I submitted a batch of images a while ago.  It had not gone through QC yet but I had another batch to submit.  So I figured I would submit that as well.   It looks like one image in the first batch failed so they all failed and it also looks like the second batch failed as well because the first one, in the first batch did.   So what I learned is to submit a batch and wait for it to clear QC before you submit a second.

BTW the image that failed was my favorite image.   I don't print much of my stuff for personal use but my friends and family liked the image so much that they insisted I print and frame it.  That's like one out of 2000 in my portfolio.   It also has lots of copy space for commercial space.  So it was interesting for ALAMY to fail QC on this one.  Note it was also not accepted at most of the other sites that i use.    

There is just no accounting for tastes.... Its a shame that they they all all wrong and I am right on this one   ;-)

Here is the image that has gotten almost universal rejection:

Yea... "Soft or Lacking Definition"

I focused on the leading fence post at f8.   And I was pretty close with a 24-70mm lens at 50mm.  My DOF was about 2 ft.  I got what I wanted which was a sharp front post drifting to a diminishing softer background.  And I know that microstock reviewers can be erratic and finicky about DOF.   So you always take your chances when you submit stuff like this I guess.

I can't see your image at 100%...but I'll give you my experience.  I'm not sure what brand you shoot, but I shoot Canon and I own the 24-70 f/2.8L.  That lens sucks...big time.  It's great for editorial and reportage but for creative stock, it's the pits.  I'm willing to bet that the "soft and lacking definition" is a result of the lens being soft in the corners.  Take a look at the image at 100% and look at all four corners.  Is it soft?  Is it in focus?

I have an image submitted on the microstock agencies of a wind farm.  I couldn't submit the image to the traditional agencies I work with because all four corners were soft.  I cropped it to a smaller size and submitted it to the micros (that allow for smaller image sizes) and it has done very well.

That's my experience.

Quote from: Ed on February 21, 2012, 18:51

I can't see your image at 100%...but I'll give you my experience.  I'm not sure what brand you shoot, but I shoot Canon and I own the 24-70 f/2.8L.  That lens sucks...big time.  It's great for editorial and reportage but for creative stock, it's the pits.  I'm willing to bet that the "soft and lacking definition" is a result of the lens being soft in the corners.  Take a look at the image at 100% and look at all four corners.  Is it soft?  Is it in focus?

I have an image submitted on the microstock agencies of a wind farm.  I couldn't submit the image to the traditional agencies I work with because all four corners were soft.  I cropped it to a smaller size and submitted it to the micros (that allow for smaller image sizes) and it has done very well.

That's my experience.

what F you playing with? at F3.5 I dont see any soft corners, its not a sigma... talking about the Nikon 24-70

My particular image was shot at f/8 at 50mm.  It's the Canon 24-70 f/2.8L.  I had to crop down to 8.7 megapixel to crop out the corners in order to get it into Shutterstock and other agencies.  Last month, I got a $28 EL out of it at Shutterstock...I count it as a blessing because it almost ended up getting deleted.  I am very interested in the second version of the lens due out in April.

Luis - no exaggeration...I didn't submit the image to Alamy for a reason...and I cropped it for a reason.  The image is currently at Bigstock, Shutterstock, 123RF, and iStock.  It was refused at DT.

I can't see your image at 100%...but I'll give you my experience.  I'm not sure what brand you shoot, but I shoot Canon and I own the 24-70 f/2.8L.  That lens sucks...big time.  It's great for editorial and reportage but for creative stock, it's the pits.  I'm willing to bet that the "soft and lacking definition" is a result of the lens being soft in the corners.  Take a look at the image at 100% and look at all four corners.  Is it soft?  Is it in focus?

I have an image submitted on the microstock agencies of a wind farm.  I couldn't submit the image to the traditional agencies I work with because all four corners were soft.  I cropped it to a smaller size and submitted it to the micros (that allow for smaller image sizes) and it has done very well.

That's my experience.

I don't think its the lens.   This was shot with the 24-70 f2.8  at 50mm and at f8.  I have never seen any significant corner problems.  Out of the close to 2000 images that I have on microstock sites I bet about 800 are from this lens.  Also if you look at all of the reviews for this lens they say that the only problems are when it is wide open or at the fulll ranges of the zoom.   This was at 50mm and f8.   So I would love to blame the lens but the problem is me and microstock.   To do this shot right I should have set it up on a tripod, cranked the iso down to 100, and taken it at f16 and maybe put the focus point a little further back on the fence to maximize the DOF at the beginning of the fence.

BTW if you can't tell I LOVE this lens.  My other love is the 70-200 f2.8... then my wife and kids   ;-)

I think that something wrong if people are saying the canon 24-70L 2.8 is not good enough for microstock. 

We're not taking photos of the Higgs Boson Partical here.

Ed must have a rogue lens, because the Canon 24-70 f2.8 is one of the best, sharpest lenses Canon has and performs superbly at 21MP.
I can't tell anything from the small image size in the download. Maybe there is shake or missed focus at 100%. Alamy don't care about whether it is a "stock image" they only check for technical errors.
Another possibility is that weathered wood lacks detail or maybe they thought you just missed the focus.
There is really no way past the one-fails-all-fail rule. If you delay uploading until the previous batch fails you just pile up a backlog and then all those will fail if one of them does.
You will be under closer scrutiny now.

Quote from: luissantos84 on February 21, 2012, 18:58

Quote from: Ed on February 21, 2012, 18:51

I can't see your image at 100%...but I'll give you my experience.  I'm not sure what brand you shoot, but I shoot Canon and I own the 24-70 f/2.8L.  That lens sucks...big time.  It's great for editorial and reportage but for creative stock, it's the pits.  I'm willing to bet that the "soft and lacking definition" is a result of the lens being soft in the corners.  Take a look at the image at 100% and look at all four corners.  Is it soft?  Is it in focus?

I have an image submitted on the microstock agencies of a wind farm.  I couldn't submit the image to the traditional agencies I work with because all four corners were soft.  I cropped it to a smaller size and submitted it to the micros (that allow for smaller image sizes) and it has done very well.

That's my experience.

what F you playing with? at F3.5 I dont see any soft corners, its not a sigma... talking about the Nikon 24-70

My particular image was shot at f/8 at 50mm.  It's the Canon 24-70 f/2.8L.  I had to crop down to 8.7 megapixel to crop out the corners in order to get it into Shutterstock and other agencies.  Last month, I got a $28 EL out of it at Shutterstock...I count it as a blessing because it almost ended up getting deleted.  I am very interested in the second version of the lens due out in April.

Forget the 24-70, in fact with higher stuff, forget any zooms, start collecting the best of primes. Next generation of high-res cams will in fact demand the quality of top primes.

best.

.

Forget the 24-70, in fact with higher stuff, forget any zooms, start collecting the best of primes. Next generation of high-res cams will in fact demand the quality of top primes.

best.

I agree with this 100%.  I'm also not the only person in the world to notice the issue...

http://zackarias.com/for-photographers/gear-gadgets/headline-i-switched-to-canon-world-still-turns/#more-2583

For workshops I ended up using the Canon a lot because it was the only camera I had a zoom lens for and I found I could teach with a 24-70 2.8 for just about everything I need to do during a workshop. Being that workshops have been 50% of my work I ended up using that lens a good bit but I hated that lens. At 2.8 the edges and corners are soft and distorted at the wide range of the lens. My studio manager, Dan, had a 24-70 as well and we found it did the same thing. It wasn�t just my copy of it. I�ve talked to many Canon shooters who have found similar poor results with their 24-70. I imagine we�ll see a version II of this lens at some point. My personal opinion is it isn�t worth the money.

Most of my images in studio are shot with either a 50mm f/1.8 (first generation lens with a metal mount) or an 85 f/1.8  I have shot with the 85 f/1.2 and it is just plain incredible but I can't afford it at the moment.  I would like a 50 f/1.2 but for stock, the f/1.8 is perfect.

The 24-70L is not good for stock. It is a convenient lens but with many problems. Borders are unsharp, many chromatic aberrations and uneven quality depending on the focal length. Primes trump any zoom always. Tele zooms are ok but wideangle ones in Canon territory are of borderline quality to pass the inspection process.

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on February 22, 2012, 11:21

I really doubt that the 50/1.8 first version outperforms the 24-70/2.8, even stopped down to 2.8. The new version has to be stopped down to f4 or beyond to overtake the zoom in the corners (that's what the technical charts say, anyway) is the second version worse than the first version?

The difference between the first and second version is essentially, a metal mount vs. a plastic mount, and focus speed.  The second version focuses faster.  The first version currently sells used for more than the second version sells new.

If you read the charts, you'll find that the 50 f/1.8 is optically superior than the 50 f/1.4 on a full frame camera.  For clients, the f1/2 would be more desirable to give that "dreamy" look...which most agencies will refuse...another reason I haven't bought that lens yet.

I've also owned a 24-105L and I hated that lens even more because of the vignetting.  I know it's a popular lens (as is the 24-70) but experience has helped me form my own opinions about each product.  I prefer faster glass...I like primes over zooms unless I'm in a situation where I need to switch it up quickly (i.e. editorial, street, etc.).  That's just me and my style.  It's how I roll LOL   

I've got nothing against primes they do have advantages - curiously, one of them is that they are a bit of a straightjacket for composition which can actually be helpful forcing you to think more about how to handle a situation. Fast glass also auto-focuses faster.

Of course, if you are going to uprez files for Alamy, the sharper what you start with the better but I scarcely ever do that and with 24MB files being acceptable there image quality from the 24-70 is very unlikely to be a rejection reason.

The 24-70L is not good for stock. It is a convenient lens but with many problems. Borders are unsharp, many chromatic aberrations and uneven quality depending on the focal length. Primes trump any zoom always. Tele zooms are ok but wideangle ones in Canon territory are of borderline quality to pass the inspection process.

you have no CA on primes? yeh right...

I have no idea what exotic substances you guys are on but Canon's 24-70mm f2.8L is an outstanding lens which is perfect for stock or any other general use. Probably 98% of my port was captured using it and I get very few rejections. My only concern is that mine has now undertaken about 500K shutter operations and I'd assume that at some point the auto-focus motor may die and need replacing.

As it happens my initial batch for Alamy just been passed by QC. All 4 images were captured with the 24-70 and included full-sized images of landscapes and close-up work. It's an L glass lens __ I'd have been astonished if they hadn't passed.

Yes of course CA can be a problem (because it is a zoom lens) but only under extreme circumstances and it can usually be corrected in PS anyway. The convenience of the zoom way exceeds the inconvenience of the occasional CA.

+1 on your whole post. 

Much of my portfolio was captured using the Canon 24-70L.  Perhaps I just have an exceptional copy, but it is as sharp as my primes, to my eye.   

Over the last couple of years I am using the 24-105L more simply because it's lighter and with the image-stabilization I don't have to bother with a tripod.  Plus the extra reach is nice.  Since I shoot mostly with strobes rather than available light, F4 is not too limiting. 

Gostwyck, you'll find the QC on Alamy is less rigorous than on the micros. You should get 100% acceptance.
The CA on the 24-70 is very slight and is completely eliminated by the Digital Photo Professional software that Canon supplies with the camera. I run shots through it automatically (it only works in RAW though).

Primes trump any zoom always.

This is just silly. Have you never seen a shot taken with a Petzval lens or a Cooke Triplet? Even the Tessar does not have a flat focal plane and the Sonnar is noted for CA. The best Canon zooms not only outperform those, they also outperform the worst of its primes and even - at wide apertures - the well respected 50/1.8.

In any case, you can get photos taken with triplets or Tessars accepted at any site if you work within the lenses' limits. They can sell well, too. (So can medium format, actually, qwerty, but I don't think any of my 1940s, 50s or 60s lenses had strontium-flavoured halites in them. Maybe just the odd bit of Strontium-90 fallout form the aerial nuclear tests).

I can't see your image at 100%...but I'll give you my experience.  I'm not sure what brand you shoot, but I shoot Canon and I own the 24-70 f/2.8L.  That lens sucks...big time.  It's great for editorial and reportage but for creative stock, it's the pits.  I'm willing to bet that the "soft and lacking definition" is a result of the lens being soft in the corners.  Take a look at the image at 100% and look at all four corners.  Is it soft?  Is it in focus?

I have an image submitted on the microstock agencies of a wind farm.  I couldn't submit the image to the traditional agencies I work with because all four corners were soft.  I cropped it to a smaller size and submitted it to the micros (that allow for smaller image sizes) and it has done very well.

That's my experience.

this will force a new habit for me. Often when I do final sharpening I take some off if the image has areas of shallow DOF, and usually that means the corners! shall pay more attention in the future.

btw, I LOVE your image, it's the exact type of thing I love to shoot. I've got quite a few like that from my days at college shooting in b&w film and my teacher used to teasingly call me "house & garden", and then say "sorry, it's cute, but not commercial". *sigh* she'd easily get a job as a stock reviewer!

hmmm ...who is going to buy a photo of Fence in b/w ? 

hmmm ...who is going to buy a photo of Fence in b/w ?  

It it was sharp, I'd far rather have the fence than this one:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/pictureshow/2011/11/15/142342119/meet-the-worlds-most-expensive-photo-part-ii
@OP: that said, ignore your friends and family unless they have relevant stock experience. My friends and family don't understand why NatGeo isn't beating down my door, and we can ignore that as a valid opinion.
Ask them, seriously, how much they'd pay for the image if it wasn't you who took it. That'll let you know what they really think. "Um, well, I don't buy photos" shows they aren't in the market and probably know little about it.

http://www.alamy.com/contributor/help/prepare-images.asp#QC

Once you've passed your QC test we only check a sample of images in subsequent submissions.
A submission is defined as any group of media that are awaiting QC at the same time regardless of the day they were submitted (they will all have the status �Awaiting QC�).
If we fail one image, we will reject all images in all media awaiting QC at that time.
Media grouped together as a submission will be QC�d together and will have the same QC date in �Track submissions�.
We will indicate the media which contains the failed image, with an information icon in Track submissions.
Avoid rejection by always checking each of your images at 100% looking for all possible QC failure reasons.
The average amount of time for a contributor to wait for their QC outcome is 48 hours � please note that we do not undertake any QC at the weekend.
QC waiting time is dependent on your QC history, failing QC successive times harms your QC rank meaning that it will take up to four weeks to receive notification that you have failed QC. Blog post on QC time dependent on your QC history.
Ongoing QC failures can result in your online upload privilege being frozen for six months and in extreme circumstances your account being terminated.

All I am saying is that "in my experience" the best L zoom are not even close to the best L primes. May be it was my copy (because I sold it a few weeks ago) but the 24-70 2.8 from 2.8 to f4 was garbage. My 24L 35L 24 TS II trumps on it every day at the wide angle end. And if I want longer the 50 1.4 or the 100 macro also were much better than "my copy".

An interesting article specifically on the 24-70L (Sorry for the OT): 
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2011/10/the-limits-of-variation

I own one and I love mine, but it does appear to have a wider variation than some of Canon's other Ls.  Which probably explains all the mixed reviews you see online. 

Quote from: fieldsphotos on February 28, 2012, 02:20

An interesting article specifically on the 24-70L (Sorry for the OT): 
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2011/10/the-limits-of-variation

I own one and I love mine, but it does appear to have a wider variation than some of Canon's other Ls.  Which probably explains all the mixed reviews you see online. 

^^^ That is a superb article. Thanks for posting.

Ditto and Super article.

There's also another, which I will hunt up on demand, where the variance of the camera and the lens are discussed. For example (making it all up) Say you have a 5D and it's a Plus 2 camera. Out from perfect +2% and you have a lens that's a Plus 2%. Well they are going to be nuts on and a nice match.

You buy a camera that's a -2% and have your same old lens that was perfect before, now it's 4% off and starts to have problems. Blame the camera, blame the lens, or Neither, they are just out of tolerance, within limits, but opposing each other.

That's why the micro adjustment on cameras is such a nice feature. And it needs to be done for every lens you own, one every camera.

Going back to the original hijack of this thread  one 24-70 may be at the one end of the limits for QC and the camera at the other end, and it's going to make something look bad. Change to a lens that's closer to the variation of the camera and suddenly everything is better.

Anyway, excellent article, especially the part about the plastic spacers on zoom lenses.

Thats called religion.

Thats called religion.

With personal respect to religion, it's all faith based, and that's the end of that story.

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on February 22, 2012, 11:21

I sometimes think people just repeat what they read somewhere, without paying attention to their own real-world experience.

amen to that! and not just in photography.... I come across ppl repeating "truths" all the time. (will some clever person please invent a new work that combines "myth" "truth" "misconception") we are in dire need of such a term.

Well lets see, POLITICS comes to mind and it's pretty close to religion. Repeat the party line, without any facts? Spew hateful "truths" about the other side?

But I think what might do for what you asked is a Factoid?

A factoid is a questionable or spurious (unverified, false, or fabricated) statement presented as a fact, but with no veracity.

Things like, if you have a photo go live on Monday, it will sell better for it's lifetime than if it goes live on Friday. (my viewpoint is a good photo will sell whatever day it's uploaded or approved) How does someone prove the myth of better sales. Any documentation or is it just a factoid?

A better one than that, which refuses to die, is "resize in increments of 10% each time, and it will look better". Maybe in 1999 but we aren't shooting 640 x 480 anymore either. 

Oh and the top of the list for almost everyone here... "Microstock is just a passing fad."

Im not really a great lover of zooms, never been but I would agree, the 24-70L, is definetely good enough for micro, thats for sure. Reading many tests, etc, many people swear on the 17-40. Ofcourse it all depends, you have to be lucky and get a good copy. I had to change my 24-70, twice, in order to get a good copy, theyre all differant, depending on the production-line. Friend of mine got a sample of the 17-40L and would you believe its far better then my 24-70L. Its a matter of luck. I bought a 21 mil, Leitz, first sample was crap, next sample was too good for words.

I know some will argue but the plain fact is and especially in digital photography, Primes is the way to go, theyre expensive but really they are so much better and very seldom lets you down. My own favourite zoom is the "new" white, 70-300L IS.USM. the sharpness and IS of this one is truly remarkable, a bit expensive perhaps but great.