Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Of course Alamy claim that QC hasn't changed, but you and I and a bunch of the old lags know better by now.

Fortunately letters from jail are still published.

Edited by spacecadet
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Something else to keep in mind is that the more images you upload, and the more frequently you upload, the higher your chances of having a QC failure (statistically speaking). Contributors with small, relatively static collections probably have fewer ulcers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course Alamy claim that QC hasn't changed, but you and I and a bunch of the old lags know better by now.

Fortunately letters from jail are still published.

Lol, they can claim that 'til hell freezes over, but we know differently. And I think it's probably a good thing. (Probably emphasized).

The image count has increased from 6 million when I joined to what it is now. If QC hadn't tightened, how many more million would there be?

We all have seen our sales decrease because our images have to compete with so many others.

I do think the month waiting period for a failure is rather draconian. I think 2 weeks would serve just as well, and maybe encourage some of us to upload innovative, creative images. I paid a month in the Sin Bin for uploading an image I deliberatly added grain to, and said so in the description. I really could see that one in a magazine. Tough. Slap myself silly. Betty, you learned your lesson.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Something else to keep in mind is that the more images you upload, and the more frequently you upload, the higher your chances of having a QC failure (statistically speaking). Contributors with small, relatively static collections probably have fewer ulcers.

That logic reminds me of the driver who drives very fast because the risk of an accident depends on the amount of time you spend on the road.

Edited by Niels Quist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also realize QC doesn't check every single image (except mine, lol) so some questionable ones can still slip through. Overall, though, Alamy's recent collection is superior to the older one. The good thing is the filters provide buyers the ability to look only at the newer images if they choose, but they can still dig deep for gems in the older ones.

 

Betty

 

Betty,

 

You mention that the newer collection is superior of the older one because of new QC check. Keep in mind that Alamy doesn't look at the subject but at the technical quality. It is important that you have a sharp, low noise image at 100 percent size. If it is correct then you pass. I doesnt matter what you exactly photographed and how. The superior new images are growing in my opinion because the competition is getting stronger and everyone tries to surpass the other.

 

Mirco

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The other point to bear in mind is that we, as contributors, are educating the QC reviewers.  As technology improves and contributors aim for ever higher standards the quality of images seen by the reviewers will also be of a higher technical quality.  That's bound to train and influence their QC standards.  It may be a subtle increase in standards - but it has to be happening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Micro, John, good points. There is no doubt that the equipment we have bought recently turns out better images. For sure in the handling of noise.

I got some nice images from my Nikon D70, my first DSLR, but even shooting it on sunny days, at 200 ISO, I'd usually apply NR to skies.

I have to go to a high ISO now to get that level of noise. It wasn't bad, mind you, I just couldn't stand even small amounts.

 

And yes, I can see how these better images is retraining the QC people. Grading on the curve, and all that.

Edited by Betty LaRue

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Of course Alamy claim that QC hasn't changed, but you and I and a bunch of the old lags know better by now.

Fortunately letters from jail are still published.

Lol, they can claim that 'til hell freezes over, but we know differently. And I think it's probably a good thing. (Probably emphasized).

The image count has increased from 6 million when I joined to what it is now. If QC hadn't tightened, how many more million would there be?

We all have seen our sales decrease because our images have to compete with so many others.

I do think the month waiting period for a failure is rather draconian. I think 2 weeks would serve just as well, and maybe encourage some of us to upload innovative, creative images. I paid a month in the Sin Bin for uploading an image I deliberatly added grain to, and said so in the description. I really could see that one in a magazine. Tough. Slap myself silly. Betty, you learned your lesson.

 

 

I sold 41 images in 2013 and 77 in 2014..............

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Of course Alamy claim that QC hasn't changed, but you and I and a bunch of the old lags know better by now.

Fortunately letters from jail are still published.

 

Lol, they can claim that 'til hell freezes over, but we know differently. And I think it's probably a good thing. (Probably emphasized).

The image count has increased from 6 million when I joined to what it is now. If QC hadn't tightened, how many more million would there be?We all have seen our sales decrease because our images have to compete with so many others.

I do think the month waiting period for a failure is rather draconian. I think 2 weeks would serve just as well, and maybe encourage some of us to upload innovative, creative images. I paid a month in the Sin Bin for uploading an image I deliberatly added grain to, and said so in the description. I really could see that one in a magazine. Tough. Slap myself silly. Betty, you learned your lesson.

 

I sold 41 images in 2013 and 77 in 2014..............

I would imagine you are in the minority. Least wise according to some of the past threads where most of us report the opposite.

Of course, this depends on subject, you who identify or have the opportunity to shoot what buyers want will surely have the upper hand in sales.

Hats off to you. How many new images did you add in 2014?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Of course Alamy claim that QC hasn't changed, but you and I and a bunch of the old lags know better by now.

Fortunately letters from jail are still published.

Lol, they can claim that 'til hell freezes over, but we know differently. And I think it's probably a good thing. (Probably emphasized).

The image count has increased from 6 million when I joined to what it is now. If QC hadn't tightened, how many more million would there be?We all have seen our sales decrease because our images have to compete with so many others.

I do think the month waiting period for a failure is rather draconian. I think 2 weeks would serve just as well, and maybe encourage some of us to upload innovative, creative images. I paid a month in the Sin Bin for uploading an image I deliberatly added grain to, and said so in the description. I really could see that one in a magazine. Tough. Slap myself silly. Betty, you learned your lesson.

 

I sold 41 images in 2013 and 77 in 2014..............

I would imagine you are in the minority. Least wise according to some of the past threads where most of us report the opposite.

Of course, this depends on subject, you who identify or have the opportunity to shoot what buyers want will surely have the upper hand in sales.

Hats off to you. How many new images did you add in 2014?

 

 

1091, so a 27% increase in images over the year but an 87% increase in sales.

 

I'll probably sell less this year now saying that!

 

John.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having just been let out I think I need a positive method for QC too.  I am thinking that as my late fails are down to images of plant life generally I need a new camera/sensor system to overcome the vagaries of the Fuji sensor. :(

 

Don't get me wrong I love the fuji but it just does not seem to cut it, for me at least, for foliage/flowers etc. I know Betty uses hers for plants/flowers though. Hmmm! :wacko:

 

Allan

Edited by Allan Bell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ack, Allan. And you are against (as I am) trying alternate software for development, yes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not familiar with fuji. Are you getting smeared detail with plants?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having just been let out I think I need a positive method for QC too.  I am thinking that as my late fails are down to images of plant life generally I need a new camera/sensor system to overcome the vagaries of the Fuji sensor. :(

 

Don't get me wrong I love the fuji but it just does not seem to cut it, for me at least, for foliage/flowers etc. I know Betty uses hers for plants/flowers though. Hmmm! :wacko:

 

Allan

 

Which lens are you using for plant life?  I'm using the 18-135, have recently used the new 50-140.  I have used the 56mm, but prefer the longer zooms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Betty, I am using the 18-135 and the 55-200. Have used primes too but can get closer with zooms although at the expense of DOF.

 

I think the fails tend to be with the 55-200.

 

Allan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Betty, I am using the 18-135 and the 55-200. Have used primes too but can get closer with zooms although at the expense of DOF.

 

I think the fails tend to be with the 55-200.

 

Allan

I see, I have no experience with the 55-200.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing I've notcied more recently than ever, is how shooting at anywhere near f16 creates really soft images.

I was shooting with the 24-105mm Canon L lens.

Great at f8, and f11, but shockingly soft at 100% using f16.

 

Something to note for future shoots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing I've notcied more recently than ever, is how shooting at anywhere near f16 creates really soft images.

I was shooting with the 24-105mm Canon L lens.

Great at f8, and f11, but shockingly soft at 100% using f16.

 

Something to note for future shoots.

 

Diffraction is a general problem. Yes, diffraction on this lens isn't noticeable at f11, I use it myself.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, diffraction can be a killer. It starts to get quite noticeable at f/11 with my lenses. I try to shoot at f/5.6 to f/8 whenever possible for best overall sharpness, especially if the image is destined for Alamy. Fortunately, APS-C and other smaller-sized sensors mean increased depth of field.

Edited by John Mitchell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many of my images on Alamy that I shot with a Canon 5D (mk I) and 24-105L were shot at f16. Maybe I should have kept that lens.

 

But I'm all Sony mirrorless now anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Canon 24-105L was severely criticized by some for CA and soft corners at some settings, but I like it as a favourite walk-around lens when my 16-35 or 70-200 is not needed.

Edited by Niels Quist
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many of my images on Alamy that I shot with a Canon 5D (mk I) and 24-105L were shot at f16. Maybe I should have kept that lens.

 

Ditto the Canon lens.

 

Allan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always tend to shoot f8 though will go to f11 at times never f16 with the Fuji lenses. Of course I do shoot with lower f stops too.

 

Allan

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.