MicrostockGroup

I don't know if I should continue with the debate when it's foolish. Unsuitable cameras produce unsuitable images.

So you are saying that Ansel Adams could have used a Brownie Folding 2 1/4 instead of an 8 x 10 sheet film camera, if the light was the same, as long as he knew his camera?  

8 megapixels from a DSLR are not the same as 8 megapixels from a P&S. The pixels are a different size. The lenses are different. The sensor may be designed with a different mask.

The part about the buyer is true. We are more critical most of the time in an effort to insure satisfied customers. You did hit another factor. Image quality vs the need for a particular image. In any case if there's only one shot, it will do, but if there's a choice, the higher quality image will win.

Yes I did leave out the other side of that equation. The camera doesn't automatically make for good images, in the end that's the responsibility of the photographer.

I have images that have sold on alamy from a 5mp p&s, and plenty of images on alamy and micros that are from the 6mp pentaxs (which arent on either list).
Some of favourite shots where taken with my early 1, 1.3, and 3mp p&s

But I know the images I put on now taken with 24mp dslr (and sometimes even downsized) are on technical merits (could still be crap ) a hell of a lot better than the upsized 6mp that I used to do a few years back.

I can understand where they are coming from, they have to justify the extra cost from micro and really I bought my daughter a near new sony a230 and 2 lenses for $400. Not a lot of outlay to begin competing professionally (she's building her collection ).   

Unsuitable cameras produce unsuitable images.

But even more important: Unsuitable photographers produce unsuitable images. 

-Larry

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.   
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.    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?

well said Racephoto. (nice fly... by the way )...

another alternative would be to get this
http://www.pentax.jp/english/news/2010/201008.html
and you won't need to worry about upsizing,
instead you need to downsize from the 40MP.
imagine what the image will look like.

the only issue is Alamy outsourcing to INDIA, who knows what's "sharp" for those guys

i never had problems uploading old 6MP stuff until november, now they reject everything and i wasted a lot of time
editing that crap for nothing.

ironically the same rejected images have been all accepted by iStock so they can't be so bad considering their snotty QC...

whenever i upload 18MP files they get accepted by alamy in 24hrs, i guess they don't even look at them or use a specific automated software for this.

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? 

Sales are an incentive unless you only shoot with one of the cameras on the Unsuitable list.

Say you have two sales a year on Alamy with 330 files and 140 sales a year on IS with 700 files. That would be about the same commission.

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.

I've decided to divide them into Editorial on Alamy and RF on Micro. Others may have a different marketing strategy. Whatever works is the best answer.