"Soft or lacking definition": Typical Alamy rejection?

[Kemal Eksen]

I applied for the second time for Alamy's quality control, and all my photos were rejected again with the same comment: "Soft or lacking definition" Two of them have an additional comment "Interpolation artifacts"

I thought I found the sharpest 7 MP photos and scaled them %154 to their minimum limits with Genuine Fractals, but I used default settings of GF, I wonder if I had to finetune its settings. I will appriciate your help very much. Have I missed some tricks or do I have to forget Alamy until getting a great DSLR?

Below you will see photos rejected by Alamy and accepted by Photoshelter collection:
http://psc.photoshelter.com/image/PSC000875809   Soft or lacking definition  Interpolation artifacts
http://psc.photoshelter.com/image/PSC000875904   Soft or lacking definition  Interpolation artifacts
http://psc.photoshelter.com/image/PSC000843051   Soft or lacking definition  (accepted by the first submission, rejected by the second)




Kemal Eksen
http://my.photoshelter.com/kemaleksen
http://www.gp724.com/kemaleksen





      ____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it now.  http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ

[louneal12000]

All three look soft.  I don't see interpolation problems, though.  
Did you use AF on these or focus manually?

Lou Neal

--- In STOCKPHOTO@..., Kemal Eksen <kemaleksen@...> wrote:
>
> I applied for the second time for Alamy's quality control, and all
my photos were rejected again with the same comment: "Soft or lacking
definition" Two of them have an additional comment "Interpolation
artifacts"
>
> I thought I found the sharpest 7 MP photos and scaled them %154 to
their minimum limits with Genuine Fractals, but I used default
settings of GF, I wonder if I had to finetune its settings. I will
appriciate your help very much. Have I missed some tricks or do I
have to forget Alamy until getting a great DSLR?
>
> Below you will see photos rejected by Alamy and accepted by
Photoshelter collection:
> http://psc.photoshelter.com/image/PSC000875809   Soft or lacking
definition  Interpolation artifacts
> http://psc.photoshelter.com/image/PSC000875904   Soft or lacking
definition  Interpolation artifacts
> http://psc.photoshelter.com/image/PSC000843051   Soft or lacking
definition  (accepted by the first submission, rejected by the second)

>
>
>
>
> Kemal Eksen
> http://my.photoshelter.com/kemaleksen
> http://www.gp724.com/kemaleksen
>
>
>
>
>
>      

______________________________________________________________________
______________
> Be a better friend, newshound, and
> know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it now.  
http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
>

[Kemal Eksen]

All photos except the close-up of snow crystal were shot with
autofocus, and except the snow crystal and the nightshot you see all
were shot in bright sunlight.
I would like to ask Alamy contributors whether you use the default
settings of Genuine Fractals to scale photos for Alamy, if not how do
you adjust the settings?

[Valerie Henschel-2]

Kemal,
    What camera or lens are you using? Your problem may be low quality equipment. The resolution quality of the glass you shoot through is more important than the number of pixels recorded.

Valerie Henschel
henschel@...

  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Kemal Eksen
  To: STOCKPHOTO@...
  Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2008 1:12 AM
  Subject: [STOCKPHOTO] Re: "Soft or lacking definition": Typical Alamy rejection?


  All photos except the close-up of snow crystal were shot with
  autofocus, and except the snow crystal and the nightshot you see all
  were shot in bright sunlight.
  I would like to ask Alamy contributors whether you use the default
  settings of Genuine Fractals to scale photos for Alamy, if not how do
  you adjust the settings?



   

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[ycardozo]

 
In a message dated 5/7/2008 8:20:58 AM Pacific Standard Time,  
STOCKPHOTO@... writes:

I  would like to ask Alamy contributors whether you use the default
settings  of Genuine Fractals to scale photos for Alamy, if not how do
you adjust the  settings?
--------------------------------------------
When Photoshop CS3 came out, the updated version of Genuine Fractals  stopped
working with my batch action, no matter what I did. After spending hours  on
the phone with the GF tech guy, I gave up. I then asked pros in the  
graphics/printing field if there was any serious quality difference btw the  Photoshop
CS3 uprez (using bicubic smoother) and GF and the answer was...for  small
uprezzing...no.  "small" means pretty much anything you would do for  alamy unless
you are shooting with a 6 pegapixel camera.
 
Photoshop has a batch action built into the program. I  now just set what I
want, making sure the horizontal and vertical amounts are  equal so that
nothing will be squeezed or stretched, and go have a cup of  coffee. I then check
each image since those that were cropped might wind up much  too large or small.
I fix those few and the job is  done.

 
 
To do all of this:
1. open both photoshop and bridge
2. in bridge, highlight the photos you want to  uprez
3. in the upper tool bar, click on 'tools,' 'photoshop'  and 'image
processor.'
this will open a palette in photoshop. put in the size you  want (put in the
jpeg strength and make sure you put a number in the 'size to  fit' boxes...i
use 5100) and hit go and get that coffee.

 
oh yes, make sure the default in your uprez is bicubic  smoother  




Yvette  Cardozo
14821 255 Ave SE
Issaquah, WA 98027
phone: (425)  391-0770
fax: [phone]
_http://www.cardozohirsch.com_ (http://www.cardozohirsch.com/)  



**************Wondering what's for Dinner Tonight? Get new twists on family
favorites at AOL Food.      
(http://food.aol.com/dinner-tonight?NCID=aolfod00030000000001)


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Kemal Eksen]

I tested both Photoshop bicubic resize and Genuine Fractals, and saw
that GF really adds to the detail of the image, especially at edges
with contrast, no wonder why Alamy rather prefers GF. I'm using it
often for my video graphics job too, especially to scale low res logos.

Thank you very much for your Photoshop techniques, I use batch process
often, but didn't know how to use it with Bridge.



Kemal Eksen
http://my.photoshelter.com/kemaleksen
http://www.gp724.com/kemaleksen




--- In STOCKPHOTO@..., ycardozo@... wrote:

>
>  
> In a message dated 5/7/2008 8:20:58 AM Pacific Standard Time,  
> STOCKPHOTO@... writes:
>
> I  would like to ask Alamy contributors whether you use the default
> settings  of Genuine Fractals to scale photos for Alamy, if not how do
> you adjust the  settings?
> --------------------------------------------
> When Photoshop CS3 came out, the updated version of Genuine Fractals

 stopped
> working with my batch action, no matter what I did. After spending
hours  on
> the phone with the GF tech guy, I gave up. I then asked pros in the  
> graphics/printing field if there was any serious quality difference
btw the  Photoshop
> CS3 uprez (using bicubic smoother) and GF and the answer was...for
small
> uprezzing...no.  "small" means pretty much anything you would do for
 alamy unless
> you are shooting with a 6 pegapixel camera.
>  
> Photoshop has a batch action built into the program. I  now just set
what I
> want, making sure the horizontal and vertical amounts are  equal so
that
> nothing will be squeezed or stretched, and go have a cup of  coffee.
I then check
> each image since those that were cropped might wind up much  too
large or small.

> I fix those few and the job is  done.
>
>  
>  
> To do all of this:
> 1. open both photoshop and bridge
> 2. in bridge, highlight the photos you want to  uprez
> 3. in the upper tool bar, click on 'tools,' 'photoshop'  and 'image
> processor.'
> this will open a palette in photoshop. put in the size you  want

(put in the
> jpeg strength and make sure you put a number in the 'size to  fit'
boxes...i

> use 5100) and hit go and get that coffee.
>
>  
> oh yes, make sure the default in your uprez is bicubic  smoother  
>
>
>
>
> Yvette  Cardozo
> 14821 255 Ave SE
> Issaquah, WA 98027
> phone: (425)  391-0770
> fax: [phone]
> _http://www.cardozohirsch.com_ (http://www.cardozohirsch.com/)  
>
>
>
> **************Wondering what's for Dinner Tonight? Get new twists on

family
> favorites at AOL Food.      
> (http://food.aol.com/dinner-tonight?NCID=aolfod00030000000001)
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

[Kemal Eksen]

I have used Olympus C-7070 wide zoom for all by shooting for stock
(and Olympus WCON-07C .7x Wide Angle Converter Lens for wide angle
shots, but I haven't sent any of them to Alamy)
http://www.steves-digicams.com/2005_reviews/c7070.html

I know I have to switch to a DSLR for better results but I delayed
until yet because of their prices and the (until recent) missing live
preview (to visally see the exposure before shooting and not to crawl
on the ground for close-ups) which now appears by some higher models
of Olympus, Nikon and Canon.

Do you think my camera is not decent for Alamy?

Kemal Eksen
http://my.photoshelter.com/kemaleksen
http://www.gp724.com/kemaleksen




--- In STOCKPHOTO@..., "Valerie Henschel" <henschel@...>
wrote:
>
>
> Kemal,
>     What camera or lens are you using? Your problem may be low
quality equipment. The resolution quality of the glass you shoot
through is more important than the number of pixels recorded.
>
> Valerie Henschel
> henschel@...

[lenswork1]

Hi Kemal,

Still would be interested in knowing what equipment you are using, i.e, DSLR, D point and shoot, 35mm scans, lens size/speed, camera settings like auto/manual focus/exposure, etc.

What settings did you use in Photoshop bicubic ? Bicubic, bicubic smoother, bicubic sharper, etc ?

Interesting to see that Alamy and Photoshelter obviously have different QC requirements - if anybody has the exact same images with both, do they sell more with Alamy vs Photosheleter ?

regards,


Len Holsborg
http://www.lenholsborg.com

len@...

-----Original Message-----
From: Kemal Eksen <kemaleksen@...>
To: STOCKPHOTO@...
Sent: Thu, 8 May 2008 1:51 am
Subject: [STOCKPHOTO] Re: "Soft or lacking definition": Typical Alamy rejection?






I tested both Photoshop bicubic resize and Genuine Fractals, and saw
that GF really adds to the detail of the image, especially at edges
with contrast, no wonder why Alamy rather prefers GF. I'm using it
often for my video graphics job too, especially to scale low res logos.

Thank you very much for your Photoshop techniques, I use batch process
often, but didn't know how to use it with Bridge.

Kemal Eksen
http://my.photoshelter.com/kemaleksen
http://www.gp724.com/kemaleksen

--- In STOCKPHOTO@..., ycardozo@... wrote:

>
>
> In a message dated 5/7/2008 8:20:58 AM Pacific Standard Time,
> STOCKPHOTO@... writes:
>
> I would like to ask Alamy contributors whether you use the default
> settings of Genuine Fractals to scale photos for Alamy, if not how do
> you adjust the settings?
> --------------------------------------------
> When Photoshop CS3 came out, the updated version of Genuine Fractals

stopped
> working with my batch action, no matter what I did. After spending
hours on
> the phone with the GF tech guy, I gave up. I then asked pros in the
> graphics/printing field if there was any serious quality difference
btw the Photoshop
> CS3 uprez (using bicubic smoother) and GF and the answer was...for
small
> uprezzing...no. "small" means pretty much anything you would do for
alamy unless
> you are shooting with a 6 pegapixel camera.
>
> Photoshop has a batch action built into the program. I now just set
what I
> want, making sure the horizontal and vertical amounts are equal so
that
> nothing will be squeezed or stretched, and go have a cup of coffee.
I then check
> each image since those that were cropped might wind up much too
large or small.

> I fix those few and the job is done.
>
>
>
> To do all of this:
> 1. open both photoshop and bridge
> 2. in bridge, highlight the photos you want to uprez
> 3. in the upper tool bar, click on 'tools,' 'photoshop' and 'image
> processor.'
> this will open a palette in photoshop. put in the size you want

(put in the
> jpeg strength and make sure you put a number in the 'size to fit'
boxes...i

> use 5100) and hit go and get that coffee.
>
>
> oh yes, make sure the default in your uprez is bicubic smoother
>
>
>
>
> Yvette Cardozo
> 14821 255 Ave SE
> Issaquah, WA 98027
> phone: [phone]
> fax: [phone]
> _http://www.cardozohirsch.com_ (http://www.cardozohirsch.com/)
>
>
>
> **************Wondering what's for Dinner Tonight? Get new twists on

family
> favorites at AOL Food.
> (http://food.aol.com/dinner-tonight?NCID=aolfod00030000000001)
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>



 


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Valerie Henschel-2]

Kemal,
    Can't say whether the camera is decent or not. Not familiar with it, but checked a review of it at www.imaging-resource,com/prods/c7070/c70a11.htm  
     It would appear that it might perform pretty well if the proper settings are used. You might want to read the review and make sure you avoid the poorer settings on the camera.
     Since stock is so competitive these days, high quality equipment and good shooting skills are just as important as ever, if not more so. The review rated the camera as sufficiently good for the enthusiast, but not high enough for the working pro.  That combined with the need to resize your images may be a big part of the problem.
    Learning to see sharpness in an image is a skill that comes with time and experience. Even with my Nikon 2.8 lenses, I reject certain images because of lack of sharpness due to mirror shake, low light conditions, or hand held errors. I used to use a 10X high quality loupe, but now I judge images at 100% on the computer screen. And very few of the images shot on my pocket camera are of high enough quality before resizing to match my standards for stock. I rarely use it, but for casual family gatherings it is sufficient.
    The converter will decrease the image quality even more. I don't think you will get sufficient quality out of the images you shoot with it.
    Hope you work out your problems with resolution. Good luck.

Valerie Henschel
Step Ahead Photo
henschel@...
   
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Kemal Eksen
  To: STOCKPHOTO@...
  Sent: Friday, May 09, 2008 1:10 AM
  Subject: [STOCKPHOTO] Re: "Soft or lacking definition": Typical Alamy rejection?


  I have used Olympus C-7070 wide zoom for all by shooting for stock
  (and Olympus WCON-07C .7x Wide Angle Converter Lens for wide angle
  shots, but I haven't sent any of them to Alamy)
  http://www.steves-digicams.com/2005_reviews/c7070.html

  I know I have to switch to a DSLR for better results but I delayed
  until yet because of their prices and the (until recent) missing live
  preview (to visally see the exposure before shooting and not to crawl
  on the ground for close-ups) which now appears by some higher models
  of Olympus, Nikon and Canon.

  Do you think my camera is not decent for Alamy?

  Kemal Eksen
  http://my.photoshelter.com/kemaleksen
  http://www.gp724.com/kemaleksen

  --- In STOCKPHOTO@..., "Valerie Henschel" <henschel@...>
  wrote:
  >
  >
  > Kemal,
  > What camera or lens are you using? Your problem may be low
  quality equipment. The resolution quality of the glass you shoot
  through is more important than the number of pixels recorded.
  >
  > Valerie Henschel
  > henschel@...



   

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Mikael Karlsson-5]

This is some sort of joke right Kemal? No, your Olympus will not  
produce files suitable for Alamy or any other agency/library. Unless  
you photographing something extremely rare. Like the pope skinny  
dipping with Paris Hilton in that big fountain (Fontana di Trevi?) in  
Rome. That you can photograph with a 1 megapixel mobile phone camera  
and still sell it for millions of $.

Your Olympus 7.1 Megapixel has a sensor that measures a whopping  
1/1.8 " (7.18 x 5.32 mm). Compared to the Canon EOS Digital Rebel XT  
(a.k.a. 350D) 8.0 Megapixel, that costs roughly US$400 but has a  
sensor that measures 22.2 x 14.8 mm.

Do you see the huge difference in sensor size even though the number  
of megapixels are close? Megapixels by itself is just meaningless  
marketing drivel. Megapixels in relation to the size of the sensor is  
something very different.

With digital cameras you can compare the sensor size to the size of  
the negative/transparency of film. Your Olympus is like microfiche,  
The Canon 350D somewhere close to 35mm and the Canon and Nikon  
flagship models are close to, in some cases better, than medium  
format film.

Save up your money, buy a 8 (minimum) megapixel DSLR and good quality  
glass and build your equipment up slowly as the money start coming in.

You don't need to start out with a Canon 1Ds Mark III and a  
70-200/2.8L IS but you can also not start out with equipment that is  
so far below the quality requirements that you'll keep getting  
rejected over and over again.

Regards
Mike
____________________________________
Mikael Karlsson
mike@...
www.arrestingimages.com

We supply some of the finest publishers in the United States with  
quality contemporary images of law enforcement, prison, forensics,  
court and similar topics.



On May 9, 2008, at 3:10 AM, Kemal Eksen wrote:

> I have used Olympus C-7070 wide zoom for all by shooting for stock
> (and Olympus WCON-07C .7x Wide Angle Converter Lens for wide angle
> shots, but I haven't sent any of them to Alamy)
> http://www.steves-digicams.com/2005_reviews/c7070.html
>
> I know I have to switch to a DSLR for better results but I delayed
> until yet because of their prices and the (until recent) missing live
> preview (to visally see the exposure before shooting and not to crawl
> on the ground for close-ups) which now appears by some higher models
> of Olympus, Nikon and Canon.
>
> Do you think my camera is not decent for Alamy?
>
> Kemal Eksen
> http://my.photoshelter.com/kemaleksen
> http://www.gp724.com/kemaleksen
>
> --- In STOCKPHOTO@..., "Valerie Henschel" <henschel@...>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Kemal,
> > What camera or lens are you using? Your problem may be low
> quality equipment. The resolution quality of the glass you shoot
> through is more important than the number of pixels recorded.
> >
> > Valerie Henschel
> > henschel@...
>
>
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[David Kilpatrick]

--- In STOCKPHOTO@..., Mikael Karlsson <mike@...> wrote:
>
> This is some sort of joke right Kemal? No, your Olympus will not  
> produce files suitable for Alamy or any other agency/library.

Well, despite shooting loads for Alamy on DSLRs from 6 to 14
megapixels, the highest sales rate per shot accepted (and none have
been rejected - ever) comes from my Konica Minolta A2 2/3rds sensor 8
megapixel consumer bridge cam.

It makes slightly larger 56MB files which produce bigger thumbnails.

The Oly is totally suitable as long as care is taken with raw conversion.

David

[Mikael Karlsson-5]

David:

Your Konica Minolta with the 2/3rds sensor is quite a bit larger than  
a 1/1.8 sensor of the Olympus in question. I don't know if you follow  
the discussions over at the Alamy forums but quite often when people  
complain that they can't get their images through QC it is because  
they are using a small sensor camera and shooting JPG. I plead guilty  
to speed-reading through the post but couldn't see Kemal mentioning  
anywhere that he shoots in RAW so I assumed he was using JPG.

Also, since the Olympus seems to be Kemal's only camera that his  
shooting technique might be slightly less evolved than yours? I'm not  
saying this as an insult to Kemal in any way shape or form but a pro  
that is used to shooting will routinely do better with a "consumer  
grade" digicam simply because of better technique. Has more to do  
with experience than anything else.

Pardon the pun but it's like shooting with a handgun. My wife is no  
doubt far more intelligent than I am. She can make sense of and  
explains sales tax laws to CPAs and businesses for a living. Some of  
the contract-work I do requires me to carry so I have to be certified  
with a handgun every year. My wife has fired a gun ten times in her  
life. Naturally I'll out-shoot her at the range any day of the week.  
But not because I'm smarter, better, or have a better gun - simply  
because I'm used to in, have the technique nailed down, and have done  
it so many times than I know what to expect from my actions. I'm not  
a gun-nut btw. Far from it.

I also admit guilt to clumsy wording in my e-mail yesterday.

Just out of curiosity though, the 56MB files you're talking about  
from your K/M are 16-bit Tiffs right? Otherwise I think I might have  
woken up in a completely different universe from the one I went to  
bed in last night...

Regards
Mike
____________________________________
Mikael Karlsson
mike@...
www.arrestingimages.com

We supply some of the finest publishers in the United States with  
quality contemporary images of law enforcement, prison, forensics,  
court and similar topics.



On May 9, 2008, at 8:21 PM, David Kilpatrick wrote:

> --- In STOCKPHOTO@..., Mikael Karlsson <mike@...> wrote:
> >
> > This is some sort of joke right Kemal? No, your Olympus will not
> > produce files suitable for Alamy or any other agency/library.
>
> Well, despite shooting loads for Alamy on DSLRs from 6 to 14
> megapixels, the highest sales rate per shot accepted (and none have
> been rejected - ever) comes from my Konica Minolta A2 2/3rds sensor 8
> megapixel consumer bridge cam.
>
> It makes slightly larger 56MB files which produce bigger thumbnails.
>
> The Oly is totally suitable as long as care is taken with raw  
> conversion.
>
> David
>
>
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[David Kilpatrick]

--- In STOCKPHOTO@..., Mikael Karlsson <mike@...> wrote:


> Just out of curiosity though, the 56MB files you're talking about  
> from your K/M are 16-bit Tiffs right? Otherwise I think I might have  
> woken up in a completely different universe from the one I went to  
> bed in last night...

No, they are the normal 8-bit export to Alamy size. 5120 pixels wide,
via ACR/CS3 upsizing directly from raw. I never work with 16-bit
TIFFs, I don't have 16-bit eyes and I don't mess around much with
tonal values except at the raw conversion stage.

I am not using the A2 much now but last week I decided to take it to a
concert (easier not to be thrown out) and I'd forgotten about its
amazingly good movie with sound facility. I did a few still shots as
well and considering the age of the camera, and the limits of the
sensor, they have worked out very well.

I'm going to try them with Alamy, they will be the first ISO 200 shots
I've ever put forward for QC though.

David

[Mikael Karlsson-5]

Sorry David,

My mistake, I thought you meant that you got the files 56MB straight  
out of the camera, that's what puzzled me slightly. Still hadn't had  
quite enough caffeine when I wrote that e-mail it seems.

Regards
Mike
____________________________________
Mikael Karlsson
mike@...
www.arrestingimages.com

We supply some of the finest publishers in the United States with  
quality contemporary images of law enforcement, prison, forensics,  
court and similar topics.



On May 10, 2008, at 9:15 AM, David Kilpatrick wrote:

> --- In STOCKPHOTO@..., Mikael Karlsson <mike@...> wrote:
>
> > Just out of curiosity though, the 56MB files you're talking about
> > from your K/M are 16-bit Tiffs right? Otherwise I think I might have
> > woken up in a completely different universe from the one I went to
> > bed in last night...
>
> No, they are the normal 8-bit export to Alamy size. 5120 pixels wide,
> via ACR/CS3 upsizing directly from raw. I never work with 16-bit
> TIFFs, I don't have 16-bit eyes and I don't mess around much with
> tonal values except at the raw conversion stage.
>
> I am not using the A2 much now but last week I decided to take it to a
> concert (easier not to be thrown out) and I'd forgotten about its
> amazingly good movie with sound facility. I did a few still shots as
> well and considering the age of the camera, and the limits of the
> sensor, they have worked out very well.
>
> I'm going to try them with Alamy, they will be the first ISO 200 shots
> I've ever put forward for QC though.
>
> David
>
>
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Kemal Eksen]

> This is some sort of joke right Kemal? No, your Olympus will not  
> produce files suitable for Alamy or any other agency/library.

I must say that your response was a bit depressing yet enlightening
for me. I don't agree completely with you as my photos are already
accepted as RM to Photoshelter collection and GP724 and I guess I can
find some other agencies who welcome photos from a 7MP SLR-like
camera. I would feel glad for any suggestion from the group.
On the other hand I will speed up my switch to DSLR too.

About shooting Raw, I seldom do, because the time the camera needs to
save, the space it takes in the card and simply because I seldom
experiment with the white balance later or convert the picture to HDR
unless there are tricky lighting conditions. Is there so much
difference between Jpeg image converted from Raw and the Jpeg shot by
high quality settings of the camera?


Kemal Eksen
http://my.photoshelter.com/kemaleksen
http://www.gp724.com/kemaleksen

[Mikael Karlsson-5]

Kemal:

Yes, there's a huge difference in between shooting in RAW compared to  
JPG. In most cameras (I don't know the specifics of yours) when you  
shoot in JPG the camera will apply sharpening, saturation, color  
balance and other settings that are much better (quality-wise)  
applied much later in the digital workflow process.

Try shooting RAW. That might do the trick with Alamy. Remember  
David's reply on how he got images from his Konica/Minolta through  
with careful RAW processing? If space (as in space on a memory card)  
is what stops you send me an e-mail of list with your postal address  
and I'll send you free of charge a 2GB CF card so you can at least  
try it out. No need to return the card to me if it doesn't work out  
for you.

Regards
Mike
____________________________________
Mikael Karlsson
mike@...
www.arrestingimages.com

We supply some of the finest publishers in the United States with  
quality contemporary images of law enforcement, prison, forensics,  
court and similar topics.



On May 12, 2008, at 7:12 AM, Kemal Eksen wrote:

> > This is some sort of joke right Kemal? No, your Olympus will not
> > produce files suitable for Alamy or any other agency/library.
>
> I must say that your response was a bit depressing yet enlightening
> for me. I don't agree completely with you as my photos are already
> accepted as RM to Photoshelter collection and GP724 and I guess I can
> find some other agencies who welcome photos from a 7MP SLR-like
> camera. I would feel glad for any suggestion from the group.
> On the other hand I will speed up my switch to DSLR too.
>
> About shooting Raw, I seldom do, because the time the camera needs to
> save, the space it takes in the card and simply because I seldom
> experiment with the white balance later or convert the picture to HDR
> unless there are tricky lighting conditions. Is there so much
> difference between Jpeg image converted from Raw and the Jpeg shot by
> high quality settings of the camera?
>
> Kemal Eksen
> http://my.photoshelter.com/kemaleksen
> http://www.gp724.com/kemaleksen
>
>
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]