Approved Cameras

[John Mitchell]

Perhaps an "approved sensors" list would make more sense that an "approved cameras" list at this point.

 

I imagine that the failure notice about the camera not being on the approved list was automated and out-of-date.

 

I guess there is also a philosophical question about whether a smartphone is actually a camera or a phone that can be used to take pictures.

[spacecadet]

The new guidelines clearly say that phone pix have to go to Stockimo and not the main site.

[John Mitchell]

The new guidelines clearly say that phone pix have to go to Stockimo and not the main site.

 

I think it's pretty obvious that images captured with P&S cameras with tiny sensors shouldn't be submitted either, but I don't think that this has been mentioned in the new guidelines.

[dustydingo]

My advice?

 

Ignore the distraction of demanding/wanting/bemoaning the loss of/advocating the inclusion of "approved" camera lists, "approved" sensor lists et al, and concentrate on the technical quality of each and every image regardless of equipment. In the final analysis, isn't that what we've always been expected to do?

 

dd

[Veronique van der Wijst]

An iPhone is a phone, not a camera. Seems kind of obviuous to me.

[Dyn Llun]

I think Alamy, like all professional outlets for photographic work, libraries, galleries, publishers etc., take the view that a so-called professional submitting to them understands, or should understand, the requirements of that outlet. They, as all do, judge the quality of work by what is submitted. It's not their job, (or shouldn't be) to teach technique. I don't know of any gallery, editor, book publisher et. etc. that I have dealt with over fifty years that has a list of what camera I should use. It's part of our professional job and expertise to understand all this ourselves.

 

Alamy's qc requirements are pretty basic after all, certainly minimal compared with most of what I am required to produce for other outlets, and the file sizes modest. It's really not rocket science so I am puzzled at all the fuss about using this or that camera.

 

I would be very concerned at the professional ability of any plumber fixing my central heating if he asked me if I had a list of approved pipe wrenches he should bring with him. 

[spacecadet]

I think Alamy, like all professional outlets for photographic work, libraries, galleries, publishers etc., take the view that a so-called professional submitting to them understands, or should understand, the requirements of that outlet. 

...and until recently those requirements included not using a piece of equipment that was incapable of meeting those standards.

As we all know a digital camera has much more influence on image quality than of old. Besides picture libraries used to specify which formats they would accept- it's not that long since many wouldn't touch 35mm. Specifying a certain class of digital camera is pretty similar to specifying a format.

[Steven]

I submit to Alamy through Zoonar and have had images accepted whilst using my Nikon D90 for over three years. I have recently started using a Nikon D5500 with the same lens and I am now getting 100% rejections with a resopnse saying that the 5500 is not an approved camera. Very strange.

[AlessandraRC]

As I see it - why take the chance of ending up on suspend for a month.  I've seen the results of some cameras at 100% that match the image size criteria. 

 

At first glance they looked ok but a more intense inspection showed flaws that would stand a good chance of rejection. 

 

 

do we get suspended ? For which reasons?

[John Mitchell]

I submit to Alamy through Zoonar and have had images accepted whilst using my Nikon D90 for over three years. I have recently started using a Nikon D5500 with the same lens and I am now getting 100% rejections with a resopnse saying that the 5500 is not an approved camera. Very strange.

 

Images coming from Zoonar most likely don't get examined by Alamy. They probably leave the checking up to Zoonar, which doesn't have as stringent technical requirements as Alamy does, at least not in my experience.

[hdh]

Thanks for mentioning the other agrency though which you can submit to alamy.

They seem to have no QC guidelines and I may sign up to them, to upload the pictures I believe will fail QC at alamy.  

 

To the topic -: 

 

So my iPhone submission was rejected as a camera not suitable for alamy.  Maybe that establishes a baseline of a sort.  Here is a link to the photo just to give you an idea of the quality.    I have actually had worse looking photos pass QC.  http://1drv.ms/1PmxEeR

 

The photo rejected, appears generally OK, but to be frank, it does have QC flaws, regardless of being a phone or camera picture. 

Picture suffers from "excessive sharpening", see shadow of the fish on the backrest and also generally the background. 

The image also has some "compression artefacts", for instance on the right index finger next to the fish head.

Also I would call the water to have too much noise.

[NYCat]

 

As I see it - why take the chance of ending up on suspend for a month.  I've seen the results of some cameras at 100% that match the image size criteria. 

 

At first glance they looked ok but a more intense inspection showed flaws that would stand a good chance of rejection. 

 

 

do we get suspended ? For which reasons?

 

 

Many times when someone has failed QC they will not be informed of the fail for 30  days. That is what it is to be "suspended". It's a way that Alamy thinks they can make us more careful about what we submit.

 

Paulette

[AlessandraRC]

 

 

As I see it - why take the chance of ending up on suspend for a month.  I've seen the results of some cameras at 100% that match the image size criteria. 

 

At first glance they looked ok but a more intense inspection showed flaws that would stand a good chance of rejection. 

 

 

do we get suspended ? For which reasons?

 

 

Many times when someone has failed QC they will not be informed of the fail for 30  days. That is what it is to be "suspended". It's a way that Alamy thinks they can make us more careful about what we submit.

 

Paulette

 

 

 

Thanks. Then you cannot upload during this time and don't know why?

[spacecadet]

Yes.

[Armstrong]

 

 

 

As I see it - why take the chance of ending up on suspend for a month.  I've seen the results of some cameras at 100% that match the image size criteria. 

 

At first glance they looked ok but a more intense inspection showed flaws that would stand a good chance of rejection. 

 

 

do we get suspended ? For which reasons?

 

 

Many times when someone has failed QC they will not be informed of the fail for 30  days. That is what it is to be "suspended". It's a way that Alamy thinks they can make us more careful about what we submit.

 

Paulette

 

 

 

Thanks. Then you cannot upload during this time and don't know why?

 

 

The reasoning is that you should be able to self edit to the standard required.  Inevitably people do make mistakes and miss things. However I would speculate that Alamy want you be able to look at the photo again and see the reason without waiting for them to tell you.

 

You don't go straight to a mandatory holiday. It's usually a series of fails or your failure rate that prompts that. I don't recall anyone on the forum reporting going straight to a 30 day lock out.  

[Johnnie5]

Is an opportunity being missed by Alamy?  Would there be a market for an unedited collection of mobile phone photos at a lower price point?  Would it undermine the conventional collection?  It would be an interesting experiment.

[AdiB]

It seems that there is a list...

I just received today the rejection:

"...Digital camera not suitable for Alamy..."

Images were from Sigma DP2 Merrill:

- 18Mb native jpeg

- Raw: 44.8 Mb

- sharpness - at pixel peeping level (which I constantly do ) - much "higher" than my ex-Nikon D600...

I do not know if I should laugh or cry

Thank you,

[dustydingo]

Folk have reported images from Sigma DP2 Merrill passing QC from as long ago as 2014 . . . usually with qualification that the camera should NOT be used for any lowish light situation.

 

dd

[Richard Coombs]

I may be wrong, but Alamy seem to be unique with this "approved camera" thing. I'm supplying, and selling pictures through other agencies taken on a whole load of gear that Alamy would never accept. Don't get me wrong, I'm happy to supply Alamy with images from what they consider to be "suitable" cameras if thats what suits their model. But, when I'm supplying images shot on a 1958 Zorki 4 on transparency film that expired in 2004 and they are selling and reselling again and again with other agencies, and for more money than Alamy have ever made for me, I can't help but wonder if they are missing a trick somewhere!

[wiskerke]

I may be wrong, but Alamy seem to be unique with this "approved camera" thing. I'm supplying, and selling pictures through other agencies taken on a whole load of gear that Alamy would never accept. Don't get me wrong, I'm happy to supply Alamy with images from what they consider to be "suitable" cameras if thats what suits their model. But, when I'm supplying images shot on a 1958 Zorki 4 on transparency film that expired in 2004 and they are selling and reselling again and again with other agencies, and for more money than Alamy have ever made for me, I can't help but wonder if they are missing a trick somewhere!

 

Richard, I think you nailed the reason why there is no such list anymore. Using an old link it is however possible to find the outdated and not maintained list still on line.

 

wim

 

edit: Just an afterthought: it may have been a polite way of telling someone that his/her technique sucked.

[spacecadet]

I may be wrong, but Alamy seem to be unique with this "approved camera" thing. I'm supplying, and selling pictures through other agencies taken on a whole load of gear that Alamy would never accept. Don't get me wrong, I'm happy to supply Alamy with images from what they consider to be "suitable" cameras if thats what suits their model. But, when I'm supplying images shot on a 1958 Zorki 4 on transparency film that expired in 2004 and they are selling and reselling again and again with other agencies, and for more money than Alamy have ever made for me, I can't help but wonder if they are missing a trick somewhere!

The reason is that it's an unedited collection. The only criterion is technical quality.

It  saved QC effort just to reject images that hadn't a hope of passing because of the camera's shortcomings. Of course using an approved camera was necessary but never sufficient, so ditching the list now there are just too many makes sense.

You are free to submit slide scans- many do- as long as they pass QC, which I understand is difficult. I think it's because sharpness in digital images is a quite different beast from sharpness in film. They just look different.

[John Mitchell]

Doesn't the Sigma DP2 Merrill have an APS-C sensor? If so, it shou

 

Folk have reported images from Sigma DP2 Merrill passing QC from as long ago as 2014 . . . usually with qualification that the camera should NOT be used for any lowish light situation.

 

dd

 

Perhaps 46 MP ( I believe) crammed onto an APS-C sensor might be part of the problem.

 

Update: It appears that this camera's 46 MP sensor actually produces 15 MP images (?). Reviewers sound impressed with the IQ.

[TokyoM1ke]

Doesn't the Sigma DP2 Merrill have an APS-C sensor? If so, it shou

 

Folk have reported images from Sigma DP2 Merrill passing QC from as long ago as 2014 . . . usually with qualification that the camera should NOT be used for any lowish light situation.

 

dd

 

Perhaps 46 MP ( I believe) crammed onto an APS-C sensor might be part of the problem.

 

Update: It appears that this camera's 46 MP sensor actually produces 15 MP images (?). Reviewers sound impressed with the IQ.

Off the top of my head, maybe the three colours?

[Allan Bell]

 

Doesn't the Sigma DP2 Merrill have an APS-C sensor? If so, it shou

 

Folk have reported images from Sigma DP2 Merrill passing QC from as long ago as 2014 . . . usually with qualification that the camera should NOT be used for any lowish light situation.

 

dd

 

Perhaps 46 MP ( I believe) crammed onto an APS-C sensor might be part of the problem.

 

Update: It appears that this camera's 46 MP sensor actually produces 15 MP images (?). Reviewers sound impressed with the IQ.

Off the top of my head, maybe the three colours?

 

 

 

You are correct. Each site on the sensor has three filters for red, blue and green wavelengths. It is called the "Fovon" sensor.

 

As we all know the Bayer sensor use individual sites for the differing wavelengths.

 

Allan

[John Mitchell]

 

 

Doesn't the Sigma DP2 Merrill have an APS-C sensor? If so, it shou

 

Folk have reported images from Sigma DP2 Merrill passing QC from as long ago as 2014 . . . usually with qualification that the camera should NOT be used for any lowish light situation.

 

dd

 

Perhaps 46 MP ( I believe) crammed onto an APS-C sensor might be part of the problem.

 

Update: It appears that this camera's 46 MP sensor actually produces 15 MP images (?). Reviewers sound impressed with the IQ.

Off the top of my head, maybe the three colours?

 

 

 

You are correct. Each site on the sensor has three filters for red, blue and green wavelengths. It is called the "Fovon" sensor.

 

As we all know the Bayer sensor use individual sites for the differing wavelengths.

 

Allan

 

 

Thanks. I obviously need to bone up on sensors. Interesting that a relatively expensive camera with an APS-C sensor would not be acceptable. So much for the reviews, I guess.