QC failures

[Rex]

From time to time I've stumbled on various sites where people were grumbling about the tight lines taken by the QC people at Alamy, and I've thought these people must be really careless with their images as I've had very few failures in the 1000+ pictures I have on the site, but hey, I'm there now. Failure after failure for weeks on end mostly without any reason given .  Where do I go from here. I guess the answer is somewhere else !.

[Inchiquin]

One of your images will have been given a reason for failure.

 

Alan

[Russell]

Are you resubmitting without changing the offending image?

[John Mitchell]

I've found that if you e-mail member services, they will often send you a more detailed explanation of why a particular image has failed, sometimes accompanied by a 100% crop. It's worth a try if you haven't done so already.

[dov makabaw]

When I first started out my kit was on the approved list but I had the odd failure. Once I upgraded my kit I never had another failure. I also started reviewing my pics at 100% before submission. As you haven't shared the reason for failure it is difficult to help.

 

 

dov

[Rex]

They havn't been given a reason for failure this time.(Russell) They weren't a re submission at all. Totally fresh photos. Previously I emailed them and they said one image lacked definition . It was taken on a misty morning and meant to be 'soft' .

 My opinion is that Alamy are sorting out the 'second division' by failing submissions hoping people will stop submitting.  I accept I'm in that league . Payment for stock pictures these days is minute so I won't get into a sweat about it. . My print sales income far exceeds what I can earn from stock and no one cares what camera I use if they like the photograph.  (dov) I used a 20D for 'walk about' recently and although it's on the approved list virtually all images failed .

[spacecadet]

It's unusual for no reason to be given; I've never had it, although I do have complaints recently about not all fails being marked.

There's no second division. You have to be careful with mist- there are threads about it here. 'Meant to be soft' won't do- there must be some centre of attention which is sharp. If your images are being failed they're not meeting QC, it's as simple as that. Having an 'approved' camera is only a starting point.

[Rex]

Totally disagree about something having to be sharp Vulcan .  I use several cameras on the approved list but your right it's not about the camera .

[spacecadet]

You may disagree but QC don't!

[Inchiquin]

On the rare occasions I've had a failure, the failed image has always been first in the list with the rejection reason in the right-hand column.

 

Alan

[Jill Morgan]

It's unusual for no reason to be given; I've never had it, although I do have complaints recently about not all fails being marked.

There's no second division. You have to be careful with mist- there are threads about it here. 'Meant to be soft' won't do- there must be some centre of attention which is sharp. If your images are being failed they're not meeting QC, it's as simple as that. Having an 'approved' camera is only a starting point.

 

I have submitted many fog and mist shots, and was the one awhile ago who started a thread about it before submitting them. Happens to be one of my favourite subjects if I"m up early enough. None of my fog shots have failed, but the fog and mist is very prevalent. It is hard to have sharp fog. Here is one that just passed QC yesterday:

 

 

Again, difficult for anyone to say why you failed unless we see an offending image. I have only had one failure, but they don't tell you which one in the email. You have to check in your submissions list and click on the media reference number. It will tell you exactly which one failed and why. All photos are failed if one does as they stop checking.

 

Jill

[John Mitchell]

So why does one person's fog picture pass QC and another one's doesn't? It would be helpful to know what judging criteria are being used.

[spacecadet]

On the rare occasions I've had a failure, the failed image has always been first in the list with the rejection reason in the right-hand column.

 

Alan

Lately I've been getting a reason for the first image, as usual, but then the resub has also failed on different images not originally identified. This is new.

[John Mitchell]

 

On the rare occasions I've had a failure, the failed image has always been first in the list with the rejection reason in the right-hand column.

 

Alan

Lately I've been getting a reason for the first image, as usual, but then the resub has also failed on different images not originally identified. This is new.

 

 

Were they failing for the same reason as the first image?

[MDM]

In my experience, as Space Cadet says, there has to be something sharp in the image. That is based on a single fail some years back of a misty image that was definitely in focus front to back but had nothing sharp in the image to demonstrate that. I had been very reluctant to submit misty images but have recently had several pass - in all there was something sharp like a foreground plant or a background mountain. 

 

Of course, the fact that an image passes QC does not necessarily prove that it would pass every time as they do not examine every image.

[spacecadet]

 

 

On the rare occasions I've had a failure, the failed image has always been first in the list with the rejection reason in the right-hand column.

 

Alan

Lately I've been getting a reason for the first image, as usual, but then the resub has also failed on different images not originally identified. This is new.

 

 

Were they failing for the same reason as the first image?

 

No.

QC seems to be  what the Americans would call a crapshoot at the moment.

[MDM]

Perhaps it is the case that once you fail once, then the scrutiny gets harder and if you fail twice or more in a row, it gets even harder - a downward spiral feedback thing.

[Joe Gaul]

Some time ago my pics were repeatedly rejected by QC when using the Canon 20d to the extent that I gave up submitting to Alamy for a while and went to the dark (microstock) side where I still coexist. The addition of a 60d seems to have largely rectified the problem, and I love the flip out screen for tripod macro work. The 60d certainly gives a cleaner image and allows more post processing; especially low light stuff when the 20d could be guilty of banding. I guess technology and QC both move on and we need to keep up.

[John Mitchell]

Perhaps it is the case that once you fail once, then the scrutiny gets harder and if you fail twice or more in a row, it gets even harder - a downward spiral feedback thing.

 

Yup, that seems to be the case.

[John Mitchell]

 

 

 

On the rare occasions I've had a failure, the failed image has always been first in the list with the rejection reason in the right-hand column.

 

Alan

Lately I've been getting a reason for the first image, as usual, but then the resub has also failed on different images not originally identified. This is new.

 

 

Were they failing for the same reason as the first image?

 

No.

QC seems to be  what the Americans would call a crapshoot at the moment.

 

 

I guess it's time to go out and spend all that profit we're making on a wheelbarrow full of Zeiss lenses.

[dov makabaw]

They havn't been given a reason for failure this time.(Russell) They weren't a re submission at all. Totally fresh photos. Previously I emailed them and they said one image lacked definition . It was taken on a misty morning and meant to be 'soft' .

 My opinion is that Alamy are sorting out the 'second division' by failing submissions hoping people will stop submitting.  I accept I'm in that league . Payment for stock pictures these days is minute so I won't get into a sweat about it. . My print sales income far exceeds what I can earn from stock and no one cares what camera I use if they like the photograph.  (dov) I used a 20D for 'walk about' recently and although it's on the approved list virtually all images failed .

 

I suspect that the 20D may be at the limit of acceptable quality. Check out Joe Gaul's experiences above. I can only repeat - when I upgraded my kit all my QC issues disappeared.

 

dov

[spacecadet]

Mine isn't a kit issue. No change in 2 years.

[Tonywiles]

I upgraded my kit to a Nikon D800E and all my QC problems began.

[MDM]

I upgraded my kit to a Nikon D800E and all my QC problems began.

This happened to me but only on my first submission after upgrading. I was really surprised but when I looked at what I had submitted I know I was at fault. I screwed up with my hyperocal focusing which I have used on every other camera I've ever had. That was over 2 years ago and I've so far not had another failure. You can't treat the D800 and relatives as you would a smaller megapixel camera. They need special care in focusing and very good quality lenses. I did my own focus tests and learned how to use the camera - supersharp images with amazing detail with the right lenses and technique. I can't imagine using anything else now.

[dustydingo]

 

I upgraded my kit to a Nikon D800E and all my QC problems began.

This happened to me but only on my first submission after upgrading. I was really surprised but when I looked at what I had submitted I know I was at fault. I screwed up with my hyperocal focusing which I have used on every other camera I've ever had. That was over 2 years ago and I've so far not had another failure. You can't treat the D800 and relatives as you would a smaller megapixel camera. They need special care in focusing and very good quality lenses. I did my own focus tests and learned how to use the camera - supersharp images with amazing detail with the right lenses and technique. I can't imagine using anything else now.

 

 

Michael, you initially experienced what a few of my compatriots experienced after purchasing the D800--thankfully for them, they, like you, worked out what was going on and adjusted. If ever a camera was designed to underline the relative importance of technique over equipment, this is it :-)

 

dd