MicrostockGroup

You should be OK provided you accept that you might need to downsize the images back down to 12MP to get them sharp. You can up the ISO of course ... but then that'll increase the noise ... so then you'll need to downsize again. I have the 100-400 IS myself but ended up buying the 70-200 2.8L IS as, when I got the 1Ds, I wasn't satisfied with the results.

The trouble with 23MP is it shows everything up __ but only when you are 'pixel peeping' at 100%. I find downsizing is no great loss anyway as I get very few sales above the IS Large size. The ability to crop or downsize has rescued many a best-selling image for me.

Here I am again.
I've posted an example here (not that I submitted: even I can see it's mushy and the lower notice especially is well out of focus. ).
http://www.v-liz.com/iStock/church.jpg
It's a full size crop taken from a RAW file tweaked only for a bit of contrast. It's the one I mentioned above, IS0100; 5DMk2 (3 days old); 38mm; 1/200@f10; IS on. Handheld, admittedly, but like I said, I shoot most things handheld, and if it won't do this sort of thing handheld, it'll be no use to me at all. What's the point of an IS lens if you can't handhold it - you have to switch it off when you have it on the tripod anyway!
OK, so I'm asking for feedback as to whether the mushiness of this photo is me (what should I do better?) the lens or the camera.
(I had a photo taken with the same set up about ten minutes later accepted on Alamy today. One of the photos I took yesterday evening is so bad I can't see where I imagined I was focussing, others aren't so bad, maybe even OK.)
I'm just going to see if I can find some even light anywhere (very unlikely in 'leaf' season) to do a tripod test on some print.
TIA

I'm not so sure __ it's a dark subject and the noise shows up too badly to really see the sharpness. I can absolutely confirm that shooting at 1/200 held-held with a 23MP camera is nothing like fast enough to eliminate camera-shake.

You need to do some proper test shots Sue with the camera tripod-mounted and set to ISO100 __ IS switched off obviously. You need to eliminate all influencing factors apart from the lens and the sensor. I thought IS was marvelleous when I was shooting with a 6MP 10D but as my cameras have improved I am less & less happy with most of the results I get from it nowadays.

I've tried shrinking the image by half, to more or less replicate it at the size it would have been on a 12MP sensor but it's still not clever.

Clearly I should have done more research before buying this camera.

I did some tripod tests which seemed fine. Big deal.

I went out for a walk this evening and took some random shots and some of them seemed better. Example here, full size crop, converted to jpeg, no other alterations:
http://www.v-liz.com/iStock/newhouses.jpg
Not yet perfect; ISO100; 105mm; 1/[email protected]
The sun was down when I took these gravel chippings, slightly tweaked for contrast:
http://www.v-liz.com/iStock/gravel.jpg
Not 'bitingly' sharp, but shot on 100ISO; 28mm; 1/30@f4, so obviously should be able to do better.
Don't know when I'll be able to try that church again, though.

I will say it again...Alamy QC department has become HOSTILE. Besides that, how many posters here are actually selling any images in the sea of 17 million?  Don't waste your time.

Maggie

I'm not selling a lot there.  Maybe one or two images a month.  But at those prices you don't need a whole lot of sales to get a decent return.

Yep or you could try Luckyoliver - I think that's the perfect site for you.

Nope, not mean at all.
If that's the case, what would be the point of saying otherwise!


Ah, it's true I did lighten it  - It's a very dark church - but the noticeboard was blurry before I did.
But I'd rather it was an idiot user than another faulty camera.
Still, nothing that I've taken so far/handheld seems 'bitingly' sharp.
The tripod tests were 'acceptably' sharp.


The EXIF says f10.




Dream on!
I'll just have to learn to be a techie.   


Tx. The whole site is mine, but the pics are mostly heavily scrunched down scans from slides from when I was on wet-string dial-up. It was never intended to be a photogallery. (And I'm two trips behind.)

Well, ok, had two images rejected, only the first was inspected (100% size crop attached below).  They said "Soft or lacking definition".  I don't think it is any closely bad as the example they give here in their guidelines page. 

What do you think?  These images are a bit of a stretch indeed (originally 7MPix), but it is difficult for me to judge softness/definition when I see an upsized image. 

It looks as if QC can be WRONG...found this...http://alamyqcrejects.blogspot.com/.

Mag

No (or is it yes) Nobody is suspended for having one photo rejected. It takes multiple rejections and they are also given a warning. If the uploads of failing images continues, then they are given a vacation. At least that's what the Alamy guidelines say. Of course someone emailing, phoning and setting up a blog to criticise Alamy might be like a buy one get one free deal? 

It appears that soft or lacking definition includes blown highlights, (which would be lacking definition?) and other flaws, lack of contrast, and not just "fuzzy". Somewhere I'm imagining that people are using higher ISOs and something like Neat Image, for noise reduction, which makes the photos soft.

The new recommended camera list doesn't include the D100 or 10D anymore. That doesn't mean they won't pass or can't be used. It just suggests that using a 6MP camera, you need to be very careful with editing and use low ISO ranges. As cameras have improved, the standards have gone up. Images that passed in 2007 may no longer pass in 2009. QC has adjusted to match the equipment and customer demands. It isn't necessarily tighter QC, it's just staying level with the quality of equipment.