spacecadet Posted May 10, 2015 Share Posted May 10, 2015 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted May 10, 2015 Share Posted May 10, 2015 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Betty LaRue Posted May 10, 2015 Author Share Posted May 10, 2015 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Niels Quist Posted May 10, 2015 Share Posted May 10, 2015 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MircoV Posted May 10, 2015 Share Posted May 10, 2015 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Richmond Posted May 10, 2015 Share Posted May 10, 2015 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Betty LaRue Posted May 11, 2015 Author Share Posted May 11, 2015 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stokie Posted May 11, 2015 Share Posted May 11, 2015 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.............. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Betty LaRue Posted May 11, 2015 Author Share Posted May 11, 2015 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stokie Posted May 12, 2015 Share Posted May 12, 2015 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allan Bell Posted May 12, 2015 Share Posted May 12, 2015 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! Allan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Betty LaRue Posted May 12, 2015 Author Share Posted May 12, 2015 Ack, Allan. And you are against (as I am) trying alternate software for development, yes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allan Bell Posted May 12, 2015 Share Posted May 12, 2015 Yes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted May 12, 2015 Share Posted May 12, 2015 I'm not familiar with fuji. Are you getting smeared detail with plants? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Betty LaRue Posted May 13, 2015 Author Share Posted May 13, 2015 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! 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allan Bell Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Betty LaRue Posted May 16, 2015 Author Share Posted May 16, 2015 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christopher Holt Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Niels Quist Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Niels Quist Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/8304/what-is-a-diffraction-limit Not necessarily vouching for everything in it, though.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Kuta Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Niels Quist Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allan Bell Posted May 19, 2015 Share Posted May 19, 2015 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allan Bell Posted May 19, 2015 Share Posted May 19, 2015 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.