pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Alamy rejection = We only accept images from DSLRs or equivalent  (Read 6614 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: March 02, 2017, 09:22 »
0
Had a batch rejected based on the above reason. Happy to accept my camera wasn't a DSLR (Lumix DMC TZ100/ZS100 which I'd bought for the 4k video function) but am curious what 'or equivalent' covers.  I'm wondering if I were to use a thermal imaging camera to do shoot some very specialised material this wouldn't be accepted either - it also wouldn't be 'equivalent'. Any ideas?
Cheers


« Reply #1 on: March 02, 2017, 09:35 »
+1
maybe mirrorless full format or aps-c cameras such as sony, fuji etc...

« Reply #2 on: March 02, 2017, 09:42 »
0
I take images with a Sony RX100M3 and that is not a DSLR. I had only one photo rejected for being too soft. I don't know your camera. My camera is a 20 MP camera. 

ShadySue

« Reply #3 on: March 02, 2017, 09:49 »
+1
I think there's a list of their accepted cameras somewhere. Maybe the new season does things differently - back in the day I unthinkingly uploaded a pic from a camera not on the list and it was simply 'dropped' on upload, not counting as a rejections, and the rest of the batch want through. However, at that time there were definitely non-DSLRs which were on their list, eg the Canon G12. You might have to do a bit of ferreting about to see if there's still an approved camera list.

« Reply #4 on: March 02, 2017, 09:53 »
0
I think there's a list of their accepted cameras somewhere. Maybe the new season does things differently - back in the day I unthinkingly uploaded a pic from a camera not on the list and it was simply 'dropped' on upload, not counting as a rejections, and the rest of the batch want through. However, at that time there were definitely non-DSLRs which were on their list, eg the Canon G12. You might have to do a bit of ferreting about to see if there's still an approved camera list.
I believe they dropped the approved list I believe there might be something on the site about requirements. If you are serious about them it might be worth asking before investing in a camera but I guess they might change the rules at the drop of a hat

alno

« Reply #5 on: March 02, 2017, 10:38 »
+2
Had a batch rejected based on the above reason. Happy to accept my camera wasn't a DSLR (Lumix DMC TZ100/ZS100 which I'd bought for the 4k video function) but am curious what 'or equivalent' covers.  I'm wondering if I were to use a thermal imaging camera to do shoot some very specialised material this wouldn't be accepted either - it also wouldn't be 'equivalent'. Any ideas?
Cheers

I'd suggest you to forget them and focus on those 4K videos for other sites since Alamy doesn't accept videos now at all as far as I know. There was a thread about earnings on Alamy and there wasn't any quite successful story. You'd probably wear down your camera and hands completly before you get half of your camera's price with photos sold.

« Reply #6 on: March 02, 2017, 11:10 »
0
I also bought a Lumix TZ100 for 4K video.  The video is okay but the stills are not sharp at all when compared to my full frame SLR.  Not enough glass in the lens.  Its just a little point and shoot really.

« Reply #7 on: March 02, 2017, 13:18 »
0
Haven't had any acceptance issues from Alamy with a Fuji (XT-10 16mp) or Sony (A6000 24mp). Good glass for both mind you.

« Reply #8 on: March 02, 2017, 14:52 »
0
Had a batch rejected based on the above reason. Happy to accept my camera wasn't a DSLR (Lumix DMC TZ100/ZS100 which I'd bought for the 4k video function) but am curious what 'or equivalent' covers.  I'm wondering if I were to use a thermal imaging camera to do shoot some very specialised material this wouldn't be accepted either - it also wouldn't be 'equivalent'. Any ideas?
Cheers

I'd suggest you to forget them and focus on those 4K videos for other sites since Alamy doesn't accept videos now at all as far as I know. There was a thread about earnings on Alamy and there wasn't any quite successful story. You'd probably wear down your camera and hands completly before you get half of your camera's price with photos sold.

You're real Debbie Downer aren't you, considering how long have you been in stock?

Alamy does alright if you know what is required from their clients ;)

alno

« Reply #9 on: March 02, 2017, 16:19 »
0
Had a batch rejected based on the above reason. Happy to accept my camera wasn't a DSLR (Lumix DMC TZ100/ZS100 which I'd bought for the 4k video function) but am curious what 'or equivalent' covers.  I'm wondering if I were to use a thermal imaging camera to do shoot some very specialised material this wouldn't be accepted either - it also wouldn't be 'equivalent'. Any ideas?
Cheers


I'd suggest you to forget them and focus on those 4K videos for other sites since Alamy doesn't accept videos now at all as far as I know. There was a thread about earnings on Alamy and there wasn't any quite successful story. You'd probably wear down your camera and hands completly before you get half of your camera's price with photos sold.


You're real Debbie Downer aren't you, considering how long have you been in stock?

Alamy does alright if you know what is required from their clients ;)


You don't have to upload to Shutterstock and some Stockfresh or Motion Elements for 10 years to get basic ideas about losers and leaders of microstock. Besides,
http://www.microstockgroup.com/alamy-com/our-best-sales-month-ever-and-25-increase-in-revenue-from-2015/
So almost all of them are Debbies too.

SpaceStockFootage

  • Space, Sci-Fi and Astronomy Related Stock Footage

« Reply #10 on: March 03, 2017, 05:41 »
+1
If you don't tell them what camera you have, then they won't know... then it'll get accepted or rejected on its merits, rather than some mystical list. Tell them you shot it on a Hassleblad or something.

ShadySue

« Reply #11 on: March 03, 2017, 05:46 »
0
If you don't tell them what camera you have, then they won't know... then it'll get accepted or rejected on its merits, rather than some mystical list. Tell them you shot it on a Hassleblad or something.
I've never tried removing the EXIF, maybe (?) that would be an auto-rejection (?)

« Reply #12 on: March 03, 2017, 06:06 »
+1
If you don't tell them what camera you have, then they won't know... then it'll get accepted or rejected on its merits, rather than some mystical list. Tell them you shot it on a Hassleblad or something.
I've never tried removing the EXIF, maybe (?) that would be an auto-rejection (?)
No, I do that sometimes when I join photos together and they never reject them.

ShadySue

« Reply #13 on: March 03, 2017, 06:15 »
+1
If you don't tell them what camera you have, then they won't know... then it'll get accepted or rejected on its merits, rather than some mystical list. Tell them you shot it on a Hassleblad or something.
I've never tried removing the EXIF, maybe (?) that would be an auto-rejection (?)
No, I do that sometimes when I join photos together and they never reject them.
OK, so their random rule is unpoliceable  ::)

« Reply #14 on: March 03, 2017, 06:23 »
0
From their site "Photos from a DSLR (or equivalent) camera that has a minimum of 6 megapixels
Cameras with less than this wont be able to produce a good enough quality to pass QC, or for us to sell" so pretty arbitrary it seems.

« Reply #15 on: March 03, 2017, 09:15 »
0
From their site "Photos from a DSLR (or equivalent) camera that has a minimum of 6 megapixels
Cameras with less than this wont be able to produce a good enough quality to pass QC, or for us to sell" so pretty arbitrary it seems.

The zs100 I submitted with is 20megapixels. File size was about 10mb IIRC.

« Reply #16 on: March 03, 2017, 09:43 »
0
From their site "Photos from a DSLR (or equivalent) camera that has a minimum of 6 megapixels
Cameras with less than this wont be able to produce a good enough quality to pass QC, or for us to sell" so pretty arbitrary it seems.

The zs100 I submitted with is 20megapixels. File size was about 10mb IIRC.
I think the trouble is with the term "equivalent" I guess it means whatever they want it to

JimP

« Reply #17 on: March 03, 2017, 11:57 »
0
If you don't tell them what camera you have, then they won't know... then it'll get accepted or rejected on its merits, rather than some mystical list. Tell them you shot it on a Hassleblad or something.


They read the EXIF. Last rejection Dec 2016 was "unsuitable camera" and they don't just remove before review or fail without penality. I got a block for uploading for 10 days. Someone could take the chance and swap EXIF to an approved camera but still risk failure for soft. I'd need to have something really good and promised to sell before I risk fail and locked out from uploading. Not worth it to try to trick Alamy.

Some 4/5 cameras were on the unsuitable list. I don't know any APS size that are unsuitable. The former suggested cameras and unsuitable was based on sensor. I think you could still pass with D40 or D100 or 10D. http://www.alamy.com/contributor/how-to-sell-images/guidelines-for-submitting-images/
« Last Edit: March 03, 2017, 12:00 by JimP »

« Reply #18 on: April 07, 2017, 03:36 »
0
Would Alamy accept scans of medium format transparency film? I have an MF image that sold and won a prize in an exhibition and also won a photography competition organised by a magazine. However, when you zoom in on the scanned image on a computer monitor, it doesn't look as sharp as zoomed-in images from my digital Micro 4/3 cameras. Though that same file was used to produce quite a large print for the exhibition (and the print looks nice and sharp.)

« Reply #19 on: April 07, 2017, 11:22 »
0
maybe mirrorless full format or aps-c cameras such as sony, fuji etc...
Sounds right, they have accepted shots taken with my 7D

« Reply #20 on: April 07, 2017, 12:18 »
0
Would Alamy accept scans of medium format transparency film? I have an MF image that sold and won a prize in an exhibition and also won a photography competition organised by a magazine. However, when you zoom in on the scanned image on a computer monitor, it doesn't look as sharp as zoomed-in images from my digital Micro 4/3 cameras. Though that same file was used to produce quite a large print for the exhibition (and the print looks nice and sharp.)

I've got quite a bit of medium-format film on SS - one of my best sellers among them - file number 68871745 shot on a Pentacon Six. Another was shot on a 1930s folding camera (B&W, that one, so no CA problems). So they will accept it.
The real issue with film is the quality of scanning. I spent a lot of time learning how to scan manually on an Epson V500. Automated scanning is no use at all, it simply doesn't deliver the best quality - even from one of the best specialised film processors in the UK (I've compared their scans with what I can achieve, and it's like a P&S vs a 6MP DSLR).

PS - I've had Velvia transparencies, colour negs (including Fuji 400H),  and B&W Fomapan 100 accepted.
« Last Edit: April 07, 2017, 12:26 by BaldricksTrousers »

« Reply #21 on: April 07, 2017, 22:13 »
0
I've got quite a bit of medium-format film on SS - one of my best sellers among them - file number 68871745 shot on a Pentacon Six. Another was shot on a 1930s folding camera (B&W, that one, so no CA problems). So they will accept it.
The real issue with film is the quality of scanning. I spent a lot of time learning how to scan manually on an Epson V500. Automated scanning is no use at all, it simply doesn't deliver the best quality - even from one of the best specialised film processors in the UK (I've compared their scans with what I can achieve, and it's like a P&S vs a 6MP DSLR).

Ah nice! Mine was shot with a Koni Omega Rapid so likely 60s or 70s vintage. The scan is of Fuji Velvia 100 and it was accepted by SS and iStockphoto no problem. However, Dreamstime wouldn't accept it, stating that there was some technical problem with the file. It was scanned by a lab, not myself. Generally when I use medium format, I use slow speed and medium speed film. Though Ive also submitted some scans of 35mm film that happened to be 200asa and 400asa and they tend to be too grainy for the stock sites except for iStockphoto who accepted them.

« Reply #22 on: April 08, 2017, 00:37 »
0
Well, anything that will pass inspection on SS will pass Alamy - that was my point, I didn't make it clearly.

« Reply #23 on: April 08, 2017, 01:42 »
0
Well, anything that will pass inspection on SS will pass Alamy - that was my point, I didn't make it clearly.

Ah, all cool. I just had the impression that Alamy were more strict than SS because they're macrostock. Glad to hear it's not like that.

« Reply #24 on: April 08, 2017, 02:08 »
0
Well, anything that will pass inspection on SS will pass Alamy - that was my point, I didn't make it clearly.

Ah, all cool. I just had the impression that Alamy were more strict than SS because they're macrostock. Glad to hear it's not like that.
Provided it meets their technical standards they take anything they are really a category of their own rather than traditional "Macrostock"

« Reply #25 on: April 08, 2017, 04:13 »
0
It was scanned by a lab, not myself.
That doesn't mean it's been well scanned. I had a roll of 35mm developed and scanned by Peak Imaging, which is one of the best specialist labs in the UK, and found I could do a far better job myself on my Epson V500, but manually scanning each image is very time consuming, and so can the subsequent processing be if there are any dust spots or scratches.
Peak Imaging's scanning isn't cheap, either. It's superior to what you will get from a High Street lab.

« Reply #26 on: April 08, 2017, 04:58 »
0

That doesn't mean it's been well scanned.

Yes, very true. Though overall, I was happy with the prints from this scan except for the fact that they were a little on the dark side. To make matters worse, when the first print (about 60 x 50cm) was displayed in an exhibition, it was hung up on a screen that had no light so it looked really dark as a result. I was not happy at all. Meanwhile, most other peoples' works had decent illumination from overhead lights on other screens. However, despite the dim conditions, it won Second Prize and also sold.
« Last Edit: April 08, 2017, 05:11 by dragonblade »


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
7 Replies
3183 Views
Last post June 27, 2008, 15:40
by HermanM
1 Replies
1525 Views
Last post November 25, 2008, 04:42
by leaf
15 Replies
4142 Views
Last post July 26, 2009, 16:09
by Stu99
9 Replies
3006 Views
Last post March 12, 2011, 14:33
by RacePhoto
0 Replies
1261 Views
Last post October 02, 2015, 06:23
by littleny

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results