| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/19/2007 07:09:12 PM · #1 |
| I'm trying to send some photos to Alamy for review, however they get immediately rejected as it says there uncompressed files are less than 48 MB. I am shooting with a canon 300D, and it has more than 6 megapixels. Is that enough, or what am I doing wrong?? |
|
|
|
07/19/2007 07:10:58 PM · #2 |
The files whatever they may be Tif, bmp. The files have to be 48 MegaBytes. I dont know if they take compressed files also and look att hem for their size in memory.
Theres a couple threads on this its not an easy place to get into at all. Not that it has anything todo with your great work. |
|
|
|
07/19/2007 07:14:41 PM · #3 |
Originally posted by RainMotorsports:
The files whatever they may be Tif, bmp. The files have to be 48 MegaBytes. I dont know if they take compressed files also and look att hem for their size in memory.
Theres a couple threads on this its not an easy place to get into at all. Not that it has anything todo with your great work. |
What I have read, anything that shoots 6 megapixels or more will have an uncompressed file size of 48 MB at 8 bits/channel. From what I understand they only upload .jpg files, therefore compressed.
And yeah, I know it's hard to get into. I'm just giving it a shot, and it will probably take more than a couple trys. |
|
|
|
07/19/2007 07:20:16 PM · #4 |
| You'll have to upsample to get to the 48MB. |
|
|
|
07/19/2007 07:21:54 PM · #5 |
If you are in Photoshop, it will tell you how "big" the file is uncompressed at the bottom of the screen. That should say 48M. If not, the file is too small.
With the Rebel, you will need to upsize the photo some. Use bicubic smoother before you sharpen the image. Also, try not to crop much from your original file.
|
|
|
|
07/19/2007 07:22:09 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by TechnoShroom:
You'll have to upsample to get to the 48MB. |
But I thought that the 6 megapixels would give me the 48MB without having to upsample. |
|
|
|
07/19/2007 07:24:38 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by KelvinC:
Originally posted by TechnoShroom:
You'll have to upsample to get to the 48MB. |
But I thought that the 6 megapixels would give me the 48MB without having to upsample. |
8 megapixels only gives you 22.8MB.
|
|
|
|
07/19/2007 07:30:09 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
If you are in Photoshop, it will tell you how "big" the file is uncompressed at the bottom of the screen. That should say 48M. If not, the file is too small.
With the Rebel, you will need to upsize the photo some. Use bicubic smoother before you sharpen the image. Also, try not to crop much from your original file. |
Wow. I looked at the bottom, and it is only reading 18.0MB. To upsample to 48MB, I would have to change the pixels from 3072 x 2048 to 5019 x 3346. I don't know much about upsampling, but is that not highly excessive and wont it ruin image quality? |
|
|
|
07/19/2007 07:31:19 PM · #9 |
| If the photo is good to begin with, not as much as you'd think. Bicubic Smoother or stair interpolation using Bicubic would be the way to go. |
|
|
|
07/19/2007 07:32:16 PM · #10 |
| Ok. Thank for the help everyone! |
|
|
|
07/19/2007 07:35:25 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by TechnoShroom:
If the photo is good to begin with, not as much as you'd think. Bicubic Smoother or stair interpolation using Bicubic would be the way to go. |
I agree. Bicubic Smoother should do a better job than Stair Interp, but either should get the job done with acceptable outcome with a good enough photo.
|
|
|
|
07/19/2007 07:40:44 PM · #12 |
A somewhat related question...
I read somewhere that ACR does a better job upsampling than PS itself.Is it true? |
|
|
|
07/19/2007 07:48:14 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by abhinaba:
I read somewhere that ACR does a better job upsampling than PS itself.Is it true? |
Yes, it does. Pretty much anything you do in RAW conversion, rather than in PS, is going to yield better results. The one downside is that ACRs size controls aren't very flexible.
Message edited by author 2007-07-19 23:48:58.
|
|
|
|
07/19/2007 08:24:26 PM · #14 |
Thanks Leroy..
I tried both and yes, ACR definitely does it better according to what I can see and judge. |
|
|
|
07/19/2007 08:31:17 PM · #15 |
Dumb question time.
What's the point in having to up-sample your images just to get to 48MB? Wouldn't it make more sense to send them the native image size (with no up sampling) and then, if they sell a large image, they can up sample it themselves "just in time", so to speak?
That would a) reduce their storage requirements, b) decrease upload times, and c) improve the quality of the files (because not everyone's up sampling technique will be as good as theirs).
No?!?
|
|
|
|
07/19/2007 08:34:33 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by dwterry:
Dumb question time.
What's the point in having to up-sample your images just to get to 48MB? Wouldn't it make more sense to send them the native image size (with no up sampling) and then, if they sell a large image, they can up sample it themselves "just in time", so to speak?
That would a) reduce their storage requirements, b) decrease upload times, and c) improve the quality of the files (because not everyone's up sampling technique will be as good as theirs).
No?!? |
Because it would make them responsible for the quality of the upsampled image, and would take processor time and, essentially, a new QC review of the upsampled image.
Besides, why would you want to give someone else control over the quality of your image?
Message edited by author 2007-07-20 00:35:00. |
|
|
|
07/19/2007 08:36:06 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
... you will need to upsize the photo some. Use bicubic smoother before you sharpen the image. |
Alamy specifically requests that you not apply sharpening. |
|
|
|
07/19/2007 08:45:51 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Besides, why would you want to give someone else control over the quality of your image? |
Good point. So why stop at 48Mb? Let's go for 100Mb.
I still don't see the point... unless every image they sell is at 48Mb.
The thing is ... no matter what algorythm you use, up sampling means "inventing new pixels". Pixels that were never there. With absolutely no apparent "gain" in resolution. (unlike in the movies, you can't zoom in and see detail that was never there)
To me, it just makes more sense to remain at the native image size because that is, by definition, the absolute highest quality your image will ever be. Anything you do after that can only degrade the image.
And yes, I do print many of my images that are larger than my camera will natively handle. And yes, I realize that means that some where along the lines the image simply has to be up sampled (either by me in PS or by the print driver).
All I'm saying is that I also realize that, in the process, my image is no longer as pure as it once was and that there are trade offs.
|
|
|
|
07/19/2007 09:06:24 PM · #19 |
The 48MB size is approximately what's needed for a magazine cover, which is one of the "standard" size criteria for stock images.
Not all images will upsample well, or will look good upsampled to that size. Alamy needs to be able to assure the customer that what they see will be at a good enough quality at that size.
If the customer downloads your smaller file and then upsamples it to the needed size (or if Alamy does it "automatically"), and the result is not good, at least two parties to the transaction will be unhappy, and I expect you would be soon as well. |
|
|
|
07/19/2007 09:14:59 PM · #20 |
Ah... didn't know that about about the magazine cover size. And your final comment makes a lot of sense.
Thanks for your patience. I'm stubborn and thick headed, but some times things do manage to penetrate. ;-)
|
|
|
|
07/25/2007 05:12:40 AM · #21 |
AHHHHH NEVER EXPECTED THIS!!!!
I GOT IN!!!
I'M DO HAPPY RIGHT NOW! |
|
|
|
07/25/2007 05:25:09 AM · #22 |
|
