Jump to content

Recommended Posts

 

No certainly not. Of course you get artifacts in PS and sometimes plenty. I do know what it looks like.

 

Might I be so bold as to suggest QC know what it (artifacts) looks like too?

 

dd

 

Editing should be a human process, sadly its not anymore. programs are used, the question is how they calibrate them? what to look for and find that is. Binuscan once had one, 7K, they soon discarded it. Too many complaints!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope that when I have my first QC fail I don't spend as much time seeking things other than myself to blame.

 

dd

Edited by dustydingo
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope that when I have my first QC fail I don't spend as much time seeking things other than myself to blame.

 

dd

Now, now, come on don't get sore about this and use that old adage, I have spent 30 years of my life shooting industry and advertising, worked with the biggest ad-agencies in the world, still do. I have been editing pictures for Stones, Image-Bank, Getty. and designed pictures since the days of the Drum-scanners. long, long before the dslr. Today is a ducks-walk compared with yesterday.

 

Besides just on a curious and friendly note. You do travel and editorial no doubt. I mean its not exactly as if you have to do tons of post-processing, manipulations, this and that, is it?  so I am just wondering why this obsession with that an editor, any editor is totally infallible?  just curious because your reaction isn't exactly out of the manual.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I hope that when I have my first QC fail I don't spend as much time seeking things other than myself to blame.

 

dd

Now, now, come on don't get sore about this and use that old adage, I have spent 30 years of my life shooting industry and advertising, worked with the biggest ad-agencies in the world, still do. I have been editing pictures for Stones, Image-Bank, Getty. and designed pictures since the days of the Drum-scanners. long, long before the dslr. Today is a ducks-walk compared with yesterday.

 

Besides just on a curious and friendly note. You do travel and editorial no doubt. I mean its not exactly as if you have to do tons of post-processing, manipulations, this and that, is it?  so I am just wondering why this obsession with that an editor, any editor is totally infallible?  just curious because your reaction isn't exactly out of the manual.

 

 

:) Mate, I don't care if you invented the rapatronic camera, in the absence of a 100% crop here it's all just talk.

 

"Infallible" . . . where did that come from? The only one I see here talking about being infallible is your good self. Nice try.

 

We see many come in here complaining that their infallibility has been questioned by a QC result. Most come around to realising where the weakness really lies . . . but some stick to their guns and never concede that maybe, just once, they may be . . . fallible. I know, I should just let it pass, like all the others, but sometimes . . .

 

And to repeat, I hope that when I have my first QC fail, I don't spend as much time seeking things other than myself to blame.

 

dd

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I hope that when I have my first QC fail I don't spend as much time seeking things other than myself to blame.

 

dd

Now, now, come on don't get sore about this and use that old adage, I have spent 30 years of my life shooting industry and advertising, worked with the biggest ad-agencies in the world, still do. I have been editing pictures for Stones, Image-Bank, Getty. and designed pictures since the days of the Drum-scanners. long, long before the dslr. Today is a ducks-walk compared with yesterday.

 

Besides just on a curious and friendly note. You do travel and editorial no doubt. I mean its not exactly as if you have to do tons of post-processing, manipulations, this and that, is it?  so I am just wondering why this obsession with that an editor, any editor is totally infallible?  just curious because your reaction isn't exactly out of the manual.

 

 

:) Mate, I don't care if you invented the rapatronic camera, in the absence of a 100% crop here it's all just talk.

 

"Infallible" . . . where did that come from? The only one I see here talking about being infallible is your good self. Nice try.

 

We see many come in here complaining that their infallibility has been questioned by a QC result. Most come around to realising where the weakness really lies . . . but some stick to their guns and never concede that maybe, just once, they may be . . . fallible. I know, I should just let it pass, like all the others, but sometimes . . .

 

And to repeat, I hope that when I have my first QC fail, I don't spend as much time seeking things other than myself to blame.

 

dd

 

Even if I did give you 100% crop,  you are not in a position to judge it. You don't design pictures, so whats the point? anybody can shout CA and artifacts, most common criteria for rejections.

 

Anyhow you seem to wind yourself up to a frenzy so lets just end this conversation and chill a bit, shall we. 

 

Cheers.and no hard feelings

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

YAWN  ......  :rolleyes:

 

Cheers,

Philippe

 

Definitive proof that fallible Homo Sapiens are members of the animal kingdom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I don't do them with these silly apps. I do them in PS using various commands, etc and the outcome is light-years better then all these apps, etc. No its more a matter of that editors can recognize these effects and NOT take them for bad technical processing. Big common mistake nowadays.

 

Still worth posting a 100% crop so we can learn from your experience. It always helps to know where Alamy's QC boundaries are.

 

No certainly not. Of course you get artifacts in PS and sometimes plenty. I do know what it looks like.

 

 

I'm puzzled by your flat point blank refusal to post a 100% crop. I'm not arguing that you don't know what artifacts look like.

 

"In many years I have never had a failed batch here

 

When an apparently experienced photographer runs into a QC fail and complains about it, this usually indicates a marginal QC fail. Posting a 100% crop of such images provides a valuable example which helps the rest of us to understand Alamy's QC limits.

 

"In many years I have never had a failed batch here" ....

 

Why does your profile shows 0 images? Have you removed them all in disgust or maybe you have two Alamy accounts? One for your images and another for forum postings?

Edited by M.Chapman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Why does your profile shows 0 images? Have you removed them all in disgust or maybe you have two Alamy accounts? One for your images and another for forum postings?

 

 

Click on the zero. Comes up with 195 images.

 

Allan

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Why does your profile shows 0 images? Have you removed them all in disgust or maybe you have two Alamy accounts? One for your images and another for forum postings?

 

 

Click on the zero. Comes up with 195 images.

 

Allan

 

 

So it does.

 

Some impressive imagery. Although I can't believe the tag indicating Digitally Altered = NO on some of them. e.g. E67C3P & E6DTD0. Christian clearly has experience of  image manipulation that has passed Alamy QC before, so it would be real interesting to see an example of his recent QC fail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Why does your profile shows 0 images? Have you removed them all in disgust or maybe you have two Alamy accounts? One for your images and another for forum postings?

 

 

Click on the zero. Comes up with 195 images.

 

Allan

 

 

So it does.

 

Some impressive imagery. Although I can't believe the tag indicating Digitally Altered = NO on some of them. e.g. E67C3P & E6DTD0. Christian clearly has experience of  image manipulation that has passed Alamy QC before, so it would be real interesting to see an example of his recent QC fail.

 

Well its getting even more weird. This particular image was actually ON-LINE here before I closed my account about a year back!  so, it means that either the first reviewer was right and the second one was wrong or vice-versa.

Just shows what I have always maintained: reviewing is a human process, some eyes are better or worse then others.

 

Yes !  I am also a graphic-designer and have worked very closely with Thomas-Knoll and Photoshop for a few years. This does not make me better then my fellow contributor but when it comes to post-processing I do know what I am talking about.

 

all the best.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well its getting even more weird. This particular image was actually ON-LINE here before I closed my account about a year back! so, it means that either the first reviewer was right and the second one was wrong or vice-versa.

Really weird. If you closed your account a year ago. How come you've just had a QC fail? Have you just opened a new account and submitted a test batch of 4 images, and it's one or more of those images that have failed? If so that may explain the anomaly.

 

If it's now part of a test batch, then QC will inspect every image. Whereas, when you uploaded the image before, perhaps as part of a larger batch, this individual image may have passed QC without even being inspected. After your test submission has passed, QC typically inspect 1 image per batch. If the inspected image passes, all images in the batch pass. If the inspected image fails, the whole batch is rejected.

 

Still not prepared to post a 100% crop?

Edited by M.Chapman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Well its getting even more weird. This particular image was actually ON-LINE here before I closed my account about a year back! so, it means that either the first reviewer was right and the second one was wrong or vice-versa.

Really weird. If you closed your account a year ago. How come you've just had a QC fail? Have you just opened a new account and submitted a test batch of 4 images, and it's one or more of those images that have failed? If so that may explain the anomaly.

 

If it's now part of a test batch, then QC will inspect every image. Whereas, when you uploaded the image before, perhaps as part of a larger batch, this individual image may have passed QC without even being inspected. After your test submission has passed, QC typically inspect 1 image per batch. If the inspected image passes, all images in the batch pass. If the inspected image fails, the whole batch is rejected.

 

Still not prepared to post a 100% crop?

 

Sorry!  my mistake. I never closed my account,  I deleted all my images and just left the account. A few weeks back I resumed uploading here. Thought I give it another try so to speak. I mean if it was just one picture rejected, blimey, so what!  but in this place if one fails, the whole batch becomes failed, just because of one, right, I would just let it pass, no problem, rejections goes with the territory.

I like Alamy a lot, old British trad agency but they have to get on par with todays agencies. They are a bit old fashioned so to speak.

 

What happened was, in anger really I put the entire map in the dustbin but i know I have it somewhere else, on one of my external hard-drives, when I find it I will give you a 100% crop, which will look dreadful anyway here but just for the sake of it. Remember, this image has actually been on-line here before, i.e.  it was accepted by the QC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember, this image has actually been on-line here before, i.e. it was accepted by the QC.

 

Unless it was in your test submission, "QC acceptance" of an individual image gives no hard info. It's possible the image was inspected and did indeed pass. But if there were other images in the submission it's quite possible that the image you mention was never inspected and that it was one of the other images that was, and which passed, resulting in a Pass for the whole submission. Alternatively, if you had got a good track record and QC was busy, it's possible that none of the images in the batch was inspected and the batch was simply "passed" based on previous performance.

 

After the first submission has passed, the only time contributors get hard info is when a submission fails QC. Then they know the submission was inspected, and they know which image in the submission failed and why.

 

I did suggest a while back that Alamy QC should mark which image was inspected (and therefore passed) in any submission that passed as this would be very useful to contributors. However, doing this would involve Alamy giving us insight into how many submission are never inspected by QC at all, which could be counter-productive (for them).

Edited by M.Chapman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Remember, this image has actually been on-line here before, i.e. it was accepted by the QC.

Unless it was in your test submission, "QC acceptance" of an individual image gives no hard info. It's possible the image was inspected and did indeed pass. But if there were other images in the submission it's quite possible that the image you mention was never inspected and that it was one of the other images that was, and which passed, resulting in a Pass for the whole submission. Alternatively, if you had got a good track record and QC was busy, it's possible that none of the images in the batch was inspected and the batch was simply "passed" based on previous performance.

 

After the first submission has passed, the only time contributors get hard info is when a submission fails QC. Then they know the submission was inspected, and they know which image in the submission failed and why.

 

I did suggest a while back that Alamy QC should mark which image was inspected (and therefore passed) in any submission that passed as this would be very useful to contributors. However, doing this would involve Alamy giving us insight into how many submission are never inspected by QC at all, which could be counter-productive (for them).

 

 

Nice idea, if it's for your own feedback: submit one image at a time.

Occasionally I have done that when disagreeing with QC about an image or a certain manipulation like size when it's a stitched panorama.

 

wim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Nice idea, if it's for your own feedback: submit one image at a time.

Occasionally I have done that when disagreeing with QC about an image or a certain manipulation like size when it's a stitched panorama.

 

 

wim

 

 

Although that greatly increases the chance the image will be inspected. I don't think it guarantees it. If QC have a big backlog and you have a good QC record, I suspect some submissions are approved without inspection to clear the backlog. (e.g. "The Saturday morning club"??)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Nice idea, if it's for your own feedback: submit one image at a time.

Occasionally I have done that when disagreeing with QC about an image or a certain manipulation like size when it's a stitched panorama.

 

 

wim

 

 

Although that greatly increases the chance the image will be inspected. I don't think it guarantees it. If QC have a big backlog and you have a good QC record, I suspect some submissions are approved without inspection to clear the backlog. (e.g. "The Saturday morning club"??)

 

I know!!  I have never had a failed batch, not since I joined four or five years back. One could easily get the feeling it was almost personal, haha!  you know what I mean.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some stellar shots you have, Christiam, Such as E67BEK, the guy with the hard had and those giant gears (cogs). Good eye for composition and concept, plus it is a real challenge and a lot of effort getting access to such situations and opportunities to begin with.

 

Say, regarding CA, I noticed on my CS4, if I move one of the sliders one way to correct a color fringe, another color fringe elsewhere will start to accentuate.  Tricky stuff, Is LR the really only way to go to remove CA with ease, or would later PS versions have a simple "Check box" to remove CA?  

 

I just passed my latest two submissions, but now I see in some other shots that I am reluctant to submit, especially ones with lots of 'lines' like tree limbs, poles, wires, etc, there is a propensity for CA esp, after bumping up saturation a bit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Say, regarding CA, I noticed on my CS4, if I move one of the sliders one way to correct a color fringe, another color fringe elsewhere will start to accentuate.  Tricky stuff, Is LR the really only way to go to remove CA with ease, or would later PS versions have a simple "Check box" to remove CA?  

 

I just passed my latest two submissions, but now I see in some other shots that I am reluctant to submit, especially ones with lots of 'lines' like tree limbs, poles, wires, etc, there is a propensity for CA esp, after bumping up saturation a bit.

 

There's a check box in CS6/CC - if you find new fringes being made by the sliders, it's an easy fix to do the work on a dupe layer and then using a mask, paint back the corrected areas only. I tend to do this on the odd occasions I use my 24-105 mm Canon as it's prone to still have CA after using an automatic profile and another application would make it too soft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

E67BEK, the guy with the hard had and those giant gears (cogs). Good eye for composition and concept, plus it is a real challenge and a lot of effort getting access to such situations and opportunities to begin with.

 

It's a montage....

 

km

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

E67BEK, the guy with the hard had and those giant gears (cogs). Good eye for composition and concept, plus it is a real challenge and a lot of effort getting access to such situations and opportunities to begin with.

 

It's a montage....

 

km

 

Or a studio shot - hence the 'no' for digitally altered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

its  montage..the same elements are re-used in a number of his images..

 

km

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

its  montage..the same elements are re-used in a number of his images..

 

km

 

Many of them are montages, you can also tell from the shadow directions. I believe they should be marked as "Digitally Altered"?

 

I do like them. In reality the cogs are quite small, so there's a good juxtaposition of scale there too!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I like the startling effect of juxtaposition of scale. To really carry it off in a montage, it helps if the image duplicates photographic reality.

 

I think the images would be stronger if the cogs were either entirely in focus, or used as an out of focus background. Image stacking on the cogs would bring them entirely in focus. Gausian blur would put them entirely out of focus.

 

Here are two images I did years ago with everything in focus.

Photo-illustration-of-USA-capitol-buildi

Photo-illustration-of-USA-capitol-buildi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks all for the advice and tips. Rather than upgrading to CS6 (I'm getting behind the curve!), I will consider trying LR for the first time, But the layers suggestion will be very helpful until then,

 

I see your points (Bill) about backgrounds. (nice montages btw). Sharp or blurry works well for drawing the eye to the intended point (s) of interest, whereas  a slightly OOF background can be visually unsettling,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I like the startling effect of juxtaposition of scale. To really carry it off in a montage, it helps if the image duplicates photographic reality.
 
I think the images would be stronger if the cogs were either entirely in focus, or used as an out of focus background. Image stacking on the cogs would bring them entirely in focus. Gausian blur would put them entirely out of focus.
 
Here are two images I did years ago with everything in focus.
Photo-illustration-of-USA-capitol-buildi
Photo-illustration-of-USA-capitol-buildi

 

 

Lovely images. Looks like you got a cover shot sale from the second one.

 

http://www.amazon.com/American-Government-Robert-Heineman/dp/0070282153

 

Brill!

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

×
×
  • 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.