spacecadet Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 Bad news- the wait appears to have increased from 30 days to 28 working days, according to MS, regardless of QC history. Very depressing to have the goalposts moved again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allan Bell Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 I thought it had been 28 WD for some time now. Allan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pearl Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 Bad news- the wait appears to have increased from 30 days to 28 working days, according to MS, regardless of QC history. Very depressing to have the goalposts moved again. Regardless of QC history - did they say that? I have never believed that QC history was taken into account anyway in my very limited experience. Pearl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecadet Posted November 4, 2015 Author Share Posted November 4, 2015 They didn't say it, I'm saying it. My recent pass rate had been over 95%. Allan- so the emails say but it used to be 4 weeks and I've never waited more than 30 days. It's 30 days today. I'm now told it may be a 'technical glitch' and to wait till the end of the week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MircoV Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 Hello Mark, When i look at your portfolio i think you have much more experience then me and i can learn from you. But i never have a failed. My images passes always. So i am really thinking that you are just with some images doubting. I mean i think you are just in the edge between sharp and very minimum unsharp. It are this kind of images that when i look i think it is sharp. When i look after one hour again i change my mind and think it is not sharp as i tought. This are exactly the photos that i dont include to avoid fails. I would be very curious to see a failed photo from you in original. Can you send me one somehow? I understand off course if you dont like to do it. Greetz, Mirco Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Yarvin Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 I have never failed without good reason and 30 days is about the right amount of time to step your technique up to the next level. I find that I always have room for improvement and the gentle prod provided by an Alamy QC fail is a good reminder. Two points: 1) I've failed twice this year - I wasn't given the thirty days in either case so it isn't "regardless of QC history." 2) If you never fail at all, you aren't pushing your envelope enough. At very worst, you could be shooting the same things over and over again. You'll always pass that way. One of the best things about stock photography is the way it allows us to try new ideas and put them in front of professional buyers and editors no matter where we are, let's do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MircoV Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 I have never failed without good reason and 30 days is about the right amount of time to step your technique up to the next level. I find that I always have room for improvement and the gentle prod provided by an Alamy QC fail is a good reminder. Two points: 1) I've failed twice this year - I wasn't given the thirty days in either case so it isn't "regardless of QC history." 2) If you never fail at all, you aren't pushing your envelope enough. At very worst, you could be shooting the same things over and over again. You'll always pass that way. One of the best things about stock photography is the way it allows us to try new ideas and put them in front of professional buyers and editors no matter where we are, let's do it. Brian, Point 2 let me think a while.......Actually i never thought about it that fails can also come from photographers that are experimenting with new things. Thanks for the wake up . Mirco Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecadet Posted November 4, 2015 Author Share Posted November 4, 2015 The plot thickens. I've had my fail for 'watermark' (whoever ticked that box in LR- I didn't know it was there!) However shortly before that I get an email asking me to resend a sub which had been passed a month ago. Reason? 'Watermark'. They had passed it by accident. They could have told me that 30 days ago. Blow the 'envelope'- it's play it safe for me from now on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Rooney Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 I have never failed without good reason and 30 days is about the right amount of time to step your technique up to the next level. I find that I always have room for improvement and the gentle prod provided by an Alamy QC fail is a good reminder. Two points: 1) I've failed twice this year - I wasn't given the thirty days in either case so it isn't "regardless of QC history." 2) If you never fail at all, you aren't pushing your envelope enough. At very worst, you could be shooting the same things over and over again. You'll always pass that way. One of the best things about stock photography is the way it allows us to try new ideas and put them in front of professional buyers and editors no matter where we are, let's do it. Yes, I agree with both of Brain's points. For years I never failed QC, and the first couple of times I did I was not punished. And then I was punished. Brian's second point is that the system has an element of discouraging creativity. Possibly true. On the other hand, this is stock, not fine arts photography, and in order to keep things moving along someone has to make the decision to accept or reject. That someone is QC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecadet Posted November 4, 2015 Author Share Posted November 4, 2015 ....and now it turns out contrary to what I was told the replacements have to wait for QC as well. So I hold my breath for Alamy's mistake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alamy Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 Mark - your images were failed because you included a personal watermark on each image so were placed in the fail queue, as per our procedure. We then noticed a previous submission that had been passed that also included the watermark so we've asked you to send them again, without the mark. Obviously this could all have been avoided had you not submitted images that were watermarked on each occasion. Best, Alamy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.