Approved Cameras

[Dyn Llun]

I know I have said this before but in a professional environment, it's up to the 'supplier' to understand what is required in the matter of basic quality standards, and Alamy's requirements are just that, despite all the hoo ha from amateur photographers about difficulties. I am getting some plumbing work done at the moment and I don't tell my plumber what tools to bring, or what quality of soldering I require, I expect him to understand and interpret my needs and bring and do what's required to complete a fully professional job. 

 

Alamy's technical quality requirements are very basic compared with many other professional outlets and markets for photography. It's up to any potential contributor to understand these before they start wasting Alamy's time by submitting technically inferior work. To submit sub-standard work to 'test the water' to see if it's up to the mark is not acceptable in any professional context and anywhere else would result in all future work being rejected. 

 

Basic technical quality, as I have written in my blog, is not rocket science and Alamy provides good information for potential suppliers if they can be bothered to read them. Most can't it seems. 

[MDM]

I know I have said this before but in a professional environment, it's up to the 'supplier' to understand what is required in the matter of basic quality standards, and Alamy's requirements are just that, despite all the hoo ha from amateur photographers about difficulties. I am getting some plumbing work done at the moment and I don't tell my plumber what tools to bring, or what quality of soldering I require, I expect him to understand and interpret my needs and bring and do what's required to complete a fully professional job. 

 

Alamy's technical quality requirements are very basic compared with many other professional outlets and markets for photography. It's up to any potential contributor to understand these before they start wasting Alamy's time by submitting technically inferior work. To submit sub-standard work to 'test the water' to see if it's up to the mark is not acceptable in any professional context and anywhere else would result in all future work being rejected. 

 

Basic technical quality, as I have written in my blog, is not rocket science and Alamy provides good information for potential suppliers if they can be bothered to read them. Most can't it seems. 

 

All true but Alamy have changed their guidelines and gotten rid of the unsuitable camera list. All it says now is that you need a camera that can produce images > 6MP so I guess that may be what Rick is asking about. I think that getting rid of the unsuitable camera list has seen an upsurge in these posts.

 

Nor is there is a mention of needing to provide professional quality material. Alamy invites all-comers to submit with no mention of the level of expertise desired. Also Stockimo pictures get mixed in with the rest.

 

As far as the plumber analogy goes, this is the equivalent of you putting up an ad asking for somebody to do your plumbing without specifying that you want a plumber. Some guy who has just bought a few tools applies for the job and destroys your bathroom. 

[Alexandre Fagundes]

 

 

Hopefully someone can help me understand.  I received the photo error that my camera wasn't suitable, using a Nikon P7800 (12 Mega Pixels).  

 

Am I missing something that would cause the pictures from this camera to not be suitable?

 

 

It has a tiny sensor, so probably not up to professional quality and clarity. The sensor is far smaller than a cropped sensor DSLR.

 

Best way to know if it's suitable is to view an image taken in good light and sharp focus at 100%, and see for yourself if it looks good or not.

 

Geoff.

 

 

The problem with this approach is that someone who is looking to join the stock photo bandwagon and has only ever had a diminutive point-and-shoot is not likely to really know whether their image looks good or not. I certainly didn't when I started out and, ten years on, I sometimes wonder if I yet do.

 

The only option for the inexperienced newcomer is to submit test images and await joy or disappointment from the initial QC asessment. Even if the answer is 'accepted' and 'joy, there may be further disappointment down the line when they discover their camera struggles in anything but ideal lighting conditions.

 

Some measure of wasted effort and disappointment might be avoided if, given there is no approved camera list, some guidance was given on what minimum specifications might be found on a camera which will do the job. 

 

 

Spot on Joseph

If the subject is clearly lit, the shadow/brightness is not extreme and probably reducing the resolution of a point and shoot camera to something around 6 to 7Mpixels the images will probably be accepted.

But the photographer must check the image at 100% and understand if its oversharped, low noise, blown highlights, etc.

Honestly, even some smartphone images in this conditions might be accepted.

[Chuck Nacke]

Don't understand your complaint about approved cameras,  I have images on Alamy

from 35mm film scanned with a 2710DPI film scanner, Images from Kodak/Nikon

DCS 620's (1,600 ISO and my most licensed image) and 460's and a large number

of images from FUJI S2's and S5's.  FYI the K/N 620 was a 2.4MP DSLR. 

Those were in the days that Alamy required a 48+MB file. 

In the last decade I have not had a submission fail.

 

P.S. I was involved in bringing in an image shot with a point and shoot film camera

that was purchased at the grocery store.  One image from that camera was licensed

for over $80,000 in one day and then published in TIME, NEWSWEEK and U.S. News

& World Report that week.