John Mitchell Posted July 15, 2014 Share Posted July 15, 2014 I don't usually upload "risky" images to Alamy for fear of incarceration. However, I have one with a lot of glittering blown-out highlights on water and dark silhouettes (boats in the distance) that I would like to upload. Am I inviting possible disaster? There are surprisingly few of these types of shots on Alamy (bad sign perhaps?). Here's something similar -- but without the silhouettes -- to what I have in mind: http://c8.alamy.com/comp/8/%7B72C857A8-57AA-442C-9E39-651BF5B1BE2B%7D/AM39A6.jpg I wonder how QC judges focus and sharpness with these types of shots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Rooney Posted July 16, 2014 Share Posted July 16, 2014 That looks risky. Of course I'm the last one who should be commenting after my last adventure with QC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted July 16, 2014 Author Share Posted July 16, 2014 Yes, I'm not much of a risk-taker these days either as I'm trying to get back on the straight-and-narrow. I've noticed that most of the shots of this type on Alamy have something in focus in the foreground -- a boat, a person, rocks, etc., like this one. Perhaps that's the main requirement (?). Any thoughts or testimonials? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Rooney Posted July 16, 2014 Share Posted July 16, 2014 The man on the beach is not as risky; the highlights are not really blown. Your's is a better, more interesting shot, but the highlights are blown and it looks too contrasty. One pic is not going to make your day . . . but it could ruin your day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted July 16, 2014 Author Share Posted July 16, 2014 The man on the beach is not as risky; the highlights are not really blown. Your's is a better, more interesting shot, but the highlights are blown and it looks too contrasty. One pic is not going to make your day . . . but it could ruin your day. Actually, Ed, neither of those shots is mine. They are images already on Alamy. I should have mentioned that. Perhaps I'll post a link to one of mine similar to the one I'm nervously thinking of submitting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Rooney Posted July 16, 2014 Share Posted July 16, 2014 "Similar" doesn't mean much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted July 16, 2014 Author Share Posted July 16, 2014 "Similar" doesn't mean much. True, how about "very similar" -- to this one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Betty LaRue Posted July 16, 2014 Share Posted July 16, 2014 "Similar" doesn't mean much. True, how about "very similar" -- to this one? That looks OK to me, I'd probably upload it. Maybe I'm too much of a risk-taker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Niels Quist Posted July 16, 2014 Share Posted July 16, 2014 "Similar" doesn't mean much. True, how about "very similar" -- to this one? I have often removed some of the worst water glittering in some images with less reflections and glittering. Due to the character of this image the image it cannot be removed and belong there. I would see to that there is no colour blur or aberrance (none in this) and that the whitest is no more than about 245-249 and then go for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Posted July 16, 2014 Share Posted July 16, 2014 It's sharp, specular highlights are meant to be pure white. I would upload, but that's easy for me to say..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Niels Quist Posted July 16, 2014 Share Posted July 16, 2014 It's sharp, specular highlights are meant to be pure white. I would upload, but that's easy for me to say..... When you say pure white, Bryan, would you leave them at 255 or lower them just a tad? Exposure Check, and if necessary correct exposure using the histogram (Levels). For most images the black point should be at or near 0, with the white point at or near 255. At Alamy we expect the black/white points to be within 5% of these values, i.e. black at Level 12 or below, and white at Level 243 or above. http://www.alamy.com/contributor/help/maintaining-maximum-image-quality.asp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Posted July 16, 2014 Share Posted July 16, 2014 It's sharp, specular highlights are meant to be pure white. I would upload, but that's easy for me to say..... When you say pure white, Bryan, would you leave them at 255 or lower them just a tad? Exposure Check, and if necessary correct exposure using the histogram (Levels). For most images the black point should be at or near 0, with the white point at or near 255. At Alamy we expect the black/white points to be within 5% of these values, i.e. black at Level 12 or below, and white at Level 243 or above. http://www.alamy.com/contributor/help/maintaining-maximum-image-quality.asp I've not had any failures due to excessive whiteness Niels. My interpretation of the guidelines is that they normally expect a full range of tones, from white to black, but we are dealing with the unknown here, only the secret society of reviewers appear know the truth of the matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Crean Posted July 16, 2014 Share Posted July 16, 2014 I'd send it. Here's one I sent when we had to upsize to 48mb: Hasn't sold yet though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Brook Posted July 16, 2014 Share Posted July 16, 2014 "Am I inviting possible disaster?" Unlikely, since what you are describing is a light effect, something well understood, like motion blur or retro colour. "There are surprisingly few of these types of shots on Alamy (bad sign perhaps?)". Here is a good one. The sea goes from very solid (0) black to solid (255) white. If you are worried, you could try dropping the output levels from 255 to between 245 - 250 What's a disaster anyway? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dov makabaw Posted July 16, 2014 Share Posted July 16, 2014 I would submit. The boat looks in focus and with the correct exposure. The background could be used for text in, say, a holiday brochure. QC continue to surprise me in what they accept as long as you get the basics right. dov Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allan Bell Posted July 16, 2014 Share Posted July 16, 2014 I think Alamy realise that water highlights can be blown at bit. That is the nature of highlights. It is not possible to see detail in highlights like the sun for instance and I would be very concerned if I could. Allan PS The silhouettes look sharp too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Endicott Posted July 16, 2014 Share Posted July 16, 2014 John, taking a look at the FAA image, based on my own personal style/workflow it's not one that I would submit as is. It appears a bit soft to me at 100% - especially looking at the stern of the sail boat closest to the photographer. What I would do (using Lightroom) is I would adjust the clarity of the image, then I would adjust the white point and the black point. I think that would give the silhouettes a little more definition. If I still felt adjustment necessary, then I would look at the highlight slider and the shadow slider. The point of the highlight and shadow slider wouldn't be to adjust the specular highlights but more of a way to give the silhouettes better definition. A couple of other things I would play with just to see if it improves the image is either remove contrast, or even try de-saturating the image (not necessarily to the point where it is black and white). You've also got just a touch of noise in the image I'd adjust the color noise slider just a tad. If you wanted to get fancy, you could apply a graduated filter (either a shade of blue or a shade of orange) to bring out the sky and make it a little more dramatic. Hope that helps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Brooks Posted July 16, 2014 Share Posted July 16, 2014 It's sharp, specular highlights are meant to be pure white. I would upload, but that's easy for me to say..... I agree. I adjust specular highlights on water, metal, mirrors, or the midday sun etc at 255, 255, 255. Same with shadows at 0,0,0 where there is absolutely no light. An adjusted specular highlight will only go grey anyway. If you adjust a highlight with only one colour channel blown, the hue of the adjusted highlight will still be wrong. I never expose in camera for specular highlights on water, because I will lose the detail in the rest of the water. Blown specular highlights and empty shadows are the way the eye sees, and to do otherwise, like above 10 for empty shadows or below 245 for specular highlights, is to introduce unreality to your images. Of course images without specular highlights or empty shadows should be in the range 10-245. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted July 16, 2014 Author Share Posted July 16, 2014 Thanks for all the useful suggestions. You guys are way ahead of me in the post-processing department (I do as little as possible), but you've given me plenty to experiment with. If I do decide to put any images like this one on Alamy, it probably won't be for a while. Right now I'm on a roll when it comes to passing QC, and I don't want to risk wasting the summer sunshine mouldering in the sin bin (the "disaster" I referred to). One never knows when the sword might fall, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted July 16, 2014 Author Share Posted July 16, 2014 I'd send it. Here's one I sent when we had to upsize to 48mb: Hasn't sold yet though Nice shot, Phil. Did you de-saturate or convert to black and white? Things have changed -- except the sin bin, of course -- since upsizing days. This begs the next question -- Does this type of image sell on Alamy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Rooney Posted July 16, 2014 Share Posted July 16, 2014 "Similar" doesn't mean much. True, how about "very similar" -- to this one? John, I would upload that image in a heartbeat, no problem there. But "similar" can be in the eye of the beholder. I'd jump the highlights up some in Phil's pic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Crean Posted July 16, 2014 Share Posted July 16, 2014 I'd send it. Here's one I sent when we had to upsize to 48mb: Hasn't sold yet though Nice shot, Phil. Did you de-saturate or convert to black and white? Things have changed -- except the sin bin, of course -- since upsizing days. This begs the next question -- Does this type of image sell on Alamy? No desaturation or anything converted. This is how it was! As I said not sold yet, but I live in hope Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted July 16, 2014 Author Share Posted July 16, 2014 I'd send it. Here's one I sent when we had to upsize to 48mb: Hasn't sold yet though Nice shot, Phil. Did you de-saturate or convert to black and white? Things have changed -- except the sin bin, of course -- since upsizing days. This begs the next question -- Does this type of image sell on Alamy? No desaturation or anything converted. This is how it was! As I said not sold yet, but I live in hope Ah yes, hope. The only reason I asked is because all my sales on Alamy are of "regular" (i.e. conservative) images. But then, I don't have very much -- if anything -- that would be considered technically "creative." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reciprocity Images Posted July 17, 2014 Share Posted July 17, 2014 This begs the next question -- Does this type of image sell on Alamy?This one has sold: http://www.alamy.com/zooms/6/%7B17E36E34-42ED-49B2-B0D2-EAA7611F3DD1%7D/C41G7N.jpg?noiptc=true (can't seem to post photo from my idiotphone) -Jason Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted July 17, 2014 Author Share Posted July 17, 2014 This begs the next question -- Does this type of image sell on Alamy?This one has sold: http://www.alamy.com/zooms/6/%7B17E36E34-42ED-49B2-B0D2-EAA7611F3DD1%7D/C41G7N.jpg?noiptc=true (can't seem to post photo from my idiotphone) -Jason I can see why it sold. Very dramatic composition. I don't even own an idiotphone. Thanks for sharing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.