MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Updated - New QC procedures as a result of persistent failures  (Read 12822 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: February 02, 2009, 11:35 »
0
Quote
2 February 2009 at 10:32 by Patrick Ashby and Rob Singer - QC team
Posted under Advice and tips, News

As a follow up to the New QC procedures as a result of persistent failures blog (July 2008), we are now going to start freezing online upload privileges for a period of 30 days for those contributors who continually fail QC.

These contributors are repeatedly submitting the following:

    * Images that contain gross technical errors.
    * Re-submission of images that have previously failed QC and have not been corrected.
    * Submissions which have had the problem images removed but no changes made to other images in the submission which also experience failure reasons.

We expect our contributors to
understand our QC requirements and submit only images that meet these standards. We would like to ask contributors to be pro-active towards this situation. This can be done by taking the following steps:

    * If you have failed QC go to Track submissions, within My Alamy to see why your submission failed.
    * If you do not understand the failure reason then look at the description of our failure reasons.
    * Before re-submitting, check ALL your images at 100% for any problems.
    * If you are still confused as to why you have failed QC why not look on the Alamy forum.

We are keen to reiterate that contributors who do not take these steps are becoming very time consuming, which impacts the turnaround time for all of our contributors. We will be tracking these contributors, and in extreme circumstances contributors will have their online upload privileges removed for a period of 30 days.

If you are a contributor having problems passing QC you may find these links useful:

    * Alamy Forum
    * Submission Guidelines
    * New QC procedures as a result of persistent failures
    * Some guidance to help you pass Alamy Quality Control
    * Are you having issues passing Alamy Quality Control?



http://www.alamy.com/Blog/contributor/archive/2009/02/02/3916.aspx
« Last Edit: February 02, 2009, 11:55 by oboy »


« Reply #1 on: May 09, 2009, 11:05 »
0
When Alamy was first formed it was suppose to be the most contributor "friendly" stock agency ever inaugurated. WOW, has that ever changed. I'm a contributor to Getty Images, Alamy, Photographers Choice, and License Stream. Without a doubt, Alamy has become downright HOSTILE! Their QC department has been outsourced to India and they don't have a clue as to what they're doing. Mark my word and avoid Alamy...they are HOSTILE and not worth the time and energy involved in selling your stock images! How is a buyer going to find and license your images in a sea of 17 million images...NOT?

Maggie

« Reply #2 on: May 09, 2009, 11:48 »
0
When Alamy was first formed it was suppose to be the most contributor "friendly" stock agency ever inaugurated. WOW, has that ever changed. I'm a contributor to Getty Images, Alamy, Photographers Choice, and License Stream. Without a doubt, Alamy has become downright HOSTILE! Their QC department has been outsourced to India and they don't have a clue as to what they're doing. Mark my word and avoid Alamy...they are HOSTILE and not worth the time and energy involved in selling your stock images! How is a buyer going to find and license your images in a sea of 17 million images...NOT?

Maggie
Alamy is very contributor friendly compared to the microstock sites.  I have only had one rejection for getting the size wrong.

« Reply #3 on: May 09, 2009, 18:45 »
0
Alamy is very contributor friendly compared to the microstock sites.  I have only had one rejection for getting the size wrong.

Me too, and the others on the batch were approved.  I haven't seen a problem in their site yet (well, there was a problem a while ago, I can't remember what was it).  They discuss new policies and let us opt out if we don't like them.  Their way of having three categories for keyword is potentially the best for relevance.

My only complaint is the work to set an image as editorial only - too many clicks.

lisafx

« Reply #4 on: May 09, 2009, 19:06 »
0
Yep, no problem with excessive rejections here either.  Just submit good stuff, properly sized for them.

The sales aren't stellar and I haven't managed to make payout every month, but no problem with customer service at all.  In fact they have been extremely friendly and even willing to foot the bill to call me internationally when I have needed to contact support.

tan510jomast

« Reply #5 on: May 09, 2009, 20:26 »
0
agree with all who vouched for Alamy. i've never had any rejections from Alamy nor problems from Support. In fact, even had support actually helped with with filling up my first Rights Managed entry as I wasn't too sure. Sure really, if anyone has problem, there is a problem on your side for not following rules.
Also, when you consider that your approval is based on one image for that batch, how could anyone fail to have one good image to head that batch. Not to say you should take advantage of this fact, but if your first image does not meet requirement, then the rest must be lacking. In theory, every single one we upload to Alamy should be above the standard of micro , since we need to upsize.
Keep trying to improve, and here's hoping you will be successful in getting an approval with Alamy. If you do, then that image must sure be a cinch for micro, since it will be so much sharper downsized from 49MB to what? 17MB?

« Reply #6 on: May 10, 2009, 07:42 »
0
I don't know.  I've had no problems with them, and my approval rating is very good. 

But

I talked my wife into joining as her interest are more landscape and artsy-fartsy stuff and I thought it'd be a good outlet for her.  It took here a few tries to get approved (which surprised me), but was accepted about 2 months ago.  She quickly submitted a few batches, maybe 4 or 5 with 2 or 3 images each.  About 60% were approved.  Then she got an email warning her about too many rejections and that she better shape up or she'd get banned.  This after only about 2 weeks. 

It kind of took the wind from her sails and she more or less stopped uploading. I think she make one upload of 2 pix right after getting the notice, which was approved. Two days ago she got another email saying her account had been frozen because she didn't correct her ways.  Very harsh, since she hasn't been uploading at all.  I told her she should email them but I don't think she has, or will.

So I'm confused about them right now.

tan510jomast

« Reply #7 on: May 10, 2009, 08:08 »
0
I don't know.  I've had no problems with them, and my approval rating is very good. 

But

I talked my wife into joining as her interest are more landscape and artsy-fartsy stuff and I thought it'd be a good outlet for her.  It took here a few tries to get approved (which surprised me), but was accepted about 2 months ago.  She quickly submitted a few batches, maybe 4 or 5 with 2 or 3 images each.  About 60% were approved.  Then she got an email warning her about too many rejections and that she better shape up or she'd get banned.  This after only about 2 weeks. 

It kind of took the wind from her sails and she more or less stopped uploading. I think she make one upload of 2 pix right after getting the notice, which was approved. Two days ago she got another email saying her account had been frozen because she didn't correct her ways.  Very harsh, since she hasn't been uploading at all.  I told her she should email them but I don't think she has, or will.

So I'm confused about them right now.

i don't know the whole situation about your wife, astrocady. but if she has just cause to question this warning from Alamy, and if she still feels Alamy's a good place to contribute, i would suggest contact Support.  human error in mass emails is not uncommon, maybe they confused your wife with someone with a similar username.
again i repeat what most said here, Alamy is the most user friendly of the mid stock sites, and Support is ABSOLUTELY (written deliberately in caps) helpful and communicative;
no, make that RESPONSIVE. every site is "communicative" , even the ones who don't give a flying rat's poophole what you say  ;)
« Last Edit: May 10, 2009, 08:14 by tan510jomast »

« Reply #8 on: May 10, 2009, 08:13 »
0
I am far from excellent photographer but I passed QC first time I applied and since then I never had any rejection, so I can imagine what kind of images some contributor are sending.

tan510jomast

« Reply #9 on: May 10, 2009, 08:16 »
0
I am far from excellent photographer but I passed QC first time I applied and since then I never had any rejection, so I can imagine what kind of images some contributor are sending.

no kidding, Ivan  8)

« Reply #10 on: May 10, 2009, 10:49 »
0
I talked my wife into joining as her interest are more landscape and artsy-fartsy stuff and I thought it'd be a good outlet for her. 

If "artsy-fartsy" means artistic images - maybe that is the problem? I don't think stock websites like those too much.

« Reply #11 on: May 10, 2009, 10:56 »
0
:)

« Reply #12 on: May 10, 2009, 11:07 »
0
Someone please explain to me why Alamy makes contributors upload these gigantic resampled images.  To me it makes no sense at all.  It's a huge waste of storage for Alamy -  they could just automatically upsample an image themselves for download, instead of storing all these terabytes of previously upsized images, and use the best (most expensive) software to do it.  If the upsampling software is improved, buyers instantly start getting better images.    It's a big waste of time for contributors too.   

I think it makes Alamy look like a bunch of old f@rts who don't understand the technology.


« Reply #13 on: May 10, 2009, 11:16 »
0
Someone please explain to me why Alamy makes contributors upload these gigantic resampled images.  To me it makes no sense at all.  It's a huge waste of storage for Alamy -  they could just automatically upsample an image themselves for download, instead of storing all these terabytes of previously upsized images, and use the best (most expensive) software to do it.  If the upsampling software is improved, buyers instantly start getting better images.    It's a big waste of time for contributors too.   

I think it makes Alamy look like a bunch of old f@rts who don't understand the technology.



They are not gigantic, they are the industry standard and have been this way for a long time. If your camera can't up sample to these sizes then you get failed. I think they understand the technology very well. I think too many people make a gauge of a photos usefulness based on what a grouping of pixels look like. It's a joke really.

« Reply #14 on: May 10, 2009, 22:46 »
0
So far, I have only positive experience with Alamy. They approved my first application and accepted all my images so far. I am a bit more picky as to what I submit there as upsizing requires images to be good technical quality to start with.
I like how they communicate with contributors too. I hope it all stays this way.

ShadySue

« Reply #15 on: May 11, 2009, 10:48 »
0
I'm pretty confused about the Alamy QC as well. I was accepted first time, and was really surprised as the images were all upsized from a 350D and they'd never have made the cut at iStock.
Anyway, I've had some more accepted and quite a few rejected, upsized from a 40D, which to my eye look much better: all for 'lack of definition' or camera shake (the latter for a wide angle shot taken at well over reciprocity with an IS lens.)
I'm wondering if somehow I got accepted without actually being inspected! ???
I'd guess I'm going to have my account suspended too.  :'(
Now my eyes are crossing. Yesterday I went out with my new (replacement) 5D2 and a 100-400 lens and the 28-105, and most of the photos look a bit 'mushy'(of course, I didn't submit them!). How can I have got so bad so quickly?

tan510jomast

« Reply #16 on: May 11, 2009, 11:12 »
0
I'm pretty confused about the Alamy QC as well. I was accepted first time, and was really surprised as the images were all upsized from a 350D and they'd never have made the cut at iStock.
Anyway, I've had some more accepted and quite a few rejected, upsized from a 40D, which to my eye look much better: all for 'lack of definition' or camera shake (the latter for a wide angle shot taken at well over reciprocity with an IS lens.)
I'm wondering if somehow I got accepted without actually being inspected! ???
I'd guess I'm going to have my account suspended too.  :'(
Now my eyes are crossing. Yesterday I went out with my new (replacement) 5D2 and a 100-400 lens and the 28-105, and most of the photos look a bit 'mushy'(of course, I didn't submit them!). How can I have got so bad so quickly?

Alamy runs on the bona fide that we would ardently edit our work and only send them the best of our selection. They only review the first of each batch. So, if you place your best on top, you will always get approved.
Of course, some contributors exploit this but submitting sub-standard images under the first one, thinking that they beat the system. But they are only cheating themselves if they deem it successful
to get all their images approved by fudging with this critical and objective selective process.

lisafx

« Reply #17 on: May 11, 2009, 11:37 »
0

I'm wondering if somehow I got accepted without actually being inspected! ???
I'd guess I'm going to have my account suspended too.  :'(
Now my eyes are crossing. Yesterday I went out with my new (replacement) 5D2 and a 100-400 lens and the 28-105, and most of the photos look a bit 'mushy'(of course, I didn't submit them!). How can I have got so bad so quickly?

I would spend some time doing test photos with those lenses and your 5DII.  Sometimes a lens and camera may not be calibrated to work together properly and need a trip to canon service to be calibrated to each other. 

Other possibility is that the 5DII is just resolving more than your lenses can handle.  I notice you said the 28-105 rather than the 24-105L kit.  Canon doesn't make an L quality 28-105, so if that's what you are shooting with you may need to upgrade to better glass. 

Do you have any really sharp primes or L lenses you can try the 5DII with?  Best way to see if your problem is the camera or the lenses IMO. 

PaulieWalnuts

  • On the Wrong Side of the Business
« Reply #18 on: May 11, 2009, 11:42 »
0
What's funny is their forum. People calling Alamy QC idiots. "I'm an industry veteran, 30 years in the business, blah blah blah, and Alamy rejects my perfect images. What a joke..."

Then they post a full size shot of their perfect image and it's a trainwreck. Soft, out of focus, overprocessed, CA, posterized, and you-name-it.

I think the standards have been tightened and a lot of Alamy contributors have been used to getting by with technically subpar stuff thinking it's perfect.

No wonder why they're putting something like this in place.

PaulieWalnuts

  • On the Wrong Side of the Business
« Reply #19 on: May 11, 2009, 11:45 »
0
I'm pretty confused about the Alamy QC as well. I was accepted first time, and was really surprised as the images were all upsized from a 350D and they'd never have made the cut at iStock.
Anyway, I've had some more accepted and quite a few rejected, upsized from a 40D, which to my eye look much better: all for 'lack of definition' or camera shake (the latter for a wide angle shot taken at well over reciprocity with an IS lens.)
I'm wondering if somehow I got accepted without actually being inspected! ???
I'd guess I'm going to have my account suspended too.  :'(
Now my eyes are crossing. Yesterday I went out with my new (replacement) 5D2 and a 100-400 lens and the 28-105, and most of the photos look a bit 'mushy'(of course, I didn't submit them!). How can I have got so bad so quickly?

If that 28-105 is the lens I'm thinking of I read a few reviews that it's softer on full frame.

Roadrunner

  • Roadrunner
« Reply #20 on: May 11, 2009, 11:50 »
0
I was rejected at first for Artifacts and noise.  At the time I had tried twice to pass QC. Someone on their forum advised me to switchover from Photoshop Elements 6 to Full Photoshop.  After upgrading from PSE-6 to Photoshop CS, I got accepted on the first submission using PS_CS.

I might add that my acceptance rating improved on other sites as well.  Now if I could only find time to get back to uploading to the stock sites! ::)

« Reply #21 on: May 11, 2009, 11:51 »
0
^^^ I'd very much agree with Lisa. I think you can pretty much forget the idea of using a 23MP camera without L-quality glass.

When I upgraded to the 1Ds MkIII, from the 5D, I was intially horrified at the 'mushiness' of the images (even though I was using L glass). It took me a bit of tripod-mounted testing to work out that most of the problem was actually camera shake. I normally prefer to shoot hand-held. I also needed to fine-tune each lens to the camera too (a special feature of the IDS MkIII). What might look pin-sharp with a 12MP sensor may look very different when the image is twice the size. It will really show up any issues in your own technique or indeed the glass.

ShadySue

« Reply #22 on: May 11, 2009, 12:12 »
0

I'm wondering if somehow I got accepted without actually being inspected! ???
I'd guess I'm going to have my account suspended too.  :'(
Now my eyes are crossing. Yesterday I went out with my new (replacement) 5D2 and a 100-400 lens and the 28-105, and most of the photos look a bit 'mushy'(of course, I didn't submit them!). How can I have got so bad so quickly?

I would spend some time doing test photos with those lenses and your 5DII.  Sometimes a lens and camera may not be calibrated to work together properly and need a trip to canon service to be calibrated to each other. 

Other possibility is that the 5DII is just resolving more than your lenses can handle.  I notice you said the 28-105 rather than the 24-105L kit.  Canon doesn't make an L quality 28-105, so if that's what you are shooting with you may need to upgrade to better glass. 

Do you have any really sharp primes or L lenses you can try the 5DII with?  Best way to see if your problem is the camera or the lenses IMO. 

Sorry, I meant the 24-105L; the 100-400 is also an IS L. It came in between the 5d2 going back to the repairer and the new one coming, so I only had a chance to try it out yesterday.

I am pretty p****d with Canon: 2 faulty 450Ds, a 40D which needed two repairs within its first three months (electrics), a 5D2 which had to be replaced within a month, and now goodness knows what. And it all costs money, having to be sent Special Delivery & insured.  >:(
« Last Edit: May 11, 2009, 12:17 by ShadySue »

ShadySue

« Reply #23 on: May 11, 2009, 12:22 »
0
^^^ I'd very much agree with Lisa. I think you can pretty much forget the idea of using a 23MP camera without L-quality glass.

When I upgraded to the 1Ds MkIII, from the 5D, I was intially horrified at the 'mushiness' of the images (even though I was using L glass). It took me a bit of tripod-mounted testing to work out that most of the problem was actually camera shake. I normally prefer to shoot hand-held. I also needed to fine-tune each lens to the camera too (a special feature of the IDS MkIII). What might look pin-sharp with a 12MP sensor may look very different when the image is twice the size. It will really show up any issues in your own technique or indeed the glass.

The set-up will be no use to me if it only works on a tripod: I'm going to Botswana in July and most of my shooting will be from mokoros (poled canoes). The 100-400 IS L has often been recommended for safaris, where in general you have little chance of using a tripod; with my 350D I was fine with the Sigma 100-300 EX IF DG, but of course, that isn't full frame compatible. I'd imagine at least 95% of my non-isolated-on-white iStock port was hand-held. Obviously the 'set up' stuff needed a tripod.

tan510jomast

« Reply #24 on: May 11, 2009, 12:50 »
0
why don't you invest in a few prime lenses, it sort of defeats the reason for spending so much money on a 23MP, only to use zoom. Much like using rethreads on your new Porsche.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
IE7 Patch causing FTP failures

Started by zymmetricaldotcom Zymmetrical.com

0 Replies
1941 Views
Last post December 07, 2007, 07:20
by zymmetricaldotcom
14 Replies
6529 Views
Last post August 26, 2008, 08:12
by MicrostockExp
5 Replies
2270 Views
Last post May 17, 2010, 06:44
by Dreamframer
0 Replies
2436 Views
Last post July 26, 2011, 10:22
by Shadow
0 Replies
793 Views
Last post August 07, 2015, 13:20
by saschadueser

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results