Failed QC

[ole999]

Is one failed QC enough to be ruled out for days ..? 

[Ed Rooney]

Those are the rules of the game, Ole. We used to be kept from submitting new images for a month. 

[ole999]

Thanks, Ed. But really - one image ....!

[Colblimp]

The one time I failed QC, I received no ban and kept my 3 star rating.

[TeeCee]

40 minutes ago, ole999 said:

Thanks, Ed. But really - one image ....!

Yup. Always has been, always will be - sorry if that sounds a bit draconian Ole.
The idea is to ensure every image is perfect, it's one of several reasons that photos here sell for about 30 times the price they do on microstock sites.

Simple answer is to check everything at 100% view before uploading.

[spacecadet]

1 hour ago, Colblimp said:

The one time I failed QC, I received no ban and kept my 3 star rating.

Probably because you had a 3-star rating.

[Ed Rooney]

31 minutes ago, spacecadet said:

Probably because you had a 3-star rating.

 

Right, our Irish friend has earned that exception. Newbies can expect no such mercy.   (He's showing 2-stars.)

[spacecadet]

32 minutes ago, Ed Rooney said:

 

Right, our Irish friend has earned that exception. Newbies can expect no such mercy.   (He's showing 2-stars.)

Oh. I was allowed to fail at 2 stars- I only just got my third. Perhaps the Veterans' Administration intercedes for us.

[Martin B]

5 hours ago, Colblimp said:

The one time I failed QC, I received no ban and kept my 3 star rating.

I had 156 images in QC; one failed, which failed them all. The next night I uploaded them again and they passed less than 12 hours later. QC doesn't like low contrast snow images. But I didn't get a "ban". 

[NYCat]

6 hours ago, ole999 said:

Thanks, Ed. But really - one image ....!

 

It's worth spending the time looking over the rest of the submission to make sure the dust spots or whatever caused the failure doesn't appear also in the other images.

 

Paulette

[MandyD]

so weird...I just started, but I have a 3 star rating since January at least.

[Rico]

32 minutes ago, MandyD said:

so weird...I just started, but I have a 3 star rating since January at least.

I'm not sure how they give out the three stars. I only got mine after I hit the one thousand mark (after 7 yrs).

So maybe it's got something to do with that.

RIck

 

[Colblimp]

2 hours ago, Martin B said:

I had 156 images in QC; one failed, which failed them all. The next night I uploaded them again and they passed less than 12 hours later. QC doesn't like low contrast snow images. But I didn't get a "ban". 

 

Strange, isn't it?!

[Brasilnut]

Cynical me suspects that Alamy's QC policy has more to do with cutting costs on inspectors than anything else. Much easier/cheaper to have one freelancer inspector clicking on a random image within a batch than going through each image and checking at 100%, for dust spots etc.

 

Quote

The idea is to ensure every image is perfect, it's one of several reasons that photos here sell for about 30 times the price they do on microstock sites.

 

I find that technical standards on here can often be lower than the average on micros (at least traditionally because in the past year standards have dropped), but to be fair subject matter is far more encyclopedic (all-encompassing).  

[MandyD]

1 hour ago, Rico said:

I'm not sure how they give out the three stars. I only got mine after I hit the one thousand mark (after 7 yrs).

So maybe it's got something to do with that.

RIck

 

I had mine after 500 I am sure....no idea. I upload smaller batches often and rarely have a fail?

[wiskerke]

25 minutes ago, Brasilnut said:

I find that technical standards on here can often be lower than the average on micros (at least traditionally because in the past year standards have dropped), but to be fair subject matter is far more encyclopedic (all-encompassing).  

 

You're in an excellent position to test that theory.

Upload an image that has been refused for technical reasons over there, to Alamy. On it's own, so that you can be sure it's reviewed.

Every reviewer has his/her own pet peeves like CA or noise, but it would still be an interesting test.

 

wim

[John Richmond]

27 minutes ago, Brasilnut said:

Cynical me suspects that Alamy's QC policy has more to do with cutting costs on inspectors than anything else. Much easier/cheaper to have one freelancer inspector clicking on a random image within a batch than going through each image and checking at 100%, for dust spots etc.

Alamy operate a system which is common in manufacturing industry.  Suppliers are responsible for their own QC.  Alamy provide the technical standards required for image submission and it's our job as contributors to check that our images meet those standards.  Alamy sample the submitted images and, if they find a fault in the images sampled, reject the entire batch.  Their policy is clear and consistent.  The onus is where it should be - on us the contributors.

 

 

[Brasilnut]

Quote

You're in an excellent position to test that theory.

Upload an image that has been refused for technical reasons over there, to Alamy. On it's own, so that you can be sure it's reviewed.

Every reviewer has his/her own pet peeves like CA or noise, but it would still be an interesting test.

 

This one comes to mind. Perhaps I got lucky with the batch. 

 

 

Also this one had issues with focus elsewhere. 

I'll keep on the lookout.

 

Quote

Alamy operate a system which is common in manufacturing industry.  Suppliers are responsible for their own QC.  Alamy provide the technical standards required for image submission and it's our job as contributors to check that our images meet those standards.  Alamy sample the submitted images and, if they find a fault in the images sampled, reject the entire batch.  Their policy is clear and consistent.  The onus is where it should be - on us the contributors.

 

I do like this way of doing business - it's more grown up.

[Martin B]

1 hour ago, Brasilnut said:

Cynical me suspects that Alamy's QC policy has more to do with cutting costs on inspectors than anything else. Much easier/cheaper to have one freelancer inspector clicking on a random image

Much of it is done by computer algorithms looking for things like contrast, CA, and sharpness. Alamy has over half a million images coming in on a weekly basis, through three large servers.  Hate to think there was some guy going through every batch looking for dust spots and chromatic fringes. 

[Martin B]

2 hours ago, Colblimp said:

 

Strange, isn't it?!

I removed the one that failed before I uploaded them again. 

[wiskerke]

36 minutes ago, Brasilnut said:

 

This one comes to mind. Perhaps I got lucky with the batch. 

 

 

Also this one had issues with focus elsewhere. 

I'll keep on the lookout.

 

 

I do like this way of doing business - it's more grown up.

 

I noticed that you have uploaded the Ford Kuga in the rain as reportage. Not sure if that's necessary. Otoh it does have lots of color noise which we know QC doesn't like.

The Delft one is just too small to see if it has focus issues.

QC has one easy rule: if it looks good as a thumbnail, but turns out to be blurred or grainy or out of focus or has CA when zoomed, it will fail.

 

wim

[Martin B]

2 hours ago, Brasilnut said:

 

This one comes to mind. Perhaps I got lucky with the batch. 

 

 

 

 

"This image could have imperfections as it’s either historical or reportage."

 

Or perhaps you didn't upload this through the normal photograph portal. Images uploaded as reportage do not go through QC. That would have never made it through regular QC, luck or not. 

[Martin B]

1 hour ago, wiskerke said:

 

or has CA when zoomed, it will fail.

 

 

I shoot with an antique petzval lens on a good percentage of my photos, and so upload images with sometimes outrageous CA. Hundreds. They are usually pretty soft as well. Have not had one fail for that yet.

 

 

[ole999]

The images that failed was taken with my iPhone 7, so I found out it’s not allowed here. All my uploaded images was then in the bin - most if them shot with my DSLR.

[ole999]

... but 9 days - I think it’s overkill ...!