Home > Contributors > Blog

Blog

Common Alamy myths and misconceptions

Permalink Comments (65)20 February 2007 at 11:55 by Alan Capel
Posted under News

A picture of the Loch Ness Monster - Image A57945 © Popperfoto
© POPPERFOTOTry saying that one three times fast - its amazing how many times contributors can get the wrong end of the stick when it comes to the way we work...

  1. AlamyRank is designed to put the most relevant pictures first.
    WRONG - AlamyRank does not address the issue of image relevancy, we are working on solutions to improve that so watch this space!

  2. We are happy that our search engine does funny things.
    WRONG - We have been aware of the ski/sky issue (plus other problems), mentioned elsewhere on this blog, for some time. We are currently developing our own search engine (remember the search engine and AlamyRank are different things) as the one we now use has its limitations.

  3. Member Services have 45 minutes to spare discussing which camera you should buy.
    WRONG - Some of us may be photographers, but you’d be better off talking to a camera shop or discussing it on a forum. As much as we’d like to mull over megapixels with you, we simply do not have time!

  4. This blog is a forum.
    WRONG - It’s a blog! - If you are unsure of the difference, go to Google and search "the difference between a blog and a forum", it’s all very interesting. We found a good definition of the difference between a blog and a forum on the University of Warwick’s website.

  5. We want 48 MB Jpegs - so when they are uncompressed they are enormous!
    WRONG - we want a Jpeg that when uncompressed is 48 MB - the compressed Jpeg may be around 5 - 10 MB but will vary depending upon the picture.

  6. AlamySearch and AlamyRank has been implemented and that’s the way things will be forever on Alamy.
    WRONG - AlamyRank is very much the first stage in a long and organic process, we are already working on the next generation of developments in the way in which Alamy works. We are currently looking and learning from the impact of AlamyRank.

  7. We occasionally tweak rankings to move friends and family up the scale and we send arch enemies to the depths of the search results.
    WRONG - there is no manual intervention in AlamyRank and we hope we don’t have arch enemies.

  8. But I’m sure you can be bought...
    WRONG - nice try but we are far too honest for that.

  9. Contributors shouldn't do their own Quality Control because Alamy will do it.
    WRONG - rather than check every image, we check a sample, and if that sample fails we will assume the same problems run through the whole submission. For this reason, you should really quality check every single image you submit to us prior to sending. If you send 5 bad eggs in a batch of 100 and we see them, they could cause the other 95 to fail.

  10. We are happy to drop ridiculously on price.
    WRONG - we have to remain competitive but we won’t be bullied, after all we only get 35% of said "ridiculously low price" and always strive to get the best price possible for you and us.

Top

Add your own commentComments (65)

  1. 20 February 2007 at 13:18 Ben Plewes

    Very helpful, thanks. The blog seems to be missing a current needs/wants list that used to feature in the news letter. Hopefully this will magically appear soon!

  2. 20 February 2007 at 15:14 Ian M Butterfield

    Re: This blog is a forum. WRONG - It’s a blog!

    For those who want a forum to discuss this blog entry. You can do so here:
    http://forum.iphotos.co.uk/viewtopic.php?p=4777

  3. 20 February 2007 at 16:07 Pat Lam

    I do believe those 10 points, and am happy to be small part of Alamy. I selected only good images for Alamy and will continue do so, But just tell me when is the time for upload? Thanks for all the works you did for me. I appreciate that..

    Pat

  4. 21 February 2007 at 02:28 Louise Batalla Duran

    Very good article! You should do this more often to help prevent all the C**P that people have written as comments ( in some cases essays that reappear - bore)in reply to your other articles on this blog! :-)

  5. 21 February 2007 at 02:52 Ed

    Glad to hear the sky isn't falling - as many have suggested :-)

  6. 21 February 2007 at 02:57 JMO

    Great blog post! I think a lot of people don't realize that some of the quirks are due to software limitations that aren't necessarily quick fixes.

    I know that I was in that camp until I read some of the blog postings. I think Alamy must keep emphasizing to contributors that they aren't happy with the state of affairs and that they are continuing to work on the issues and that the issues can't be fixed by simply flipping a switch.

    This blog has been VERY comforting. It has provided a lot of transparency.

    Alamy provides a very unique service and it is a work in progress. All contributors should give Alamy a chance to work the bugs out of the system.

    Finally I think going forward it would be great if we as contributors tried to minimize how much we contact Alamy so they can get on with the business of making the company better. They have put up this great blog to let us know what is going on and now we should reciprocate and give them some breathing room to implement some of these changes.

  7. 21 February 2007 at 11:03 EkA

    #5-Ed

    Do you mean that your glad to hear that the 'sky' isn't falling, or glad to hear that the 'ski' isn't falling?

  8. 21 February 2007 at 11:07 EkA

    Alamy misconception #1---AlamyRank is designed to put the most relevant pictures first.

    Great point. But I would think that a correlation likely exists between relavancy and AlamyRank score. Contributors with images loaded with irrelevant keywords will get a high proportion of views that likely won't lead to anything else.

    My 2p

  9. 21 February 2007 at 13:47 Ed

    #7 - EkA

    I specifically meant what I wrote. Looks like the trend in the blogs (and many forums) is to create a hysteria that amounts to nothing. My reference to "The Sky is Falling" relates to the fable of Chicken Little:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sky_is_Falling

  10. 21 February 2007 at 15:50 Peter Carroll

    Way to go Alamy! The key to any good relationship is communication. I'm glad to see you addressing lots of hot topic issues in the 10 points and in the process setting the record straight. Keep up the great work.

  11. 21 February 2007 at 15:58 Jerome Yeats

    Alamy is good at many things but there would never be the problems with alamy rank and the search engine if Alamy had done editing straight from the start.

    There is simply too much stock and if you think we have poor sales with nearly 8 million images wait until the dilution comes through at sixteen million images.

    Even the most dedicated buyer won't wade through multi thousand images

    I checked 'royalty' the other day and I believe there was not one member of the British royal family on the first page. Relevancy and ranking? Nul points.

    However of course there are many good things about alamy or I wouldn't contribute.
    Regards jerome Yeats

  12. 21 February 2007 at 16:46 Arch White

    Reading myth 7 I am relieved that Alamy do not have "arch enemies" cos, I am quite a friendly soul really and I value my decent ranking very much.

  13. 21 February 2007 at 17:03 dave j

    On point 9 I don't dispute the need for stringent contributor QC, but I think the Alamy QC has changed recently, with a spate of "Soft or lacking definition" verdicts causing entire submissions to fail. My images are no softer than those previously submitted - in fact since I upgraded my kit last year they should be sharper. Anyone else had that?

  14. 21 February 2007 at 20:20 Jeff Greenberg

    "...we send arch enemies to the depths of the search results. WRONG..."

    So that heated forum debate I had with a second cousin of a babysitter who's boyfriend constructs lightboxes wasn't the reason for my temporary dip in late 2005?

    "This blog is a forum. WRONG..."

    Blog: each contributor make maximum one comment per thread
    Forum: some contributors make more comments per thread than photos per day

  15. 21 February 2007 at 23:11 RAbboud

    "Glad to hear the sky isn't falling - as many have suggested :-)"

    As per point #2, Alamy does not yet know if it is the sky or the ski that is falling.



  16. 21 February 2007 at 23:12 Simon Meeds

    #11 Jerome Yeats

    If you're getting too many results for a search you need to add more search terms to refine it, and with luck (and a little skill) end up with the ideal image. I would credit image buyers with enough intelligence to work that out.

  17. 22 February 2007 at 13:27 doug Steley

    Re Point #8

    Then I guess I will have to do something else with this huge bag of cash I had for you?


    Thanks for the information It is good to hear what is going on.

  18. 22 February 2007 at 15:23 ian Stuart

    Very funny blog please keep doing them like this, it gives me some thing to amuse myself while C1 is churning.

    ian

  19. 22 February 2007 at 18:49 Rachel

    Thanks I am glad to be part of Alamy image bank and I will always care to give my best images.

  20. 23 February 2007 at 04:14 EkA

    #9-Ed
    Re-read my post #7, specifically the part in quotes. It was a sarcastic reference to Myth #2, as RAbboud explains in post #15. Maybe my sarcasm is too dry. I'll be sure to use a ;-) next time.

    I think I'll go skying since it's snowing ;-)

  21. 23 February 2007 at 14:15 wally b

    #13 dave j

    Yes, I have had the identical thing happen. I also have purchased a new camera and a new quality lens and get the "soft and lacking definition" verdict resultingin an entire batch being failed an account of two or three of these. This has never happened to me before.

  22. 23 February 2007 at 18:47 Cristina Fumi

    Thanks! I had a good laugh!!!

  23. 23 February 2007 at 20:40 Mark Scheuern

    #13 dave j
    Yes, it's not a myth! There's been a number of reports of this in the various Alamy forums including people whose quality of work I deeply respect. It seems that having a limited depth of field or deliberate motion blur, such as in a pan shot, is now cause for rejection. I suggest contacting member services about this. If something has gone wrong with the QC process, they should know about it.

  24. 25 February 2007 at 17:56 Ian S

    I've been an Alamy contributor since 2002 and until last Autumn had only one image rejected by QC - the rest of the disc was uploaded as normal. Over the last six months, however, I've had ten images rejected due to 'dust and/or scratches', 'electronic noise', and (bizarrely) 'visible key lines' (on a cropped image!) This resulted in a refusal to upload all accompanying images. The images in question were scanned 35mm slides and the only explanation I can think of is that Alamy now have someone in their QC lab who is unable to distinguish between film grain, dust and noise. Looking at some of the posts on here it also seems they are unable to tell the difference between selective focus, motion blur and unsharpness.

    As we are all aware preparing images for submission is a time-consuming and tedious process and it's annoying in the extreme when saleable images are subsequently rejected on entirely spurious grounds. Alamy need to sort this out as a matter of priority before the more paranoid of their photographers begin to interpret this behavior as an attempt to 'edit by stealth'. Then they'll have another myth to deal with...

  25. 26 February 2007 at 08:13 Graham Owston

    I notice a few comments about image sharpness. I have a fantastic opportunity to buy a new digital camera and I am considering a Nikon D2Xs (12.4mp). The confusing issue is which lense to purchase. The 18-200 DX zoom sounds like a travel photographers dream but I have done a lot of reseach lately and many comments seem to suggest that the affordable zoom lenses are not all suitable for making large images. Fixed focus lenses seem to be an alternative but I understand the risk of dust on the sensor could be a problem. Anyone with any advice ? Does Alamy have any advice ?

  26. 27 February 2007 at 10:26 Dan

    With regards to point six, I am very glad (though not surprised)to hear that. At present the search results are definately odd. As has been mentioned before relevancy is the issue.

    The Alamy model is an excellent one but in the totally cut-throat world of still picture sales dominated by ruthlessly aquisitional forces and increasing oversupply I hope modifications will happen quickly.

    And as has been mentioned keywording is a pivotal part of that.

    Robert Ginn mentioned elsewhere that he would prefer everyone who contributes to this blog to use their full name. I am quite prepared to do that when I know the blog is secure and limited to signed up contributors.... Until then I prefer not to expose my business to some of the potential loonies out there. No offence intended to other legitimate conributors.

    Best

    Dan

  27. 16 March 2007 at 07:02 tom carter

    Ref to Ian's comment ref Quality Control I agree I've had entire cd's of 30 or more images rejected for the soft lacking definition or electronic noise on a couple images. I sent the same images rejected by QC to several agencies in the states and they have all been accepted.It Leads me to think there is a problem with someone in the QC section

  28. 22 March 2007 at 07:31 Paul Mayall

    RE 26:Graham Owston.

    I do not have any experience with the Nikon system, I am a Canon man, however from experience the fixed lense cameras are cleaner as in no dust on the sensor and the lenses are designed to give optimal performance, however the downfall is they are more dificult to use. Example, I sent one submission that was taken with a fixed lense 8mp minolta no problem with QC 100%, then another submission with a Canon 8mp 1D MarkII with a QC failure even though I carefully checked the images, but that said the dust on those images were not that bad which tells me that Alamy QC are very thorough in checking submissions. So the answer is that if you are worried about dust, work with a fixed lense camera, or spend more time at the computer removing dust when using a conventional SLR camera, Cheeers all, Paul.

  29. 24 March 2007 at 23:58 Linda r-s

    With reference to comments by to Dave j., Wally b., and Tom Carter, I have the same problem. After always having passed QC, two submissions, one after the other, have failed because of soft and lacking definition. I am treating the images no different that in previous submissions. The QC team has advised me not to use Dust buster, Digital ICE, or Remove dust and scratches software, or interpolation. I have NEVER used any of these. Does anyone know what else may cause Soft and lacking definition, or is this a change in Alamy's quality control?

  30. 25 March 2007 at 14:35 Dennis

    IMHO, given the number of images the QC team has to check, the team is doing a fantastic job. Unlike blemishes and dust marks, judgment of degree of softness and lack of definition is not an exact science and differ from person to person, even day to day.

    Causes of softness and lack of definition can be caused by focusing, movement, atmospheric conditions, optical quality and properties of lens, cleanliness of lens/mirror/filters, ... and, of course, as a result of artistic expressions :-)


  31. 25 March 2007 at 22:25 Paul mayall

    RE:29 Linda r-s

    if you are working on your images in the same way as your passed QC Image submissions I would have to think that Alamy may have changed the way that they check, otherwise why would they fail, I think that digital images would pass the QC easier than film, as film has more blemishes plus scans can differ depending on ambient temperature and just how flat the film is when being scanned etc, I think that what Dennis says pretty well sums it up, ( Causes of softness and lack of definition can be caused by focusing, movement, atmospheric conditions, optical quality and properties of lens, cleanliness of lens/mirror/filters, ... and, of course, as a result of artistic expressions :-), Cheeeers All, Paul.

  32. 26 March 2007 at 01:35 Diane Macdonald

    Another possibility is shooting digital at too high an ISO.
    Cheers!
    Diane

  33. 26 March 2007 at 02:08 Linda r-s

    Paul, Dennis,

    I appreciate your comments. I am scanning my own SLIDES (Minolta Dimage Scan Elite 5400); I edit out dust at 300% and spend hours on each slide (no one will find a speck of anything on my submissions!); therefore it is disheartening to fail QC. I have been racking my brain for what I may have done differently--but nothing. I did, however, realize that the rejected images coincide with a purchase of a new SLIK backpacker's tripod, and most images were shot using the tripod. Perhaps, my clunker of a camera and lens are too heavy, and the camera is moving during long exposure shots? But in that case it must also happen when I use a light-weight lens, and it seems unlikely that it would happen every time, so that may not be the answer.

    By the way, is there any web site out there where this problem of "soft and lacking definition" is explained? It would be great to be able to compare to what is considered an acceptable sharpness and definition. I cannot judge this myself, because to me, my images look sharp.

    Thanks again, Linda

  34. 26 March 2007 at 11:24 Dennis

    Linda,

    I use VueScan to drive my Elite 5400 with only light infrared clean and do not use grain reduction. I calibrate (VueScan option) the scanner with every power up.

    Give the slides a blow with those Giotto "rocket" blower before scanning. Also check the "shining" side of the slide for dirt or drying marks.

    Post processing with can be as quick as 5 minutes (crop then 100% check) or I will give up and discard after 1 hour :-)

  35. 26 March 2007 at 11:40 Dennis

    Linda,

    I preview @1500 and scan @4000. Even on Velvia, many slides do not take well to being examined too closely :-)

    Don't put all your eggs in one basket. There is no need to fill up a CD with every submission.

    good luck.


    Alamy, James, sorry to use the blog as a proxy forum :-))

    ps. why must I enter the security code more than once almost every time ? :-(
    Now I got an application error :-((

  36. 26 March 2007 at 13:00 Paul mayall

    Linda Diane and Dennis, it would be interesting to know what method Alamy uses to QC our images, is it with the eye or do they have some software program that does the work for them, I have trouble trying to imagine people sitting in front of screens allday and every day looking for faults, just for the information of others, I have only had 3 submissions judged by QC, 1 failed it was a digital sub with about 6 or 10 images with small dust spots, nothing serious, but serious enough to fail, my other 2 subs were a mixture of digital-film 35mm and medium format scanned with Nikon and digital ice with a little manuel clean up at 100% with photoshop brush and clone tools, I have even removed some marks that are actually in the shot that look like they could be dirt on the film or sensor. I have a few more subs waiting for QC it will be interesting to know the results as I have taken special care. Dennis has a good point, I thought of this myself, maybe it's a good idea to make smaller subs on a series of disks so if one fails because of a few not so good images you only lose a small sub on that disk, hope I made some sense. Cheeers All, Keep it clean Paul.

  37. 26 March 2007 at 15:41 Diane macdonald

    Anyone use the NIKON Cooslscan 4000 to scan slides? I don't like what I see at 100% even after scanning to the best resolution, so have not tried to submit any slides. I never use Digital Ice as it does soften the images.

    Diane
    (P.S. Dennis: Alamy Customer service is aware of the annoying security code problem and is working to fix it I'm told)

  38. 26 March 2007 at 15:57 Dennis

    Diane,

    From very limited personal experiences ...

    6x6 Velvia slides scanned OK with Coolscan 8000.

    I have read that Elite 5400 gives better result when scanning older slides (eg. Kodachrome).

  39. 26 March 2007 at 18:51 Paul Mayall

    RE 37: Diane and the interested.

    I use the Nikon 4000, it does tend to bring out the grain and or any fault that the film may have, I would have to agree about Digital Ice making the images softer, however I know a few people in the repro areas working with quality photobooks and calenders, they tell me that they prefer images that are a little soft and definataly NOT SHARPENED with very little or no alterations to the image, and in regards to a little dust or a spot or 2 the litographs prefer to remove these little nastys themselves. I have sold 100's of images directly to publishers from 1/4 to double pages and large calenders and never had a image returned for corrections or told that the image is not suitable for production. I can understand Alamy making QC with images otherwise they would end up with loads of blemished material and causing problems with the buyers, however given my experience in this wonderful world of photography I ask the question, is Alamy knit picking or over doing it with QC, surely 1 or to very small dust spots that we may miss can easily be removed by the litograph when he makes his adjustments for printing. I did say small something easy to miss. And just in case you are thinking about large calender prints with a Nikon 4000 I can't say, but for me anything above double page I send a drum scanned image. Cheeeers All, Paul.

  40. 26 March 2007 at 21:52 Diane macdonald

    Thanks Paul & Dennis. I am not really considered using the Nikon 4000, but thought I would ask to see if anyone has had success sending images to Alamy with it. I know that drum scanning is really the way to go for top quality, but thought that maybe someone has had their Coolscan 4000 images pass QC. I understand Paul, that you have not submitted Coolscan scanned images to Alamy? Or did I misunderstand?

    Thanks!
    Diane

  41. 27 March 2007 at 06:32 Paul Mayall

    RE40 Diane.

    Sorry Diane if I did not explain it so well.

    Yes I have submitted 35mm coolscan images without failure and 1 medium format image failure from 40 with the coolscan 8000 with lack of definition.
    my biggest failure rate has been with digital due to dust.
    I am now waiting for QC on new subs with coolscan 4000 images, I will post the results when I get them, fingers crossed.
    hope this helps. Cheeers All, Paul.

  42. 27 March 2007 at 20:00 Linda r-s

    Dennis, Paul, and others--thanks for the moral support!

    I have been scanning (Dimag Scan Elite 5400) at 4400, and never had any problems with Alamy QC (until my last two submissions of "Soft and lacking definition"). I use Fuji Velvia 50 (Fuji pulled this film but will evidently resurrect it sometime this year). I have never had any complaints about dust because I edit at 300% (time-consuming!). I do use an antistatic brush, which works fine, although some dust always remains. I have also scanned old Kodachrome 25 and 64 film without any problem from QC.

    I will submit just a few scans from old slides, where some images already passed QC, and some from the recent batches that did not pass. This way, I can probably figure out if it is something with the scanner or the film (since the way I process the images has not changed).

    I also wonder whether the Alamy QC team checks by hand or whether they use a software program. Perhaps I will ask, although they are probably tired of hearing from me by now.

    Linda

  43. 27 March 2007 at 22:18 Paul Mayall

    Linda, I/ we would be interested if you find out how Alamy work their QC.

    Thanks, Cheers, Paul.

  44. 28 March 2007 at 00:56 Dennis

    I would rather the images are rejected by the QC team and not by clients!

    They are doing an important but thankless task. It is a last stop to try to catch what's we may have missed :-)

  45. 29 March 2007 at 00:04 Linda r-s

    Paul, I will ask Alamy about QC and let you know about the answer. Are images judged "Soft and lacking definition" a lost cause? I guess there is no way of rectifying the problem and resubmit? I cannot for my life see the softness or the lack of definition--the images look very similar to photos that passed when inspecting at 100%.

    It is still a mystery!
    Linda

  46. 29 March 2007 at 11:59 Paul Mayall

    Linda r-s

    I recently asked if the images were checked by software? I now think that QC is manual by a team of screen watches that may differ in what they believe is soft or hard, with or without definition etc, therefore if you are lucky enough to have a QC team member that likes your submission you pass.

    Am I right or wrong??? perhaps Alamy would be kind enough to reply. Cheeers All,Paul.

  47. 29 March 2007 at 20:20 Linda R-S

    Paul,

    Alamy is good at responding as usual. This is their response:
    "Please be assured that our QC team has not changed the procedure or the submission criteria your images need to meet. Also note that they do manually check a random set of images from submission/s from a contributor."

    So you are right--maybe it depends on the person checking and whether he/she likes the submissions. Since the QC team has not changed the procedures, perhaps the staff in the QC team has changed?

    Linda

  48. 30 March 2007 at 10:41 Mark

    Perhaps someone could show us a 100% crop of an image you feel is good, but which failed QC. We do not experience this problem at all, irrespective of whether motion blur (real motion, not photoshopped) or short DOF is used.

    We were asked by a photographer about submitting to alamy. We looked at his images at 100% (he uses a canon 5D with consumer zoom lens). They were in focus but ALL " soft". There was no point in the image that could be considered sharp to the extent we are used to. We told him we would not consider sending such "soft" images to alamy. After he tried one of our L-series lenses he was convinced where the problem resides.

    Before pointing towards alamy, let's see the stuff that is failing, and make an objectve comparison.

    Mark

  49. 30 March 2007 at 11:44 Andy C

    I feel a bit better now as I know I am not alone - I have happily passed my initial QC in July 2005 and have 500 plus images on line which are selling - then, brick wall - since April 06 all of my 4 DVD submissions rejected due to "softness or lacking definition" and "interpolation artefacts" - I am not doing anything different and following the suggested editing flow - 6MP camera, TIFF files upsized to 48MB using genuine fractals, image examined at 100% for any flaws. I called the helpdesk and was advised that some of the faces on people in the image were blocky and not defined. I can accept this but the people were tiny, their faces a few pixels wide - I cannot imagine any camera that would provide the implied level of detail required on a face of someone who was standing 'miles away' in the frame (it is an image of a monument taken from a distance - the people are innocent tourists). Also, if you view the image at print size, i.e. how it will be seen in the product, the image looks great (and the peoeple in the frame tiny). It is so frustating to sell images but not be able to add anymore, especially when you are doing what is advised and have already passed initial QC. It feels unreasonable and randon. Also, if an image is not to be sharpened how can it be anything but soft?!

  50. 30 March 2007 at 13:17 Paul Mayall

    Linda, Mark, Andy, and others.

    I think that we could spend the rest of our days trying to find answers and the reasons why QC differs on various subs, however I remember reading a blog a few weeks ago where one of the members had a complaint about payment and some image or images being refunded after purchase hmmmm!

    My big question is, if Alamy is so efficient with QC with every image being perfect for the buyer, then why do some buyers refund images and why does Alamy offer this service ??? a bit of a worry don't you think. Cheeers All, have a good weekend, Paul.

  51. 30 March 2007 at 13:35 Mark

    Paul wrote: "...if Alamy is so efficient with QC with every image being perfect for the buyer, then why do some buyers refund images and why does Alamy offer this service ??? "

    Well, we have had about 5 refunds over the past 3 years. There used to be a time when the reason was documented by alamy staff and visible (if you knew where to look! Some will know what I mean). We had no refunds for quality reasons. All were either incorrect billing, buyer did not understand the process, billing should have been when book is published (we DID get the sale at the time of publication about 9 months later), buyer decided NOT to use the image etc etc. No quality issue in there. Remember, there are provisions for buyers to get the hi-res image and review it BEFORE buying. I would want to do the same. We also let our own direct clients review images first in some instances. If you have quality issues, you probably will NOT get to the invoicing stage! Just low sales are more likely!

    Paul wrote: ".. a bit of a worry don't you think..."

    Not at all worrying. Refunds are all part of any business transactions. Alamy proides a very efficient and unique service for photographers with good sales, good commissions and flexibility to experiment and develop without the requirement to get past a picture editor like at some of our other agencies.

    There are plenty of folks sailing through QC. Again, I can only suggest to concentrate first on YOUR workflow to find the answer to these issues. QC is the LAST place to look.

    Good luck!

    Mark

  52. 30 March 2007 at 14:49 Andy C

    Re #51 from Mark

    "There are plenty of folks sailing through QC. Again, I can only suggest to concentrate first on YOUR workflow to find the answer to these issues. QC is the LAST place to look."

    For me the issue is passing initial QC therefore proving your workflow is fine, and only now failing (while changing nothing about your workflow and following all the suggested steps).

    I know grumbling is not going to help but it is frustrating!

  53. 30 March 2007 at 15:16 Paul Mayall

    RE 51 Mark.

    Thanks for making it a little clearer, 5 refunds over the last 3 years is not bad, only wish I had the same with my Taxes.
    There is no doubt that Alamy is operating a good and honest business for the contributers and buyers, however I feel for Andy and others in regard to the frustrations of having QC failure when they have done their best in controlling submissions, and lets face it, when one has suffered at the hands of a QC failure one dose not want it to happen again, therefore one puts a little more time and energy to getting the submission right, therefore the failure rate should be minimal, what can we do? I guess just do our best hope we get more passed submissions than failures. Cheeers All have a good weekend, Paul.

  54. 30 March 2007 at 23:52 Linda R-S

    Mark, Andy, Paul,

    What is needed is an Alamy "Technical details" site that will explain causes and show illustrated examples of everything that can cause rejections of submissions; it should also contrast with submissions that were accepted--wouldn't that be great?

    I am still nonplussed as to why my images are all of a sudden considered as "soft and lacking definitions."

    Mark mentioned that "Perhaps someone could show us a 100% crop of an image you feel is good, but which failed QC"

    Show whom?

    It would be great to know how sharp an acceptable image should look at 100%.

    Perhaps this discussion will lead to some constructive ideas?
    Thanks, Linda

  55. 31 March 2007 at 08:29 Paul Mayall

    Linda has a great idea.

    So Alamy can you or will you put up a image showing the QC that is passed and then the same image that has not passed, something like A and B comparison, you will have to doctor it to have the same image.
    Cheeers All, Paul.

  56. 15 April 2007 at 15:49 Dennis

    Unlike other libraries, Alamy do not select on content, so I am happy to let by those very few images which failed QC for reasons which I may not understand.

  57. 19 April 2007 at 08:33 ed8die

    apart from the issues mentioned with QC above, I have also noticed that it takes longer and longer for images to pass the QC proces. My previous submission took about 40 days to pass QC, while my last submission is approaching two months already and still has not been cleared. Anyone else noticed this?

  58. 19 April 2007 at 12:00 Dennis

    ed8die, never had to wait 2 month. Probably got stuck somewhere. Give the contributors' Help Desk a call. They are VERY helpful and reasonable :-)

  59. 19 April 2007 at 15:10 John

    With regard to Alamy quality control, I am beginning to think they don't want creative images. Give them something mediocre and sharp - but not sharpened :-), and it will no doubt sail through. I for one would like to really understand their selection criteria - as an art director and buyer also, I don't want boring but technically perfect images, it's about ideas, content and style and art.

  60. 19 April 2007 at 15:34 John

    PS. The Popperfoto of the Loch Ness Monster shown at the top of this column would never pass Alamy quality control! Enough said.

  61. 20 April 2007 at 01:04 Dennis

    Perhaps Alamy can pass all submissions but adding advisory QC-flags to alert buyers.

  62. 11 May 2007 at 09:29 Raghu

    Need some clarifications, I need to upload some of my recent pictures in Alamy for sale. How do i do this and where is the upload link in here.

    Regards,
    Raghu Bharadwaj

    I am already a member of Alamy.com

  63. 06 June 2007 at 23:55 Linda reinink-smith

    This is an update on my problem with two submissions in a row being rejected because of "soft and lacking definition." I did not know what to do for a while--no one I showed my images to could understand why they were deemed soft and lacking definition. Eventually I sent three small batches (tifs on three CDs), including the images that were specifically marked as soft and lacking definition in the two batches that failed. This time they passed QC! My conclusion is that QC is a subjective process. So, perhaps, resubmitting at a later time is the answer.

  64. 06 June 2007 at 23:56 Linda reinink-smith

    This is an update on my problem with two submissions in a row being rejected because of "soft and lacking definition." I did not know what to do for a while--no one I showed my images to could understand why they were deemed soft and lacking definition. Eventually I sent three small batches (tifs on three CDs), including the images that were specifically marked as soft and lacking definition in the two batches that failed. This time they passed QC! My conclusion is that QC is a subjective process. So, perhaps, resubmitting at a later time is the answer.

  65. 13 June 2007 at 10:35 Lynton bolton

    Hi
    Well I have been waiting on a QC for my first 10 images. I have now had them rejected due to (Soft or lacking definition). I have never had any problems with any images sent elsewhere, I also followed Alamy rules to the letter regarding image submissions seing as they were my first ones.

Add your own comment
Means that we require this information. We respect your privacy and store your details securely. See our privacy policy for more.
Security code picture
No picture? Reload page.
No picture? Reload page.