Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Good morning,

 

Lens flare can be and is used for artistic effect, and I have a couple of lenses that are susceptible to flare (or good for creating it depending on your view of the subject).

 

Assuming that images meet the usual criteria for upload, i.e. no dust spots etc etc, would flare be acceptable or would it be frowned upon by QC?

 

Cheers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good morning,

 

Lens flare can be and is used for artistic effect, and I have a couple of lenses that are susceptible to flare (or good for creating it depending on your view of the subject).

 

Assuming that images meet the usual criteria for upload, i.e. no dust spots etc etc, would flare be acceptable or would it be frowned upon by QC?

 

Cheers.

 

Have you done a search of Alamy for             lens flare               ???

 

I have.

 

dd

Link to post
Share on other sites

I just submitted a photo with lens flare and it was rejected as a "blemish," even though it was clearly artistic lens flare. So I guess it depends on who you get in QC and if they can tell the difference between artistic content and technical issues.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Judging from the many comments on this subject and my own experience I wonder if it may also depend on your QC history. Perhaps if you have a long unblemished QC history they are more tolerant, working on the basis that you have shown you understand what QC want, therefore the flare, blur or whatever was much more likely to be intentional and they give the contributor the benfit of the doubt.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I just submitted a photo with lens flare and it was rejected as a "blemish," even though it was clearly artistic lens flare. So I guess it depends on who you get in QC and if they can tell the difference between artistic content and technical issues.

 

 

As you have 0 images under your profile, presumably this was your first submission. In that case, you are best to submit 4 technically flawless images and don't worry about the content. 4 sharp shots of brick walls will do for starters. Alamy is unedited for content and it is not a question of trying to impress anybody in QC with artistic brilliance. You can try the more arty stuff once you are in the door.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I just submitted a photo with lens flare and it was rejected as a "blemish," even though it was clearly artistic lens flare. So I guess it depends on who you get in QC and if they can tell the difference between artistic content and technical issues.

 

Sorry but this is misleading.

 

The failure was nothing to do with the lens flare, but was referring to the prominent sensor dust spots visible on the left hand side of the image.

 

Thanks,

 

Alamy

Link to post
Share on other sites

Judging from the many comments on this subject and my own experience I wonder if it may also depend on your QC history. Perhaps if you have a long unblemished QC history they are more tolerant, working on the basis that you have shown you understand what QC want, therefore the flare, blur or whatever was much more likely to be intentional and they give the contributor the benfit of the doubt.

 

This is also misleading and poor advice for new contributors.

 

Flare, blur etc is fine as long as it is meant to be there. Your QC history does not come into it. 

 

Thanks

 

Alamy

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Judging from the many comments on this subject and my own experience I wonder if it may also depend on your QC history. Perhaps if you have a long unblemished QC history they are more tolerant, working on the basis that you have shown you understand what QC want, therefore the flare, blur or whatever was much more likely to be intentional and they give the contributor the benfit of the doubt.

 

This is also misleading and poor advice for new contributors.

 

Flare, blur etc is fine as long as it is meant to be there. Your QC history does not come into it. 

 

Thanks

 

Alamy

 

 

Thanks for confirming that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I just submitted a photo with lens flare and it was rejected as a "blemish," even though it was clearly artistic lens flare. So I guess it depends on who you get in QC and if they can tell the difference between artistic content and technical issues.

 

Bit of an object lesson for everyone, following the Alamy comment, to be more self critical... check, check and check again against all of the criteria and not assume that it's a QC error. Not trying to preach, just highlight the risk of not looking deeply enough - reminder to self as well!

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I just submitted a photo with lens flare and it was rejected as a "blemish," even though it was clearly artistic lens flare. So I guess it depends on who you get in QC and if they can tell the difference between artistic content and technical issues.

 

I was gong to ask for a look at the image before I saw Alamy's response showing your statement to be incorrect.

 

But I am interested: is "blemish" a word Alamy use to describe failure?

 

dd

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I just submitted a photo with lens flare and it was rejected as a "blemish," even though it was clearly artistic lens flare. So I guess it depends on who you get in QC and if they can tell the difference between artistic content and technical issues.

 

I was gong to ask for a look at the image before I saw Alamy's response showing your statement to be incorrect.

 

But I am interested: is "blemish" a word Alamy use to describe failure?

 

dd

 

 

http://www.alamy.com/contributors/alamy-qc-failure-reasons.pdf 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I just submitted a photo with lens flare and it was rejected as a "blemish," even though it was clearly artistic lens flare. So I guess it depends on who you get in QC and if they can tell the difference between artistic content and technical issues.

 

I was gong to ask for a look at the image before I saw Alamy's response showing your statement to be incorrect.

 

But I am interested: is "blemish" a word Alamy use to describe failure?

 

dd

 

 

http://www.alamy.com/contributors/alamy-qc-failure-reasons.pdf 

 

 

Thanks Geoff, I'd since looked it up :-) . . . original question while in free wi-fi zone at local shops and the pdf was taking ages so I stopped it and asked here.

 

dd

Link to post
Share on other sites

I just submitted a photo with lens flare and it was rejected as a "blemish," even though it was clearly artistic lens flare. So I guess it depends on who you get in QC and if they can tell the difference between artistic content and technical issues.

 

Dust spots can be easy to miss, especially if you're not used to checking for them. Some are almost transparent. Try looking at each image at 100% from different angles and in different lighting.

 

Good luck.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I just submitted a photo with lens flare and it was rejected as a "blemish," even though it was clearly artistic lens flare. So I guess it depends on who you get in QC and if they can tell the difference between artistic content and technical issues.

 

Dust spots can be easy to miss, especially if you're not used to checking for them. Some are almost transparent. Try looking at each image at 100% from different angles and in different lighting.

 

Good luck.

Little tip? MOVE the 100% zoomed image. Slight movement reveals the dustbunnies a LOT better. Just try it ;-)

Cheers,

Philippe

This is a great tip. I use PS for pp, and use the navigater panel to move the box around - first moving from top to bottom, and a second time from side to side. I have found this to be extremely effective, revealing sometimes what a first pass misses.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Another way to check for dust spots is to open a curves layer, set it to hard light. They'll pop out especially if you look at 100%. 

The "visualize spots" tool in LR is also very helpful but I give it a final pass in PS using the hard light curves layer just to be sure. I do a lot of photography by the sea in windy conditions and I'm often dealing with dust or even water spots on the outside of my lenses. Thankfully, to date I've kept my sensors clean. 

 

This sailed through QC with lens flare: 

solar-panel-photovoltaic-cells-array-clo

Edited by Marianne
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I just submitted a photo with lens flare and it was rejected as a "blemish," even though it was clearly artistic lens flare. So I guess it depends on who you get in QC and if they can tell the difference between artistic content and technical issues.

 

Dust spots can be easy to miss, especially if you're not used to checking for them. Some are almost transparent. Try looking at each image at 100% from different angles and in different lighting.

 

Good luck.

Little tip? MOVE the 100% zoomed image. Slight movement reveals the dustbunnies a LOT better. Just try it ;-)

 

Cheers,

Philippe

 

 

Yup, I do the moving around thing too. Also, zooming in and out -- e.g. 25%, 50%, 100% and back again -- can help with locating bunnies as well. 

 

I didn't know that Belgians invented the saxophone. Was the first one made out of chocolate?

Edited by John Mitchell
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Judging from the many comments on this subject and my own experience I wonder if it may also depend on your QC history. Perhaps if you have a long unblemished QC history they are more tolerant, working on the basis that you have shown you understand what QC want, therefore the flare, blur or whatever was much more likely to be intentional and they give the contributor the benfit of the doubt.

 

This is also misleading and poor advice for new contributors.

 

Flare, blur etc is fine as long as it is meant to be there. Your QC history does not come into it. 

 

Thanks

 

Alamy

 

Off topic a bit - but I love how Alamy is so responsive to specific issues such as these.. other agencies are so vague and will never clarify like this.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes just increase the contrast with a filter layer that is subsequently deleted, they jump out at you, but, strangely enough, as Philippe has said, moving the image also makes them more visible.

 

I got this advice years ago from another helpful contributor - sorry, indebted but name forgotten!

 

New adjustment layer

Mode linear burn

Slot color: orange

Type: photo filter

Filter color: lab color

Preserve luminosity

 

My PS filter action also includes 

 

Select layer background

 

but be careful if you have used an additional clone layer etc!

 

Sometimes you need to reduce the opacity of the filter layer - for a dark sky perhaps.

 

I've not had a failure since using this, fingers crossed....

Edited by Bryan
Link to post
Share on other sites

Black overlay layer above the b/g makes dust and faint oil spots stand out - very useful for skies. Add in a USM layer on occasion to check. The spot finding tool in PS and LR work quite well but are not perfect.

Edited by Guest
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.