DDoug Posted February 17, 2015 Share Posted February 17, 2015 LinCG, Actually, my comments about CA had to do with Pentax RAW files converted in Silkypix 3 and the ACR of the day (2008). I was using a 16-45mm lens which was decent enough aside from massive amounts of CA which needed to be corrected. Fuji lenses don't have much CA to worry about and I'm using RAW only as a back-up. The JPEG files are well corrected. Currently I'm using Silkypix 6, which is a significant improvement over the earlier versions. No doubt the latest Adobe product is much improved also, but once I find something that works for me I lose my curiosity about the alternatives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Jarvis Posted February 20, 2015 Share Posted February 20, 2015 Further to my first comment in this thread - Not yet uploaded any photos - I took the plunge and sent in my first 4 test images. If I understand correctly, all four get refused if just one is below requirements. I had them refused with a comment on one being too soft, which I can understand. I took the photo of something that was my subject with quite a narrow depth of field so a lot of the rest of the image is just not sharp, perfect for my album but not for Alamy. No other photo had a comment so I think I am correct in assuming that I need to replace just one and the other three can be uploaded again next time. Yes? One out of three "ain't" bad for a beginner. Thanks very much, Rex. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NYCat Posted February 20, 2015 Share Posted February 20, 2015 Yes, you are correct. They look at all on first submission and mark all that are not OK. Paulette Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P_D_R Posted February 22, 2015 Share Posted February 22, 2015 Hi all - first post to the forum; I too am deliberating what on earth Alamy actually means by some of their QC requirements. I'm not a pro, I'm an enthusiastic hobbyist and learning as I go. I use LR4 exclusively for cataloguing DNGs and editing; shooting is done with a Canon 7D in RAW, using some EF-S lenses but primarily a Tamron AF17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II LD Aspherical. I've also taken to hiring 'L' spec telephoto lenses for much of the wildlife work. I have had some 'issues' with unpredictable missed focus and I'm hoping the full-reset fix is going to be effective. This is one of the things that concerns me - missed focus - and I bin quite a few of my images as a result. So, exporting a DNG, unedited, to a separate folder within LR4 adds sharpening by default. Is this acceptable? It seems this is still being debated. How much 'editing' is allowed? Presumably adding lens correction, vignetting adjustment and such is permitted? How about graduated filtering, correction brushed adjustments to exposure? Any split toning allowed? I can't imagine submitting flat, limited contrast and soft SOOC images would be acceptable to anyone. They're not to me, which is why I edit. I note there's an LR Export Plugin, at a not-inconsiderable cost, which can be added to take care of these concerns and export directly to the Alamy account from within LR. Does anyone use this? Can I build my own export plugin to do the same or similar? I guess it'll take a little time for this post to show with it being my first one... cheers all. Paul Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecadet Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 I don't mean to be unfriendly but this is a professional forum and you are asking basic questions which everyone has gone through when starting, or moving over to, digital. We learned them by trial and error, or from books, or tutorials. In many cases this knowledge was paid for. Some of it goes back to college and that, of course, was paid for. There is a limit to what professionals will give away to a competitor. You will probably need to do the groundwork yourself first and come back when you have specific queries. The basic answer is that you may do anything which does not introduce artefacts which cause your images to fail QC. Sorry if that sounds facetious but we have all learned what is permissible, some of us the hard way, and QC is a moving target. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dustydingo Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 The basic answer is that you may do anything which does not introduce artefacts which cause your images to fail QC. Sorry if that sounds facetious but we have all learned what is permissible, some of us the hard way, and QC is a moving target. . . . wel l l l l ... that's ever-so-slightly misleading. For example, as far as sharpening goes, it's possible to sharpen an image to an amount just short of leaving visible artefacts, but that would ultimately prove to be unacceptable if, when licensed, the purchaser applies their own tiny little bit of "extra" sharpening . . . suddenly the image, even with a very small amount of customer-initiated sharpening, would be awash with artefacts due to the cumulative effect of yours and the customer's sharpening. In fact, Alamy used to explain the reason for their no-sharpening requirement exactly so, I'm not sure if they still do. And I believe it's also misleading to make the absolute statement that "QC is a moving target" . . . many of us find that not to be the case. dd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecadet Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 The basic answer is that you may do anything which does not introduce artefacts which cause your images to fail QC. Sorry if that sounds facetious but we have all learned what is permissible, some of us the hard way, and QC is a moving target. . . . wel l l l l ... that's ever-so-slightly misleading. For example, as far as sharpening goes, it's possible to sharpen an image to an amount just short of leaving visible artefacts, but that would ultimately prove to be unacceptable if, when licensed, the purchaser applies their own tiny little bit of "extra" sharpening . . . suddenly the image, even with a very small amount of customer-initiated sharpening, would be awash with artefacts due to the cumulative effect of yours and the customer's sharpening. In fact, Alamy used to explain the reason for their no-sharpening requirement exactly so, I'm not sure if they still do. And I believe it's also misleading to make the absolute statement that "QC is a moving target" . . . many of us find that not to be the case. dd I didn't refer to sharpening. But then I don't do it so can't comment. I can't find a better explanation after a year of problems following 5 years without. It's moving for me, then. Will that do? Not sure it would be helpful to preface every statement with 'in my opinion and experience'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dustydingo Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 The basic answer is that you may do anything which does not introduce artefacts which cause your images to fail QC. Sorry if that sounds facetious but we have all learned what is permissible, some of us the hard way, and QC is a moving target. . . . wel l l l l ... that's ever-so-slightly misleading. For example, as far as sharpening goes, it's possible to sharpen an image to an amount just short of leaving visible artefacts, but that would ultimately prove to be unacceptable if, when licensed, the purchaser applies their own tiny little bit of "extra" sharpening . . . suddenly the image, even with a very small amount of customer-initiated sharpening, would be awash with artefacts due to the cumulative effect of yours and the customer's sharpening. In fact, Alamy used to explain the reason for their no-sharpening requirement exactly so, I'm not sure if they still do. And I believe it's also misleading to make the absolute statement that "QC is a moving target" . . . many of us find that not to be the case. dd I didn't refer to sharpening. But then I don't do it so can't comment.I can't find a better explanation after a year of problems following 5 years without. It's moving for me, then. Will that do? Well, to be fair, you did say "do anything" . . . sharpening probably comes somewhere within "anything" . . . And of course you can write what you want, all I said was it's misleading to make such an absolute statement when for some of us it's simply not the case. And (again), saying, as you now do, that you think that for you it's a moving target is indisputable, as is me saying for me it's not. Just making sure newbies don't get the wrong idea :-) dd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MDM Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 I don't mean to be unfriendly but this is a professional forum and you are asking basic questions which everyone has gone through when starting, or moving over to, digital. We learned them by trial and error, or from books, or tutorials. In many cases this knowledge was paid for. Some of it goes back to college and that, of course, was paid for. There is a limit to what professionals will give away to a competitor. You will probably need to do the groundwork yourself first and come back when you have specific queries. The basic answer is that you may do anything which does not introduce artefacts which cause your images to fail QC. Sorry if that sounds facetious but we have all learned what is permissible, some of us the hard way, and QC is a moving target. I would also question the professional forum assertion. Alamy has a great mixed bag of photographers from full-time pros, part-timers, retired pros and all manner of others with varied knowledge and skill levels. I don't think it's an issue sharing technical knowledge - it's more a matter of time answering questions, especially a barrage of questions as from P_D_R which have been discussed in full very recently. One thing is for sure though- this forum is not the place to learn photography. Before submitting on Alamy, one should have the basic skill level to take and post-process an image which meets Alamy standards - these are not high and have not been moving for me either. It is really surprising to me that any professional would frequently fail Alamy QC. Given your experience in photography, it must be your equipment that is at fault. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Jarvis Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 I have to admit that as a total beginner here and an amateur photographer I was under the impression this was a forum open to everyone and had I received the above reply to my very first question it would have certainly put me off coming back. Which is a shame because some of us are here to learn, not to be shot at by those who are better informed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Niels Quist Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 It is really surprising to me that any professional would frequently fail Alamy QC. Given your experience in photography, it must be your equipment that is at fault. I remember having heard about more than one experienced, professionel photographer moan about the raised bar, delivering SoLD images repeatedly in the admission batch. Earlier you would probably be able to make a living without delivering tack sharp focused images all the time. Professional, digital image agencies made an end to this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DDoug Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 It is also true that for decades many pro shooters had long since stopped doing darkroom work. Pro labs handled the processing and everything to do with color separation and printing happened on the client side. The photographer needed only to know how to shoot a sharp, well exposed transparency and to judge those aspects on a light table. Along comes digital and we're responsible for knowing as much about the fine points of imaging as a printing production manager. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecadet Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 . Given your experience in photography, it must be your equipment that is at fault. It isn't. I had a new body 6 months before and had hundreds of images accepted from it before the current problems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecadet Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 I have to admit that as a total beginner here and an amateur photographer I was under the impression this was a forum open to everyone and had I received the above reply to my very first question it would have certainly put me off coming back. Which is a shame because some of us are here to learn, not to be shot at by those who are better informed. Fair comment but this isn't really the place for detailed tutorials on the basics. Arguably someone who can no longer pass QC regularly anyway isn't the best source of advice. But I used to be able to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MDM Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 It is really surprising to me that any professional would frequently fail Alamy QC. Given your experience in photography, it must be your equipment that is at fault. I remember having heard about more than one experienced, professionel photographer moan about the raised bar, delivering SoLD images repeatedly in the admission batch. Earlier you would probably be able to make a living without delivering tack sharp focused images all the time. Professional, digital image agencies made an end to this. Frequently was the operative word here. An occasional fail is understandable but repeatedly failing indicates that something is seriously wrong, either with equipment and/or technique. Any experienced photographer (pro or amateur) should be able to deliver a sharp, in-focus image to a client or a stock agency with absolute confidence. Imagine shooting a wedding and not producing the goods. The technical side is just the basis for the rest - the starting point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MDM Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 . Given your experience in photography, it must be your equipment that is at fault. It isn't. I had a new body 6 months before and had hundreds of images accepted from it before the current problems. If it's not the gear, then it must be technique, either taking or post-processing. Alamy may have raised the bar a bit but not so much that an experienced photographer like you should fail frequently as you have been reporting on the forum. If it's not your gear, then maybe it's time to try shooting raw. With Lightroom properly set up, it doesn't take any longer to check images and do some basic post-processing than for in-camera jpegs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 . Given your experience in photography, it must be your equipment that is at fault. It isn't. I had a new body 6 months before and had hundreds of images accepted from it before the current problems. If it's not the gear, then it must be technique, either taking or post-processing. Alamy may have raised the bar a bit but not so much that an experienced photographer like you should fail frequently as you have been reporting on the forum. If it's not your gear, then maybe it's time to try shooting raw. With Lightroom properly set up, it doesn't take any longer to check images and do some basic post-processing than for in-camera jpegs. After over six years of successful uploading, I too started having QC problems just over a year ago and had to reassess what I was doing. I realized that we "old timers" now have to be much more careful about what we submit. Many images that used to sail though QC no longer will. This probably has a lot to do with advances in camera technology and processing software raising QC expectations. Happy to say that I now seem to have gotten myself back on track. The process was frustrating at first, but it actually turned out to be a very worthwhile re-learning experience. Regarding in-camera JPEGs, I haven't found them to be a problem, especially in good lighting. Today's cameras are capable of producing excellent JPEGs. However, I've now gone back to shooting in RAW most of the time, mainly because of better noise control and the ability to adjust lighting and recover highlights, all of which I missed. So far so good (touch wood)... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MDM Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 Regarding in-camera JPEGs, I haven't found them to be a problem, especially in good lighting. Today's cameras are capable of producing excellent JPEGs. However, I've now gone back to shooting in RAW most of the time, mainly because of better noise control and the ability to adjust lighting and recover highlights, all of which I missed. I'm sure that many cameras produce good to excellent quality jpegs and I'm sure that many still don't but that is not really the main point. Without going off on a long discourse which I can easily do on this subject, raw gives far more options in post-processing. Shooting jpeg only cuts off many options at source. I'm not saying that shooting jpeg only is the reason for the demise of spacecadet at the QC stage, but it is certainly worth considering among other things. I know if I started failing QC, then I would be quite dismayed but I would rapidly examine all the likely causes and try to rectify. Taking a sharp, in-focus image should be the least of our problems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 I'm not saying that shooting jpeg only is the reason for the demise of spacecadet at the QC stage, but it is certainly worth considering among other things. I know if I started failing QC, then I would be quite dismayed but I would rapidly examine all the likely causes and try to rectify. Taking a sharp, in-focus image should be the least of our problems. I agree, it should be the least of our worries. In-focus in the "right" places is much more important than overall sharpness IME. Even a budget lens can deliver in the focus department. Some of my problems arose from ambiguous main points of focus. The camera I currently use tends to back-focus, which was something I didn't realize when I first started using it. I've learned the hard way to be on the lookout for this and to switch to spot AF or manual focusing in tricky situations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MDM Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 I agree, it should be the least of our worries. In-focus in the "right" places is much more important than overall sharpness IME. Even a budget lens can deliver in the focus department. Some of my problems arose from ambiguous main points of focus. The camera I currently use tends to back-focus, which was something I didn't realize when I first started using it. I've learned the hard way to be on the lookout for this and to switch to spot AF or manual focusing in tricky situations. Yes that is a good point. Most of my stuff is landscape and is sharp front to back and I know exactly what I am doing when I focus - I use hyperfocal distances with lens barrel markings tested myself for high accuracy. I use the viewfinder for composing but not for focusing my landscapes - great as well because my eyesight is not as good as it used to be. If it's not sharp, then it is because of blur in the scene or camera shake. I failed a few QCs in my early days, mostly due to my own sloppiness, but the sinbin is an efficient if very annoying teacher. Alamy has trained me to obsessively high standards of sharpness. However, I've recently started to do close-ups of plants and that is a lot more difficult, both taking the pictures and judging sharpness on the monitor. It tends to be very time-consuming as well, picking the best of several shots for focus. But so far so good with QC and my close-ups. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DDoug Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 Focus problems were the primary reason why I changed cameras a year ago. In addition to my inability to shim the screen properly, there was a lot of struggle with residual spherical aberration and guessing how much of a fudge factor was needed to compensate for the resulting back focus. Using a mirrorless camera does away with the screen problems, and Fuji lenses are remarkably free from RSA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecadet Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 I'm grateful for the suggestions.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P_D_R Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 I don't mean to be unfriendly but this is a professional forum and you are asking basic questions which everyone has gone through when starting, or moving over to, digital. We learned them by trial and error, or from books, or tutorials. In many cases this knowledge was paid for. Some of it goes back to college and that, of course, was paid for. There is a limit to what professionals will give away to a competitor. You will probably need to do the groundwork yourself first and come back when you have specific queries. The basic answer is that you may do anything which does not introduce artefacts which cause your images to fail QC. Sorry if that sounds facetious but we have all learned what is permissible, some of us the hard way, and QC is a moving target. I'm so glad you're not unfriendly. If there's no advice on offer, why the forum? Gloating? We've all got to start somewhere. Digital photography isn't new to me, Alamy is. Feel free to point me to where these basics are covered as I thought I'd been quite specific in pointing out where the basics had not answered my query. I don't mean to be unfriendly but this is a professional forum and you are asking basic questions which everyone has gone through when starting, or moving over to, digital. We learned them by trial and error, or from books, or tutorials. In many cases this knowledge was paid for. Some of it goes back to college and that, of course, was paid for. There is a limit to what professionals will give away to a competitor. You will probably need to do the groundwork yourself first and come back when you have specific queries. The basic answer is that you may do anything which does not introduce artefacts which cause your images to fail QC. Sorry if that sounds facetious but we have all learned what is permissible, some of us the hard way, and QC is a moving target. I would also question the professional forum assertion. Alamy has a great mixed bag of photographers from full-time pros, part-timers, retired pros and all manner of others with varied knowledge and skill levels. I don't think it's an issue sharing technical knowledge - it's more a matter of time answering questions, especially a barrage of questions as from P_D_R which have been discussed in full very recently. One thing is for sure though- this forum is not the place to learn photography. Before submitting on Alamy, one should have the basic skill level to take and post-process an image which meets Alamy standards - these are not high and have not been moving for me either. It is really surprising to me that any professional would frequently fail Alamy QC. Given your experience in photography, it must be your equipment that is at fault. My thinking was that info offered had posed more questions than it answered. Sorry for the barrage of ridiculous questions which, I thought, related specifically to Alamy, the detail of which hadn't been answered previously. I'll carry on my own research - there are dozens of similar threads on the board so I'm not the only one who doesn't 'get it'. I have to admit that as a total beginner here and an amateur photographer I was under the impression this was a forum open to everyone and had I received the above reply to my very first question it would have certainly put me off coming back. Which is a shame because some of us are here to learn, not to be shot at by those who are better informed. I did wonder Rex... not sure I'll bother in future. Thanks to anyone who took the time. I'll sort it out on my own without stepping on the toes of "competitors". #insertsuitableexpletivehere I'd really like to make a couple of ££ so I can justify spending the ££££'s on lenses without rousing the wrath-of-wife. Ho-hum. Life's rich tapestry, eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dustydingo Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 I don't mean to be unfriendly but this is a professional forum and you are asking basic questions which everyone has gone through when starting, or moving over to, digital. We learned them by trial and error, or from books, or tutorials. In many cases this knowledge was paid for. Some of it goes back to college and that, of course, was paid for. There is a limit to what professionals will give away to a competitor. You will probably need to do the groundwork yourself first and come back when you have specific queries. The basic answer is that you may do anything which does not introduce artefacts which cause your images to fail QC. Sorry if that sounds facetious but we have all learned what is permissible, some of us the hard way, and QC is a moving target. I'm so glad you're not unfriendly. If there's no advice on offer, why the forum? Gloating? We've all got to start somewhere. Digital photography isn't new to me, Alamy is. Feel free to point me to where these basics are covered as I thought I'd been quite specific in pointing out where the basics had not answered my query. I don't mean to be unfriendly but this is a professional forum and you are asking basic questions which everyone has gone through when starting, or moving over to, digital. We learned them by trial and error, or from books, or tutorials. In many cases this knowledge was paid for. Some of it goes back to college and that, of course, was paid for. There is a limit to what professionals will give away to a competitor. You will probably need to do the groundwork yourself first and come back when you have specific queries. The basic answer is that you may do anything which does not introduce artefacts which cause your images to fail QC. Sorry if that sounds facetious but we have all learned what is permissible, some of us the hard way, and QC is a moving target. I would also question the professional forum assertion. Alamy has a great mixed bag of photographers from full-time pros, part-timers, retired pros and all manner of others with varied knowledge and skill levels. I don't think it's an issue sharing technical knowledge - it's more a matter of time answering questions, especially a barrage of questions as from P_D_R which have been discussed in full very recently. One thing is for sure though- this forum is not the place to learn photography. Before submitting on Alamy, one should have the basic skill level to take and post-process an image which meets Alamy standards - these are not high and have not been moving for me either. It is really surprising to me that any professional would frequently fail Alamy QC. Given your experience in photography, it must be your equipment that is at fault. My thinking was that info offered had posed more questions than it answered. Sorry for the barrage of ridiculous questions which, I thought, related specifically to Alamy, the detail of which hadn't been answered previously. I'll carry on my own research - there are dozens of similar threads on the board so I'm not the only one who doesn't 'get it'. I have to admit that as a total beginner here and an amateur photographer I was under the impression this was a forum open to everyone and had I received the above reply to my very first question it would have certainly put me off coming back. Which is a shame because some of us are here to learn, not to be shot at by those who are better informed. I did wonder Rex... not sure I'll bother in future. Thanks to anyone who took the time. I'll sort it out on my own without stepping on the toes of "competitors". #insertsuitableexpletivehere I'd really like to make a couple of ££ so I can justify spending the ££££'s on lenses without rousing the wrath-of-wife. Ho-hum. Life's rich tapestry, eh? You really do need to re-read MDM's post--you said "barrage of ridiculous questions" . . . MDM said "barrage of questions" . . . see the difference? MDM was actually supporting you, and offering a mild rebuke to the original post you (rightly) took exception to. LIfe's tapestry is rich enough without having to be distorted to prove a point, no? dd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P_D_R Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 Accepted, my mistake. I suppose the barrage of questions made my post feel ridiculous. 3rd attempt at passing QC under way... Rapidly approaching the conclusion that my EF-S 55-250 is just too soft at the long end without 'help' in post-processing. I'll get there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.