| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/14/2005 08:47:20 PM · #401 |
Just finished keywording 56 images, boy that sucked. Hope they sell!
|
|
|
|
10/14/2005 08:59:40 PM · #402 |
Originally posted by WGF Images:
I would use CS2 and batch process them up to the required size. Don't use bicubic sharpner because they might get rejected. |
Are you suggesting going up in one step using the "regular" bi-cubic, or using step-interpolation? If the latter, why would it matter if I used CS or an older version? |
|
|
|
10/14/2005 10:24:19 PM · #403 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by WGF Images:
I would use CS2 and batch process them up to the required size. Don't use bicubic sharpner because they might get rejected. |
Are you suggesting going up in one step using the "regular" bi-cubic, or using step-interpolation? If the latter, why would it matter if I used CS or an older version? |
You can use bicubic smoother for upsampling in CS. Then sharpen after that.
|
|
|
|
10/15/2005 12:27:53 AM · #404 |
Originally posted by MeThoS:
You can use bicubic smoother for upsampling in CS. Then sharpen after that. |
Bicubic Sharper is for downsampling, isn't it? I keep getting them mixed up. I think I'll just use step-interpolation with the older version I have at home. Thanks for the clarification! |
|
|
|
10/15/2005 04:26:12 AM · #405 |
The reason why I said not to use any sharpening is because Alamy submission guidelines stipulate not to sharpen images before submission.
|
|
|
|
10/16/2005 02:46:37 PM · #406 |
Feeling happy. :-)
Sold another couple of photos through Alamy this month so far...that makes 7 sales in 6 months.
|
|
|
|
10/16/2005 02:55:46 PM · #407 |
Originally posted by WGF Images:
Feeling happy. :-)
Sold another couple of photos through Alamy this month so far...that makes 7 sales in 6 months. |
That's fantastic!
I'm gonna have another look at your images and get some inspiration. I know I haven't got enough images up but I'd like to have seen just one sale by now... my images clearly aren't desirable enough. That's OK - it just makes me want to keep trying!
|
|
|
|
10/17/2005 12:28:02 PM · #408 |
Hello to all you Alamy contributors out there...
I sent in a test CD last week and thought I follwed all the proper requirements. But once I got to looking at them later I realized that the canon RAWs processed through CS all had a sharpening level of "25" tagged into the file. Gack! I didn't even know there was a default sharpening value with the CS raw converter (I usually don't use it).
Has anyone else accidentally done this and still had their files accepted?
Also, I just want to thank Mav for starting this thread. I never took the micro stock sites seriously (too much work for too little pay, IMO) but this Alamy thing looks like a fair enough shake for your troubles.
Now if I could only get accepted and sell some photos... |
|
|
|
10/18/2005 11:13:41 AM · #409 |
I have 56 more images added to alamy.
brent's alamy photos
|
|
|
|
10/18/2005 11:21:30 AM · #410 |
Originally posted by mcmurma:
I realized that the canon RAWs processed through CS all had a sharpening level of "25" tagged into the file. Gack! I didn't even know there was a default sharpening value with the CS raw converter (I usually don't use it).
Has anyone else accidentally done this and still had their files accepted?
|
If you can't sell any I may as well hang up my hat right now... I love your stuff...
I have ended up submitting a few with sharpening as I processed them through from RAW before deciding to submit to Alamy. Sharpening was MINIMAL and I didn't mention it and Alamy accepted all of them.
I seldom sharpen and I set my Adobe Raw preferences to ONLY sharpen in preview and not in conversion itself, i.e. even if I accidentally have sharpening settings on more than 0 in the convertor they won't apply anyway.
|
|
|
|
10/18/2005 11:37:54 AM · #411 |
(mcmurma: blushes)
Thx Kavey.
I certainly won't mention the sharpening to them. I guess the best thing to do is just keep my fingers crossed and hope for the best.
If they don't get accepted I can always resubmit :) |
|
|
|
10/21/2005 02:39:18 PM · #412 |
WOOYOO
Another sale, that makes 3 this month from Alamy.!
|
|
|
|
10/21/2005 03:05:35 PM · #413 |
Originally posted by WGF Images:
WOOYOO
Another sale, that makes 3 this month from Alamy.! |
That's fantastic!
I felt slightly better when I realised the VOLUME of fab images you have up with them... I keep getting told I have to increase my volume so that's what I'm working on!
|
|
|
|
10/26/2005 10:53:05 AM · #414 |
| Hi! I'm in. I submitted 11 images about 3 weeks ago. I got the acceptance notice today, and just finished keywording them (that was MUCH more time consuming than I'd hoped.) Now, the hard part: waiting for a sale. In the meantime, the acceptance energized me to go out & shoot lots more. |
|
|
|
10/26/2005 11:07:01 AM · #415 |
Me Too! Just finished keywording... now to submit more.
For those who are intimidated, just want to tell you, it wasn't that complicated. I do not have photoshop, I have Paint shop Pro 8.1, therefore I can't get Genuine Fractiles plug-in.
I submitted JPEG converted to TIFF, upsized by 10% incriments to about 49MB. The images are already 8bit. I did choose sharp clear images. I wasn't sure, even after reading all the above very helpful posts that this was going to pass, but thought if it failed I would find out what needed to be adjusted, but it's all OK... so go for it! |
|
|
|
10/26/2005 02:34:20 PM · #416 |
WOOHOOO That makes 4 this month! :-)
|
|
|
|
10/26/2005 03:27:35 PM · #417 |
Congratulations!
But do you mind leaving some sales for the rest of us? ;-)
Doug
|
|
|
|
10/26/2005 03:33:11 PM · #418 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by MeThoS:
You can use bicubic smoother for upsampling in CS. Then sharpen after that. |
Bicubic Sharper is for downsampling, isn't it? I keep getting them mixed up. I think I'll just use step-interpolation with the older version I have at home. Thanks for the clarification! |
Yeah that is right. I just checked my photoshop manuel... don't let it fool you.
|
|
|
|
10/26/2005 03:33:59 PM · #419 |
Originally posted by WGF Images:
WOOHOOO That makes 4 this month! :-) |
wow congrats.. i am still at 0 for the last 4 months :( I have only had one sale with them.
|
|
|
|
10/27/2005 01:11:45 PM · #420 |
Hi everyone,
I'm still in the QC queue, but I am already getting my next submissions ready and am having copyright headaches.
The problem is that I have quite a few events photos with good images of people that I do not know, and, of course, no model releases.
My present understanding is that I can go ahead and submit these images, but since there are no releases they would only be saleable as editorial material... because ppl in public places doing public things are "fair game" as long as the photos do not depict them in a derogatory way--such as picking their nose, scratching their crotch, or some equally personal endeavour?
But, what if the editiorial buyer takes a perfectly innocent photo and then runs it with a slanderous caption? Who takes the heat should the person depicted press charges? Me, as the photographer, or the buyer that tagged the image with a slanderous caption?
This may seem like grade school 1+1=2 stuff to some of you folks, but understanding how this works could open up a significant number of images that I presently feel a little strange about submitting.
Also, I realize the simplest solution would be not to submit them, but that would be like never leaving the house for fear of getting rained on.
Umbrella anyone?
|
|
|
|
10/27/2005 01:14:46 PM · #421 |
| Alamy has a phone number -- why don't you call them and ask? |
|
|
|
10/27/2005 01:25:58 PM · #422 |
Well, yes, that's always an idea. I just figured that since I havn't passed QC yet it might be percieved as being a little presumptuous on my part :)
Besides, I felt like someone here would probably have this information and my membership is already paid for... a call across the pond would cost me a few cheeseburgers. |
|
|
|
10/27/2005 01:43:05 PM · #423 |
i have a feeling that if they are editorial.. someone can't add a caption of what they were saying unless they know they said it. Which makes the magazine at fault for putting in the 'fake' caption. (i think)
|
|
|
|
10/27/2005 02:26:04 PM · #424 |
I do know that you can put what they call "restrictions" I believe on your photos on Alamy. In other words, you can say for a particular photograph, "This can't be used for any sexually suggestive material." type thing. There are several restrictions you can put on. One of them is "sensitive uses" or "sensitive topics" or some such... When you go to keyword your images and send them to the catalog is when you select these restrictions too I believe. So if you have some images you're worried about, I'd do something like that to them when you catalog them. I've never personally done it, but I've heard of it. Hope this helps...
Doug |
|
|
|
10/27/2005 02:49:26 PM · #425 |
| As I suspected, images from my camera require too much upsizing. The good news is they completed the review within a week from the time I mailed the disc from California to Oxfordshire. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 07/18/2025 11:33:11 PM EDT.
