Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Greetings

 

I have a Nikon F100 film camera with which I like to experiment, often with cross processed film, usually with a Nikkor 50mm f1.4 lens attached. My digitalising system involves processing the film into a slide format (even if it's a print), then using my Nikon D810 + Nikkor 60mm f2.8 lens with a slide attachment, shooting in RAW & then introducing into my regular workflow. Does anyone know whether this type of image would be acceptable to Alamy's QC?

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's unlikely a slide copying attachment would have the optical quality to pass QC. It would have to be a high- resolution scan.

The only exception is if you have permission to submit archival material, which bypasses QC. I use an Illumitran for that- the resolution isn't up to that of a good scan, but new material wouldn't qualify.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Greetings

 

I have a Nikon F100 film camera with which I like to experiment, often with cross processed film, usually with a Nikkor 50mm f1.4 lens attached. My digitalising system involves processing the film into a slide format (even if it's a print), then using my Nikon D810 + Nikkor 60mm f2.8 lens with a slide attachment, shooting in RAW & then introducing into my regular workflow. Does anyone know whether this type of image would be acceptable to Alamy's QC?

 

The only way of knowing is to try it. However, I believe there are fair few contributors who use a similar approach to digitising slides with a macro lens and a slide copier. I believe many take a conservative approach with regard to file size or by sending them through the Archive route, for most people that is what their film images represent.

Edited by Martin P Wilson
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Greetings

 

I have a Nikon F100 film camera with which I like to experiment, often with cross processed film, usually with a Nikkor 50mm f1.4 lens attached. My digitalising system involves processing the film into a slide format (even if it's a print), then using my Nikon D810 + Nikkor 60mm f2.8 lens with a slide attachment, shooting in RAW & then introducing into my regular workflow. Does anyone know whether this type of image would be acceptable to Alamy's QC?

 

The only way of knowing is to try it. However, I believe there are fair few contributors who use a similar approach to digitising slides with a macro lens and a slide copier. I believe many take a conservative approach with regard to file size or by sending them through the Archive route, for most people that is what their film images represent.

 

I downsize to 4000 for archival but OP is creating material now which it would be a bit cheaty to submit as archival.

I haven't stretched a point so won't submit images that are just old, they have to have some qualifying feature, such as showing somewhere as it no longer is, or an old make of car, or a demolished building. Otherwise I could pile a lot of scenics and tourist destinations on here. But unless someone is wearing flares, or driving a 1987 Ford Escort, or something, they stay on the hard drive. I've only put up about 150 out of over 5,000.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for your replies.

 

I do have a few archive images, but yes, most of this would be new work.

 

Here's an idea of the sort of thing. This happens to be a 100% zoom, so has a smidge more grain than usual, but I love the image.

DSC_6888crpf_zpsjn7mnbmj.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it would work out. So give it a try. Never fear rejection.

 
You are using a hi rez camera and a macro lens for the conversion so no problems there. The work is experimental. I find that QC understands that, and makes allowances.
 
I would suggest that you shoot digital and manipulate your images in photoshop. It would be cheaper. You would have better control, and many more experimental options.
 
I have just seen the grain example image. If there is a good creative reason for the grain, if the grain enhances the image, I would submit it.
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Bill replied while I was typing, tend to agree with him!

 

I suspect that copying using a macro lens with a high res digital camera could be fine, but not so sure about your grainy shot.

 

I like it, but would it pass QC?  Blurred images do get through if it is obvious that the blur is intentional rather than the product of bad technique, so maybe your highly processed image would also get through. You might ask the question of contributor relations before submitting, rather than risk taking a hit.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Mail Alamy Contributor Relations using contributors@alamy.com and attach the image above. Explain what you are about and ask if it would be worthwhile submitting to QC. I wouldn't normally do this kind of thing, but this could be considered an exception, and, in the worst case,  they will presumably just say that they are unable to comment.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems to me that the real question here is whether very grainy images will be accepted by Alamy regardless of how they were produced. It brings up an interesting question as to whether they should be marked as digitally altered given that the special effects are presumably mainly due to the chemical rather than the digital processing (or are they a combo of chemical and digital). They look more like art pictures than typical Alamy stock and the OP may want to be thinking along those lines if trying to sell them.

Edited by MDM
Link to post
Share on other sites

I doubt they would be accepted. I had a very clear photograph that I deliberately added grain and sepia tone for an old photo effect. The grain was much less than what yours shows. It failed and I was put in time out.

But then who knows. It could depend on the QC person your images get.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The only way of knowing is to try it. However, I believe there are fair few contributors who use a similar approach to digitising slides with a macro lens and a slide copier. I believe many take a conservative approach with regard to file size or by sending them through the Archive route, for most people that is what their film images represent.

 

 

 

 

I was under the impression that the Archival route is for Archival images that have some historic aspect - not so much archival processes. I doubt it was intended for contemporary creative images that can't pass QC.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Always difficult to tell and may well be down to whoever is doing the QC at the time....I have quite a few taken on high speed grainy mono film that have always passed without problem...but a similar grainy pic taken on high speed colour neg film failed !

 

top-of-a-mosque-and-rooftop-of-house-pok

Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps if the grain is visible at preview size, then it isn't a problem. Like this one.

Indeed Alamy made just that point on here, perhaps a year ago when we were discussing deliberate blur. If it is visible in the preview as well and not just at 100% then it is essentially acceptable. I got the impression it was so that the client was not surprised by "QC" issues when they got the hi-rez file.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Perhaps if the grain is visible at preview size, then it isn't a problem. Like this one.

As I understand it Stockimo isn't subject to QC.

 

 

Every Stockimo pic is subject to QC. They like them to be heavily manipulated though so a straight image that might pass Alamy QC is actually less likely to be accepted in my experience. They want something "arty" with filters.

 

Paulette

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Perhaps if the grain is visible at preview size, then it isn't a problem. Like this one.

Indeed Alamy made just that point on here, perhaps a year ago when we were discussing deliberate blur. If it is visible in the preview as well and not just at 100% then it is essentially acceptable. I got the impression it was so that the client was not surprised by "QC" issues when they got the hi-rez file.

 

 

My thoughts as well.

 

Unfortunately, there is usually only one way to find out for sure if QC will accept a particular image.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The S at the beginning of the reference number means it is Stockimo. Honestly, I don't know why I continue with it since it seems to not result in sales (at least not for me). The thing I like about it is if I am sitting in a waiting room I can choose an image I've taken along the way and play with it.

 

Paulette

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mail Alamy Contributor Relations using contributors@alamy.com and attach the image above. Explain what you are about and ask if it would be worthwhile submitting to QC. I wouldn't normally do this kind of thing, but this could be considered an exception, and, in the worst case,  they will presumably just say that they are unable to comment.

 

Thanks, I will do this & feedback to the forum.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Feeding back my response from Alamy.

 

They quickly replied that it would not be suitable as my example image would not pass QC.

 

 

 

It might be accepted by Stockimo, if you want to try that route.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.