riot, I just went and tried the link to your images again, figuring they're bound to be up now (mine took 24hrs), but it still shows nothing...? Does it show up for you?
FWIW i just this morning got a note from Alamy that all of my 15 images passed QC. as stated below, i just upsized them in Photoshop and didn't use GF or anything else.
it took 21 days to pass QC, but they received my dvd on the morning of the subway bombings so i don't know if that delayed it at all. :/
anyway, i don't have them keyworded yet and i'm on the run to DC but i just thought i'd post back the results! woo woo!!!!!!
Hey nsbca7, i checked your portfolio at Alamy and all the images i clicked on have restrictions on everything. I may be mistaken, but doesnt that make them not saleable?
Hey nsbca7, i checked your portfolio at Alamy and all the images i clicked on have restrictions on everything. I may be mistaken, but doesnt that make them not saleable?
The only restrictions I have are on the images of the children for sensitive issues.
Hey nsbca7, i checked your portfolio at Alamy and all the images i clicked on have restrictions on everything. I may be mistaken, but doesnt that make them not saleable?
The only restrictions I have are on the images of the children for sensitive issues.
I see, what kind of sensitive issues if you dont mind me asking?
Hey nsbca7, i checked your portfolio at Alamy and all the images i clicked on have restrictions on everything. I may be mistaken, but doesnt that make them not saleable?
The only restrictions I have are on the images of the children for sensitive issues.
I see, what kind of sensitive issues if you dont mind me asking?
All of them. I don't think you keep models coming back for future sessions by selling thier picture as the 2005 poster child for child abuse or underage STDs.
Grr my submission is still status 'Processing'. How long have people's submissions been at that status?
Depends how many images are on the disk. When I was sending in CDs with 10 or 12 images, it was a very short period. The last disk I sent was a DVD with about 66 images, and that took a few days.
My second submission with 41 images was approved in 15 calendar (not working) days. Of the 41, 1 of them had a disk error called "image processing error", but the other 40 were all approved. 15 days isn't bad. Now I need to go keyword them and submit them.
I'm anxious to hear of the first sale from anyone... I hope it's soon!
You know, given that 55 out of 56 images I've submitted to Alamy have been accepted (and the one exception was due to a disk error), I'm beginning to wonder about just how "picky" they are about image quality... I mean, I had nowhere NEAR that success rate submitting to IStockphoto... So, what does all that mean? Are the images on IStock a higher "quality" even though they charge less? Or what? I personally don't know what to think of it. Anyone have any opinions or theories to explain it? Thanks for any input! Or even just wild speculation! :-)
You know, given that 55 out of 56 images I've submitted to Alamy have been accepted (and the one exception was due to a disk error), I'm beginning to wonder about just how "picky" they are about image quality... I mean, I had nowhere NEAR that success rate submitting to IStockphoto... So, what does all that mean? Are the images on IStock a higher "quality" even though they charge less? Or what? I personally don't know what to think of it. Anyone have any opinions or theories to explain it? Thanks for any input! Or even just wild speculation! :-)
Doug
Up until recently, I don't think they did any editing at all. As long as you follow the technical guidelines (48mb files) then you should be "accepted". That's how they amassed 3 milllion images so quickly. But back in the Jan/Feb newsletter this year Alamy said they would start "addressing issues":
-keyword spamming
-stolen keywords (paragraphs cut and pasted from someone else's images)
-too many similars
and I think it mentioned having model releases for RF photos.
Other than that, they still seem to take anything.
AND .... WOW .... even have to give them full credit card info just to register as a contibutor to prove who you are. Does the card I found in the parking lot count?? ... just kidding! Does anyone else have a problem giving out credit card info to a web site to register??
AND .... WOW .... even have to give them full credit card info just to register as a contibutor to prove who you are. Does the card I found in the parking lot count?? ... just kidding! Does anyone else have a problem giving out credit card info to a web site to register??
No. You gave the info to some nimrod at the gas staion last week without blinking an eye.
Up until recently, I don't think they did any editing at all. As long as you follow the technical guidelines (48mb files) then you should be "accepted". That's how they amassed 3 milllion images so quickly. But back in the Jan/Feb newsletter this year Alamy said they would start "addressing issues":
-keyword spamming
-stolen keywords (paragraphs cut and pasted from someone else's images)
-too many similars
and I think it mentioned having model releases for RF photos.
Other than that, they still seem to take anything.
If that is true, how can they justify charging so much more for their images? I mean, as far as I can see, you can't even zoom in to 100% on the images to view a portion of it and see the "real" image before you buy... So that combined with knowing the above would make me REAL leary of buying an image from them, if I were a buyer... Interesting...
I have one explanation to propose... istock and the other microstock photos SEEM to me to be getting morons to qc their submissions - photos are refused on grounds of being out of focus when they are simply shallow depth of field but the plane of focus is pin sharp, for being poorly lit when another image of the exact same object taken at the exact same time from a similar angle but with different DOF settings is accepted, and for all sorts of other reasons that are not only arbitrary but are often nonsensical when looking at the photo in question. Don't get me wrong, it doesn't bother me hugely, though I think it's a shame they are letting some stuff through that I would imagine would be hard to sell and rejecting other stuff that strikes me as more saleable. But I do think it explains the problem. Then again, given that their technical requirements are less, they probably get a LOT more submissions to work through and can't afford the investment to actually have anyone other than cheap labour look at each submission carefully!
Alamy don't generally reject submissions on grounds of subject matter/ content (lighting, DOF etc). They refuse on grounds of quality of image itself - focus, artifacts, resolution, etc. Plus, most of the rejections I have come across myself have been down to failure to read and adhere to their submission requirements.
If that is true, how can they justify charging so much more for their images? I mean, as far as I can see, you can't even zoom in to 100% on the images to view a portion of it and see the "real" image before you buy...
(Emphasis mine)
That's precisely the point - you don't need to zoom to 100% because Alamy's QC process makes sure anything that is added is excellent quality. As Kavey says.
