Unsuitable Material?

[Rhyfeddod]

Obviously no glamor present so Alamy error.

 

Allan

Yes it was their error I have no found out, but I do know why. Just typing it up as "the solution" now but more so for the interest of everyone who has helped with this query.

[Rhyfeddod]

This post will be a series of quotes from both the email sent to contributor service and previous posts in this thread for those interested. Again thank you all for your help and welcoming attitudes.

 

Here begins the story of a mistaken reject... (Not to worry Alamy). I emailed contributors@alamy.com and within quarter of an hour received a response from Shelley.

 

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. 

 

 

Here is what she said:

 

Hi Luke

 

Apologies for this, these were mistakenly failed for this reason. [Ed: Referring to a rights issue]

 

We did have a legal issue with Network Rail however we can now sell these images as long as they are used for editorial only.

 

I have spoken to our QC team and they have now put your images back through QC and passed them.

 

We do however recommend adding an editorial only restriction to these image to avoid future complications.

 

You can do this in the ‘Manage images’ section of your account and restricting them for commercial use and consumer goods.

 

Hope this helps.

 

Thanks a lot,

Shelley

 

This supports both the suggestions from chrumu and spacecadet.

 

[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.] - chrumu

 

[They were reinstated.

It's not a QC criterion AFAIK.

or at least it didn't use to be.

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

 

 

And thankfully was nothing to do with the minor fringing etc as otherwise I don't stand a chance. While I will try to correct both of the minor issues below (which are quoted for interests sake), it is inevitable that I will not spot every case of minor fringing for example - no matter how hard I look!

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

Apologies for the way some of the quotes are done (I used more than the allowed number of quote boxes).

[Trevor Chriss]

Back in 2012 I had some Olympic shots failed, reason glamour. No glamour it because I was not an accredited Olympic photographer, so Alamy failed me. But the glamour reason did confuse me.

They were female mountain cyclists, I thought perhaps there was too much leg showing!!!

[John Walker]

The only comment I have is that when viewed at 100%, the focus is dropping off before the VIRGIN name on the train.  To me, that is an important point of focus and should be 'pin sharp'.

 

I agree that it's more likely an incorrect 'fail' reason has been given.

[Rhyfeddod]

Back in 2012 I had some Olympic shots failed, reason glamour. No glamour it because I was not an accredited Olympic photographer, so Alamy failed me. But the glamour reason did confuse me.

They were female mountain cyclists, I thought perhaps there was too much leg showing!!!

Indeed. Thankfully mine were trains which helps avoid slight confused! And that's just a shame when you cannot use your own photos because of reasons like that.

[Rhyfeddod]

The only comment I have is that when viewed at 100%, the focus is dropping off before the VIRGIN name on the train.  To me, that is an important point of focus and should be 'pin sharp'.

 

I agree that it's more likely an incorrect 'fail' reason has been given.

I must have focused slightly oddly but it was an incorrect reason it that there was no reason for it fail. There's a bit more information why in the long post above. Thank you for your comment though - it's something I now know I need to work on.