| Fennario |
| Newbie |
|
| California |
|
|
| None Specified |
|
| Thursday, July 02, 2009 |
| Saturday, November 21, 2009 8:13:13 AM |
162
[0.22% of all post / 1.13 posts per day] |
|
|
It does look sharp enough, but I see sharpening halos and artifacts around the rocks. Did you sharpen the image (or use NR software that might apply USM)? Whatever you did, it will not pass QC with those problems.
|
Kumar wrote:Inchiquin wrote:Kumar wrote:72 dpi doesn't make an image a 'lower resolution' one in any manner whatsoever It certainly does. An image at 72dpi has a lower spatial resolution than one of the same size at 300dpi. Alan Nope. Not true for the overall image as long as the pixel dimensions remain the same ! Producing a native file at 72 dpi certainly doesn't imply that it must be printed at the same dpi ... big image, lower resolution and small(er) image, higher resolution are both produced from the same image of a definite L x B pixel count ... so no irrversible resolution changes are caused ... it sure is misleading to say that 72 dpi makes an image a 'lower resolution one'. In case it apparently does, just put the dpi back to 300. Spatial resolution here is nothing more than a mere term, and it loses its meaning just with a mouse-click of the dpi-slider !! The image remains the same, and dpi changes mere output-print modalities. Probably this dpi issue is taking much more of an academic slant, than a prime requisite that would help a newbie with QC issues.
Not the most pithy explanation, but correct nonetheless. DPI is irrelevant for uploads to Alamy.
|
coccinella wrote:Royster wrote:You can download a file checker.
I use it for all my images(not that I have many). It checks the size and colour profile before you send your images.
It's a couple of things that you then don't have to worry about Oh, that would be handy! thanks for suggesting this. Any idea where to find it? Also... would it work on a Mac?
Yes, it works on a Mac. Here's the link:
http://www.braeside.plus.com/photography/alamy/alamy.html
Be aware that it will only give you an "OK" status on images that are both the correct size and saved with the correct profile (Adobe RGB).
|
Congrats! 
|
lightscapes wrote:I am trying to learn us all something. Conclusion: Do not mix submissions. The two folders of digital abstracts from the beach were over processed for effect and shot with digital. They are artsy silhouettes. I believe they failed the entire 5 folders of pictures including the three folders of pictures from slides. All previous accepted submissions were slides only.
It sounds as though one of your digital images failed, not the scans. If any one file fails, then all images in your queue will fail (even ones in different upload batches or "folders" as you're calling them). Which particular image was tagged as having a problem?
|
simon65 wrote:the reason i had all my photos rejected was my own mistake of not downloading them in batches of 4 ,seems Alamy like them in 4 and more to go thro QC
Your initial batch must contain exactly four images. After that, you can proceed with larger batches.
|
coccinella wrote:Do photos need to be more that 72dpi?
thanks again...
All that matters is the total number of pixels. If your 3:2 image is at least 5100 pixels on the long side, it's large enough.
|
David Kilpatrick wrote:That's a Panasonic lens - built by Panasonic in their Leica managed facility in Japan, a joint venture. Just the same way that Zeiss lenses on Sony are really Sony lenses with Zeiss QC.
David
The lens comes branded with the word Leica on the front of it and sells at a Leica price, so I think it's fair to call it a Leica lens.
dingdong wrote:Sorry! I should have said that "M" prime Leica lenses do not suffer from CA. We all know that zoom lenses will suffer due to the nature of the beast.  Allan
Sure, prime lenses of any brand will fare better in the CA department. I doubt if it's completely absent on all Leica M lenses, but since nobody (to my knowledge) publishes tests of these, then we're left with anecdotal user impressions.
|
|
The 350D is technically OK, but will require a fair amount of interpolation to get it up to 48MB. The images will have to be very sharp to withstand that kind of upsizing. The bad news is that the two lenses you have are notorious for being soft. They're fine for general purpose snaps, but getting Alamy-level images out of them will be very difficult.
|
Flake wrote:It should not be necessary to use mirror lock up to pass Alamy QC! If it is becomming necessary then QC is going too far. It makes me wonder sometimes if they do actually know what they are doing. I've just had a shot fail for camera shake when there's no way it exhibits camera shake at all. Canon 5D MkII 28 - 300mm IS L image taken 35mm 1/200 sec IS on which gives up to an additional four stops advantage. I believe that Alamys QC have not taken account of the fall off in resolution at the borders with high MP count cameras. I have considered the possibility that my camera might be faulty, but I've compared it to the D3 and found that it also exhibits resolution fall off, albeit not to the same extent because of the pixel count. Has anyone else found this happening?
Soft corners are caused by the lens you're using, not by your camera's resolution. A camera with higher resolution will merely make any kind of softness more apparent.
As for the image you had fail for camera shake: perhaps it was soft for some other reason, and QC interpreted it as shake. Without seeing a 100% crop of the image and knowing the full details of the shot (aperture, ISO, etc.), it's impossible to know.
|
|
RSS feeds