Help with 49MB Alamy Image Requirements

[mattograph]

Hope I can get some help with this.

Trying to submit my Alamy QC photos, and can't get a 48 mb tiff file to save out of zoombrowser. The best I can do 8 bit is 46.9.

I shot my photos is Raw with a 30D. Does anyone have any thoughts?

Thanks
Ty


Uncompressed file sizes of between 48MB and 200MB. This means you should make your JPEG file from an 8 bit TIFF file that is at least 48MB. Our maximum size for the uncompressed file is 200MB.

[NJ350]

I found this link in the Alamy Forum

http://www.youngimaging.com/Article-HowDoISizeAnImageSoAlamyWillAcceptIt.asp

Found it very useful and easy to follow

[Anke]

You have to upsize. I upsize images from my 1D Mark III by between 125 and 150%. Also Alamy require JPGs, which when saved are usually between 7 and 12Mb on disk, 50-60Mb uncompressed.

[mattograph]

Okay, so using NJ's recommendation (thank you) I wound up with a file size in photoshop of 50.1 mb, and a saved size (read though explorer properties) of 6.3 mb. That sound about right?

[Anke]

Okay, so using NJ's recommendation (thank you) I wound up with a file size in photoshop of 50.1 mb, and a saved size (read though explorer properties) of 6.3 mb. That sound about right?

Sounds good, send it :D

[mattograph]

Many thanks, everyone. Another example of why I love this forum!

[ssim]

With some of the stock agencies that I have dealt with they put this requirement on the images in order to limit the use of lower end bodies. In most cases they will catch upsized images and reject them. It is certainly worth a try but their reviewers are tough.

One has to remember that alot of what companies such as Alamy have on their website is legacy from those that scan negatives and upload them as digital files. It is very easy to get 48mb from a scanned negative

[mattograph]

With some of the stock agencies that I have dealt with they put this requirement on the images in order to limit the use of lower end bodies. In most cases they will catch upsized images and reject them. It is certainly worth a try but their reviewers are tough.

One has to remember that alot of what companies such as Alamy have on their website is legacy from those that scan negatives and upload them as digital files. It is very easy to get 48mb from a scanned negative

Well, I have not submitted my images yet. so I don't know what they will say. From what I hear, almost everyone gets bounced the first time.

Do you think I will have problems with my 30D?

[Anke]

Well, I have not submitted my images yet. so I don't know what they will say. From what I hear, almost everyone gets bounced the first time.

Do you think I will have problems with my 30D?

I didn't get bounced first time, and my images were upsized 150% from my 20D. Just don't sharpen, have them 8-Bit and over 48Mb and as long as the images are well exposed and free from dust then you should be OK.
Back when I started you had to post them and wait over a month, now they take about 24hours.
Go for it! :D

[mattograph]

Thanks for the encouragement. I hope to report back on how it goes soon!

[photoguy6405]

I've read some places that upsizing should be done in 10% increments, but the suggestions here seem to say that upsizing 50% at once is fine. Is the 10% thing related to 'lesser' programs, or something?

Also, what's the idea behind no sharpening? For the client to sharpen as they wish? To prevent too many people from screwing up an otherwise good image? Sharpening is my technical nemesis, so I don't mind, I'm just curious.

[Anke]

I've read some places that upsizing should be done in 10% increments, but the suggestions here seem to say that upsizing 50% at once is fine. Is the 10% thing related to 'lesser' programs, or something?

Also, what's the idea behind no sharpening? For the client to sharpen as they wish? To prevent too many people from screwing up an otherwise good image? Sharpening is my technical nemesis, so I don't mind, I'm just curious.

I jump straight to 150%, I can't see any benefit from smaller increments.
As for sharpening, its best to leave the sharpening to the client as they know what level they require and for what purpose, i.e. sharpening for screen is different for print.

[airfrogusmc]

Allot of publications usually want true to size images at 300 DPI and just going in and bump'n up the size in photoshop doesn't really work well. If they're not sized properly they with some publications you might get a message saying the image needs to be resent at a higher resulution or it just may not be used.

There are some good prgrams out there that will let you resize with min less to IQ like Genuine Fractals.

[NZDoug]

I've read some places that upsizing should be done in 10% increments, but the suggestions here seem to say that upsizing 50% at once is fine. Is the 10% thing related to 'lesser' programs, or something?

Also, what's the idea behind no sharpening? For the client to sharpen as they wish? To prevent too many people from screwing up an otherwise good image? Sharpening is my technical nemesis, so I don't mind, I'm just curious.

Pre Photoshop 7, it was good to go in 10% increments.
uprez in bi cubic smoother, in one hit in CS or later.
GFs good.
Sharpen at final output. That is, the picture buyer, designer or printer makes the call. :D

[Anke]

Pre Photoshop 7, it was good to go in 10% increments.
uprez in bi cubic smoother, in one hit in CS or later.
GFs good.
Sharpen at final output. That is, the picture buyer, designer or printer makes the call. :D

All good, but don't sharpen before sending to Alamy, it will fail QC.

[photoguy6405]

How about Noise Ninja? I've fallen in love with that program. Too much noise is on their list of "no-nos".

[NZDoug]

Noise reduction programs soften the image making them unacceptable. :D

[Anke]

I wouldn't Noise Reduce either, let the client take care of that.

[photoguy6405]

So, maybe some color tweaking... if that, but not overdone... and leave it at that, eh?

[NZDoug]

Do what ever you want. There are so many different looks and styles, go for what looks good to you.

[mattograph]

Thanks to all for your help. Got accepted last night, so I guess I am off and running. Couldn't have done it without you!!!

[photoguy6405]

How long did it take to get accepted?

[mattograph]

How long did it take to get accepted?

3 trys for me. They turned the images around pretty quick (24 hours). I just started using photoshop, so I was causing my own problems. Once I stopped editing my images there, it was a snap.

[photoguy6405]

3 trys for me. They turned the images around pretty quick (24 hours). I just started using photoshop, so I was causing my own problems. Once I stopped editing my images there, it was a snap.

Really? So, you pretty much left them 'as is'?

[mattograph]

Really? So, you pretty much left them 'as is'?

Pretty much. I did some exposure control and cropping in PS, but that was it. Two of my images got bounced for "over-editing" which was a result of my cloning work.

This is not to say that you can't edit in PS and get acceptable results. Quite the contrary. Its just I'm not that good at it yet.