Unsuitable Material?

[Rhyfeddod]

Hi.

In my first attempt to upload 3 of the photos failed all for the same reason, "Unsuitable material e.g. glamour". Two of them were very similar to the ones found:

http://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-paddington-station-london-platform-with-trains-waiting-for-boarding-125554820.html?pv=1&stamp=2&imageid=C1297AEF-7A80-4AAB-BB90-DBAA529CF877&p=75359&n=0&orientation=0&pn=1&searchtype=0&IsFromSearch=1&srch=foo%3dbar%26st%3d0%26pn%3d1%26ps%3d120%26sortby%3d2%26resultview%3dsortbyPopular%26npgs%3d1%26qt%3dgreat%2520western%2520railway%26qt_raw%3dgreat%2520western%2520railway%26lic%3d3%26mr%3d0%26pr%3d0%26ot%3d0%26creative%3d%26ag%3d0%26hc%3d0%26pc%3d%26blackwhite%3d%26cutout%3d%26tbar%3d1%26et%3d0x000000000000000000000%26vp%3d0%26loc%3d0%26imgt%3d0%26dtfr%3d%26dtto%3d%26size%3d0xFF%26archive%3d1%26groupid%3d%26pseudoid%3d%26a%3d-1%26cdid%3d%26cdsrt%3d%26name%3d%26qn%3d%26apalib%3d0%26apalic%3d%26lightbox%3d%26gname%3d%26gtype%3d%26xstx%3d0%26simid%3d%26saveQry%3d%26editorial%3d1%26nu%3d%26t%3d%26edoptin%3d%26customgeoip%3dGB%26cap%3d1%26cbstore%3d1%26vd%3d1

and

http://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-the-great-western-train-waits-in-the-oxford-station-20837930.html?pv=1&stamp=2&imageid=B9E96700-4DB1-423F-A8D5-A8A23CD8F97F&p=148051&n=0&orientation=0&pn=1&searchtype=0&IsFromSearch=1&srch=foo%3dbar%26st%3d0%26pn%3d1%26ps%3d120%26sortby%3d2%26resultview%3dsortbyPopular%26npgs%3d1%26qt%3dgreat%2520western%2520railway%26qt_raw%3dgreat%2520western%2520railway%26lic%3d3%26mr%3d0%26pr%3d0%26ot%3d0%26creative%3d%26ag%3d0%26hc%3d0%26pc%3d%26blackwhite%3d%26cutout%3d%26tbar%3d1%26et%3d0x000000000000000000000%26vp%3d0%26loc%3d0%26imgt%3d0%26dtfr%3d%26dtto%3d%26size%3d0xFF%26archive%3d1%26groupid%3d%26pseudoid%3d%26a%3d-1%26cdid%3d%26cdsrt%3d%26name%3d%26qn%3d%26apalib%3d0%26apalic%3d%26lightbox%3d%26gname%3d%26gtype%3d%26xstx%3d0%26simid%3d%26saveQry%3d%26editorial%3d1%26nu%3d%26t%3d%26edoptin%3d%26customgeoip%3dGB%26cap%3d1%26cbstore%3d1%26vd%3d1

 

Logos are visible in the photos, but they are in many stock images, so what is the issue, glamour or infringement of rights of any third party? Am I just not allowed to post anything with a logo? (One of the companies doesn't even existed now as they re branded but haven't painted everything up yet.)

[Niels Quist]

I'd e-mail Contributor Service and ask whether this is correct. No glamour as far as I can see - and the logos shouldn't be a problem. Maybe the reason for failure was another, but somebody hit the wrong key.

 

But the linked photos are just similar to yours - so a little difficult to tell about this reason or some other reason. If you want the forum's opinion you should show your image at 100% in the forum. Requires that you can upload it somewhere else. Remember to put a copyright watermark on them as a 100% image could be downloaded and misused.

[spacecadet]

I suggest you ask MS. Most of us have plenty of this sort of stuff and unreleased material is Alamy's stock-in-trade.

Alamy have taken down images which consist only of the LUL logo, but not where it's in context.

[Niels Quist]

I suggest you ask MS. Most of us have plenty of this sort of stuff and unreleased material is Alamy's stock-in-trade.

Alamy have taken down images which consist only of the LUL logo, but not where it's in context.

 

I guess you mean Contributor Service now - contributors@alamy.com - MS - Member Services is a bit yesterday and doesn't work any longer. 

[spacecadet]

memberservices@alamy.com still worked for me 3 weeks ago.

[Niels Quist]

memberservices@alamy.com still worked for me 3 weeks ago.

 

Okay, I didn't know this. However, still correct that we better use the new address, isn't it?

[chrumu]

Wasn't there a british train station operator which doesn't allow photos taken on his premises being used commercially?

 

I think I remember a discussion here a while age because many people had their photos removed.

[spacecadet]

They were reinstated.

It's not a QC criterion AFAIK.

or at least it didn't use to be.

[Ed Rooney]

Ah, Paddington porn! And I used to live in Oxford, so I'm well aware of what goes on at that station!

 

Seriously, as Niels says, someone pushed a wrong button. Alamy will sort it out for you . . . unless you are in fact a Brit rail pervert. Hmm. 

[Niels Quist]

Ah, Paddington porn! And I used to live in Oxford, so I'm well aware of what goes on at that station!

 

Seriously, as Niels says, someone pushed a wrong button. Alamy will sort it out for you . . . unless you are in fact a Brit rail pervert. Hmm. 

 

or completely off track 

[Rhyfeddod]

Wasn't there a british train station operator which doesn't allow photos taken on his premises being used commercially?

 

I think I remember a discussion here a while age because many people had their photos removed.

Isn't it law that you are permitted to take and use pictures for whatever purpose on from Network Rail property? As for the actual trains, this I don't know. The operators were First Great Western (defunct) and Virgin Trains East Coast.

[Rhyfeddod]

This is the Virgin East Coast photo (with suitable destruction):

[Niels Quist]

This is the Virgin East Coast photo (with suitable destruction):

 

 

I am not quite sure the image is completely sharp / in focus in a logical area. So if failed, I would say it was the wrong key / reason. But do send them an  e-mail and clear it up.

[Joseph Clemson]

I think you need to contact contributor services for some greater clarity on the failure reason. The only odd thing about the above train in the hashtag campaign on it, which I know is a Virgin Trains sanctioned campaign supporting a railman with cancer. It may be they think there is some kind of problem with that, though I don't know why.

 

Edited to add. I would agree with Niels that, if anything, the failure might be down to the focus and definition being a little soft, but that doesn't appear to be what they have stated.

[Joseph Clemson]

 

Wasn't there a british train station operator which doesn't allow photos taken on his premises being used commercially?

 

I think I remember a discussion here a while age because many people had their photos removed.

Isn't it law that you are permitted to take and use pictures for whatever purpose on from Network Rail property? As for the actual trains, this I don't know. The operators were First Great Western (defunct) and Virgin Trains East Coast.

 

 

If you have a look at Network Rail's website you'll find (https://filming.networkrail.co.uk/home.aspx) extensive information on what is required for commercial filming (which I take to include photgraphy) at their stations. They backed down last year on removing all images taken on their premises when it was pointed out to them that these were not commercial but for editorial purposes.

 

If you have any information on a law which says they are out of order in requiring fees and permission for filming, I'm sure that many on Alamy would be interested to hear more about it. 

 

The train companies are private companies and using their trains etc with their branding for commercial purposes which they have not sanctioned would open the possibility of legal sanctions. Editorial use, though, should not  be a problem.

[Rhyfeddod]

 

This is the Virgin East Coast photo (with suitable destruction):

 

 

I am not quite sure the image is completely sharp / in focus in a logical area. So if failed, I would say it was the wrong key / reason. But do send them an  e-mail and clear it up.

 

Alright thank you, I'll be sure to query it then as there was one which did pass which I cannot tell my difference in focusing but then I do have to auto-focus as my eyes are blurry so maybe I could not tell when reviewing on pc.

[Rhyfeddod]

I think you need to contact contributor services for some greater clarity on the failure reason. The only odd thing about the above train in the hashtag campaign on it, which I know is a Virgin Trains sanctioned campaign supporting a railman with cancer. It may be they think there is some kind of problem with that, though I don't know why.

 

Edited to add. I would agree with Niels that, if anything, the failure might be down to the focus and definition being a little soft, but that doesn't appear to be what they have stated.

 

 

 

 

Wasn't there a british train station operator which doesn't allow photos taken on his premises being used commercially?

 

I think I remember a discussion here a while age because many people had their photos removed.

Isn't it law that you are permitted to take and use pictures for whatever purpose on from Network Rail property? As for the actual trains, this I don't know. The operators were First Great Western (defunct) and Virgin Trains East Coast.

 

 

If you have a look at Network Rail's website you'll find (https://filming.networkrail.co.uk/home.aspx) extensive information on what is required for commercial filming (which I take to include photgraphy) at their stations. They backed down last year on removing all images taken on their premises when it was pointed out to them that these were not commercial but for editorial purposes.

 

If you have any information on a law which says they are out of order in requiring fees and permission for filming, I'm sure that many on Alamy would be interested to hear more about it. 

 

The train companies are private companies and using their trains etc with their branding for commercial purposes which they have not sanctioned would open the possibility of legal sanctions. Editorial use, though, should not  be a problem.

 

Okay thank you. I'm sure it's not the hashtag as the two others which failed where not of that train and as such were not carrying the hashtag.

 

That information seems to be for more commercial mainstream films but I definitely take your point. Although, it would seem odd to me if it failed due to that as they are other picture on Alamy (like the two posted earlier) which are taken from Network Rail property, so wouldn't understand some being allowed and not others. Again with the last point, why would my photos be declined for that when others already exist on Alamy - I suppose that's my main headache.

 

I'll email them tomorrow. Thank you all.

[Sultanpepa]

You say two images were similar to the train image examples, what about the other two? Were they glamour?

[Rhyfeddod]

You say two images were similar to the train image examples, what about the other two? Were they glamour?

I'm not entirely sure what counts as glamour, but they were pictures exclusively of a train and a platform.

[Niels Quist]

 

 

This is the Virgin East Coast photo (with suitable destruction):

I am not quite sure the image is completely sharp / in focus in a logical area. So if failed, I would say it was the wrong key / reason. But do send them an e-mail and clear it up.

Alright thank you, I'll be sure to query it then as there was one which did pass which I cannot tell my difference in focusing but then I do have to auto-focus as my eyes are blurry so maybe I could not tell when reviewing on pc.

I use autofocus often, too, nothing wrong with that, but I have to use it meticulously to ensure the focus is where I want it to be.

Please tell us the result of your e-mail contact, we are curious.

 

I don't use greenies much, but I have to give you one for your extremely exemplary way of approaching and using the forum. Your openness and willingness to follow up on any suggestions from the forum is an absolute model for any newcomer to use.

[mickfly]

Very slight purple fringing on left side of chimney, and also on edge of the 'roof vent' top left, not sure if it would be enough to fail image but I see it.

[Rhyfeddod]

Very slight purple fringing on left side of chimney, and also on edge of the 'roof vent' top left, not sure if it would be enough to fail image but I see it.

I cannot notice this on the roof vent myself, but can on the chimney. How would I prevent further purpling like that? Is it ISO related? Thank you.

[Matt Ashmore]

 

Very slight purple fringing on left side of chimney, and also on edge of the 'roof vent' top left, not sure if it would be enough to fail image but I see it.

I cannot notice this on the roof vent myself, but can on the chimney. How would I prevent further purpling like that? Is it ISO related? Thank you.

 

 

It relates to the quality of your lens, your focal length and the aperture you are using. This link gives a quick description:

 

http://www.peachpit.com/articles/article.aspx?p=1795816&seqNum=2

 

I have a cheap Tamron zoom lens which gives me horrendous purple fringing... I have to make sure that I use it at small apertures and hence a tripod if I am anywhere near the long end of it's focal range. I guess boosting the ISO would allow me to use a small aperture and reduce the fringing... so your question about ISO might be pertinent in that respect.

 

Depending on how bad purple fringing is, it can often be removed using appropriate editing software. For example, using Lightroom, I can usually remove purple fringing quite easily. But when I use my cheap Tamron lens at wide apertures, it can often produce purple fringing which surpasses the abilities of Lightroom's automatic CA removal tools.

[spacecadet]

 CA is a favourite for QC fails but yours is quite slight. Confirm your failure reason on this sub before potentially getting sidetracked, but do deal with it. I have it in a LR preset.

[Allan Bell]

Obviously no glamor present so Alamy error.

 

Allan