Photoclubalpha

Hello,

Since reading David's article on the topic I'm curious on a specific matter: Is the list of rejected cameras that David and other Alamy contributors speak of the same as the one on Alamy Blog or was this information e-mailed to you only recently with an updated list?


Thanks,

Yildiz

Hi Yildiz,
I haven't seen David's article on the subject yet, but I just went to alamy for the first time just now, and it seems most if not all of the Sony DSLR's are on the recomended list for being capable of producing QC acceptable photos, even the A100 is on the list.
I don't know if that is something new or not or if that list has been there all along...
Greg

http://www.alamy.com/contributors/stock ... a-list.asp

Thanks Greg,

Actually, that's the Alamy list I had mentioned in my post. It's last updated in July 2009 and David Kilpatrick sent his article on the blacklisted cameras on 10 October 2009, so I was wondering if he actually speaking of a more recent list of rejected cameras. A list from early October 2009 that shows different content perhaps?

Yildiz

David's latest article Alamy list

The blog dated 7th October lists those cameras that will never make the grade QC wise and also mentions the older list of acceptable cameras. I think it was probably this new list of unacceptable cameras that will never produce photos that will pass QC that prompted David's article (given that he has stated that he has photos on sale with Alamy taken with some of the cameras blacklisted). I certainly haven't had an email from Alamy notifying me of either list - they tend to leave you to read their blog.

Philip

Thank you Philip,

I am suspicious on the reasoning of the list myself. My DSC-V3 with its 7.2 definitely produces remarkable photos that I had the pleasure of distributing to some markets. I certainly do not agree with the Alamy views at this point.

They tend to send emails to my mail box now and again for different reasons so I had the feeling that I was left out in some way, granted of course if they also mailed the blog entries to all members that is.

Thanks
Yildiz

I notice the DSC-R1 isn't on the banned list

When I had a look at the place (alamy) last night, I got the strong impression that they don't like any camera that can't do a RAW file... I don't know if any of those compacts listed can do raw's or not or wheather your camera (Yildiz) can do a raw file, but that might be their objection to those models...a bit of a broad stipulation one would think (if it's the reason), as one could still save an X-fine JPEG as a TIFF for the editing and probably obtain nearly as good (or as good) results as using a RAW, just like they themselves describe...
Greg

Greg Beetham wrote:When I had a look at the place (alamy) last night, I got the strong impression that they don't like any camera that can't do a RAW file... I don't know if any of those compacts listed can do raw's or not or wheather your camera (Yildiz) can do a raw file, but that might be their objection to those models...a bit of a broad stipulation one would think (if it's the reason), as one could still save an X-fine JPEG as a TIFF for the editing and probably obtain nearly as good (or as good) results as using a RAW, just like they themselves describe...
Greg

Hi Greg,

If RAW-producing is the basis for blacklisting, then there's definitely something wrong with the selections because Sony Cybershot DSC-V3 can produce RAW files, RAW+JPEG files, Extra-fine JPEGs, Standard JPEGs..etc. It also poduces very deep, lovely colours, beautiful range of details at 100% magnification and when smartly used produces no colour abberrations. It really behaves well. I sold hundreds of photos taken with that camera...and it fits in my bag/purse!

I don't think they are being fair on their decisions but I always will admit that the R1 is more of a DSLR-like camera.

Yildiz

Stock photography sites are notoriously picky, and short sighted. They spend far too much time looking at "image quality", not quality images, the two are not related in any way!

Interestingly. they still accept scanned film..:

http://www.alamy.com/contributors/stock ... anning.asp

But they suggest using a scanner with a dmax of 4, I can tell you right now, that's not going to make any difference for neg film (slide yeah..but not neg film), do these people really know what they are talking about?? I think not..

I was curious to find out what Alamy intended to do with Panasonic LX2/3 images when I saw the banned list. (LX1 was on but not LX2/3). I have had several images accepted in the past from these two quality P&S cameras. I recently submitted eight LX3 images taken in Germany and today I received a Passed QC notification. These were taken at ISO100 RAW converted in Silkypix and in bright weather. The images at 50Mb 100% are really nearly as good as 10-12Mp DSLR pictures. So we are back to the point that the list should be used as guidance and the overriding consideration seems to be QC standards. IMHO Alamy have tired of all and sundry sending in pictures taken with any kind of P&S. They have nearly 17 million images for sale and they can afford to chase away the time wasters.

As said, my KMA2 is back in use. Not sold. LR3 and other new programs really add new life to the camera. I am confident it will continue to produce images that can pass QC.

David