Author Topic: Updated - New QC procedures as a result of persistent failures (Read 23820 times)

oboy · « **on:** February 02, 2009, 11:35 »

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

MagtheHag · « **Reply #1 on:** May 09, 2009, 11:05 »

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

sharpshot · « **Reply #2 on:** May 09, 2009, 11:48 »

Quote from: MagtheHag on May 09, 2009, 11:05

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.

madelaide · « **Reply #3 on:** May 09, 2009, 18:45 »

Quote from: sharpshot on May 09, 2009, 11:48

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 »

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 »

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?

astrocady · « **Reply #6 on:** May 10, 2009, 07:42 »

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 »

Quote from: astrocady on May 10, 2009, 07:42

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

Dreamframer · « **Reply #8 on:** May 10, 2009, 08:13 »

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 »

Quote from: Whitechild on May 10, 2009, 08:13

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

madelaide · « **Reply #10 on:** May 10, 2009, 10:49 »

Quote from: astrocady on May 10, 2009, 07:42

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.

Dreamframer · « **Reply #11 on:** May 10, 2009, 10:56 »

stockastic · « **Reply #12 on:** May 10, 2009, 11:07 »

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.

PeterChigmaroff · « **Reply #13 on:** May 10, 2009, 11:16 »

Quote from: stockastic on May 10, 2009, 11:07

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.

goldenangel · « **Reply #14 on:** May 10, 2009, 22:46 »

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 »

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 »

Quote from: ShadySue on May 11, 2009, 10:48

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 »

Quote from: ShadySue on May 11, 2009, 10:48

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 · « **Reply #18 on:** May 11, 2009, 11:42 »

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 · « **Reply #19 on:** May 11, 2009, 11:45 »

Quote from: ShadySue on May 11, 2009, 10:48

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 · « **Reply #20 on:** May 11, 2009, 11:50 »

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!

gostwyck · « **Reply #21 on:** May 11, 2009, 11:51 »

^^^ 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 »

Quote from: lisafx on May 11, 2009, 11:37

Quote from: ShadySue on May 11, 2009, 10:48

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.

ShadySue · « **Reply #23 on:** May 11, 2009, 12:22 »

Quote from: gostwyck on May 11, 2009, 11:51

^^^ 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 »

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.

lisafx · « **Reply #25 on:** May 11, 2009, 13:03 »

Quote from: ShadySue on May 11, 2009, 12:12

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.

Wow. If you are using L glass then your experience doesn't mirror mine at all. My images are insanely sharp using the kit lens. And I also shoot handheld.

Please forgive an obvious question, but did you make sure the IS is turned on?

FWIW I have gone through the ringer with Canon too awhile back. I went through four 10D's before getting a good one. Never have been happy with the sharpness of my 40D either. I have been very fortunate to get superb examples of the 5D and 5DII though.

One other question - are you shooting RAW or jpeg? When I got the 5DII I was noticing jpegs were a bit mushy. I forgot I had the default sharpening setting in my 5D to +1 and the default on the 5DII was 0 or -1, I think. The +1 seems to make the jpegs very sharp if all else is working properly. I shoot mostly RAW for stock, though, so that's a non-issue.

gostwyck · « **Reply #26 on:** May 11, 2009, 13:11 »

Quote from: ShadySue on May 11, 2009, 12:22

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.

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.

ShadySue · « **Reply #27 on:** May 11, 2009, 13:20 »

Quote from: gostwyck on May 11, 2009, 13:11

Quote from: ShadySue on May 11, 2009, 12:22
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.

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.

Well, more checking/testing obviously needed.
The 5d2 was bought specifically with the intention of doing editorial e.g. Alamy. I've gone as far as I can with iStock, with no models. Set-ups bore me to tears, and are bad for my dodgy back, and less usual wildlife gets nowhere unless (and sometimes even if) it's American. If I was staying at iStock I'd have stuck with the 40D for a while.
I might get out and about in a wee while, and tomorrow I'll try some targets via a tripod stuff.
Lisa: yes, the IS was switched on, but I just checked one of my very obviously mushy shots and the EXIF says 38mm; 100ISO; 1/200 @f10, which should be pretty good even without!
Shooting RAW, and have already set the JPG options off/neutral in case for any reason I want to shoot JPG.

ShadySue · « **Reply #28 on:** May 12, 2009, 10:54 »

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

RT · « **Reply #29 on:** May 12, 2009, 12:56 »

Quote from: ShadySue on May 12, 2009, 10:54

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

Having just taken a quick look at the photo you've linked to I'm going to make an educated guess here and suggest you send the lens of to be calibrated, I don't think it's the camera. The photo isn't blurred it looks to me like the red/green channels aren't aligned.

gostwyck · « **Reply #30 on:** May 12, 2009, 16:19 »

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.

travelstock · « **Reply #31 on:** May 12, 2009, 17:10 »

Well so far I´ve been getting 100% acceptances irrespective of whether I upload with a 10MP E420 or the Olympus E30 - of course both cameras are using top quality glass. I´ve had images accepted including up to ISO 800, which on a small sensor is pretty high.

If you;re getting rejections on Alamy its probably due to your post processing technique - they like images with no sharpening, no Noise Reduction and properly upsized. Of course you also need to be sure that the image is properly sharp when you capture it. I suspect that Chromatic Aberration will lead to rejections, so these need to be corrected particularly on something like the 5DII where I suspect they´re rather more obvious viewed at 100%.

I´m starting to get a trickle of sales too - not enough for a payout each month, but then I´m only doing editorial RM images and only have about 250 photos online there, so overall I must say I´m really happy with Alamy at the moment. I sold a photo for use in a publication in the Russian Federation there this morning.. happy days!

ShadySue · « **Reply #32 on:** May 12, 2009, 17:18 »

Quote from: gostwyck on May 12, 2009, 16:19

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.

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.

KB · « **Reply #33 on:** May 12, 2009, 17:40 »

Quote from: gostwyck on May 12, 2009, 16:19

I can absolutely confirm that shooting at 1/200 held-held with a 23MP camera is nothing like fast enough to eliminate camera-shake.

I respect your opinion, and your experience, but I must disagree with such a blanket statement.

If good technique is used, then I see no reason at all why someone couldn't shoot handheld at, say, 100mm or shorter with IS on and get sharp images at 1/200. (The 5D2 is 21MP, by the way -- not that that makes any difference.) Some people can probably get away with even longer focal lengths.

Now, OTOH, if by "camera shake" you meant blurriness due to poor shooting technique, then, sure, I'd agree with that. If someone just picks it up with one hand and presses the shutter while moving around a bit, then no way is 1/200 going to be enough to compensate for that, even at 24mm.

MagtheHag · « **Reply #34 on:** May 13, 2009, 16:18 »

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

RT · « **Reply #35 on:** May 13, 2009, 16:55 »

Quote from: MagtheHag on May 13, 2009, 16:18

Besides that, how many posters here are actually selling any images in the sea of 17 million? Don't waste your time.
Maggie

Couldn't agree more, my advice to anyone is to put your stuff on a site like Featurepics or Naymicro

lisafx · « **Reply #36 on:** May 13, 2009, 17:15 »

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.

PeterChigmaroff · « **Reply #37 on:** May 13, 2009, 18:49 »

Quote from: MagtheHag on May 13, 2009, 16:18

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

Hostile?
Good grief, I think I've had maybe one reject from thousands of images submitted. That's including photos from cameras like a Canon G7. I can't even begin to guess how many I've had from micros.

travelstock · « **Reply #38 on:** May 14, 2009, 09:55 »

Quote from: RT on May 13, 2009, 16:55

Quote from: MagtheHag on May 13, 2009, 16:18
Besides that, how many posters here are actually selling any images in the sea of 17 million? Don't waste your time.
Maggie

Couldn't agree more, my advice to anyone is to put your stuff on a site like Featurepics or Naymicro

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

RacePhoto · « **Reply #39 on:** May 14, 2009, 15:01 »

Quote from: ShadySue on May 12, 2009, 17:18

Quote from: gostwyck on May 12, 2009, 16:19
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.

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.

It's not the camera! But I suppose people will think I'm being mean by mentioning that? It might be the lens?

The picture of the church was underexposed and you lightened it to bring out the shadows. If anything you need to over expose 1/3rd stop so you have some room to move around. Problem is, you have that stone pillar which is brightly lit, and would be blown out, if you exposed properly for the shadows. It's noisy and soft. Is this the edge of the image? I see distortion at 32mm.

sure 100 ISO and 200th at f/10 should have been fine, except if the proper exposure was 1/200th at f/6 ? I'm not sure I understand the Program Parameters being set at 2, since it was a RAW to start with?

What kind of monitor are you using? Is it calibrated?

Original

Someone who understands these better than I do, please tell me what you think of the graph? (from original, not my edit)

Here's a very quick edit with Elements 7

Oh wait... the camera is junk, I'll take it off your hands for fifty bucks.

If anything on the safari site is yours, (or the site is yours?) darn good and really amazing. Very nice.

ShadySue · « **Reply #40 on:** May 14, 2009, 16:00 »

Quote

It's not the camera! But I suppose people will think I'm being mean by mentioning that?

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

Quote

The picture of the church was underexposed and you lightened it to bring out the shadows. If anything you need to over expose 1/3rd stop so you have some room to move around. Problem is, you have that stone pillar which is brightly lit, and would be blown out, if you exposed properly for the shadows. It's noisy and soft.

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.

Quote

sure 100 ISO and 200th at f/11 should have been fine, except if the proper exposure was 1/200th at f/8 ?

The EXIF says f10.

Quote

Oh wait... the camera is junk, I'll take it off your hands for fifty bucks.

Dream on!
I'll just have to learn to be a techie. $:-\$

Quote

If anything on the safari site is yours, (or the site is yours?) darn good and really amazing. Very nice.

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.)

ShadySue · « **Reply #41 on:** May 14, 2009, 16:46 »

Quote from: ShadySue on May 14, 2009, 16:00

Quote
It's not the camera! But I suppose people will think I'm being mean by mentioning that?
Nope, not mean at all.
If that's the case, what would be the point of saying otherwise!

Quote
The picture of the church was underexposed and you lightened it to bring out the shadows. If anything you need to over expose 1/3rd stop so you have some room to move around. Problem is, you have that stone pillar which is brightly lit, and would be blown out, if you exposed properly for the shadows. It's noisy and soft.
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.

Quote
sure 100 ISO and 200th at f/11 should have been fine, except if the proper exposure was 1/200th at f/8 ?
The EXIF says f10. But I'll give the +1/3 exposure a try.

Quote
Oh wait... the camera is junk, I'll take it off your hands for fifty bucks.
Dream on!
I'll just have to learn to be a techie. $:-\$

Quote
If anything on the safari site is yours, (or the site is yours?) darn good and really amazing. Very nice.
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.)

madelaide · « **Reply #42 on:** May 15, 2009, 19:17 »

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.

ShadySue · « **Reply #43 on:** May 16, 2009, 04:17 »

Quote from: madelaide on May 15, 2009, 19:17

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.

I think the image is really soft, and the upsizing hasn't helped. This may not be relevant to your image, but I've found that autofocus has a really hard job focussing on wet mud. I 'lost' a series of photos of a buffalo in a mud wallow for that reason.
(I'm having fun playing 'spot the eye' on this ele )

MagtheHag · « **Reply #44 on:** May 18, 2009, 09:51 »

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

Mag

madelaide · « **Reply #45 on:** May 19, 2009, 16:21 »

Quote from: MagtheHag on May 18, 2009, 09:51

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

Nobody is suspended for having ONE image rejected, isn't it?

I agree his is rejection looks less valid than mine.

RacePhoto · « **Reply #46 on:** May 20, 2009, 13:25 »

Quote from: madelaide on May 19, 2009, 16:21

Quote from: MagtheHag on May 18, 2009, 09:51
It looks as if QC can be WRONG...found this...http://alamyqcrejects.blogspot.com/.

Nobody is suspended for having ONE image rejected, isn't it?

I agree his is rejection looks less valid than mine.

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.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Updated - New QC procedures as a result of persistent failures (Read 23820 times)

lisafx

tan510jomast

tan510jomast

tan510jomast

tan510jomast

lisafx

tan510jomast

lisafx

lisafx

RacePhoto

RacePhoto

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors