rejected images have been rejected without being assessed

[danielmckay]

I uploaded 41 photographs in the same batch. One of them got rejected so I got this message: "One or More Images Failed QC. This means the remaining images have been rejected without being assessed. "

It doesn't make sense to me. It means I have to upload the whole thing again (except for that one photo) and go thru the whole process again. And if by any chance there's another photo out of the 40 I upload that doesn't pass QC, I will have to go thru the process again, and so on, and so on, and so on...

Am I gonna have to upload one photo at a time?!

Is there a way around this that I'm not aware of (I'm pretty new on this site)

This is the only stock photo site I know where this happens.

Has this happened to you?

Thank You.

 

[M.Chapman]

They are the rules. Search the forum for QC fail and you'll find plenty of threads discussing this and explaining why Alamy applies this policy. Alamy relies on contributors doing the 100% QC  in return for 50% commission.

 

Mark

 

 

Edited May 1, 2018 by M.Chapman

[Stephen Lloyd]

The 100% rejection policy has been here for years, and we all work with it. It makes sure we check all our submissions fully. Think about how many Alamy get per day - if they've already for an error in a batch it's not logical - or profitable - for them to spend more manpower checking a batch which the submitter has not done thoroughly. It's happened to me and only myself to blame when it occurred. It's in l the guidelines and FAQs.

[James Hodgson]

Its not as bad as you think. Just find out why that one photo failed, and correct if possible, and check all the others for the same reason. View them at 100% etc. Then try again. Its interesting sometimes to discover failure reasons that you may not have spotted.

[wiskerke]

8 hours ago, danielmckay said:

<>

And if by any chance there's another photo out of the 40 I upload that doesn't pass QC, I will have to go thru the process again, and so on, and so on, and so on...

<>

 

Not quite, you'll be banned for a while before that.

And if your standing is lowered, so will the bar:  you'll be banned sooner.

So beware, try not to fail too often.

 

Here's the official explanation.

 

wim

[Betty LaRue]

Most of us have learned to enlarge our photos on our computers to 100%. That’s how Alamy looks at them. That’s when you scroll from side to side, up and down. Look for dust bunnies in the sky, chromatic aberration (red,green, purple or whatever color along edges of things). Or whether it has a color cast. (Too blue, too amber, muddy looking blue skies, etc)

We look to see if the image still looks sharp at 100%. If it doesn’t, or we waffle whether it is sharp or not, we reject it. I had trouble with that myself for awhile, erring on the side of “sharp enough” when it wasn’t.

The biggest mistake is when you get a fail to not go back over every single image in the submission to ferret out other images that aren’t good enough.

Alamy has to answer to their customer base, and they need to trust us to do our part in a professional way.

It hurts to fail. At least for me. So I do everything I can to not feel that pain again.

Betty

[Dave Richards]

All of what others have advised. I would also recommend you re-examine your image captions and tagging before you get many more in your collection. For example image MEX3A3 caption is not really accurate and many keywords are also incorrect or irrelevant. This can damage your ranking. Hope this helps, and wish you well for your next submission.

[NYCat]

Yes, your keywords are going to make it unlikely you will do well here. You should only be putting what is actually in the photo.

 

Paulette

[Roger Johansen]

MEWPNX also have some keywords that doesn't belong there like: art, bolt cutters, nails and so on.

 

Alamy is also fast accepting images (24 hour), like other sites takes many days.

 

[Sally]

3 hours ago, NYCat said:

Yes, your keywords are going to make it unlikely you will do well here. You should only be putting what is actually in the photo.

 

Paulette

Seconded.

Take a look at MEXN80 for example. It’s a photo of peaches,  but you have tags carrots, banana, corn, green, Latin, vegetables, spicy, street photography, pepper, plantain etc. 

This may be a case of not deselecting an image when you add keywords, and is easily done. I’d take the advice of going through all your images now before your collection grows and editing severely. I waited to do this after I had several thousand images, and it’s a lot of work!

[M.Chapman]

 

3 hours ago, Sally said:

Seconded.

Take a look at MEXN80 for example. It’s a photo of peaches,  but you have tags carrots, banana, corn, green, Latin, vegetables, spicy, street photography, pepper, plantain etc. 

This may be a case of not deselecting an image when you add keywords, and is easily done. I’d take the advice of going through all your images now before your collection grows and editing severely. I waited to do this after I had several thousand images, and it’s a lot of work!

 

Yes, it looks like you maybe using auto-keywording software. It's not doing you any favours, e.g. MEWPGY. They are actually Pozi-drive screwdriver bits, not bolt-cutters, jump leads, nails, towing cables, shovels, etc. etc.

 

Mark

Edited May 2, 2018 by M.Chapman

[Colin Woods]

It was the same when I was working in chemistry - QC checked a percentage of the data and if it wasn't compliant with all the data recording regulations the study was rejected. The assumption is that if the randomly selected data (or photos) are not compliant then the other 90% will also be non-compliant. We once had a study that lasted 430 days that was rejected and had to be re-done due to data non-compliance (fortunately it was another group that was non-compliant - I wouldn't have fancied explaining that to the great powers)

[John Walker]

Disappointing to see no response from the O.P. danielmckay to the helpful comments from other members.

[Dyn Llun]

1 hour ago, John Walker said:

Disappointing to see no response from the O.P. danielmckay to the helpful comments from other members.

Disappointing yes, but, I'm afraid, absolutely typical of amateurs playing at photography. Or as I prefer to regard them, 'pretend professionals'. The one thing they can't take is constructive criticism. What they do and how they work is always right. They give up after a while because they can't up their game to any reasonable standard but in the meantime they are a pain in the posterior. 

Pete Davis

www.pete-davis-photography.com

http://peteslandscape.blogspot.co.uk/

[Colin Woods]

Yes, uploading and hoping for "love" hearts on 500px and flickr is a different game to uploading images to a professional agency. Its too bad as there is so much advice from photographers at every level on here, freely given to their competitors. 

[liverpix]

I do understand Daniel McKay's point of view. I always thought that Alamy should just throw out the bad one/s and put through the good ones in one go. It would save time and trouble for both the photographer and Alamy. 

[Niels Quist]

9 minutes ago, liverpix said:

I do understand Daniel McKay's point of view. I always thought that Alamy should just throw out the bad one/s and put through the good ones in one go. It would save time and trouble for both the photographer and Alamy. 

 

But that is not the way it works. How save time? By teaching submitters only to submit images that comply 100% with the technical requirements Alamy needs only to check a few in each batch / upload. This is saving time - and probably delivering more money to the photographer. We are many who prefer this system and the professionalism it requires from us.

 

Niels

[M.Chapman]

19 minutes ago, liverpix said:

I do understand Daniel McKay's point of view. I always thought that Alamy should just throw out the bad one/s and put through the good ones in one go. It would save time and trouble for both the photographer and Alamy. 

 

It wouldn't save time for Alamy as they would have to check the rest of the batch (if one image is faulty it's not unlikely that there maybe others). The onus is placed on the contributor to recheck the whole batch before resubmitting.

 

Mark

Edited May 24, 2018 by M.Chapman

[liverpix]

1 minute ago, Niels Quist said:

 

But that is not the way it works. How save time? By teaching submitters only to submit images that comply 100% with the technical requirements Alamy needs only to check a few in each batch / upload. This is saving time - and probably delivering more money to the photographer. We are many who prefer this system and the professionalism it requires from us.

 

Niels

It's like what the OP said.He may have to submit the same 41 images time and time again. That wastes time. All Alamy needs to do is reect the bad ones and let the good one through in one go thus saving a lot of time.

[Niels Quist]

6 minutes ago, liverpix said:

It's like what the OP said.He may have to submit the same 41 images time and time again. That wastes time. All Alamy needs to do is reect the bad ones and let the good one through in one go thus saving a lot of time.

 

If you do the job properly you only have to do this once - and in very rare cases twice. This is why beginners are advised not to submit large batches.You may only think of the negligent  photographer's time - I know who is going to pay for Alamy's extra time. QC is very good at pinpointing weak images.

Edited May 24, 2018 by Niels Quist

[John Richmond]

23 minutes ago, liverpix said:

It's like what the OP said.He may have to submit the same 41 images time and time again. That wastes time. All Alamy needs to do is reect the bad ones and let the good one through in one go thus saving a lot of time.

If the OP has to submit the same 41 images time and time again before they all pass he has serious personal QC problems and, I would guess, a long series of upload bans and eventual termination of contract with Alamy.  Why should Alamy incur the costs (which would be reflected in lowered commission for the rest of us) of a more intensive QC process because a few individuals can't or won't QC their own work before submitting?

[Gordon Scammell]

12 hours ago, liverpix said:

It's like what the OP said.He may have to submit the same 41 images time and time again. That wastes time. All Alamy needs to do is reect the bad ones and let the good one through in one go thus saving a lot of time.

 

I assume you read the rules before you made your submissions?

No? Then that is your problem.

Yes? Abide by them. Stop complaining and wasting your time - go and take some photographs.

 

For Alamy to check every individual photograph would mean a huge increase in staff, huge increase in wage bill, a cut in the percentage paid to contributors.  

 

If contributors don't like the rules - just make sure the door doesn't hit you on the backside as you leave.  Simples.

[spacecadet]

13 hours ago, liverpix said:

It's like what the OP said.He may have to submit the same 41 images time and time again. That wastes time. All Alamy needs to do is reect the bad ones and let the good one through in one go thus saving a lot of time.

Strict QC concentrates the mind wonderfully. It's good professional discipline- it encourages a simple workflow so that mistakes are not missed.

I suppose my average batch size is about 30 but it can go as high as 75-100 for a big job. Multiply that by about 1000 and you have the volume of images Alamy has to deal with in a day so it's essential for it to be dealt with on an industrial basis. That means batch QC- one out, all out.

[ChrisC]

17 hours ago, M.Chapman said:

 

It wouldn't save time for Alamy as they would have to check the rest of the batch (if one image is faulty it's not unlikely that there maybe others). The onus is placed on the contributor to recheck the whole batch before resubmitting.

 

Mark

Exactly Mark, The other thing to remember about QC is that if your image, has a fault in it and it actually manages to get through QC, then a customer buys it, as soon as they see the fault, they obviously won't pay and will return the image as faulty,

 

What does that do to the photographers reputation and more importantly to Alamy's reputation, whilst initially some things from Alamy may seem strange, quality control isn't one of them.

 

Like most things, it is all down to experience and like most things that are done in error, you take it on board and learn, or if you don't you start banging your head against the wall.

 

Chris 

[Betty LaRue]

On 5/7/2018 at 08:10, Dyn Llun said:

Disappointing yes, but, I'm afraid, absolutely typical of amateurs playing at photography. Or as I prefer to regard them, 'pretend professionals'. The one thing they can't take is constructive criticism. What they do and how they work is always right. They give up after a while because they can't up their game to any reasonable standard but in the meantime they are a pain in the posterior. 

Pete Davis

www.pete-davis-photography.com

http://peteslandscape.blogspot.co.uk/

My initial submission failed. It was a stab to my heart, but nobody else knew it. I wanted this profession so much I just kept plugging away. Over the years, I had more failures, back when we all were punished 30 days. That minuscule CA in the upper right corner I missed? My fault. The dust bunny in the sky? My fault.  The worst of all was my failure to discern when “soft” crossed the line. A change in camera systems fixed that. Plus my killer “if in doubt, toss it” attitude I developed. It’s a long learning process for some of us who need an anvil dropped on our heads to get it.  I finally got it.

Just get on with it and don’t whine. 

That said, I whined a bit about the filtered creative image where I deliberately added grain for the “vintage” look that suited the image and it failed for noise.  That one still smarts. 

Betty

Edited May 25, 2018 by Betty LaRue
Typo