Robot Review

RacePhoto

« on: October 18, 2011, 07:48 »

#link

One of the funniest is when I see people make this claim. I've never seen it confirmed on any site, but it's not impossible. If there is a site that admits they have software doing the reviews, please tell me.

Quote from: AlexM Canada

"I've recently experienced three rejections, each of them making my images stuck in QC for about a month and resulting in 'Poor exposure' rejection reason for each of them. I clearly see QC incompetence in these rejections but I didn't want to bother anyone until it happened again and again.
The poor exposure rejection reason was clearly given by taking only the histogram into consideration. IMO, an image should be judged visually, not by a histogram. Rejecting a photo just because it doesn't use the whole dynamic range just doesn't make any sense and I believe you can see it from the examples.
I even wonder if the rejections were done automatically by software which analyzes the histogram."

Quote from: Alamy

Alamy QC does not have any automated processes; the histogram was checked and the images rejected as per our submission guidelines:

With very few exceptions, we expect the black point of your images to be 0 and white to be 255.
However, we will accept images where they are within 5% of this, i.e. Black at level 12 or below, white at Level 243 or above.

All here: http://www.alamy.com/contributor/help/prepare-images.asp

An email to QC might help if you want any more information... suggesting QC are incompetent probably won't help.

FUNNY!

But there is some interesting information in that. Black at level 12 or below, white at Level 243 or above.
Repeated failures and you will wait a month for the next review. Self review and be careful, before hitting that submit button!


	Ignore \| Logged

microstockphoto.co.uk

« Reply #1 on: October 18, 2011, 08:07 »

#link

funny thing is that some other agencies reject pictures if white point is at 255 (except for isolations) so I usually put it at 254, because they think 255 means blown-out highlights - which raises a suspect of automatic rejection as well


	Ignore \| Logged

ShadySue

Premium Member

« Reply #2 on: October 18, 2011, 08:18 »

#link

Loads of my photos don't have black or white in them. Hasn't bothered Alamy so far.
Should I ask the lions to hold a colour chart up for me so that I have a black point and a white point for reference?


	Ignore \| Logged

traveler1116

« Reply #3 on: October 18, 2011, 08:38 »

#link

I would say the problem with Alamy is that they accept everything, I never had a rejection there even though I know some of those files would have been rejected elsewhere.


	Ignore \| Logged

sharpshot

« Reply #4 on: October 18, 2011, 08:48 »

#link

I find it impossible to fail alamy QC. Anyone that consistently fails it must be doing something very wrong. Perhaps their screen is way out of calibration? It's funny how some people think their photos are great when they obviously aren't. In the film days, I worked in a professional processing lab for six months. There were some really bad professional photographers. Whenever I see someone complaining about alamy QC, I wonder if I used to print their stuff


	Ignore \| Logged

rubyroo

« Reply #5 on: October 18, 2011, 09:06 »

#link

quote from Alamy:

"suggesting QC are incompetent probably won't help."

Cheesy

I wish certain 'ban hammer wielders' would learn a little of the art of understatement, so beautifully demonstrated by Alamy here.

With regard to the topic - I've been quite confused for a while over requirements regarding the black end of the scale. My understanding has always been that 255 is only permitted for isolations on white (otherwise it's considered 'blown') - and 0 only for isolations on black. But at some point, one of the agencies said (paraphrasing here) 'make sure your blacks are true black'. I can't remember which agency it was (maybe 123RF?).

I'll continue to stay below 255 for whites - simply because I believe Alamy is the only agency that would allow it (in micro RF terms) - but if anyone here can clarify whether true black is commonly permitted, I'd be most grateful.


« Last Edit: October 18, 2011, 09:17 by rubyroo »	Ignore \| Logged

etienjones

« Reply #6 on: October 18, 2011, 09:39 »

#link

Well, these are the guidelines for Corbis:

"RGB highlight and shadow values should be balanced and appropriate for the look and feel of the image with maximum values of:
Black point can be down to 5,5,5, White point can be up to 250,250,250"

I was taught, at least for digital printing, the limits should be 8,8,8 and 248,248,248 . . .


« Last Edit: October 18, 2011, 09:49 by etienjones »	Ignore \| Logged

RacePhoto

« Reply #7 on: October 19, 2011, 00:17 »

#link

Quote from: etienjones on October 18, 2011, 09:39

And aside from the humor, I thought it was interesting. Taught me why sometimes I was getting rejection on IS for "blown out highlights" or "too strong of a flash" (on pictures taken without a flash?) when it was 255 white on some area of a photo. Gee nice that they couldn't just say so?

So let me see, Alamy will give 5% on either end. Some places, except for isolations, will get rejected for 0 to 255 images, but 5 to 250 are OK. But for printing I'm going over the limit all this time and never knew it? Time to get out the notebook... Cheesy

Quote from: traveler1116 on October 18, 2011, 08:38

I would say the problem with Alamy is that they accept everything, I never had a rejection there even though I know some of those files would have been rejected elsewhere.

Should I really answer this? Second or third time in the same week. Alamy is not Microstock and they don't review for content only image quality.

Why would someone submit photos that they thought should be rejected? I don't get it?


« Last Edit: October 19, 2011, 00:20 by RacePhoto »	Ignore \| Logged

ShadySue

Premium Member

« Reply #8 on: October 19, 2011, 05:11 »

#link

Quote from: RacePhoto on October 19, 2011, 00:17

Isn't the lighting rejection on iStock totally generic, so you have to work out for yourself what it is from all the options?
Ah yes: "We found the overall composition of this file's lighting could be improved. Technical aspects that can affect the overall quality of lighting are: flat/dull colors, blown-out highlights, harsh reflection, shadows or lens flares. These can all limit the usefulness of a file. "


	Ignore \| Logged

ShadySue

Premium Member

« Reply #9 on: October 19, 2011, 05:13 »

#link

Quote from: RacePhoto on October 19, 2011, 00:17

Quote from: traveler1116 on October 18, 2011, 08:38

I would say the problem with Alamy is that they accept everything, I never had a rejection there even though I know some of those files would have been rejected elsewhere.

Should I really answer this? Second or third time in the same week. Alamy is not Microstock and they don't review for content only image quality.
Why would someone submit photos that they thought should be rejected? I don't get it?

I guess the good thing about Alamy is that they recognise that light in a rainforest or indeed ~~in winter in~~ most days in Scotland is going to be naturally softer than the micros [1] like.
[1] OK, iStock, I dnon't know about the rest.


« Last Edit: October 19, 2011, 06:13 by ShadySue »	Ignore \| Logged

RacePhoto

« Reply #10 on: October 19, 2011, 11:55 »

#link

Quote from: ShadySue on October 19, 2011, 05:11

Quote from: RacePhoto on October 19, 2011, 00:17

I know that rejection well. No big deal, I just don't send them things with anything but flat Microstock lighting. Learning to use fill flash is the easy solution. Same goes for focus and now levels. As long as they tell me in advance I can adjust and save them and myself the wasted time with refused files.

They won't be getting this one and I don't think Alamy will either, it''s from a 35mm slide, South of Inverness near Clava Cairns, probably mid-day, late September. This can show people what you are talking about with the light and angles. Although I did manage to get the Sun actually shining! Cool

Typical shot that I like and would be rejected everywhere for lighting. That's life?

Just finished editing and will be have a friend print this one for my wall, 14x18.

The Arctic Circle is 66° N, Inverness, where this was taken is about 56° N


	Ignore \| Logged

ShadySue

Premium Member

« Reply #11 on: October 19, 2011, 16:57 »

#link

Just get yourself into the A-list then blown out highlights and flare will get your photos into Vetta. Simple!


	Ignore \| Logged

RacePhoto

« Reply #12 on: October 20, 2011, 01:16 »

#link

Quote from: ShadySue on October 19, 2011, 16:57

Just get yourself into the A-list then blown out highlights and flare will get your photos into Vetta. Simple!

Doesn't someone have to be Exclusive to get into Vetta? I never paid attention. Slide, exposed for the shadows, there's nothing that had enough latitude back in 1988, pick and choose. What to save what to lose. I decided that the trees and rocks were more interesting than some hazy sky. Grin


	Ignore \| Logged

ShadySue

Premium Member

« Reply #13 on: October 20, 2011, 07:05 »

#link

Quote from: RacePhoto on October 20, 2011, 01:16

Quote from: ShadySue on October 19, 2011, 16:57

Just get yourself into the A-list then blown out highlights and flare will get your photos into Vetta. Simple!

Doesn't someone have to be Exclusive to get into Vetta?

Oh yes, all A are E, but most E are not A. (Logic 101)


	Ignore \| Logged

madelaide

Premium Member

« Reply #14 on: October 20, 2011, 20:19 »

#link

Quote from: ShadySue on October 18, 2011, 08:18

I don'tthink they mean you have to have white and black, but where there is white or black, those specs should be complied.


	Ignore \| Logged

RacePhoto

« Reply #15 on: October 21, 2011, 00:04 »

#link

Quote from: madelaide on October 20, 2011, 20:19

Quote from: ShadySue on October 18, 2011, 08:18

I don'tthink they mean you have to have white and black, but where there is white or black, those specs should be complied.

Control L is a nice place to start?

Or maybe Layer/ New Adjustment Layer/ Color Balance

Or Curves...


	Ignore \| Logged

Pages: [1]

« previous next »

MicrostockGroup

Microstockgroup Sponsors

Topic: Robot Review

Microstockgroup Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results