Quality control issues

[David Hewison]

On paper it doesn't look simple, but in practice it is. 

 

If you were to describe driving a car on paper, most would run the opposite direction! 

 

I didn't mean to put you off, but as a new contributor myself, it was a steep learning curve to reach the technical standards required for Alamy - Shutterstock is even tougher. You may work out your own workflow that sits better with you. The main thing is get to know your camera's limitations and work on shooting technique to achieve those tack sharp images when viewed at 100%. 

Edited September 16, 2015 by David Hewison

[Robert Bailey]

On paper it doesn't look simple, but in practice it is. 

 

If you were to describe driving a car on paper, most would run the opposite direction! 

 

I didn't mean to put you off, but as a new contributor myself, it was a steep learning curve to reach the technical standards required for Alamy - Shutterstock is even tougher. You may work out your own workflow that sits better with you. The main thing is get to know your camera's limitations and work on shooting technique to achieve those tack sharp images when viewed at 100%. 

You didn't put me off David, I was just having a bit of fun.

 

I did have a look at some scans of slides I took with my Pentax MX a few years ago and the quality is truly awful. So maybe this digital stuff isnt that bad ;-)

 

Indeed since reading this thread and the help that has been offered I have been very selective about the RAW files used and done a minimum of processing and the results, at least to me, are a great improvement.

 

Thanks again.

 

Robert

[Paul Mayall]

It is a fact that many have problems with Alamy QC,  i also have my fair share,  however if a batch is failed i don't worry about it as the very same images are being accepted elsewhere and licensed, we must remember that Alamy try to have a 100% hit rate of technically high quality material that is how they work.

 

Personally i think they are over doing it as i am sure faults would only be noticed if the faulty images were published at 100%.

 

So for those who struggle just check a little closer before submitting,  and if a batch fails it is no train smash,  just get on with life, there is more to living than Alamy QC.

 

Paul.

[Robert Bailey]

Hi All

 

Just for the record I thought I would let you know that all of my second batch of pictures failed QC also for soft or lacking definition (same as last time).

 

I followed most of the relavent advice given here and spent one hell of a long time on it.

 

The bottom line for me is that it isn't worth the time spent on fideling around to get a few pictures on here.

 

I enjoy my photography and I enjoy making pictures that others like, I think I'll leave it at that.

 

Thanks again for all your help.

 

Robert

[MDM]

Hi All

 

Just for the record I thought I would let you know that all of my second batch of pictures failed QC also for soft or lacking definition (same as last time).

 

I followed most of the relavent advice given here and spent one hell of a long time on it.

 

The bottom line for me is that it isn't worth the time spent on fideling around to get a few pictures on here.

 

I enjoy my photography and I enjoy making pictures that others like, I think I'll leave it at that.

 

Thanks again for all your help.

 

Robert

 

If you enjoy your photography then it's well worth learning how to get your technique up to the level required to pass Alamy QC which is not in fact a particularly high standard. It can be very satisfying to have your basic technique right. Alamy is a very simple taskmaster - it looks only for basic technique, not content - that is a whole other issue. But getting basic technique right is fundamental. If by chance you resubmitted the image you posted before, then it should be a definite fail as the foreground was out of focus and no amount of post-processing would fix that except for cropping it out altogether,

Edited September 25, 2015 by MDM

[Armstrong]

Rob, Sorry to hear that. I agree with MDM's comments so maybe after a break you will find it worth trying again. 

[spacecadet]

That 'fiddling around' is part of your craft. Just like all the wet stuff we used to do. Not easy to master but a hill you have to climb.

The myth is that digital photography is easier than film.

[AlessandraRC]

If I had that many images and got really upset I might stop uploading but continue to profit from the images that are already there. Two rejections hurt that much?   I tend to look at rejections from stock agencies as them telling me "we don't think we can sell this photo" then I move on.

 

As far as stock agencies this is one of the friendliest one in my opinion. 

[Betty LaRue]

Robert, sorry you are having trouble.  You could always consider going mirrorless.  I bought a Fuji XT1 more than a year ago, and was astounded at how much sharper the raw files were right out of the camera over my Nikon cameras.  The mirrorless and I wrestled mightily over who would come out on top as far as learning how to use the very different camera.  I have never got a 100% grasp of it, but know enough to get great images with it, so I guess I came out on top.

 

I have fallen afoul of QC more times than I want to admit to.  This is what finally got me over the hump.  Everyone else has their own hump climbers, but this was mine.

 

1. mirrorless

 

2.quit falling in love with a shot to the point I ignore its faults. This means those one of a kind, never get again shots.  If it has uncorrectable faults, dump it.

 

3.Go over each image after development with a fine toothed comb at 100%. Don't get in a hurry and forget this step. This is where you notice soft issues, CA, and dust bunnies.

 

4. Be sure the subject is what's sharp.  If you shoot a child playing, and the child is soft but the trees behind him is sharp, dump it.  Look for your focal point at 100% and see if it is where it should be. QC notices this.

 

My method is when I develop an image, right before putting it in my upload folder, I check it at 100%. This involves scrolling and checking the enlarged top left to right, the middle, then the bottom.  Then I save to my upload folder. Once the folder is ready, on my Mac I use the picture viewer which I think shows them again at 100% and go over each image again.  I occasionally catch something I missed the first time around.  A bird that is too far away to easily tell it is a bird....clone it out.  A tiny bit of CA in a corner.  Go back and redevelop to get rid of it, or crop it out. One that looks a tiny bit soft. If I have to study it to make up my mind, then it is best to just get rid of it.  I usually have one of those in every upload folder.  It's hard to be brutal, but brutal wins the day.

Edited December 19, 2015 by Betty LaRue

[Doc]

To the OP,

 

Hi Mark, I have not noticed any recent change in QC. I do have the occasional fail, but inevitably this is for SoLD, because I do a lot of work handheld either at twilight or indoors, and I tend to push the limits a bit! When I do get a fail, to be honest many of my other images which passed could have failed on another day. 

 

I accept this - it's the sort of images I like to produce so I accept the risk

 

kumar

[Betty LaRue]

To the OP,

 

Hi Mark, I have not noticed any recent change in QC. I do have the occasional fail, but inevitably this is for SoLD, because I do a lot of work handheld either at twilight or indoors, and I tend to push the limits a bit! When I do get a fail, to be honest many of my other images which passed could have failed on another day. 

 

I accept this - it's the sort of images I like to produce so I accept the risk

 

kumar

Doc, I see you made a trip to New England this autumn. What wonderful images you captured!

 

I was there a few years ago and toured Connecticut, N. Hampshire, New Jersey, upper N. York, Maine, and Vermont. Back to Oklahoma through Pennsylvania, W. Virginia and Tennessee. We hit it perfect for the leaves. It looks like you did, too.

[Addict]

have not yet had a fail using my sony rx100 but i had plenty using canon full frame without downsizing the image! Shoot with sony mostly now. Way less hassel! 

[Robert Bailey]

For the benefit of all those who have given advice I am uploading another batch. Let's see how we get on this time

[Robert Bailey]

For the benefit of all those who have given advice I am uploading another batch. Let's see how we get on this time

Well, well. They passed!

[PeterW]

Don't worry about it. Irritating though a QC failure can undoubtedly be, rules is rules. Alamy set the rules so there is little point complaining, other than to get it off your chest to make you feel better. I've had images rejected, even images that have sold on Shutterstock, Dreamstime, iStock, Getty.... If an image fails to meet Alamy QC don't spend time trying to work out why, after all time is money and if you are up against millions of other images, with some contributors having 000s of images for sale on Alamy, time is better spent shooting more images than trying to figure out why an image failed Alamy QC.  A while ago I left Alamy because I had only uploaded relatively few images, had not made any sales and was spending too long checking inages to make sure they were ultra-perfect. I recently decided to rejoin, so submitted the required three images of which two failed QC - good sellers elsewhere,  Ho hum. I submitted another three, also good sellers elsewhere, and this time all three failed QC. It's no big deal. I'll submit three more. It's not as if I'd ever make a fortune from Alamy sales so I'd rather spend my time submitting images to agencies where I am 100% sure they'll pass QC every time but more importantly, will actually sell. Incidentally, I always check all my images at 150% and avoid sharpening or noise reduction. In my experience these can actually reduce image quality - and if an image needs sharpening or noise reduction don't upload it to Alamy. . Better to get it right in the camera. 

[Phil]

On 19/02/2020 at 09:58, PeterW said:

Incidentally, I always check all my images at 150% and avoid sharpening or noise reduction. 

 

I always check at 100% which seems to be what most others use as reported in this forum - also Alamy suggests 100% as well I believe.

 

Is there an advantage in zooming to 150% for image checks for Alamy submissions?

[wiskerke]

3 hours ago, Phil said:

 

I always check at 100% which seems to be what most others use as reported in this forum - also Alamy suggests 100% as well I believe.

 

Is there an advantage in zooming to 150% for image checks for Alamy submissions?

 

How's your eyesight? 😂 - sorry couldn't resist.

200% or maybe even more on 4K or Retina displays. Which is why I don't use them for editing.

 

wim

[MDM]

 

 

3 hours ago, wiskerke said:

 

How's your eyesight? 😂 - sorry couldn't resist.

200% or maybe even more on 4K or Retina displays. Which is why I don't use them for editing.

 

wim

 

A thread that arose from the dead. And it is not the first time. I was a young man when I last posted in this one 😎. I hadn't had my lens replacement surgery at the time either so my eyesight was not the best except I only realised how bad it had been when almost exactly a year later I got my new eyes. I agree with wim.

[Phil]

17 hours ago, wiskerke said:

 

How's your eyesight? 😂 - sorry couldn't resist.

200% or maybe even more on 4K or Retina displays. Which is why I don't use them for editing.

 

wim

 

My eyes certainly are not what they used to be thats for sure - and I don't have a 4K or Retina display - just an old iMac.

 

At 100% zoom I pan around an image to check mostly for critical focus, sensor spots, noise, etc.  My QC results have been good with this technique over the years.

 

100% seems to catch everything it needs to so it's not obvious to me that zooming more would provide any increased benefit - thats why I'm curious if others magnify more and why for their QC checks.  

 

"Just because I can doesn't mean I should"  comes to mind....

 

 

[dustydingo]

On 19/02/2020 at 23:58, PeterW said:

Don't worry about it. Irritating though a QC failure can undoubtedly be, rules is rules. Alamy set the rules so there is little point complaining, other than to get it off your chest to make you feel better. I've had images rejected, even images that have sold on Shutterstock, Dreamstime, iStock, Getty.... If an image fails to meet Alamy QC don't spend time trying to work out why, after all time is money and if you are up against millions of other images, with some contributors having 000s of images for sale on Alamy, time is better spent shooting more images than trying to figure out why an image failed Alamy QC.  A while ago I left Alamy because I had only uploaded relatively few images, had not made any sales and was spending too long checking inages to make sure they were ultra-perfect. I recently decided to rejoin, so submitted the required three images of which two failed QC - good sellers elsewhere,  Ho hum. I submitted another three, also good sellers elsewhere, and this time all three failed QC. It's no big deal. I'll submit three more. It's not as if I'd ever make a fortune from Alamy sales so I'd rather spend my time submitting images to agencies where I am 100% sure they'll pass QC every time but more importantly, will actually sell. Incidentally, I always check all my images at 150% and avoid sharpening or noise reduction. In my experience these can actually reduce image quality - and if an image needs sharpening or noise reduction don't upload it to Alamy. . Better to get it right in the camera. 

 

Mate, you appear to be responding to a post made four years ago.

 

. . . and . . . your logic is convoluted to say the least, and your advice is the exact opposite of what a new contributor should be doing, in my experience . . . time is money you state, then advise someone to ignore why they're failing QC, instead advising them to just keep on shooting and submitting. In other words, forgo a few minutes working out why QC rejected an image and correcting the issue, and instead just continue submitting and ignoring the rejections. !!!

 

I take it you do know QC does not have infinite patience with someone who continuously fails QC?

 

DD

Edited February 23, 2020 by dustydingo

[Inchiquin]

On 19/02/2020 at 15:58, PeterW said:

 

 Incidentally, I always check all my images at 150%

 

 

What is the point in checking at 150% when Alamy view at 100%? Surely you need to be seeing exactly what Alamy see to give you the best chance of passing?

 

Alan

[wiskerke]

1 hour ago, Inchiquin said:

 

What is the point in checking at 150% when Alamy view at 100%? Surely you need to be seeing exactly what Alamy see to give you the best chance of passing?

 

Alan

 

Some people use different displays, like 4K or Retina. The pixel density is much higher, meaning the pixels are much smaller. For Retina the advice is 200%.

Unless maybe if you have 20/20. (Not sure what the UK equivalence is. Here it's Visus=1.)

 

wim

[Inchiquin]

4 hours ago, wiskerke said:

 

Some people use different displays, like 4K or Retina. The pixel density is much higher, meaning the pixels are much smaller. For Retina the advice is 200%.

Unless maybe if you have 20/20. (Not sure what the UK equivalence is. Here it's Visus=1.)

 

 

But surely if you view any image on any display at more than 100%, pixels have to be interpolated so you're seeing pixels that aren't actually there. It may help you to see better but it can't show you exactly what you see at 100%.

 

Alan

[M.Chapman]

5 hours ago, Inchiquin said:

 

But surely if you view any image on any display at more than 100%, pixels have to be interpolated so you're seeing pixels that aren't actually there. It may help you to see better but it can't show you exactly what you see at 100%.

 

Alan

 

Trouble is, on a retina display, unless the viewer has exceptional eyesight or gets very close, they can't actually see the individual pixels of the display. It's a viewing distance / pixel size problem. Perceived sharpness depends on the actual sharpness and the distance you're viewing from. On a retina display  a 1,000 x 1,000 pixel image (for example) appears about 50% smaller than it does on a standard resolution display, and so the retina display image appears sharper (if viewed from the same distance). Inspecting at 200% on a retina display partially overcomes this but, you're right, zooming to 200% generates new pixels by interpolation so isn't exactly the same. The exact alternative (if you can't see the individual pixels on your screen) is to get closer to the screen and wear close-up glasses (if needed), or use a magnifying glass. In reality the 200% option is a more practical solution, (albeit imperfect). Alternatively don't use a retina or 4K display for editing (as Wim said).

 

Although.... do we know what resolution display Alamy QC use these days... 

 

Mark

Edited February 23, 2020 by M.Chapman