UPDATE: IPTC data and contact details

It really is unfortunate that Alamy sometimes cannot clearly explain what it means. In the blog post IPTC data was explicitly named as being where you ought not to put your personal contact details. Now, I know that most professional photographers do put their details there to prevent their images being orphaned. However, the point is, it really doesn't matter as far as images placed on Alamy matters, because they strip all the IPTC data out and replace them with Alamy's contact details. That didn't strike me until I downloaded a couple and checked the file info.
So what Alamy seems to be concerned about is stuff in the other, display fields - keywords, captions and description etc. Why couldn't the nice people in Alamy just have said that. My apologies to all for the fuss engendered.

Contact details in Alamy images IPTC data

I think it is probably more than possible that most of us have included copyright and contact data in our Alamy images IPTC data. I know that for most of the time I have been submitting I paid little or no notice to IPTC, but over the last couple of years, with all the scares about online piracy and illegal use of images I have a standard routine which includes my name, address and phone number in the IPTC data when I'm finishing up an image.
This, of course, is contrary to the terms of my contract with Alamy, which completely slipped my mind as, I'm sure, it did with many others. Alamy is conducting a sweep of all the images to automatically remove these but are stating that there is no guarantee that other annotations may not be affected. That's a worrisome prospect.
Here is the link to Alamy's post.

Nikon 1 cameras

UPDATE:  A kind reader has alerted me to the fact that Alamy has restored the Nikon 1 cameras to it's recommended camera list, as of the 17th April. Very interesting...... I suppose it means that some contributors managed to push the cameras too far, but many others effectively showed that the cameras were very capable of satisfying QC requirements.

Photoshop and Lightroom (2)

It appears that I might have been wrong in my assumption that my computer may not be capable of handling Photoshop CS6 or Lightroom 4. My workflow dedicated computer is running with an Intel Core 2 Duo chip which is actually not as old as the Pentium 4 and more powerful that the minimum required. So says my son, the software whiz, and who am I to doubt him?
Back to my quandary - do I upgrade to Photoshop CS6 or become a convert to Lightroom 4? When I get over my back operation, I should probably download trial versions and try them out.

Nikon V1 and J1

Nikon V1 and J1, the new CX format camera system which was unveiled just a short while ago quickly appeared on Alamy's recommended camera list. Unfortunately for those who went for it, it seems that Alamy has changed it's mind. Today I was checking whether Canon's G1x had appeared on it yet, when I noticed that there was no sign of the Nikon cameras. I think that this is unprecedented - as in, a camera being removed from the list.
So far, it still looks as only sensors of 4/3rds and upwards in size will satisfy Alamy's QC requirements.
Check update above.

Photoshop and Lightroom

I am currently using Photoshop CS4 and perfectly happy with it's capabilities. In line with my previous practice, I had intended to skip CS5 and upgrade to CS6 when it came out, which is due shortly. Then Adobe said that that would not be possible, upgrading to 5 would have to happen first. After the online furore that this aroused, they backed down and said they would permit upgrading from 4 to 6, for this year only. In future, upgrading will only be possible with consecutive versions of the program.
With that scare behind me, I waited patiently for CS6. Adobe has just released a beta version to sample it. Unfortunately the system requirements have now made it impossible for me to take it. PSCS 6 needs a Pentium 4 powered computer to operate ( incidentally I've just discovered that CS5 did as well). My work flow dedicated computer is only a couple of years old and obviously I was too mean to buy a decent machine back then.
So Photoshop CS is no longer an option for me. That's OK as far as what it's capable of doing for me - I'm perfectly happy to keep working on my TIFFs with what i've got. But it's the RAW conversion engine that I'm interested in, or worried about. In the first place, it appears that the major improvements that are taking place in digital capture in recent years include the quality of conversion of RAW files. Apart from that, it also appears that the camera manufacturers keep bringing out new cameras with modified RAW file types, which require an updated conversion program to keep up with them. Why on earth don't they all agree to standardize by using DNG? It's very irritating. At least Adobe's RAW to DNG conversion program is updateable and free.
Adobe has just released Lightroom 4 and that started me thinking. Although I tried it before on trial and could not make head or tail of it, I have to say that I made no attempt to teach myself with all the online aids available. So I reckoned it was my own fault that I didn't like it. And Lightroom has the same RAW engine as Photoshop. Imagine my chagrin when I discovered that it, too, requires a Pentium 4 machine, and Windows 7 or Vista operating system. I am running Windows XP.
So, should I spend lots of dosh on a new computer and then spend more on an upgrade to PSCS6 or Lightroom? Not an attractive proposition for me, because really I do not produce many new images these days due to health problems with me and my nearest and dearest. I think what I might do is buy Photoshop Elements, which also has the same RAW engine as it's big brothers in the Adobe stable. Once the RAW images have been converted to TIFFs, I can work on them further in CS4. That will save me having to learn the full workings of a new program, won't it?  We will see. Watch this space for further developments........

This image can now be published. It is the first few lines of Ulysses by James Joyce. Seventy years after his death, copyright has lapsed. Before January of this year, the Joyce estate would have chased me!

Canon G1x

I have already dealt with Nikon's latest version of a pocketable camera, the V1 and J1, which are not really pocketable because they have interchangeable lenses and as soon as you add one it's a bulky machine. They, of course used small sensors, much bigger than normal compact cameras but smaller than a 4/3rds sensor.

Canon have gone in a different direction by continuing their Powershot G series with the G1x. While the thing is a brick ( 116.7 x 80.5 x 64.7 mm / 4.5 x 3.35 x 2.5 inches approx.) and not very beautiful, it still ticks many boxes. The combination of 14 megapixels, the comparatively large sensor and the absence of an anti-aliasing filter should mean extremely high resolving power. The lens, which is telescopic with a range of 28-112mm equivalent certainly covers many eventualities. It also has a zoom optical viewfinder, which has faults - only 77% of the picture is covered and it suffers from parallax. Personally, I prefer an electronic viewfinder which gives you shooting information as well but I suppose size considerations come into play. Those reviewers who have used the real thing have other criticisms as well, especially David Kilpatrick in the British Journal of Photography, but Dpreview.com have only published a preview so far. It will be worthwhile to see their full review and sample pics. As it stands, however, the G1x is being promoted as the ideal standby camera for professionals, one they need never be without, with useability and quality levels approaching a DSLR. If it proves itself, then I think a lot of stock photographers may put aside their DSLR kit in favour of the G1x, especially when travelling, because it will inevitably appear on the approved camera list at Alamy.

Quotes from a forum:
First, from a highly qualified reviewer:    " It's better than 7D quality cropped to the same size (14 megapixels). And the lens is better than any kit zoom, actually it's better than certain L zooms - you can use it wide open at the wide end with more confidence of corner-to-corner sharpness than a full frame user with a 24-70mm can hope for."
Second, from a very busy experienced professional:     "from the few photos I took ,right off the top I could see the IQ is better than my Nikon D7000 with almost every lens I've used!"