Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
colin paterson

Thanks for my time in the Sin Bin !!!!

Recommended Posts

Only one image but hey I can now upload to all those agencies I have neglected in the past...Big G here I come (after 10 years) & the rest !

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Put a cold cloth on your forehead and have a cup of tea. :)   I just got out July 2nd. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Big G here I come (after 10 years) & the rest !

 

Arn't they giving images away? :mellow:

 

Let's stop and think again.

 

Allan

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm halfway through my second stretch in two months.

Two full sentences a week apart with two acceptances in between. Work that one out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is that you across isle to my left, Mark?  Please try to keep your "cell" conversations down at night. Some of use need our sleep.  :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just get me a couple of raincoats and some contact cement, Ed, and I'll be out of your way.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm halfway through my second stretch in two months.

Two full sentences a week apart with two acceptances in between. Work that one out.

 

Something similar happened to me earlier this year. It was a real bummer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any chance of some posts of images that earned you a stay "in clink" to help the rest of us avoid a stay at "Alamy's pleasure".

 

I've now had over 150 submissions since the last failure, and it's starting to feel like I understand QC's requirements.

 

But... it worries me that most images never get looked at by QC, and so it's easy to get lulled into a false sense of security.

 

I fear that suddenly, it can all go wrong when an image fails and triggers the QC spotlight and then more of your images get looked at and you find that what you thought was OK really isn't.

 

To start the ball rolling, here's a link to my last two QC fails at 100% scale

 

This one failed for SoLD and CA (presumably Cruise logo and the building edges against sky at top right), and should have failed for dust spot in sky too (top left).

 

http://postimg.org/image/53ju34jqr/  Once downloaded, click on the image to see at 100% size.

 

The image was subsequently reprocessed to remove CA, remove the dust spot and down-sized to 2546 x 3456 and was accepted.

 

This one failed for CA (presumably the edges between black beams and white paint on right of image).

 

http://postimg.org/image/qew58tprp/

 

Again this image was subsequently reprocessed to remove CA and was accepted.

 

Hope the above links work for you.

 

Mark

Edited by M.Chapman
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've had worse CA accepted and failed. I don't routinely check for CA and have never corrected it.Go figure.

Before my recent transgressions I had assumed that QC was a state of mind as much as a process. Now I'm not so sure, having fallen foul of inconsistent QC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A good idea, Mark. 

 

I can see why the first ones failed. I also see a few small, more pointlike dust spots, etc. at the same place in the two images. Not big, but I would remove (if I had spotted them in my own)...

 

I feel the same thing about saying anything about my acceptance rate. Hybris and Nemesis are just around the corner. And you don't know when you will overlook a problem that will make the images fail.

 

Shouldn't you have furnished the  fullsize images with a protective watermark?

 

Any chance of some posts of images that earned you a stay "in clink" to help the rest of us avoid a stay at "Alamy's pleasure".

 

I've now had over 150 submissions since the last failure, and it's starting to feel like I understand QC's requirements.

 

But... it worries me that most images never get looked at by QC, and so it's easy to get lulled into a false sense of security.

 

I fear that suddenly, it can all go wrong when an image fails and triggers the QC spotlight and then more of your images get looked at and you find that what you thought was OK really isn't.

 

To start the ball rolling, here's a link to my last two QC fails at 100% scale

 

This one failed for SoLD and CA (presumably Cruise logo and the building edges against sky at top right), and should have failed for dust spot in sky too (top left).

 

http://postimg.org/image/53ju34jqr/  Once downloaded, click on the image to see at 100% size.

 

The image was subsequently reprocessed to remove CA, remove the dust spot and down-sized to 2546 x 3456 and was accepted.

 

This one failed for CA (presumably the edges between black beams and white paint on right of image).

 

http://postimg.org/image/qew58tprp/

 

Again this image was subsequently reprocessed to remove CA and was accepted.

 

Hope the above links work for you.

 

Mark

Edited by Niels Quist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

About CA...don't check for it at your own peril.  I uploaded a batch that I carefully checked and corrected all CA.  What I couldn't fix, I got rid of by cropping.  I missed one tiny piece of it in the far upper left corner, a palm leaf, and got 30 days in the sin bin for that oversight.  That was probably about .0025 of the image.

 

Betty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been "clean" for over two months now (touch wood). However, I'm sure my cell in the Sin Bin is being kept vacant. I had two QC failures earlier this year. One was due to a well-hidden dust blob that I had somehow missed (my bad, for sure). The other was a "soft and lacking definition," a Christmas lights shot in which the camera had apparently back-focused on the house, leaving the foreground lights a bit blurry. I liked the effect, but obviously someone else didn't. Oh well, there's no accounting for taste.

 

Regarding CA, I now let my Sony NEX-6's in-camera CA correction deal with it. Works like a charm. Have had no trouble with overlooked CA since I started doing this.

Edited by John Mitchell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nor dust since I left behind the moving mirror.

Problem is, the most accurate AF ever, ever (according to David K, which makes it true) is supposed to have missed and made a shot SoLD. Not convinced, personally, but I don't have the keys to the cells in this block.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nor dust since I left behind the moving mirror.

Problem is, the most accurate AF ever, ever (according to David K, which makes it true) is supposed to have missed and made a shot SoLD. Not convinced, personally, but I don't have the keys to the cells in this block.

 

I do believe that QC has raised the bar for overall sharpness (i.e. accurate focus isn't all that's necessary now) during the past couple of years, so prenez garde, especially if you're like me and can't afford those high-end, super sharp lenses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

A good idea, Mark. 

 

I can see why the first ones failed. I also see a few small, more pointlike dust spots, etc. at the same place in the two images. Not big, but I would remove (if I had spotted them in my own)...

 

I feel the same thing about saying anything about my acceptance rate. Hybris and Nemesis are just around the corner. And you don't know when you will overlook a problem that will make the images fail.

 

Shouldn't you have furnished the  fullsize images with a protective watermark?

 

You're right, there are some spots in the sky on the second image too - oops. I'm glad to see I did find and fix them on the resubmitted image. Phew!

 

You're right I probably should have watermarked the fullsize posts, but with no keywords or captions and a non-descript filename I figured nobody is likely to find/use them for anything useful. Nevertheless, if anyone else is brave enough to post 100% images, I agree, watermark them first.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone else care to post some 100% fails that could educate the rest of us?

 

With so many images submitted to Alamy every day, one of the problems is we can't really learn much from a "QC PASS" as it's quite probable that the image that "Passed" may never actually have been inspected (unless it's a first submission, or we've recently been on the "naughty step"). Even if it was inspected, it's hard to know if it passed by a whisker or a mile.

 

But if we see a QC FAIL we know it's been inspected and has failed and are given a reason. I'd be most interested to see some other examples of images which QC have failed that contributors think must have been only marginal fails. We can all learn from these and help avoid similar mistakes.

 

I'm now using automatic CA removal (courtesy of LR) and a micro 4/3 camera mirrorless camera (with more reliable contrast based AF) instead of a DSLR, and it seems to have reduced the number of images which I reject for CA or SoLD. So this must help reduce the chances of a duff image slipping through my workflow and then failing QC.

 

I agree with Betty, even with auto CA removal, I still have to manually check the corners, and also watch out for "coloured fringing" especially on items against a bright sky.

 

Anyway, anyone else brave enough to post some 100% examples (with watermark added) of what they would regard as marginal fails?

Edited by M.Chapman
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the same submission

CA fail (also failed for SoLD):

failca.jpg

 

Passed on resubmission:

 

passca.jpg

Edited by spacecadet
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even though I have never had a QC fail in all the years I have been with Alamy, I have to say that I think the "naughty step" approach stifles creativity in some ways. During the night of the summer solstice I took the image below, along with a number of others intending to upload some as stock and some as news.

 

Looking at them later I decided some of the more interesting ones were just too borderline at 100% to upload as they were taken in complete darkness and needed some noise reduction (such as this one which I appreciate may not be everyone's cup of tea). It's not HDR either before anyone insults me :-)

 

I think it may have got through ok, but seeing long established togs getting sin binned and not wanting to chance a 30 day ban I erred on the side of caution with half a dozen shots and instead I uploaded nice safe images showing the sunrise and the wider landscape (all passed QC as expected). That said to me the ones I uploaded were predicable images and just like the thousands of other pics that folk uploaded that weekend.

 

Image removed by poster

Edited by David F

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We can only offer an opinion if you post at 100% as I did above.

Edited by spacecadet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We can only offer an opinion if you post at 100% as I did above.

Read my post.  I am not asking for an opinion on the image, nor am I asking if it would pass QC.  I am simply saying that having never failed QC I am not prepared to take any chances of putting up something a little different.  I feel it leads to ME only uploading nice safe predictable images. Had there been no sin bin I would have chanced it and it would probably have got through.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read it.

An opinion as to QC, I meant. We don't do camera-club type artistic opinions here.

MChapman suggested posting some pass/fail 100% crops to get an idea of QC standards. I did so and thought you were doing the same. I apologise.

Why did you post the image, then?

Edited by spacecadet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read it.

An opinion as to QC, I meant. We don't do camera-club type artistic opinions here.

MChapman suggested posting some pass/fail 100% crops to get an idea of QC standards. I did so and thought you were doing the same. I apologise.

Why did you post the image, then?

 

Sigh, sometimes I don't know why I bother.  It was nothing more than an example of an image I did not bother to upload because I felt putting people in the sin bin can stifle chancing an image you think may be anywhere near borderline.  For me that usually means only uploading nice safe images. 

 

 For example there is no way I would have dared upload the image that you showed as your QC fail.  To me that is not borderline it is a fair out and out fail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wasn't saying it was or wasn't borderline. Just contributing to the debate. The CA, in particular, didn't seem to be much worse than the pass example. I did say that it failed on SoLD as well- that I thought more serious, although I have had similar material pass on occasion. The two were there for comparison.

I don't submit only 'nice, safe images'.

Edited by spacecadet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't submit only 'nice, safe images'.

Which is why people fail QC. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I beg to differ. The ones that fail are usually the 'safe' ones.

 

1600ISO, 1/5 handheld, IIRC:

E3MB2T.jpg

 

BD9J68.jpg

 

CMXF1K.jpg

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.