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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Deezie wrote:
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.
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:
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.
