Upload your photos, chat, win prizes and much more
Can't Access your Account?
New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!
Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!
Are you using the latest version of Adobe Camera Raw in PS ?
If so then you should have access to the new feature that is excellent at fixing CA / Colour Fringing
Take a browse at this Adobe Article for an explanation.
Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.
The OP is presumably finding out that a different level of scrutiny exists in the photographic world—one which aspires (however unrealistically) to more demanding image usage than a 1000px ePhotozine web photo or an A4 inkjet. Dealing with lateral CA is not generally problematic, however. Its awkward cousin, longitudinal CA, colour bokeh, axial CA, or whatever other moniker it goes under, is a tougher nut to crack.
What about the customer who buys an image on the strength of its thumbnail and then finds the CA when it's delivered?
Picture libraries tend to get upset when their customers complainQuote: Why the issue? Well if I can see it, so can Alamy or whoever else I submit work to, so I don't want to waste time with extra processing which can be avoided. On large print outs (A3+) I can see it, although only because I look for it. Also I am a bit of a perfectionist! Dust bunnies are a consideration but the question still stands, am I likely to notice a difference?
What about the customer who buys an image on the strength of its thumbnail and then finds the CA or worse when it's delivered?
Picture libraries tend to get upset when their customers have good reason to complain
Picture libraries tend to look at an image at 100%. So anyone submitting pictures to one, had better do the same!
No library is more susceptible to poor quality than Alamy—they're probably the only library in existence that doesn't scrutinise every file, or anywhere near. That wouldn't be important if contributors had a self-regulating desire to produce high quality, but you don't always get that sense on their forum. Many openly congratulate themselves for getting across what is often essentially an unmanned border.
Quote: No library is more susceptible to poor quality than Alamy—they're probably the only library in existence that doesn't scrutinise every file, or anywhere near
You're right. It works both ways though: they sometimes reject a whole batch because one photo had a bird in it which looked a bit like a dust spot!
I gave up on Alamy years ago.... still get the occasional email from them - must remember to unsubscribe!
Quote: No library is more susceptible to poor quality than Alamy—they're probably the only library in existence that doesn't scrutinise every file, or anywhere near. .
I think Alamy would disagree with you here.
Quote: I think Alamy would disagree with you here.
Not only Alamy, I would too, strongly.
The pix that Alamy picks out from a batch are the ones that from experience (and they have a lot of that) they know are likely to be of low quality. They give you a time penalty for any rejected batches which quickly makes it pointless to try to slip anything past them. There will always be some moron who does manage to subvert things occasionally an brags about it. They remind me of the immature t**ts you see jumping up and down and waving behind news reporters.
I think someone is mixing up Alamy and micro-stock agencies. Alamy in the industry are noted for the reliable quality of their images. Look through the national papers and magazines and see how much Alamy material they use.
The 'problem' that the OP is talking about is a kind of obsessive thing, really. His problem doesn't show on prints and only otherwise at 100% viewing. This implies a print several feet across! So there exists a problem only in something you don't do. It's like complaining that your car would get stuck if you drove it across country when in fact you only ever use it on the road.
The answer to a problem like this lies in the head, not in the equipment. Many of us have found that out for ourselves the hard (read expensive)way
Quote: You're right. It works both ways though: they sometimes reject a whole batch because one photo had a bird in it which looked a bit like a dust spot!
Do they? I wouldn't know, but I hear things.
I'm sure that Alamy considers its 'trusting' quality control method works acceptably well, and maybe it does. Much of their business plan revolves around the idea that photographers are perfectly even in their output, but It only takes a look at the front page of any given search to realise that this is a flawed notion. That's what they are though—an unedited encyclopaedic photo library that works by algorithms, so little point in bemoaning the inevitable.
Quote: I think someone is mixing up Alamy and micro-stock agencies. Alamy in the industry are noted for the reliable quality of their images. Look through the national papers and magazines and see how much Alamy material they use.
Well, no, as much as I try to maintain a healthy disdain for microstock I also regularly hear that microstock libraries reject a lot of stuff. The Alamy guidelines are smoothed in such a way as to allow even the inexperienced a shouting chance of producing a usable file, so if Alamy have a decent reputation for technical quality fair play to them—I personally believe their prolific sales to be very much down to peerlessly diverse content.
Quote: I also regularly hear that microstock libraries reject a lot of stuff
Most definitely. Microstock libraries are, if anything, more stringent than the traditional libraries.
Well thanks for all the input. Just for the record, I process my RAWs in Capture one light and I use a tripod for 98% of all my pics. I don't have a disease or some kind of mmmmmadness - I've been shooting for over 20 years, including medium format film and I am not an equipment freak; I just don't want all the effort of reaching a mountain top at dawn to be spoiled by a flaw in my glass. I am quite happy with my 5D Mk11. CA is not a problem I have ever noticed until recently, but with full frame sensors it seems you need good lenses. Once you notice it, you always look for it. I currently remove it in photoshop by changing to Lab mode and blurring the a and b lightness channels then switching back to RGB, a bit of a fag although it is not necessary for every shot. As I use wideangles for most of my images, to invest in the best for those lenses that are going to be responsible for most of my output seems like a wise thing to do.
As to Alamy, from my experience, they are very fussy about what they let through. I had never failed a submission until recently when I failed two - they don't state which shot failed though so the whole batch becomes suspect. In my case it was pics taken with a long lens with some softness apparent and a pic taken through a big stopper. I had to look pretty hard to find the problem. I was even picked up once for having stated that there were no people present in a picture - there was one person in the far distance, blurred, so I would disagree that they let poor quality through - they can't afford to.
Alamy can certainly get tough if you fail their QC process. It happened to a friend of mine who is ordinarily also something of a perfectionist, and he subsequently then failed two or three submissions. But that's really my point - the fact that they seem to find other failed files when they bear down on particular photographers would suggest to me that a significant amount of 'iffy' files slip through the net generally. That said, as the majority of Alamy's business is editorial I doubt that most customers are going to request refunds on the grounds of a bit of CA visible at 100% in a high res file.
The 17-40mm gets an all-round good press on ePz, but still it's a lens that has yielded a few detractors (some of them vocal on the Alamy forum). Its edge and corner sharpness is often called into question, and comparisons made—rather harshly—with prime Zeiss lenses. The 16-9 website seems to sum this feeling up. Regardless of this, for Alamy purposes it's a perfectly adequate lens. Some of the old manual lenses make a more affordable alternative to a modern-fitting Zeiss, if change is ever required (e.g. Olympus Zuiko 24mm f/2.8).
And don't overlook the fact that with the 17-40, (a much maligned lens in some circles), you can fill your frame with exactly what you want to take. I use it a lot and invariably find when I use a prime that it's never quite the range I want; always a bit too close or too far and so cropping comes into it. Remember, many of the greatest shots taken were less than perfect technically.
ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.
Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.
You must be a member to leave a comment
Get the latest photography news straight from ePHOTOzine in your email every month and win prizes!
1st October 2014 - 31st October 2014
Check out ePHOTOzine's inspirational photo month calendar! Each day click on a window to unveil new photography tips, treats and techniques.
View October's Photo Month Calendar