John Walker Posted July 6, 2013 Share Posted July 6, 2013 Firstly, this is not in any way intended as a criticism. Looking at the current images on the home page there appear (to my eyes) areas of blown highlights. I suppose they would come under the heading of 'creative'. I would be very wary of uploading any of mine if they were like this as I would be concerned about them not passing QC. It will interesting to read what other forum members think - I'm guessing mixed opinions. Regards John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Niels Quist Posted July 6, 2013 Share Posted July 6, 2013 Actually not blown.Quite varying values below 255-255-255. Just checked. But you are right - at first glance it looks as if it is could be blown. Quite acceptable I think, though covering a large area of the photo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Crean Posted July 6, 2013 Share Posted July 6, 2013 My first darkroom instructor said on my first day in the darkroom..."The secret is that it's called Black & White. You need to see both." I think the same applies in colour...there are two opposite ends of the tonal scale from pure white,(could be blown out hilights) to pure black, and the strength in a lot of images is in having both. There will always be the exception, but blown out hilights never bothered me unless they detracted form the image. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Julesimages Posted July 6, 2013 Share Posted July 6, 2013 Can't comment on the exact technical quality of the images but I liked them and when I saw some of them I thought.......hmmmmm most of my images are very safe because of QC fears and I would be reluctant to upload some of my more "creative" stuff. Maybe time for a rethink? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
losdemas Posted July 6, 2013 Share Posted July 6, 2013 Can't comment on the exact technical quality of the images but I liked them and when I saw some of them I thought.......hmmmmm most of my images are very safe because of QC fears and I would be reluctant to upload some of my more "creative" stuff. Maybe time for a rethink? +1 My feelings exactly. I'm always overly careful when regarding extremes: focusing, highlights, DOF, etc. in order to comply precisely with QC requirements. I think that it might be time to take a risk or two! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Thompson Posted July 6, 2013 Share Posted July 6, 2013 And why do the have to cover the focal point of the image with the search box and James' Blog? I am sure they could move them to one side for images like this?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Rooney Posted July 6, 2013 Share Posted July 6, 2013 I think the people at Alamy QC get it when a shooter is going for a creative effect. The "blown" window light in the first image is a common effect in interior magazines. This image of mine would not be at all interesting if it did not include both under and over exposures at the ends: http://fineartamerica.com/featured/mannequins-ed-rooney.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted July 6, 2013 Share Posted July 6, 2013 I think the people at Alamy QC get it when a shooter is going for a creative effect. The "blown" window light in the first image is a common effect in interior magazines. This image of mine would not be at all interesting if it did not include both under and over exposures at the ends: http://fineartamerica.com/featured/mannequins-ed-rooney.html Very nice, Ed. I like the effect. However, I would have been hesitant to upload an image like that after reading Alamy's submission guidelines, which make no mention of creative effects. Why has QC made us -- or at least some of us -- so paranoid? I think this is a fair question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
losdemas Posted July 6, 2013 Share Posted July 6, 2013 I think the people at Alamy QC get it when a shooter is going for a creative effect. The "blown" window light in the first image is a common effect in interior magazines. This image of mine would not be at all interesting if it did not include both under and over exposures at the ends: http://fineartamerica.com/featured/mannequins-ed-rooney.html Very nice, Ed. I like the effect. However, I would have been hesitant to upload an image like that after reading Alamy's submission guidelines, which make no mention of creative effects. Why has QC made us -- or at least some of us -- so paranoid? I think this is a fair question. Yes, you're right of course, Ed, but along with John I too have been nervous about swerving off-course from the submission guidelines for fear of failing QC. I uploaded a first test in my last submission two days ago (very bright; 'natural' but exaggerated flare and saturation). I took the picture more than 3 years ago, but have not submitted it until now precisely because of the reasons stated: ...but it got through OK - as Ed suggests would be the case with his example. Time to get a little braver maybe?! Edit: BTW, there's only the slightest suggestion of blown highlights along the bottom blade and the sunburst at the bottom of the mast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Rooney Posted July 6, 2013 Share Posted July 6, 2013 FLASH! I have NOT got that image in my Alamy collection . . . thought I had, but no. So be careful, mates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
losdemas Posted July 6, 2013 Share Posted July 6, 2013 FLASH! I have NOT got that image in my Alamy collection . . . thought I had, but no. So be careful, mates. Give it a go and let us know! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted July 6, 2013 Share Posted July 6, 2013 Having to possibly wait a month a more to hear whether or not your creative efforts are acceptable doesn't exactly inspire risk-taking. But that particular road has been travelled many times before... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Rooney Posted July 7, 2013 Share Posted July 7, 2013 FLASH! I have NOT got that image in my Alamy collection . . . thought I had, but no. So be careful, mates. Give it a go and let us know! LOL Don't think so. Alamy is neither a fine arts agency nor a print agency. My everyday tendency is to shoot subjects for Alamy that I think of as stock, going for a normal exposure. I would have no hesitation in submitting the shot that the OP was talking about . . . but my yellow mannikins are a bit out there. I feel that in stock no one image is very important. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MariaJ Posted July 8, 2013 Share Posted July 8, 2013 Being relatively new here, I was surprised to see how many "fine arts" style images were found in Alamy's featured images page. Makes me wonder if I should upload some of my more artsy image. http://www.alamy.com/lightbox/viewlightbox.aspx?LB=1140569 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Tadman Posted July 9, 2013 Share Posted July 9, 2013 I'm currently in the 'sin-bin' having uploaded what I thought was a creative and evocative image in evening sunlight. It's been nearly a year since I had a QC failure which was entirely my fault - isn't it always? I am still of the opinion that it has photographic merit/ sales potential but am expecting a failure due to SoLD. It's a judgement call and in fairness to Alamy, their rules are abundantly clear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Rooney Posted July 11, 2013 Share Posted July 11, 2013 FLASH! I have NOT got that image in my Alamy collection . . . thought I had, but no. So be careful, mates. Give it a go and let us know! LOL Don't think so. Alamy is neither a fine arts agency nor a print agency. My everyday tendency is to shoot subjects for Alamy that I think of as stock, going for a normal exposure. I would have no hesitation in submitting the shot that the OP was talking about . . . but my yellow mannikins are a bit out there. I feel that in stock no one image is very important. An Update: As it turns out I do have this mannequins image on Alamy! AX4NRT I just missed it when looking through my collection the other day. So whatever lesson you (and I) have drawn from this, let's reverse our opinions. So as I think I've said, QC gets it. I was of course looking for something else when I tripped over this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted July 11, 2013 Share Posted July 11, 2013 I'm currently in the 'sin-bin' having uploaded what I thought was a creative and evocative image in evening sunlight. It's been nearly a year since I had a QC failure which was entirely my fault - isn't it always? I am still of the opinion that it has photographic merit/ sales potential but am expecting a failure due to SoLD. It's a judgement call and in fairness to Alamy, their rules are abundantly clear. IME, it's seldom the image that I think is going to fail that ultimately does. QC can be full of surprises. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.