photos_by_gemma Posted January 27, 2016 Share Posted January 27, 2016 What are everyone's thoughts on the rule that digital cameras are not suitable for alarmy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Woods Posted January 27, 2016 Share Posted January 27, 2016 There must be a loophole in that rule somewhere, as I occasionally manage to sneak a digital image in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jill Morgan Posted January 27, 2016 Share Posted January 27, 2016 Yeah, I sneak the odd one by as well. Hope there isn't a real long sin bin time if caught. Jill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Yarvin Posted January 27, 2016 Share Posted January 27, 2016 I've gotten caught, but I can usually talk my way out of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dustydingo Posted January 27, 2016 Share Posted January 27, 2016 Quick, change the subject before the modera --------------- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NYCat Posted January 27, 2016 Share Posted January 27, 2016 Alarmy indeed! Paulette Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dustydingo Posted January 27, 2016 Share Posted January 27, 2016 I blame the Chinese. dd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted January 27, 2016 Share Posted January 27, 2016 I blame the Aussies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KerinF Posted January 27, 2016 Share Posted January 27, 2016 I blame it on the boogie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KerinF Posted January 27, 2016 Share Posted January 27, 2016 In all seriousness Gemma, as a new contributor, you really need to familiarise yourself with the guidelines http://www.alamy.com/contributor/how-to-sell-images/best-place-to-sell-stock-images-photos/ and also your contributor contract carefully. There is no prohibition against digital cameras, but some are more acceptable than others. Read the guidelines, and (nearly) all will be revealed Edit: Just fixed up spacing between link and following text Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dustydingo Posted January 27, 2016 Share Posted January 27, 2016 I blame the Aussies. Yep, I'll wear that . . . in fact, as long as you don't include Mr M as an Aussie, I'll wear anything . . . dd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alamy Posted January 27, 2016 Share Posted January 27, 2016 In all seriousness Gemma, as a new contributor, you really need to familiarise yourself with the guidelines http://www.alamy.com/contributor/how-to-sell-images/best-place-to-sell-stock-images-photos/ and also your contributor contract carefully. There is no prohibition against digital cameras, but some are more acceptable than others. Read the guidelines, and (nearly) all will be revealed Edit: Just fixed up spacing between link and following text Thanks, Kevin, for answering this question and not contributing to confuse this new user further. Alamy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecadet Posted January 27, 2016 Share Posted January 27, 2016 OP, assuming you omitted some or certain from your post, there's no longer an official list of unsuitable cameras but the guidelines are clear. Images must be sharp at 100%. If you are in doubt, the forum will offer opinions on a 100% crop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allan Bell Posted January 27, 2016 Share Posted January 27, 2016 Strange, I've been using digital cameras for ages. DSLR's generally. I did not know they were unsuitable. Allan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted January 27, 2016 Share Posted January 27, 2016 Perhaps the new contributor means point & shoot digital cameras. If so, it's a fair question. There are plenty of images from these cameras used in the publishing world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allan Bell Posted January 27, 2016 Share Posted January 27, 2016 Perhaps the new contributor means point & shoot digital cameras. If so, it's a fair question. There are plenty of images from these cameras used in the publishing world. I was only joking John. Knew what the OP meant really. Allan EDIT (Thanks to Niels) I KNEW what I meant. The English language. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Niels Quist Posted January 27, 2016 Share Posted January 27, 2016 I was only joking John. New what the OP meant really. Allan "New"?? Sure you are British and I am Danish? Hope the OP can stand the humour as he/she was not led along the path he/she obviously meant.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted January 27, 2016 Share Posted January 27, 2016 Perhaps the new contributor means point & shoot digital cameras. If so, it's a fair question. There are plenty of images from these cameras used in the publishing world. I was only joking John. New what the OP meant really. Allan If the OP did indeed mean p&s cameras, then I guess the answer is too much noise for Alamy's liking in the images, especially at high ISO's. Not sure that this is totally justified. I've seen lots of fine looking prints of images taken with small-sensor cameras (probably at low ISO's, though). One has to wonder how fussy most image buyers really are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin P Wilson Posted January 27, 2016 Share Posted January 27, 2016 Perhaps the new contributor means point & shoot digital cameras. If so, it's a fair question. There are plenty of images from these cameras used in the publishing world. I was only joking John. New what the OP meant really. Allan If the OP did indeed mean p&s cameras, then I guess the answer is too much noise for Alamy's liking in the images, especially at high ISO's. Not sure that this is totally justified. I've seen lots of fine looking prints of images taken with small-sensor cameras (probably at low ISO's, though). One has to wonder how fussy most image buyers really are. Or how big most pictures will be used. I am fussy and I wouldn't be too concerned up to full page from a decent, modest pixel count, point and shot, properly used at low/medium ISO (say up to 400). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mickfly Posted January 28, 2016 Share Posted January 28, 2016 There's always Stockimo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Woods Posted January 28, 2016 Share Posted January 28, 2016 Like this http://chaoticmind75.blogspot.ru/2013/08/my-technique-for-snowflakes-shooting.html guy who takes the most glorious snowflake pictures with a Canon P&S with a Helios prime duct-taped in reverse. I jest not, have a look. "Who dares wins" works for innovation as well as military courage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted January 28, 2016 Share Posted January 28, 2016 Perhaps the new contributor means point & shoot digital cameras. If so, it's a fair question. There are plenty of images from these cameras used in the publishing world. I was only joking John. New what the OP meant really. Allan If the OP did indeed mean p&s cameras, then I guess the answer is too much noise for Alamy's liking in the images, especially at high ISO's. Not sure that this is totally justified. I've seen lots of fine looking prints of images taken with small-sensor cameras (probably at low ISO's, though). One has to wonder how fussy most image buyers really are. Or how big most pictures will be used. I am fussy and I wouldn't be too concerned up to full page from a decent, modest pixel count, point and shot, properly used at low/medium ISO (say up to 400). I agree, but Alamy has to draw the line somewhere. The floodgates are already open wide enough. There are plenty of other options selling for p&s images. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin P Wilson Posted January 28, 2016 Share Posted January 28, 2016 Indeed, I was not suggesting that Alamy should relax their quality threshold. As you say the floodgates are open anyway. Only that the judgement should really be on the image, not the camera. But I guess it is easier, and more time efficient, for Alamy to work on the basis that photographers with a 'serious' camera are more likely to understand what is meant by quality, although as we see in these forums that is not always the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allan Bell Posted January 28, 2016 Share Posted January 28, 2016 I was only joking John. New what the OP meant really. Allan "New"?? Sure you are British and I am Danish? Hope the OP can stand the humour as he/she was not led along the path he/she obviously meant.... Thanks for pointing my error out Niels. Now corrected. Allan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Woods Posted January 28, 2016 Share Posted January 28, 2016 Like this http://chaoticmind75.blogspot.ru/2013/08/my-technique-for-snowflakes-shooting.html guy who takes the most glorious snowflake pictures with a Canon P&S with a Helios prime duct-taped in reverse. I jest not, have a look. "Who dares wins" works for innovation as well as military courage. Very nice shots, but ....... they are only suitable for website use due to the very small files. Depending on the size of the snowflake (it can vary in a very wide range) size of the finished picture is from 640 x 480 to 1024 x 768 pixels, no more. This is only suitable for the Internet or a collage, but not for prints. Cheers, Philippe Sure, they are tiny but for a rig cobbled together from an electronics store P&S and a cheapie prime taped on, they are very good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.