Alamy blacklists compact and bridge digitals

In an unusual move, probably designed to cut down the work of rejecting submissions which fail to make the grade, the on-line picture library Alamy has published lists of cameras (by make) which will NEVER produce a file acceptable to pass their Quality Control. It includes all the Sony Cyber-shots ever made as far as we can tell! They say: “Check your camera – do NOT submit any images from camera models featured on the list below. Camera models featured on this list do not produce files that are capable of passing Alamy’s QC standards.”
The good news is that all Sony Alpha DSLRs from the 100 on are included in a different list of RECOMMENDED cameras – all are confirmed as being capable of providing adequate images.
Here’s the Cyber-shot blacklist:
Please note at present Alamy does not accept any images from the following Sony digital cameras.

Now Samsung got in there by mistake, I think, but it includes some cameras I once thought were adequate such as the Cyber-shot F-828. Not surprisingly, the similarly specified Konica Minolta Dimage cameras are also blacklisted:

It’s sad to see the A2 and A200 – both providing .MRW raw files which can be of exceptional quality at ISO 64 with careful handling – included in such a list. But this is reality. Earlier this year, I included in our own Alamy submissions a great set of 60 images by my friend Peter Fry who had visited the Caribbean and Central America using a Sony F-828. I liked his people pix enough to feature them in Photoworld, and they reproduced excellently. But they resulted in the first ever total rejection of a batch of files I have had from Alamy.
More controversial is the Alamy list for Sigma – even the latest (or almost-latest) SD-14 and the popular pocketable DP-1 are banned:

Well, in fact I have many images taken on the SD-9, SD-10 and SD-14 on Alamy and submitted as complete batches too, not hiding amongst a submission. My entire set from one trip to Turkey was shot on the SD-9, and all the files were duly taken up to 48MB. They have sold, as well, and no complaints or refunds have ever followed the sales. For owners of the DP-1 expecting to use it as a stock-photo notebook camera, this latest list is a knock-back.
And, in the Kodak list, the DCS760 is blackballed. This beautifully made Nikon F5 based DSLR has one of the best 6 megapixel sensors ever designed, within its limited working ISO range. With a 1.3X factor, it has very large pixels and uses very narrow-cut colour filters producing superb colour quality. I have owned one for a few months, and of course, there are a few Alamy pix from it. I would have to rate the quality higher than my Konica Minolta Dynax 7D or 5D six megapixels in some respects.
Also, the excellent Ricoh GR Digital and GR II are both rejected. Again, I have an entire set of images taken using this GR, an optically superb fix focal length wide angle 8 megapixel compact, which went on to Alamy as a set in the past without question. They are still some of the best-looking files for colour and the performance of that 28mm-equvalent lens. Even the pics with the 21mm-equivalent wide angle converter are up to DSLR standard.
What exactly is sharp enough for Alamy?
Here is an example of what is NOT sharp enough:

This is a picture of Stormont, the Belfast Northern Ireland Assembly building, taken by Ailsa Kilpatrick when she visited the Assembly earlier in the year. She used a Sony Alpha A350 with 16-105mm SAL lens. It’s been straightened up a touch and distortion removed (though it was at the long end of the lens, and this was just a minor verticals correction). Contrast has been increased greatly to give it some impact. The point of focus, as you would expect, is on the columns and facade of the building, but this is the result which Alamy QC rejected, when enlarged to 48MB size (5120 pixels high):

Bear in mind that no capture sharpening or unsharp masking can be used when sending files to Alamy, so some natural softness will be present due to AA filter and deBayer operations. I would have said, looking at the detail shown in the upper egg and dart string of the course above the column’s capital, that although the 16-105mm has produced a slightly ‘dirty’ rendering, it’s well up to the sharpness of any of the 6 or 8 megapixel shots I have filed in past years. But when sent the clip (because this was the image they rejected, taking with it several dozen others which are automatically kicked back if you get one in the batch failed) they confirmed that they upheld their QC decision.
This is no great worry, Ailsa took many other pictures some of which are already accepted and on-line, and many are that little bit cleaner and sharper than this. But when asked, Alamy’s staff stated that standards for QC have not changed. What was once accepted (6 megapixels enlarged to 17 megapixels, the 48MB size required) was still accepted. There had been no shift in standards created by the effect on staff of seeing so many 14, 16, 21, and 24 megapixel files arriving today. I found this hard to believe, because my own standards have changed after using the Alpha 900. My earlier work no longer looks sharp enough!
A few days later, the list of unacceptable cameras appeared on Alamy’s blog. They may not have been willing to be drawn into making any comment about improving standards, but their action speaks louder than words. In the list of non-approved cameras are several mainstays of early Alamy shooters – successful ones as well. The Konica Minolta Dimage A2 and A200, the Canon PowerShot S1 Pro, the Ricoh GR Digital… all these were purchased in their dozens (even sought for on the used market) by travelling Alamy contributors wanting raw files from a lightweight versatile camera with 8 megapixels.
Now that era is passed. If you are planning on trying Alamy, study the example above. It was, I am told, a borderline case but nevertheless not good enough. If you can’t get something visibly better than this (and it makes a perfectly sharp looking A2 print!) don’t bank on getting your Sony Alpha, or any other, images past Alamy Quality Control.
– David Kilpatrick