mine, this one has lens flare too.

 

C7MKYA.jpg

 

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.

Edited by NielsVK
Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing wrong with the technical quality of that image in my opinion.

 

Here's one of mine, this one has lens flare too.

 

C7MKYA.jpg

 

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 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.