I've been trying to upload photos taken with my Nikon D200 and 18-70 3.5-5.6 lens and they reject them based on the files being "Soft or lacking definition." Is this lens unsuitable for the task?

I now have a Canon 40D, 17-40 f4 and 70-200 f4, would this combination be of high enough quality for library submissions?

Thanks in advance.

Maybe it is not the lens but your post processing (contrast, sharpening, jpeg or tiff compression, resolution etc)

Perhaps, but I'm not sure a lot of post processing is allowed, certainly not sharpening. I've upresed the photo in photo shop using the bicubic method they recommend. Other than exposure and levels I didn't really change anything.

Depends on the file format you are using. If you are using RAW - and you probably should be - the files are always a bit soft straight out of the camera. This is because there is no in-camera processing.

It's unlikely to be a lens issue unless it's out of calibration.

care to posta sample?

s

I shoot using RAW but Alamy state that no in camera sharpening is to be used. I've uploaded an example here

www.sightsjournal.com/vinerows.jpg

It's about 6.5 megabytes as it's an original file.

Thanks everyone

150% @ .3 radius on your sharpening should help it pass.

Hmm, that makes me think I've done my sharpening all wrong in the past. I've been re-reading their criteria and can't find anything about not being allowed to sharpen so I'm not sure where I got that from. I'll have another go with some sharpening. Thanks.

"The normal process of preparing an image for repro always includes sharpening. This is best done only once. If you apply sharpening to sharpening, unsightly artifacts can appear. So, please do not sharpen at any stage of your workflow."

No, it's there. However, as mentioned above, that much should be fine.

E

Thanks, I thought I was going crazy. I guess I'll just keep trying different edits and upload them all. I've never uploaded to a stock library before so this is quite a learning curve and very time consuming. Thanks for all the help.

Someone feel free to correct me but as I understand it the workflow should look something like this

Shoot in RAW
Process RAW image to taste or rules
Reduce image size and save as JPEG
Light sharpen

having not ever yet sent images to A agencey, though i have read there terms.

all raws need some sort of sharpening. general term is `capture` sharpening, usually done in the raw converter.

i would not suggest sharpening for print though, that needs to be done by the end user.

google found many results, this :http://www.ephotozine.tv/video/what-images-need-capture-sharpening--1052 may help.

simon

From what you're saying then, I would infer that the workflow I used is different from a workflow for web or library... Is that right? I have always been told to do sharpening last.

Someone feel free to correct me but as I understand it the workflow should look something like this

Shoot in RAW
Process RAW image to taste or rules
Reduce image size and save as JPEG
Light sharpen

That's pretty much it. Getty would prefer no sharpening at all to allow the buyer full control over the look of the image. I use Blow Up to uprez the photos, as it seems to work better.

Doesn't Alamy rob you?

How much do they pay?

People need to stop giving away work.

Deezie wrote:
Someone feel free to correct me but as I understand it the workflow should look something like this

Shoot in RAW
Process RAW image to taste or rules
Reduce image size and save as JPEG
Light sharpen

That's pretty much it. Getty would prefer no sharpening at all to allow the buyer full control over the look of the image. I use Blow Up to uprez the photos, as it seems to work better.

yes thats it.
but i presume that if you use ACR and export the file into PS, you have already capture sharpend.
a slight and correct aplication of this, with no further sharpening they would not know the difference.

ACR has a default of 25-1-25-0 for sharpening
as a photographer who uses there camera day in day out, you should knwo what is best for your particular gear and what looks un processed. every digital camera needs some sort of sharpening before its worked on to mittigate the anti-alias filter.

print sharpening is something completly different and yes, should only performed last by the client to the size they are printing.


simon

Agree wholeheartedly with Simon. Every digital camera needs some sort of sharpening before its worked on...and yet, final output sharpening is something completely different that should be left to the client or final usage.

There is a lot of pictures taken with point and shoot cameras on Alamy, so definetly it wasn't the case of the wrong equipment.
Couple of times Alamy rejected my shots with exact same explanation when image had shallow depth of field...

I don't think it's the lens. I've uploaded images taken with a Rebel XSi and Canon 18-200mm lens and never had a failure. This is a nice image, but it's soft because it was shot in fog. It's hit or miss with Alamy reviewers with an image like this. I assume you mentioned the foggy day in the caption field. Also, you could put "soft focus effect" or something like it into the caption.

You also may want to clone out the tree branch or whatever is extending into the edge of the right side of the frame.

As for sharpening, with Alamy, it's a no-no. But, some local contrast enhancement is okay. I use the definition slider in Aperture at 50%. I assume Lightroom has an analogue. You can also do it in Photoshop with the unsharp mask filter. Here's a good article on it:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/contrast-enhancement.shtml

It'll give the appearance of more dynamic range in the image. Try it on your vineyard and see what happens.


pahrens wrote:
I shoot using RAW but Alamy state that no in camera sharpening is to be used. I've uploaded an example here

www.sightsjournal.com/vinerows.jpg

It's about 6.5 megabytes as it's an original file.

Thanks everyone

brucemuir wrote:
Doesn't Alamy rob you?

How much do they pay?

People need to stop giving away work.

No, depends on usage, selling on Alamy is not giving away work, it's being paid for work.

Maybe you should take a look before you go all negative about a site? Negative is an old photo term.

Here's the price calculator link, because it's complicated, depending on license, type of use, term, number of impressions and all sorts of other things.

http://www.alamy.com/help/stock-photography-pricing.asp

Well,

how much do you end up with out of the $190.00 Alamy gets for a 1/4 page, Eastern US, Construction Industry brochure with a print run of 1000 for a month (what ever that means I guess you have month to print your 1000 copies).

And I didn't even click the "Royalty Free" section.

The sample image I calculated required some overhead (remember overhead, it's an old bussiness term ) or at least access to the site/set, travel expenses etc, meals.
Are you saying this is a good deal for the photographer?
I realize there is alot at play here, ie. how many salable images could you produce at this shoot etc. and I didn't see if this was for exclusive rights but I doubt it (it better not be for that price or maybe that's what the month time frame stipulates?)

I get 65% of it. As does every other contributer I think.

brucemuir wrote:
Well,

how much do you end up with out of the $190.00 Alamy gets for a 1/4 page, Eastern US, Construction Industry brochure with a print run of 1000 for a month (what ever that means I guess you have month to print your 1000 copies).

And I didn't even click the "Royalty Free" section.

The sample image I calculated required some overhead (remember overhead, it's an old bussiness term ) or at least access to the site/set, travel expenses etc, meals.
Are you saying this is a good deal for the photographer?
I realize there is alot at play here, ie. how many salable images could you produce at this shoot etc. and I didn't see if this was for exclusive rights but I doubt it (it better not be for that price or maybe that's what the month time frame stipulates?)

My mistake, it's 60%. Still better than most other agencies.

TBannor wrote:
My mistake, it's 60%. Still better than most other agencies.

Yes, 60% except for partner agency sales. My average sale is $100 commission, which is well above what magazines or newspapers pay per image. I'm quite pleased. Yes, I shoot mostly editorial, I think in those terms. I also forget that many other people don't shoot the same type of work so it may not meet their demands or expectations. Fair enough.

2007 - 34% of Alamy revenue came from RF sales at an average price-per-image of $155 and 66% from RM at an average price of $222. About 90% of their sales were for editorial use with an average price of $130.

That was 2007 and this is 2009, the sales and prices have probably dropped.

The questions were:
Doesn't Alamy rob you? NO
How much do they pay? See Above
People need to stop giving away work. I'm not from my perspective.

If I'm defending Alamy, it's because I think the conclusions in the form of questions were misleading and uninformed. I felt the facts are available and everyone can determine for themselves if their answers are different than mine.

Back on topic. I've found that having a good calibrated monitor, shooting everything at ISO 100 and only sending in clean sharp images will do the trick. Edit everything from RAW or convert to an Alamy size TIF and only edit the TIF if you shoot JPG. Never edit a JPG.

If that's confusing. I shoot JPG. Convert it to a TIF. If crop is necessary do that first, then re-size to 5100 longest side. If not just upsize. Edit the full size file, instead of doing all the editing and upsizing later. Otherwise you are upsizing all the flaws, instead of correcting them.

Yes, the 40D with the 17-40 f4 and 70-200 f4 should pass just fine. I started there with a 10D and a 28-135, which is minimal image size and a notably soft lens. Now I have all L lenses, which makes life easier.

I'll PM some other details. Best Wishes.

Alamy also seems to have changed their QC, although they say they haven't. They have a list of unsuitable cameras on the site now that includes almost every P&S digital known to man, including several that used to be perfectly acceptable. The license fees I received from images taken with a Canon Pro1 paid for the camera many times over. Now it's on their unsuitable list. The G10 isn't and I asked them about this. The response was that G10 raw images carefully processed in a raw convertor are acceptable. I recently had a G10 image license for use by a travel magazine, albeit for their website. The new S90 is on the unsuitable list, but the G11 isn't, which is strange since they use the same sensor.

I think that most of the images Alamy rejects for being soft or lacking definition are rejected due to camera shake. Since that old Pro1 lacked image stabilization, I always carried a small tripod designed for small digital cameras. If the light got too low, I used it. Now, I use stabilized lenses with both a 5D MkII and Rebel XSi and never get rejected.