Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I do that with a saturation brush or a grad in LR.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most of the photographers who are constantly changing technique and undertaking a lot of PP on this forum are doing so, according to them, to squeeze past Alamy QC. (How many lately are complaining about being in the sin bin?).  Their problems are not caused by their lack of ability, far from it, but mostly, I think by using equipment that just about 'does the job', but sadly, not always. Of course there are photographers that undertake huge amounts of PP and manipulation for 'creative effect' but you can bet that they also have first class equipment and have honed their basic techniques first and worked up from there. Nothing much has changed here from film and darkroom days. All the photographers who enjoyed extensive darkroom manipulation also had very sound basic techniques which they just expanded. 

 

What I hear is that a lot of contributors are using PP to create more fetching images that wil attract buyers' attention.  CA, noise, distortion and other corrections are pretty basic, and hardly merit the term 'post processing'.  QC standards here are also pretty basic, and many are getting through without any trouble at all, using cropped-frame cameras, kit lenses and so on.  At some other agencies, used mainly by professionals, standards are somewhat higher.  But there you have someone to talk to.  The problem here is that photographers are left out in the cold, with the result that many become very inhibited and afraid to experiment.  

 

For some contibutors, a ten minute chat with someone on the QC team would sort their problems out.  But crowd-sourcing systems don't work like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Most of the photographers who are constantly changing technique and undertaking a lot of PP on this forum are doing so, according to them, to squeeze past Alamy QC. (How many lately are complaining about being in the sin bin?).  Their problems are not caused by their lack of ability, far from it, but mostly, I think by using equipment that just about 'does the job', but sadly, not always. Of course there are photographers that undertake huge amounts of PP and manipulation for 'creative effect' but you can bet that they also have first class equipment and have honed their basic techniques first and worked up from there. Nothing much has changed here from film and darkroom days. All the photographers who enjoyed extensive darkroom manipulation also had very sound basic techniques which they just expanded. 

 

What I hear is that a lot of contributors are using PP to create more fetching images that wil attract buyers' attention.  CA, noise, distortion and other corrections are pretty basic, and hardly merit the term 'post processing'.  QC standards here are also pretty basic, and many are getting through without any trouble at all, using cropped-frame cameras, kit lenses and so on.  At some other agencies, used mainly by professionals, standards are somewhat higher.  But there you have someone to talk to.  The problem here is that photographers are left out in the cold, with the result that many become very inhibited and afraid to experiment.  

 

For some contibutors, a ten minute chat with someone on the QC team would sort their problems out.  But crowd-sourcing systems don't work like that.

 

 

Agreed Robert. As far as I'm concerned, I've been taking photos for quite a while now, I don't need to muck around in PS to pass QC for goodness sake--if an image isn't technically up-to-scratch, I don't submit it--it sure as heck ain't brain surgery . . .  but I often work on an image to maximise its appeal (as I see it) to buyers, or to myself. As with many here, I'll use PP or Capture NX2 (just love control points) to improve an image, not to pass QC.

 

It's my observation that some who proclaim the benefits of batch-processing are well represented amongst those who regularly fall foul of QC, not those of us who seek to improve an image's aesthetic appeal.

 

dd

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What are the size of your uploads? 10-20 each, more? Do you feel, for QC purposes, the advantage lies one way or the other?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My work flow is similar to yours Betty including the view at 100% many time over.

 

Despite that I have been put in the clink again as from 8th. :angry:

 

That makes THREE times since end of February. I am becoming rather disillusioned with it all. Thinking of throwing the Fuji gear and going to something different.

 

It all hinges around RAW image quality out of the camera.

 

Sorry to go off topic.

.

 

Allan

Not sure what is happening with your images, Allan. There are many of us using Fuji with no problems. Even now, when I have a fail, it is from another system mixed in. And, lol, the fact that I'm overdue for an eye exam. I truly think I'm missing things, visually. I can tell by my trouble reading fine print with my readers, which is what I use for PP.

90% of my stock shooting is with my 18-135, which you feel is substandard. I do notice some CA from time to time with it. Usually in top left, but does show up in other places. LR doesn't always handle it with the auto remove CA, and I have to tweak the sliders. If there is one thing that tends to slip by me is CA.

That said, I have just as much trouble with CA with Nikon and Sony, if not more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My work flow is similar to yours Betty including the view at 100% many time over.

 

Despite that I have been put in the clink again as from 8th. :angry:

 

That makes THREE times since end of February. I am becoming rather disillusioned with it all. Thinking of throwing the Fuji gear and going to something different.

 

It all hinges around RAW image quality out of the camera.

 

Sorry to go off topic.

 

Allan

Three times.

I'm not sure who is whose bitch now.

I've reported myself for bad language.

Edited by spacecadet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

My work flow is similar to yours Betty including the view at 100% many time over.

 

Despite that I have been put in the clink again as from 8th. :angry:

 

That makes THREE times since end of February. I am becoming rather disillusioned with it all. Thinking of throwing the Fuji gear and going to something different.

 

It all hinges around RAW image quality out of the camera.

 

Sorry to go off topic.

.

 

Allan

Not sure what is happening with your images, Allan. There are many of us using Fuji with no problems. Even now, when I have a fail, it is from another system mixed in. And, lol, the fact that I'm overdue for an eye exam. I truly think I'm missing things, visually. I can tell by my trouble reading fine print with my readers, which is what I use for PP.

90% of my stock shooting is with my 18-135, which you feel is substandard. I do notice some CA from time to time with it. Usually in top left, but does show up in other places. LR doesn't always handle it with the auto remove CA, and I have to tweak the sliders. If there is one thing that tends to slip by me is CA.

That said, I have just as much trouble with CA with Nikon and Sony, if not more.

 

 

Hmmm... I've never had a CA failure with my relatively inexpensive Sony or old Minolta lenses. As mentioned, the DxO OpticsPro lens modules do an ace job of cleaning it up automatically. I seldom have to use the sliders. In fact, I would say that all my QC failures (none recently, touch wood) have been my fault, not my gear's. I probably would have had the same number of failures with high-end equipment.

Edited by John Mitchell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm shooting in RAW (actually RAW + JPG), load into iMatch for cataloging, delete poor ones but keep the rest. Then tag ones that might go to Alamy and do the raw processing individually in Capture NX2 or just receantly with a change in camera process in RawTherapee to produce a tif.

 

Write keywords in OpenOffice as my spelling is dreadful. Using iMatch open the tif in an old copy of photoshop, maybe touch up the very occasional one to remove the bit of trash on the ground or whatever. Copy and past over the keywords and use a memorized action to flatten layers, save, and save to JPG. Time can be a few minutes up to way to long for each image.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Most of the photographers who are constantly changing technique and undertaking a lot of PP on this forum are doing so, according to them, to squeeze past Alamy QC. (How many lately are complaining about being in the sin bin?).  Their problems are not caused by their lack of ability, far from it, but mostly, I think by using equipment that just about 'does the job', but sadly, not always. Of course there are photographers that undertake huge amounts of PP and manipulation for 'creative effect' but you can bet that they also have first class equipment and have honed their basic techniques first and worked up from there. Nothing much has changed here from film and darkroom days. All the photographers who enjoyed extensive darkroom manipulation also had very sound basic techniques which they just expanded. 

 

What I hear is that a lot of contributors are using PP to create more fetching images that wil attract buyers' attention.  CA, noise, distortion and other corrections are pretty basic, and hardly merit the term 'post processing'.  QC standards here are also pretty basic, and many are getting through without any trouble at all, using cropped-frame cameras, kit lenses and so on.  At some other agencies, used mainly by professionals, standards are somewhat higher.  But there you have someone to talk to.  The problem here is that photographers are left out in the cold, with the result that many become very inhibited and afraid to experiment.  

 

For some contibutors, a ten minute chat with someone on the QC team would sort their problems out.  But crowd-sourcing systems don't work like that.

 

 

Agreed Robert. As far as I'm concerned, I've been taking photos for quite a while now, I don't need to muck around in PS to pass QC for goodness sake--if an image isn't technically up-to-scratch, I don't submit it--it sure as heck ain't brain surgery . . .  but I often work on an image to maximise its appeal (as I see it) to buyers, or to myself. As with many here, I'll use PP or Capture NX2 (just love control points) to improve an image, not to pass QC.

 

It's my observation that some who proclaim the benefits of batch-processing are well represented amongst those who regularly fall foul of QC, not those of us who seek to improve an image's aesthetic appeal.

 

dd

 

 

I often do quite a lot of work in both LR and PS Dusty - usually to give images a look that I want them to have.  Having gone to some length to try and empathise with hypothetical buyers I then want to put something of myself in.  I do understand Pete’s point of view, but this is based on an aesthetic of film.  All films have their own unique look, and can’t really be turned into something else.  Digital output using natural light is always problematic, needs fixing, and I often sit on images for weeks or months before I let them go.

 

I suspect that a lot of QC problems people are having are because they are not stress testing their images.  For example: use an adjustment layer to ramp up contrast, colour etc to check for recurrent problems in a batch sample.  The two important items of kit are your screen and your lens.  You may be using an old TN monitor picked up at a jumble sale but rest assured they won’t be using those at Alamy: they will see things on their screens that you will never see on yours.  Third party lens manufacturers do make some very good lenses.  They also make some real lemons, that may be identical in every way to the good ones, except (just a minor detail) they are rubbish.  Tokina is a name that comes to mind:  but their good lenses are really good.

Edited by Robert Brook

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always shoot raw - except some news stories, when I shoot RAW+JPEG so I can upload some quickly then work on others at more leisure.

The only thing I do 'batch' is keywording, and even then I go through after to add/remove words for individual images.

For most general shots I spend only a couple of minutes in Photoshop (Elements) with a few notable exceptions.

My typical day out is a trip to London, where I will usually take 2-300 shots, and upload at least 20-30, hopefully more.

As for uploading to Alamy, I do it in batches of 10. Do ten, click upload, make a coffee, start again. I don't think it makes any difference how many you upload, though I think its a good idea to do a small one first as QC waiting time starts from when they receive the first batch. If you have 100 images to process, waiting until you've done them all could delay QC by a day or two. I know some people stop uploading if they think they've failed QC - I don't understand why. If you pass, you've missed the opportunity to get the images through. If you do fail, just upload them again.

Edited by Phil Robinson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know some people stop uploading if they think they've failed QC - I don't understand why.

.

 

Because QC may only mark one failure reason on one image these days so you won't know if there's another problem image in there.

I've had a batch fail 3 times, for different images, only one of which was marked each time. It seems like a booby-trap sometimes. There's also the possibility of confusion after waiting a month.

Besides- why waste time uploading? QC happens overnight these days. If it doesn't clear by lunchtime, it's a fail, simple as that.

Edited by spacecadet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

. If it doesn't clear by lunchtime, it's a fail, simple as that.

 

 

For the sake of newbies especially, this statement is demonstrably untrue, as even a cursory glance through previous threads will show.

 

dd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the sake of newbies especially, this statement is demonstrably untrue, as even a cursory glance through previous threads will show.

 

dd

 

I am referring to the UK but I haven't glanced cursorily or otherwise at any threads.

Apart from weekends all my passes this year have been the next morning at the latest.

I assume you were generalising when you said it was untrue and to be fair to you so was I when I made it.

Edited by spacecadet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm

 

I am referring to the UK but I haven't glanced cursorily or otherwise at any threads.

Apart from weekends all my passes this year have been the next morning at the latest.

I assume you were generalising when you said it was untrue and to be fair to you so was I when I made it.

 

I'm refering to the demonstrably incorrect statement that if it doesn't clear by lunchtime it's a fail.

 

dd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I said , I find it to be true correct.

Would you like me to post a screenshot of my year's subs, all showing passes overnight or friday to Monday?

Edited by spacecadet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I said , I find it to be true correct.

Would you like me to post a screenshot of my year's subs, all showing passes overnight or friday to Monday?

 

Either you're deliberatly ignoring what you wrote, or you're missing a very simple point . . . it is untrue to say that if a submission does not pass by lunchtime it's a fail. Simple. Wrong.

 

I really can't make it any clearer, and am not disposed to try (again) . . .

 

dd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you need to be right and me to be wrong then I will admit that my original statement does not cover every submission in all circumstances made at any time of day in any timezone.

 

However this is a forum post not an exercise in logical rigour and I think the way in which you interpret a post should include the likelihood that it refers to the poster's circumstances and is not made on oath.

 

I hope you will permit me to say that if my subs, made the previous morning, don't pass by lunchtime I know that they will have failed.

 

i don't think anyone is going to get the wrong idea. QC is pretty quick and reliable these days. I find.

Edited by spacecadet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Up until 3 or 4 months ago the QC time for my submissions was variable, Sometimes it might happen in the next day (unusual). Most times it might take a few days to get the result, so no response within 24 hours was not an indication of an impending fail. But in the last 3 months, pretty much all my submissions have gone through within a day. There's two possible explanations: 1) I've been promoted to a faster QC stream or 2) There's been a general improvement in QC times. I don't know the answer, and don't really care, but this may help the posters above to reconcile what appears to be two contradictory views.   

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For many years it took 2-5 days for my submissions to clear. Lately it is between 1 and 4 days. Just my own experience.

 

Paulette

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Usually overnight here in the far-flung colonies (British Columbia), with the occasional exception. Has been that way for a long time IME.

 

I believe that the longest I've waited for the good news was 4-5 days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Same development here as to QC waiting time. A little more than one day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The processing of raw files can be a bit time consuming, but I generally don't do that much with them as it was said best to get the shot correct in camera. The time consuming part for me can often be the keywording, just spent about an hour identifying a statue (Alfonso VI of Castile) and reading a bit about it. If I upload at the begining of the week its normally though QC the next day, if on Friday its Monday.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then maybe even though the failure wait is now 30 days all round a good long-term pass rate can get you into a faster QC line.

Not that it helps much.

Edited by spacecadet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most of mine are one day. Then QC will throw me a curve and like a couple of months ago, I waited 4-5 days before a pass. Because of that, I don't automatically assume a fail if it doesn't go through quickly. I just sit around and chew my nails.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As to work flow, I will batch process for attributes if images were taken at the same location, filling in attribute fields and location fields. Then when going through individually change the people and releases content if necessary.

 

Hard to batch process the keyword section, but I do all that in PS ahead of time so just have to cut and paste the keywords there.

 

As to QC, pretty much finding 1 day wait is about it. If submitted anytime on one day UK time, will go through QC the next day.

 

Jill

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.