Sultanpepa Posted May 27, 2016 Share Posted May 27, 2016 After pushing a backlit image, during editing, to a point where some little flowers look like a painting I'm left wondering if I've went too far for Alamy's QC. Now I know they are sympathetic to content and are really only concerned with the technical but I'm just not sure there's enough detail in the image for it to pass. I have a 100% record with QC and wouldn't like to jeopardise that. Sorry I can't post a sample of it, I have no host. I may just save it for FAA if I ever get round to joining. It would be nice as a print on a wall. What do you do with experimental images, submit or not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Yarvin Posted May 27, 2016 Share Posted May 27, 2016 What are your other options? I mean ... there's a whole school of thought - admittedly not popular on these boards - that says "if you don't have an occasional failure, you're not pushing the boundaries hard enough." Or ... if the image isn't worth the risk, just delete it and move on to the next one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted May 27, 2016 Share Posted May 27, 2016 If I have too many doubts, I don't submit. Also, I'm not sure that experimental images sell very well on Alamy, but then I don't do much technical experimentation. OTOH, with a !00% pass record, you probably wouldn't get sin-binned (famous last words). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kumar Posted May 27, 2016 Share Posted May 27, 2016 Yes, at times I do experiment. The following is my most-pushed, and back-lit as well. No sales as yet. Have had some sales in experimental images with 'technology' theme though. These were mostly PhotoShop 'image-renders'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hdh Posted May 27, 2016 Share Posted May 27, 2016 I do not think that there is anything wrong with pushing the limits and upload images that may be borderline. Alamy QC can well distinguish between pure technical mistakes and artistic expression - even if the latter was unintentional (the intention comes with uploading the image). If you believe it is worth looking at and sharing, I'd see no reason to hold it back! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allan Bell Posted May 27, 2016 Share Posted May 27, 2016 This is one of my "Pushed" images. Allan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kumar Posted May 27, 2016 Share Posted May 27, 2016 This is one of my "Pushed" images. Allan What was the original visual like Allan, that ended up in this push-render ? A bouquet ?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Chapman Posted May 27, 2016 Share Posted May 27, 2016 Sorry I can't post a sample of it, I have no host. You could use www.postimage.org. Suggest you watermark anything you upload. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sultanpepa Posted May 27, 2016 Author Share Posted May 27, 2016 I may upload it on its own so QC can see I'm not trying to sneek one past them or that it's unintentional. I would never have guessed windmills Allan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Robinson Posted May 27, 2016 Share Posted May 27, 2016 Like Alan above, if I have a composition I like but the quality isn't up to scratch, I make it very obviously digitally manipulated. http://tinyurl.com/zjmvzz5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted May 27, 2016 Share Posted May 27, 2016 I may upload it on its own so QC can see I'm not trying to sneek one past them or that it's unintentional. I would never have guessed windmills Allan. Me neither. What do they smoke in Cambridgeshire? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allan Bell Posted May 27, 2016 Share Posted May 27, 2016 This is one of my "Pushed" images. Allan What was the original visual like Allan, that ended up in this push-render ? A bouquet ?? If you must know it was this one which was already on Alamy. If you still do not know what they are, they are childs multi windmills on a market stand being blown round in a fast wind. I made the push/transition for a POD sight originally, of which I am no longer a contributor. Allan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted May 27, 2016 Share Posted May 27, 2016 Interesting idea. Was that a "Push On Demand" website? It would seem that QC uses somewhat different criteria for judging the technical quality of "pushed" images. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allan Bell Posted May 27, 2016 Share Posted May 27, 2016 Interesting idea. Was that a "Push On Demand" website? It would seem that QC uses somewhat different criteria for judging the technical quality of "pushed" images. Allan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hdh Posted May 27, 2016 Share Posted May 27, 2016 I believe it fulfills QC criteria 100% : no blemishes or dust - (tick) no camera shake - (tick) No CA whatsoever - (tick) intentional color cast - (tick) no compression artifacts - (tick) no excessive sharpening - (tick) no interpolation artifacts - (tick) definitely no noise - (tick) no noticeable retouching - (tick) not out of focus - (tick) intentionally over manipulated - (tick) no poor exposure - (tick) not SoLD - (tick) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sultanpepa Posted May 27, 2016 Author Share Posted May 27, 2016 I believe it fulfills QC criteria 100% : no blemishes or dust - (tick) no camera shake - (tick) No CA whatsoever - (tick) intentional color cast - (tick) no compression artifacts - (tick) no excessive sharpening - (tick) no interpolation artifacts - (tick) definitely no noise - (tick) no noticeable retouching - (tick) not out of focus - (tick) intentionally over manipulated - (tick) no poor exposure - (tick) not SoLD - (tick) If I'm honest it's the last two that concern me but only because the image doesn't conform to the normal idea of sharpness and contrast. The image was shot with studio flash and tripod but it could still fall foul of those two . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarlMillerPhotos Posted May 27, 2016 Share Posted May 27, 2016 It's funny that I just logged on to the forum to post a related remark and found this topic. I just uploaded two new images, rather late at night, and the next day when I looked at them again (in the light of day?) I though, "OMG. These are gonna fail!" But lo... they passed... I'm not sure I'd have passed them if I was the one on QC Patrol. :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stokie Posted May 27, 2016 Share Posted May 27, 2016 I was in two minds over whether to submit this image or not but risked it and it passed QC. As others have said, if you are going to push things, push them to the limits then it's obviously deliberate. John. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hdh Posted May 28, 2016 Share Posted May 28, 2016 Intentional Camerashake seems not to be a problem: and there is a thread about blurry images But Alan's photo is really special - need to try that myself at some time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allan Bell Posted May 28, 2016 Share Posted May 28, 2016 I was in two minds over whether to submit this image or not but risked it and it passed QC. As others have said, if you are going to push things, push them to the limits then it's obviously deliberate. John. Love your image above John. Allan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allan Bell Posted May 28, 2016 Share Posted May 28, 2016 Intentional Camerashake seems not to be a problem: and there is a thread about blurry images But Alan's photo is really special - need to try that myself at some time. Thank you for your comment about my image hdh. Kinda like yours too. Allan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stokie Posted May 28, 2016 Share Posted May 28, 2016 I was in two minds over whether to submit this image or not but risked it and it passed QC. As others have said, if you are going to push things, push them to the limits then it's obviously deliberate. John. Love your image above John. Allan Cheers, Allan, your's isn't too bad either! John. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allan Bell Posted May 28, 2016 Share Posted May 28, 2016 I may upload it on its own so QC can see I'm not trying to sneek one past them or that it's unintentional. I would never have guessed windmills Allan. Me neither. What do they smoke in Cambridgeshire? Students. Allan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted May 28, 2016 Share Posted May 28, 2016 I may upload it on its own so QC can see I'm not trying to sneek one past them or that it's unintentional. I would never have guessed windmills Allan. Me neither. What do they smoke in Cambridgeshire? Students. Allan Yup, you've got to look out for all that secondhand smoke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hdh Posted May 29, 2016 Share Posted May 29, 2016 I may upload it on its own so QC can see I'm not trying to sneek one past them or that it's unintentional. I would never have guessed windmills Allan. Me neither. What do they smoke in Cambridgeshire? Students. Allan Yup, you've got to look out for all that secondhand smoke. same here in Germany - best recognised when grumpy people pas a group and suddenly start smiling. .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.