| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/23/2005 01:37:58 AM · #526 |
I'm still waiting for my first DVD submissions to go through. 480 images are in the queue. Come on Alamy quality control! :)
|
|
|
|
11/23/2005 03:00:59 AM · #527 |
Originally posted by mcmurma:
I sent several upsized 3mp images from my powershot s30 to Alamy in my initial submission, and they accepted them all. |
My 3MP from my S1 IS were not -- what method did you use to upsize your images?
|
|
|
|
11/23/2005 06:31:08 AM · #528 |
Originally posted by mcmurma:
Originally posted by John White:
.... Lets hope every one keeps away from the sites that gives away images for very small amounts as I can see it having quite an impact on the income of all photographers. I look at some of the amazing photos on the micro sites and just wish the photographers would take them off and submit to the mainstream agencies and earn what their photography is worth.
Now waiting for the flames!!! |
Sorry John, but I think you're mostly preachin' to the choir on this thread. Even those in here that do microstock seem to accept that mainstream is probably the way to go. The payoff from microstock is good for many (folks can make some sales and turn a dollar pretty quick) and until the payoffs from the mainstreams start meeting and exceeding what they are making with micro... hell, I'd be skeptical too! |
Actually, at the risk of repeating myself for the millionth time, the reason many sell on micro stock sites is NOT because they are all lacking in confidence in their abilities or are skeptical about selling via an agency such as Alamy.
It's OFTEN because their images are too small to successfully be resized to Alamy requirements or are not quite sufficient quality.
Of course, glancing through the low-res previews on the micro sites doesn't allow one to judge this and therefore people just jump to the conclusion that all the best images there would be suitable for Alamy.
There are some photoghraphers on micro sites who don't fall into this group and I'd join in with urging them to put their best work on a macro site but... many images there would simply not pass Alamy QA.
Message edited by author 2005-11-23 06:32:48.
|
|
|
|
11/23/2005 09:33:52 AM · #529 |
I'm IN at Alamy too now. Ready to start the flow to them on DVD.
As far as the micro-sites or $1.00 sites ... they were good at helping decide what kinda photos sold and what buyers were looking for. Yup I put about 50 on Shutterstock, Dreamstime and Istock just to learn the ropes. Now they sit while I test the water at reality prices and pay-offs. |
|
|
|
11/23/2005 11:31:55 AM · #530 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by mcmurma:
I sent several upsized 3mp images from my powershot s30 to Alamy in my initial submission, and they accepted them all. |
My 3MP from my S1 IS were not -- what method did you use to upsize your images? |
All were converted from RAW using Photoshop CS, then upsized using Bicubic Smoother in one shot... I don't think the "stair-step" method is worth a hoot. In my own testing some years ago, it screwed image quality up pretty bad compared to doing it all in one shot.
I even accidentally left the sharpening set on 25 in the RAW converter with some (not all) of the images when I converted them. It wasn't much sharpening though.
Still, I figured there must be some reason why mine were accepted and yours weren't so I went looking for the probable cause.
Sensor Size:
7.18 x 5.32 mm for the Canon S30
5.27 x 3.96 mm for the canon S1
Both are rated at (roughly) 3 megpixels, but the sensor on the S1 is quite a bit smaller. This pushes the noise level up and, unfortunately, the image quality down. Bigger pixels should be better quality pixels, all things being equal.
RAW vs. JPEG capture. Lots of info being tossed aside with the JPG only capture. This probably contributes a little bit, and when you add in the sensor size thing, maybe its enough to give the visual impression that the S30 has a slightly higher MP count than it actually does.
I don't pretend there there is a huge difference in the images from these cameras... I have never viewed them side by side. Both are 3mp cameras that get top points for image quality, so it really is a bit of a mystery. I guess they have to draw the line somewhere.
Thats my guess anyway.
|
|
|
|
11/23/2005 12:49:38 PM · #531 |
Originally posted by Kavey:
There are some photoghraphers on micro sites who don't fall into this group and I'd join in with urging them to put their best work on a macro site but... many images there would simply not pass Alamy QA. |
Hi Kavey,
I agree about the image size thing. I just felt the poster was putting forth the question in an "all other things being equal" kind of scenario, and thats the way I answered. But of course lots of great images have been captured in sizes too small to be used by the larger agencies. This affects film shooters too, as many agencies only accept medium and/or large format.
Speaking of which...
Do you have any idea exactly what Alamy are looking for in the QA department? I get the feeling that it has a lot more to do with image quality than the merits of the image as a photograph. (i.e. more technical that aesthetic) Lots of the images I see on Alamy are, quite frankly, crap.
As I have been studying this business for a couple of months it seems that stock shooters come basically from two camps, with most folks falling somewhere in the middle... Those that submit only their absolute best stuff, and those that submit every crappy photo they ever took.
Furthermore, some agencies (hate to say it, but Alamy, for example) allow shooters to submit their crap, as long as its technically ok, and some are pretty darn selective about the "photo" quality of the images in their library--if it doesnt look good it doesn't get in.
I don't think there is a right or wrong way to go about it, really. It's all a matter of what works, and it's up to us as photographers to decide which way we prefer to do business. If this means placing our smaller images with microstocks, I see no reason why we shouldn't. In fact, I think it would be great if microstocks only dealt in smaller works, leaving the big stuff to the "big boys," so to speak. With internet and web use requiring vastly smaller file sizes than print, I would like to think that this is what will eventually happen.
|
|
|
|
11/23/2005 01:50:50 PM · #532 |
Originally posted by mcmurma:
Do you have any idea exactly what Alamy are looking for in the QA department? I get the feeling that it has a lot more to do with image quality than the merits of the image as a photograph. (i.e. more technical that aesthetic) Lots of the images I see on Alamy are, quite frankly, crap. |
At the moment Alamy don't restrict on image content; just, as you say, on technical quality, however I'm sure I have recently read or heard that they are intending to introduce content checking too. I suspect that this is in response to exactly what you have noticed - a tendency from some photographers to submit every image they have ever taken, regardless of whether it's a strong image or not.
I wonder whether this is part of the change that the industry is experiencing with so many more amateurs joining the professionals? Professionals already know the benefits of self-critiqueing whereas I think there certainly many amateurs who don't.
I would welcome this move by them, even it means some of my images that have already been accepted being rejected since it would increase Alamy's reputation as an agency offering not only high technical quality but great content too. No one who is searching through stock wants to enter their keywords only to be confronted with 10 bad pics for every decent one!
Message edited by author 2005-11-23 13:51:04.
|
|
|
|
11/23/2005 02:20:26 PM · #533 |
Originally posted by Kavey:
I wonder whether this is part of the change that the industry is experiencing with so many more amateurs joining the professionals? Professionals already know the benefits of self-critiqueing whereas I think there certainly many amateurs who don't.
|
I think so. Or, at least this has something to do with it. I honestly think that the industry is still very much in "shakedown" mode with everyone scrambling to find the best way of doing business in todays changing market. (Much like what happened when computers hit the small business world 20 some odd years ago.) Things are different, they are gonna stay differnt, and millions of competent amatuers running around with high-powered DSLRs is surely part of the equation.
It trips me out to look at some of the contributors to these libraries that I am now submitting to. I'm seeing the names of photographers that I have recognized and respected for years and years and years. And while I don't pretend to be in their league, its nice to know I can at least play on the same field.
Also, I see specialization as becoming more important. Successful stock shooters may do themselves a HUGE service by working very hard to saturate a particular image sector (business, for example) in order to develop a name and reputation among those particular buyers.
Kind of a work hard, but work smart, type of approach. I find it all very exciting.
Message edited by author 2005-11-23 14:23:44. |
|
|
|
11/23/2005 02:38:18 PM · #534 |
Originally posted by mcmurma:
Both are rated at (roughly) 3 megpixels, but the sensor on the S1 is quite a bit smaller. This pushes the noise level up and, unfortunately, the image quality down. Bigger pixels should be better quality pixels, all things being equal.
RAW vs. JPEG capture. Lots of info being tossed aside with the JPG only capture. This probably contributes a little bit, and when you add in the sensor size thing, maybe its enough to give the visual impression that the S30 has a slightly higher MP count than it actually does. |
I think those are excellent guesses. I may put together a batch of images using PS CS and the one-step upsizing and see if that works any better. |
|
|
|
11/28/2005 11:57:12 AM · #535 |
Here's a question for all you Stock shooting regulars...
When you make a sale, how much information do you typically get about the buyer and the images intended use?
Lots? A little? None at all?
Any info is appreciated.
|
|
|
|
11/28/2005 12:28:24 PM · #536 |
With the RF sites you typically get no info except that the image was downloaded.
I imagine the RM sites vary in policy. |
|
|
|
11/28/2005 01:58:32 PM · #537 |
Originally posted by mcmurma:
Here's a question for all you Stock shooting regulars...
When you make a sale, how much information do you typically get about the buyer and the images intended use?
Lots? A little? None at all?
Any info is appreciated. |
Here are the details from my last sale:
Country: Worldwide
Usage: Editorial
Media: Travel Guides/Directories
Industry: Travel and Tourism
Sub-Industry: Travel Agents/Operators)
Print run: up to 250,000
Placement: Front Cover
Image Size: 1 page
Start: 01 October 2006
End: 01 October 2009
|
|
|
|
11/28/2005 02:01:44 PM · #538 |
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
Originally posted by mcmurma:
Here's a question for all you Stock shooting regulars...
When you make a sale, how much information do you typically get about the buyer and the images intended use?
Lots? A little? None at all?
Any info is appreciated. |
Here are the details from my last sale:
Country: Worldwide
Usage: Editorial
Media: Travel Guides/Directories
Industry: Travel and Tourism
Sub-Industry: Travel Agents/Operators)
Print run: up to 250,000
Placement: Front Cover
Image Size: 1 page
Start: 01 October 2006
End: 01 October 2009 |
... and that was no doubt a L or rights managed sale.
|
|
|
|
11/28/2005 02:29:50 PM · #539 |
Thanks everyone, just the kind of info I'm looking for. And congrats on the cover Brent :)
|
|
|
|
11/30/2005 04:48:59 PM · #540 |
Well- I just mailed off my CD for the QC today so cross you fingers for me!!!
By the way- have you guys noticed the new submission guidelines? It now says burn at the lowest speed possible (not just 1x) whew- the lowest I seem to be able to burn is 4x! Also it says no glamor... I thought that was weird! what do you think of that?!? |
|
|
|
11/30/2005 04:55:01 PM · #541 |
i can't figure out how to get my dvd burner to burn at a set speed... :(
it is a lacie external burner. anyone have any tips?
I sent a dvd a few weeks ago but it was unreadable, I guess I will try again.
|
|
|
|
11/30/2005 05:35:03 PM · #542 |
Originally posted by Kavey:
Originally posted by mcmurma:
Originally posted by John White:
.... Lets hope every one keeps away from the sites that gives away images for very small amounts as I can see it having quite an impact on the income of all photographers. I look at some of the amazing photos on the micro sites and just wish the photographers would take them off and submit to the mainstream agencies and earn what their photography is worth.
Now waiting for the flames!!! |
Sorry John, but I think you're mostly preachin' to the choir on this thread. Even those in here that do microstock seem to accept that mainstream is probably the way to go. The payoff from microstock is good for many (folks can make some sales and turn a dollar pretty quick) and until the payoffs from the mainstreams start meeting and exceeding what they are making with micro... hell, I'd be skeptical too! |
Actually, at the risk of repeating myself for the millionth time, the reason many sell on micro stock sites is NOT because they are all lacking in confidence in their abilities or are skeptical about selling via an agency such as Alamy.
It's OFTEN because their images are too small to successfully be resized to Alamy requirements or are not quite sufficient quality.
Of course, glancing through the low-res previews on the micro sites doesn't allow one to judge this and therefore people just jump to the conclusion that all the best images there would be suitable for Alamy.
There are some photoghraphers on micro sites who don't fall into this group and I'd join in with urging them to put their best work on a macro site but... many images there would simply not pass Alamy QA. |
This is exactly my situation. With my little 4mp Fuji camera I cannot upsize my shots to a quality level that would be accepted at Alamy or other macro stock sites. I actually just recently signed up for a few micro stocks with the hope of making some cash so I can upgrade my equipment and move to the realm of macro stock. Believe me, I would be much happier to just dive right in now, but I know my pics would not be accepted so better to start at the bottom and work my way up. This whole thread though has been extremely helpful in learning about upsizing, saving etc.etc....
|
|
|
|
12/04/2005 12:09:36 AM · #543 |
VERY EXCITED, I FINALLY GOT MY FIRST SALE AT ALAMY.
With only about 300 pictures online, im happy I made one.
The picture was for a travel brochure and of Florence.
|
|
|
|
12/04/2005 12:11:01 AM · #544 |
|
|
|
12/04/2005 01:23:13 AM · #545 |
ArpeggioAngel wrote:
"This is exactly my situation. With my little 4mp Fuji camera I cannot upsize my shots to a quality level that would be accepted at Alamy or other macro stock sites. I actually just recently signed up for a few micro stocks with the hope of making some cash so I can upgrade my equipment and move to the realm of macro stock. Believe me, I would be much happier to just dive right in now, but I know my pics would not be accepted so better to start at the bottom and work my way up. This whole thread though has been extremely helpful in learning about upsizing, saving etc.etc..."
I have had some shots taken with my Sony DSC-85 (a 4.1 Mp P&S)accepted by Alamy QC. You just have to be very careful, maybe use NeatImage as conservatively as you know how, and only send your best. |
|
|
|
12/04/2005 01:42:05 AM · #546 |
I am also building a disc to submit to ALAMY. I'm my worst critic, so the portfolio is still rather small. One question (for now, anyway). I am upsizing my images by selecting IMAGE SIZE under IMAGE in PS and changing the dimension until it reaches alittle over 48 mp. Is this correct?
|
|
|
|
12/04/2005 01:44:31 AM · #547 |
How long has it taken everybody to get paid from alamy?
|
|
|
|
12/04/2005 01:47:07 AM · #548 |
It should be 48 megaBYTEs, not 48 megaPIXELS.
A 48MB file is about 16MP (each pixels is 24 bits or 8 bytes in ordinary uncompressed RGB color), or roughly 5000 x 3000 pixels. |
|
|
|
12/04/2005 01:57:17 AM · #549 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
It should be 48 megaBYTEs, not 48 megaPIXELS.
A 48MB file is about 16MP (each pixels is 24 bits or 8 bytes in ordinary uncompressed RGB color), or roughly 5000 x 3000 pixels. |
I figured I was incorrect. Do I adjust it the same way? Adjust image size to your approx. dimenstions?
|
|
|
|
12/04/2005 03:01:04 AM · #550 |
Brent, payment from the buyer to Alamy is usually within 1-2 months from a sale. You then have to have US$250 cleared in your account, which Alamy will pay to you on the 1st of the month.
|
|
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 05:25:29 PM EDT.
