do you consider the fact that knowing when your review is coming up
as important to you submitting to the site?
of course, sales count big time to all of us, but i find being able to time
when my images will be reviewed something useful, so i can space out
my submissions.
eg. Dreamstime , Photoshelter,... two sites i really like for this feature.

I do my own QC and subjective selection, a lot of others don't this is what kills the Queue times, I upload only about 2% - 5% of any shoot sometimes none, after checking quality for sharpness and no artifacts, then the content, and for no heavy shadows or over cropping, and the adjustments only slight levels.

I prefer Alamy, 48 Hours if none fail QC on quality, one fails they all fail, so you can have images live in 3 days, instead of in a queue for 9 days and someone subjectivly edits your image content.

Alamy have just added a new rule for persistant QC failures, a 30 day upload lock out, I have only had 1 QC rejection from Alamy.

Yet I have a 25% subjective rejections at Photoshelter and the usual scenario is them accepting 2 from a set of three after a 12 day wait, this has happened several times, I have had one soft rejection because I did not put the location in the caption, fixed this and re-submitted so that would be 24 days from upload to the gallery.

I think all sites should have a fast track system based on your acceptance percentage, the worse you are the longer you wait.

An Image in a queue for two weeks sitting behind a lot of images from percentage photographers that upload lots and hope to get a few through QC, earns no $$, so no I do not like!

David  

With regards to Alamy, I have never been accepted, and I am  sure what I have uploaded for QC is a hell of a lot better than what I have seen on their site.

cheers adeptris, and litifeta for your input.

litifeta,  is it because you have to upsize it for Alamy?
i had that trouble with upsizing, so after my first rejection, i stop trying to upsize for Alamy, as i do see a loss of clarity and detail when i do with with PS.
obviously, if i can see the poorer quality, so will Alamy. so i've sort of given up on Alamy, for now, at least.
until i find a way to upsize properly.

i had that trouble with upsizing, so after my first rejection, i stop trying to upsize for Alamy, as i do see a loss of clarity and detail when i do with with PS.
obviously, if i can see the poorer quality, so will Alamy. so i've sort of given up on Alamy, for now, at least.
until i find a way to upsize properly.

I have lots of jpg images shot with standard glass and a Canon 300D 6.0mp, I restrict myself to a limited non" Arty" workflow, I open the original off the camera jpg, I then look at how sharp the image is, if it is not "Pin Sharp" reject it, then look for no artifacts, no fringing, good composition and no heavy shadows, if it passes all these the only adjustments I do in PhotoShop are levels, then I use Genuine Fractals to upsize, 5100 on the longest side, title and keyword from FileInfo, save as Jpg quality 12 to a different folder, and then upload the same image to Alamy and sometimes PSC.

Alamy 1 rejection, Photoshelter 25% rejected for similars.

David (It's as easy as that, if I can do it anyone can) 

Quote

I always upload upsized files on FT, DT, FP; larger files sell for more.

These upsized photos might sell for more but the quality will suffer (you are adding information that isn't there originally). Coming from a print and advertising background, I personally do not upsize photos for any agency except Alamy and only because they require it. The better thing to do would be to upload photos to Alamy from a 12 megapixel camera (but many people don't have one of those yet).

imagezebra thanks.
epantha, that's what i thought. i can see the degradation myself,
and i am sure a buyer has more experience in looking for those defects.
so there 's really no fooling the buyer, even with sharpening,etc.

i remember being told, no matter how good you are with upsizing from RAW or whatnot. it's not vector, so we all know there is a degradation.
We also read in every site DO NOT UPSIZE.

Since you're from a print and ad background, maybe you can answer this: then why does Alamy , the only one, insists on upsizing?

I have to respectfully disagree; my camera is over 12 megapixels and I shoot in RAW. To reach 49MB uncompressed file required by Alamy I have to upsize it. The size of an image doesn�t depend on amount of camera�s megapixels.

Upsizing from RAW should have no effect on quality of an image since it reads the uncompressed information and redistributes it to specified size. Also (per my personal experience) what really affects the quality of the print is the color saturation, sharpening and other modifications done to the image especially after it is compressed as a JPG.

I think we are all selective about what we upload. Yes about 2% of what I shoot is uploaded.

Few are rejected for technical reasons.

With regards to Alamy, I have never been accepted, and I am  sure what I have uploaded for QC is a hell of a lot better than what I have seen on their site.

Alamy looks at technical quality as the major factor for acceptance, not content, or subject. You may have some wonderful stock photos, but if it's not up to their image standards, they will get rejected.

They have a list of acceptable cameras.

I don't know if that's what you are looking at when you submit to them? I had my first batch of photos accepted and I've been uploading since.

Compare that  to IS where I had to try three times, maybe four, because my photos were fine but they were not suitable for stock.