hdh Posted February 19, 2016 Share Posted February 19, 2016 Alamy QC is hard and consequent, so we tend to over criticise some of our work. Nevertheless artistically blurry, unsharp and soft images seem to pass QC and I have quite some blurry images as I like shallow DOF's. This topic is inspired by the thread that Ed started in Alamy QC ( http://discussion.alamy.com/index.php?/topic/5282-the-case-for-unsharp-images/). Share your favourite blurry image(s) in this thread, so fellow photographers can get a feeling of what can potentially pass QC. One of my favourites is already in the above thread. Below is with a very shallow depth of field of a stone head in Angkor Wat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Ventura Posted February 19, 2016 Share Posted February 19, 2016 This isn't really my favorite but it is super blurry and was surprised it passed QC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecadet Posted February 19, 2016 Share Posted February 19, 2016 I probably wouldn't dare submit this nowadays, but it has sold. The print is fairly sharp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DDoug Posted February 19, 2016 Share Posted February 19, 2016 This is one of a series I did once upon a time for a winery in Napa County.I like some of the others better, to be uploaded when I get to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hdh Posted February 19, 2016 Author Share Posted February 19, 2016 This one stayed for weeks in my "Maybe upload to Alamy" folder. It is shot with a Canon 400D @ high iso, had a lot of noise to begin with and after a bit of gimping ended up soft. Finally I had the guts to upload and it passed QC: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecadet Posted February 19, 2016 Share Posted February 19, 2016 FWIW I wouldn't call that digitally altered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hdh Posted February 19, 2016 Author Share Posted February 19, 2016 FWIW I wouldn't call that digitally altered. Fair point, did not tick the digitally altered box but had it in description. This now reads "Postprocessed". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marianne Posted February 19, 2016 Share Posted February 19, 2016 Alamy has licensed images from this series for me a couple of times. I used a lensbaby: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiskerke Posted February 20, 2016 Share Posted February 20, 2016 It's a great Ciba print at 80x120cm. On Alamy it has never sold. wim edit: 35mm Velvia Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hdh Posted February 20, 2016 Author Share Posted February 20, 2016 Alamy has licensed images from this series for me a couple of times. I used a lensbaby: Oh, I did not know what a lensbaby was. At first sight I thought the blurriness was shopped in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted February 20, 2016 Share Posted February 20, 2016 Great idea. Very helpful for me because I'm a total wimp when it comes to uploading blurry (intentional, of course) images. Consequently, I don't have many on Alamy to share. Here's one that I like shot in a small indigenous community in Mexico. It was taken a long time ago with a manual focus camera. Somehow I nailed the focus on the girl's face and upper body. Not sure I could do it now, having been spoiled by AF. On second thought, this isn't really a blurry image after all but a panned image. Oh well, it's as close as I can get to blurred. This one is perhaps a bit closer to being a blurry image. The bullet hole is sharp, though. Fortunately she missed me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Rooney Posted February 20, 2016 Share Posted February 20, 2016 Channeling Ernst Haas, I suppose. This is the great Luis Miguel Dominguin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiskerke Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 I think Ernst Haas just won this challenge! wim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Rooney Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 I like your subway shot better, Wim -- where is that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiskerke Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 London, Tate Modern. I'm not the only one that could not resist it: Google. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TokyoM1ke Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 Not sure if this qualifies (face is fairly sharp, given it was night)... I hadn't even considered that it might have failed QC. Maybe a good moment to step back and inject some caution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Rooney Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 There's no reason that should fail QC, Mike . . . a good blurred-for-motion shot, and the driver's face is readable, his expression. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hdh Posted February 21, 2016 Author Share Posted February 21, 2016 London, Tate Modern. I'm not the only one that could not resist it: Google. Still like yours the most, great shot! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TokyoM1ke Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 There's no reason that should fail QC, Mike . . . a good blurred-for-motion shot, and the driver's face is readable, his expression. Thanks, easy to give way to paranoia in this company! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Crean Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 Just recently shot this rather blurry rainbow... Phil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dustydingo Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 Just recently shot this rather blurry rainbow... Phil Noice!!! Very, very noice!!!! Sort of a double-double-bluff . . . the rainbow stands out, grabs the eye immediately, demands to be the centre of attention, proclaims itself the subject . . . but the window and raindrops cover the whole frame and thereby have a technical claim to be the subject and by default have to pass QC muster, if they're sharp . . . and they are, they're sharp as a tack . . . but the real subject, the one the eye keeps guiltily sneaking back to, sits there in all its blurry glory, daring QC to say the focus is in the wrong place . . . Hey, okay, sometimes when I'm not too busy my mind wanders . . . others collect stamps . . . dd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bhandol Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 Aylesbury taken by rocking my Fuji X100 up/down during the exposure with its built in ND filter engaged. Parm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Crean Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 Just recently shot this rather blurry rainbow... Phil Noice!!! Very, very noice!!!! Sort of a double-double-bluff . . . the rainbow stands out, grabs the eye immediately, demands to be the centre of attention, proclaims itself the subject . . . but the window and raindrops cover the whole frame and thereby have a technical claim to be the subject and by default have to pass QC muster, if they're sharp . . . and they are, they're sharp as a tack . . . but the real subject, the one the eye keeps guiltily sneaking back to, sits there in all its blurry glory, daring QC to say the focus is in the wrong place . . . Hey, okay, sometimes when I'm not too busy my mind wanders . . . others collect stamps . . . dd Muchos thank yous for your comments....Wander on... Phil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Rooney Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 With these two posts about blurry and unsharp images for Alamy, I've learned a few things. I've changed my mind totally about the statement I made in my own "The Case for Unsharp Images" post: "But to get back to my original point: would you submit a blurry image to Alamy stock? I don't think I would . . . unless the subject was very famous or very important." There are 17 images on this post at the moment and a few on my original post . . . but only 5 of these were risky to submit to Alamy: Phil's window/rainbow, Bhandol's cityscape, Wim's escalator, funky's beach, and Betty's beach. The rest (including my bullfight and taxi cab) are commonplace on Alamy -- in fact if you do a search for "blurred motion" you'll find 136,148 Alamy images. Also I searched for . . . Selective focus 425,078 Out of focus 145,166 dof (depth of field) 32,154 Let's start shaking those cameras, ladies and gentlemen. Edo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TABan Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 This one recently sold, used here: http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20150912/ISSUE05/309129992/can-middle-managers-in-the-police-and-fire-departments-get-a-haircut I've never had a motion blurred shot rejected, but I always mention it in the caption/keywords Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.