M.Chapman Posted July 7, 2014 Share Posted July 7, 2014 Why has Alamy chosen this image to showcase their wares? To my eyes it appears excessively noisy. Just because it was taken on a mobile phone doesn't seem to justify displaying it on the homepage. I thought the idea of Alamy accepting lower technical quality mobile phone imagery was that it allowed the inclusion of a particular "mobile style" of creative, instant, candid, reality, massive depth of field or unusual perspective imagery etc. Sure this image is creative, but this shot was probably staged and, in my opinion, should have been taken on equipment more suited to the job and should have to pass the usual Alamy QC standards. I remain concerned that mixing in lower technical quality Stockimo imagery with images that have been carefully prepared to meet Alamy's stringent QC standards risks devaluing these images and I'd find it somewhat demoralising if I subsequently had an image rejected for noise. It does feel like double standards are being applied. I don't feel this image is a very good "advert" for Alamy's quality standards. On the other hand... I do like the image Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted July 7, 2014 Share Posted July 7, 2014 I agree, mixing the two types of imagery in the same pot makes for a very odd soup. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Chapman Posted July 7, 2014 Author Share Posted July 7, 2014 Curiously, image ref S01XW7 doesn't (yet?) appear in the Alamy search results, nor does the contributor "emme". Weird... Maybe it's not been key-worded yet? Or have I missed something? Searches on alphabet spaghetti yields many similars, but not this image. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TABan Posted July 7, 2014 Share Posted July 7, 2014 The noise caught my eye as well. Especially since I had an image failed for noise far lower than this about a month ago. The funny thing was, it was an accidental duplicate of an image that had already passed. Some folks in QC are too anal about noise, other aren't anal enough, evidently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Chapman Posted July 8, 2014 Author Share Posted July 8, 2014 Some folks in QC are too anal about noise, other aren't anal enough, evidently. I don't think that's the case. Mobile phone images submitted via the Stockimo route are deliberately not subjected to the same Alamy QC standards as everything else. Most would struggle to pass if they were. Anyway the image has now disappeared without trace... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NYCat Posted July 8, 2014 Share Posted July 8, 2014 Curiously, image ref S01XW7 doesn't (yet?) appear in the Alamy search results, nor does the contributor "emme". Weird... Maybe it's not been key-worded yet? Or have I missed something? Searches on alphabet spaghetti yields many similars, but not this image. I had no trouble finding it with the reference number. It happened to me a while ago that an image wouldn't appear for me when it did for other people and Alamy said that it was not available in my area. Paulette Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted July 8, 2014 Share Posted July 8, 2014 I can't find it either. I guess alphabet soup isn't popular in Vancouver. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Chapman Posted July 8, 2014 Author Share Posted July 8, 2014 Curiously a Google search for the image ref S01XW7 leads to an Alamy page which shows the image, but this page states that the image is no longer available... See http://www.alamy.com/stock-photos/S01XW7/Yummy.html Maybe the tog has set some restrictions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.