I think (hope) it's just a matter of time until all stock agencies will require at least a DSLR.
I've plenty of old 6MP images that were all passing thru QC like a breeze until november or december, now they're rejecting everything apart pin-sharp human portraits or images with big sharp subjects.
Anything else goes to the bin and they also ley you wait a week or more to tell you failed QC because of "SoLD".
...
In any case it would have been polite for Alamy to at least write in their blog that from now on the minimum acceptable is 12MP, they made me waste a lot of time for nothing.
I think (hope) it's just a matter of time until all stock agencies will require at least a DSLR.
OMG! I think that the ONLY thing which matters should be image quality.
Clear example of insanity was (not sure if its still that way) Getty - ALL Canon/Nikon/Leica were ok including those very old models with just 4Mpix - but NONE Sony or Olympus DSLR was there - what??? And btw. some Ricoh models or Sigma DP1/DP2 are often well above cheap DSLR with kit lens.
And all current P&S are definitely MUCH better then any old C/N DSLR from the beginning of digital era... These "suitable" cameras are often very disputable...
P&S have improved dramatically but at the same price of a high-end P&S you can buy a cheap Canon Rebel so what's the point in using P&S anyway ?
P&S have improved dramatically but at the same price of a high-end P&S you can buy a cheap Canon Rebel so what's the point in using P&S anyway ?
P&S cameras are obviously small and as such fit in backpacks and in pockets and are just way less obtrusive than SLRs. As such they capture images that would likely never get taken. So, yeh they have a purpose and I think if they create salable images of unique images then the image should be judged on that. There is way too much pixel peeping in this world.
So vision, concept, and salability don't matter?Not on Alamy. Only image quality is checked by QC. No rejections for "we don't need these at this time" or "Not suitable for stock" or any of the usual vague micro rejections.
In any case it would have been polite for Alamy to at least write in their blog that from now on the minimum acceptable is 12MP, they made me waste a lot of time for nothing.
You'll never make saleable images with a P&S in bad or low light conditions, think about inside airplanes,
trains, waiting rooms, the only places where i shoot with P&S but it's just for fun, i never made crisp and sharp
images in these places, even using flash.
P&S are good as gifts for your kids, or for people with "japanese hand" syndrome. You know, the ones that go click-click-click until the card is full.
even a 100$ nikon Coolpix with 8MP will make pics for Alamy in theory but under which condition ? blue sky, sun, outdoor, non moving subjects, and a good lot of photoshop post processing ...
Unsuitable camera or unsuitable image? If the light is optimal the pic will be better, no matter the camera (duh). If you know your camera the pic will be better (duh). Many a photog wannabe starting out has learned about light and lenses only because they had a point and shoot. The pics didn't turn out well so they had to figure out why. They usually end up buying a different camera. Lesson learned. In the old days you could rescue a (somewhat) poor image in the darkroom, today it's Photoshop. As a buyer I don't care what camera took the pic. If it suits my needs I buy it. Sometimes after I've downloaded a photo I'm disappointed in it's technical merits. But, bottom line, the client doesn't look at the same things I do, pin-sharp clarity and amount of noise are often not factors to the client if the image suits the need.
I don't know if I should continue with the debate when it's foolish. Unsuitable cameras produce unsuitable images.
I don't know if I should continue with the debate when it's foolish. Unsuitable cameras produce unsuitable images.
You're on the right track.
Unsuitable cameras produce unsuitable images.
Suitable cameras have the potential to produce suitable images. Somewhere along the way the operator, conditions, or post processing produce unsuitable images.
If the content was the only thing that mattered, most news images would be shot with camera phones.
Xalanx & RacePhoto: Guys, you obviously suffer "fullframe" disease - buy the most pricy Canon/Nikon or even better medium format and let us others happy with cheaper stuff. Image quality matters, not camera.
Xalanx & RacePhoto: Guys, you obviously suffer "fullframe" disease - buy the most pricy Canon/Nikon or even better medium format and let us others happy with cheaper stuff. Image quality matters, not camera.
I will simply strip exif and thats it, editor can judge just the image quality and who cares about some camera lists?
Xalanx & RacePhoto: Guys, you obviously suffer "fullframe" disease - buy the most pricy Canon/Nikon or even better medium format and let us others happy with cheaper stuff. Image quality matters, not camera.
I will simply strip exif and thats it, editor can judge just the image quality and who cares about some camera lists?
True, image quality matters, but that's not the point of the list. The cameras on the list are not likely to produce suitable images, and in most cases, for most people, will not. Alamy has produced the list to help people understand that they shouldn't waste their time submitting images from unsuitable cameras. The list is in response to people who wanted something more specific than the guidelines suggested. Now there's a list and some people want to debate that their camera shouldn't be on it. ???
Alamy QC doesn't want to waste time and money with batches and batches of failures. Same reason why, one fail all fail, is their policy. Same reason why Alamy came up with the vacation for repeated failures, upload ban if it continues.
I might point out that it's not a game to see what someone can sneak past the reviewers. The agency is asking for a certain quality for images and setting their required standards. The customers are also expecting the images to be up to the agency standards.
I wouldn't call a 20-D and 40-D Fullframe Disease. :)([url]http://img20.imageshack.us/img20/113/fly150.gif[/url])
What started this thread was the allegation that Alamy looked at EXIF data and refused the images based on that. On the Alamy forum a couple of people have hypothesized that computers reviewed their images, not humans. :o While either could be true, neither of these has been proven to be fact. Evidence is that some members have recently uploaded images made with cameras from the unsuitable camera list and they have passed. Like all other fine experiments, one person wrote to Alamy to point this out and the images were promptly removed with a warning, don't do it again.
I don't have the 10-D (not on either list for some reason?) or G6 anymore to do some tests with stitched images. But I did have an image from the G6 accepted last year! Well lets say 29 images, all stitched into one, cropped and downsized to 48.2MB. ;) If there was some EXIF flag, that one would have been waving in bright red.
Flagging QC to refuse for EXIF camera models may be something new?
You'll never make saleable images with a P&S in bad or low light conditions, think about inside airplanes,
trains, waiting rooms, the only places where i shoot with P&S but it's just for fun, i never made crisp and sharp
images in these places, even using flash.
they're only good outdoor in optimal conditions but then why not using a DSLR ?
If I am not mistaken, the reason why certain DSLR are unsuitable is merely that in order to upsize to 48MB you need to start with a very good original in camera.
Sure, many good Photoshop experts are able to upsize from 7MP camera , some even claim from 4MP.
I am not sure if this is true. I don't know.
But I know that with a low MP camera you have to really work a lot to get the image suitable for Alamy.
It's not to discriminate from one camera to another. It's just being realistic.
I have work with Alamy approved with lower MP cameras but I really gave up and bought a top of the line pro DSLR. This sure reduce your post production time. Many times, you just upside a couple MPs
and there you have it.
If I am not mistaken, the reason why certain DSLR are unsuitable is merely that in order to upsize to 48MB you need to start with a very good original in camera.
Sure, many good Photoshop experts are able to upsize from 7MP camera , some even claim from 4MP.
I am not sure if this is true. I don't know.
But I know that with a low MP camera you have to really work a lot to get the image suitable for Alamy.
It's not to discriminate from one camera to another. It's just being realistic.
I have work with Alamy approved with lower MP cameras but I really gave up and bought a top of the line pro DSLR. This sure reduce your post production time. Many times, you just upside a couple MPs
and there you have it.
true, however, they also automatically reject panoramas which are taken with those cameras, even though the image is DOWNSIZED to make it 48MP. i have no problem with them requiring whatever image qualkity they wish, but they're silly to thi nk it cANT be done - ultimately it's their game tho.
true, however, they also automatically reject panoramas which are taken with those cameras, even though the image is DOWNSIZED to make it 48MP. i have no problem with them requiring whatever image qualkity they wish, but they're silly to thi nk it cANT be done - ultimately it's their game tho.
What was the rejection reason, exactly? "Unsuitable Camera" or "Soft or Lacking Definition" or something else? Have you tried sending in the automatic rejection image, by itself, with the camera data removed, to prove it's the camera name and not the image? How many photos in the batch?
Reason I ask is I have had G6 images, panoramas, stitched, accepted, after the list was posted. I may do one with the A590IS pocket camera to test the rejection for EXIF data theory. Or would a A400 prove the question? :)
true, however, they also automatically reject panoramas which are taken with those cameras, even though the image is DOWNSIZED to make it 48MP. i have no problem with them requiring whatever image qualkity they wish, but they're silly to thi nk it cANT be done - ultimately it's their game tho.
What was the rejection reason, exactly? "Unsuitable Camera" or "Soft or Lacking Definition" or something else? Have you tried sending in the automatic rejection image, by itself, with the camera data removed, to prove it's the camera name and not the image? How many photos in the batch?
Reason I ask is I have had G6 images, panoramas, stitched, accepted, after the list was posted. I may do one with the A590IS pocket camera to test the rejection for EXIF data theory. Or would a A400 prove the question? :)
th it was for unsuitable camera - i havent taken the time to remove exif and submit 1 image - i havent made any sales on alamy to date, so there's little incentive to continue there;
yes, that differnece in price is why i tried alamy in the first place, but i've understood from the start that it was an uphill battle for me to do much on alamy
Trouble is someone who has 16 images of machu picchu on Alamy is competing against 4700 other images of the same subject. They would need to have something that stands out and is distinctive to make a sale.
Maybe not you, I don't know, but some people have the same RF images on microstock and Alamy and assume the buyers are too stupid to do a search to find out they can get the identical shot for $5-$15 instead of $200. ::) In other words, if someone has the same shots on 10 Micro sites as they do on Alamy, I wouldn't expect them to have many sales.