Agency requires 30mb+ digital files --How ?

[paulo35]

I have for years sold photos ( trannies ) via an agency but for digital images they require digital files of a min 30mb !!. Using a canon 20 D which produces files of about 3+mb on jpeg or 6/7mb as raw , can anyone tell me is there a way to upsize these to the required size for the agency . Any advice appreciated ( Have Photoshop 7 )

[kawter2]

I have for years sold photos ( trannies ) via an agency but for digital images they require digital files of a min 30mb !!. Using a canon 20 D which produces files of about 3+mb on jpeg or 6/7mb as raw , can anyone tell me is there a way to upsize these to the required size for the agency . Any advice appreciated ( Have Photoshop 7 )



16bit uncompressed TIFF file will give you that

[paulo35]

sorry to be thick but how does that work ?

[lmelendez]

When you take the picture in RAW, you can then converted to a TIFF. One of the utilities that came with your 20D should be able to do that. I have a DRebel, and the "file viewer" can do that conversion and get me huge files (not sure the size... but the TIFF are HUGE).

[robertwgross]

When you process/convert the RAW file, you'll have options like converting it to JPEG, or TIF. Within TIF, you'll have options of 8 or 16 bits per color channel (24 or 48 bits total).

My 8 bit TIF files are about 18 MB, and my 16 bit TIF files are about 36 MB.

---Bob Gross---

[OneManArmy]

When you take the picture in RAW, you can then converted to a TIFF. One of the utilities that came with your 20D should be able to do that. I have a DRebel, and the "file viewer" can do that conversion and get me huge files (not sure the size... but the TIFF are HUGE).I have to lol at camera people talking about 20mb "huge" files... I come from a videography background :)

[jeric777]

what do you gain from using 8bit, 16bit tiff vs jpeg files?

[Canuck]

what do you gain from using 8bit, 16bit tiff vs jpeg files?

With more bits you get more (lifelike) colours. I think you get 256 colours from 8 bit and 16.7 Million from 16 bit. I'd be up for correction if this is incorrect, but I think you get the idea. I recon another way to look at theis is that TIFFs are not compressed and ia the full hog in terms of info; jpegs are compressed, sometimes to the point of rediculous. Try this one out...take a pic in large/fine and save it as a TIFF; then do that again and save it as the smallest JPEG you can. I am ure you will see a difference.

[KennyG]

I have for years sold photos ( trannies ) via an agency but for digital images they require digital files of a min 30mb !!. Using a canon 20 D which produces files of about 3+mb on jpeg or 6/7mb as raw , can anyone tell me is there a way to upsize these to the required size for the agency . Any advice appreciated ( Have Photoshop 7 )

I had a similar issue with my 4mp 1D and all I did was up-size the images in C1 at conversion time. You can do the same with BreezeBrowser and continue using PS7 for the rest of your post-processing. You would end up with 20MB files converting to TIF from RAW without any up-sizing anyway, so the increase is minimal.

It is an hangover with some agencies from the days of scanning film and they have not moved into the real world yet. I would try submitting one 20mb straight conversion file in with some up-sized and see if they notice, most of them don't. You could also ask them if the specification is for scanned images rather than native digital. That will tell you whether they are operating in the stone age or not.

[chris maddock]

When you process/convert the RAW file, you'll have options like converting it to JPEG, or TIF. Within TIF, you'll have options of 8 or 16 bits per color channel (24 or 48 bits total).

My 8 bit TIF files are about 18 MB, and my 16 bit TIF files are about 36 MB.

---Bob Gross---

Check that the agency will accept 16-bit TIFFs - some want 8-bit only

KRs
Chris

[KennyG]

Good point Chris, most agencies and publications will not accept 16-bit. The human eye can't distinguish colours beyond 8-bit anyway.

[Red Squirrel]

Just did a quick calculation on colours and I get this

8 bit tiff
8 bits for each channel = 2^8 levels = 256 colour levels per channel
= 24bits per pixel , or 2^24 = 16.7million colours

16bit tiff
16 bits per channel = 2^16 levels = 65536 colour levels per channel
= 48bits per pixel, or 2^48 = 268,435,456 million colours!

I doubt the human eye could differentiate between 8 and 16 bit tiffs even if a monitor could display it!

[phili1]

You can not go by what the Camera tells you. the mega pixels and file size are 2 different systems.

An 8 Mega pixel Camera produces ( in an image processor) a 23.4 mega bite file size at 8 bits Raw convert to Tiff or JPG it stays the same size. It becomes a 46.8 mega bite fils size at 16 bits.

At 16 bits you can only convert to Photshop Raw/PSD/PNG or Tiff, no JPG available.

It is this they are looking for.They want around 30 for cropping purposes, I would asume.

If they accept digital files I am sure they have the proper tools to handle 16 bit raw or tiff. Find out because your raw file is 46.8 at 16 bitts.

Ken G seems to know allot about there habits.

[trakmeister]

I use Lizardtech Genuine Fractals plugin for Photoshop for this. Quite expensive but works well.
Mike

[BobbyC]

I use QImage Pro to upsize files and am very pleased with it.

www.ddisoftware.com/qimage

[ingenus]

Why are people here talking about upsizing? Surely, if a jpg is shot, the standard procedure is to do your PP and then save as a tiff so that all the info in the shot is saved. (The file will be about 20-30Mb depending on camera and number of bits.) Then it can be saved as a jpg at a later. But, always retain the uncompressed tiff file.
How many people here edit their jpg and then continue to save as a jpg?
It surprises me that so many people don't understand that every time they save a jpg they are losing data and hence quality.

[vwpilot]

A more important question to them might be the file dimensions they require. As you can see you can manipulate the file size of the photo by using tif, RAW or jpeg, 8 bit or 16 bit color, but they are all dimensionally the same and if they are worried about being able to crop and still do a 300 dpi full page magazine ad, then none of what was posted is really going to affect that. But the pixel dimensions will.

Many will tell you then need a minimum of 4000 pixels for example on the long side in order to have enough for what they normally do. Many places keep using the MB rating because they are used to old scans being done as 8 bit tifs in the pixel dimensions they wanted came out to that MB. Ask them if there is a dimension size and then what kind of file they want and then you can know if you need to re-size the photos or not. You might be shooting the right sized photo right now, but if you do it in jpeg its not going to be 30 MB, all you'll need to do is start to shoot it in RAW and send them a tif.

[Longwatcher]

With more bits you get more (lifelike) colours. I think you get 256 colours from 8 bit and 16.7 Million from 16 bit. I'd be up for correction if this is incorrect, but I think you get the idea. I recon another way to look at theis is that TIFFs are not compressed and ia the full hog in terms of info; jpegs are compressed, sometimes to the point of rediculous. Try this one out...take a pic in large/fine and save it as a TIFF; then do that again and save it as the smallest JPEG you can. I am ure you will see a difference.

Technically TIF are compressed, just losslessly compressed. BMP files are not compressed, which is why they are even larger files then TIF images. TIFs use a method that says if more then 4? pixels are the same value then instead of listing each pixel separately it goes "# x pixel value". BMP on the other hand lists each pixel individually even they are all black. In theory if you convert all of your images from your camera to BMP (shot at same size setting) they will all be exactly the same file size in BMP. Where as TIF files will be different sizes depending on the content of the image. Jpeg's on the other hand use a 8x8 pixel matrix to compress the data, which is why you get the blockiness in highly compressed jpegs.

[kawter2]

Technically TIF are compressed, just losslessly compressed. BMP files are not compressed, which is why they are even larger files then TIF images.

Tis is not correct

that is LZW compression. If you do not choose "no compression" then the TIFF will not be compressed.

[paulo35]

thanks chaps this is making me begin to suck my thumb again after 50 yrs !

[robertwgross]

Tis is not correct

that is LZW compression. If you do not choose "no compression" then the TIFF will not be compressed.

I agree. TIF-LZW seemed to be a good thing ten years ago, because storage capacity was more expensive and network capacity was limited. But then, as image resolution out of the camera got better and better, TIF-LZW wasn't so hot. In many cases, due to the fine detail in the image, the compression can't squeeze much out, and the file ends up being about the same as the plain TIF.

So, TIF is not a compressed format. TIF-LZW is, but it isn't used that much anymore. JPEG is a compressed format, but its compression depth is user variable.

---Bob Gross---

[evilenglishman]

don't forget that saving it as CMYK instead of RGB will bump the file size up quite a bit too.

[DaveG]

I have for years sold photos ( trannies ) via an agency but for digital images they require digital files of a min 30mb !!. Using a canon 20 D which produces files of about 3+mb on jpeg or 6/7mb as raw , can anyone tell me is there a way to upsize these to the required size for the agency . Any advice appreciated ( Have Photoshop 7 )

You should speak to the agency and find out what's going on. Your 20D as you know will make 24 meg (8 bit) files and you can save them as .psd, .tif or whatever. You could make them into a large jpeg (12). But unless they are 16 bit RAW files they are natually 24 meg in size - assuming that you shoot RAW or Large Jpeg.

Now the reason that I suggest asking them some questions is to find out what they really want.

If I was them the last thing I'd want is photographers out there happily interpolating their files to goose them up to 30 meg. One glance at the EXIF information will tell them that it came from a 20D and they KNOW that it's an 8MP camera so a larger file size won't fool them, unless they are particularly stupid!

If I was the agency I would want photographers to shoot everything in RAW so the files are as pristine and untouched as possible, and then I'd let MY people sharpen them, colour correct and so on. I'd actually want two files from a photographer: A nice bright completely photographer processed large jpeg, and a copy of the original .cr2 RAW file. That way I could see how it could look and then I could process it to the agencies standards.

If they will accept 16 bit files then 30 meg is no problem as a RAW file converted to 16 bit will yield a 48 meg file. But it will have to be saved as a tiff or .psd file since you will have to convert back to 8 bit before you can make it into a jpeg.

In any case what I think is going on is that the stock agencies have been hit with a deluge of people who buy a D70 or a Drebel on Tuesday, want to go into the stock photography business on Wednesday, and the agencies want to nip that in the bud! A friend of mine in Europe told me that his agency told him a year ago: "... none of that 6MP (18 meg) crap." for public consumption and then whispered " ... unless it's really good."

In any case other than slide scans or medium format digital I don't see how they can get 30 meg 8 bit files, but maybe it's a way to tell us all to get lost.

[robertwgross]

don't forget that saving it as CMYK instead of RGB will bump the file size up quite a bit too.

I doubt that anybody in their right might converts to CMYK and saves it that way, outside of a lab, at least.

---Bob Gross---

[KennyG]

Let's make this really simple.

Shoot in RAW. Converting to 8-bit TIF produces a file of around 24mb without doing anything else. Scaling to 113% in C1 at conversion time produces a TIF of 30mb and next to no degradation of image quality. In BreezeBrowser Pro, under post-processing settings, set image size to a maximum of 13.25x13.25 and 300dpi, to produce a file size of 30mb, again with no discernable degradation. Then simply do any Photoshop work as normal. This is the fastest and easiest workflow that produces the best results.

Forget all the CMYK or 16-bit TIF stuff. Agencies work with, and prefer TIF files. JPG is fine for the web, newsprint and personal prints, but if you want to sell your work via an agency then without a doubt the RAW to TIF workflow wins every time.

[phili1]

Thanks Kenny G. You taught us someting new and based on that I investigated and found that in Photoshop CS you can do the same thing when converting from Raw.The settings at the bottom are as follows:

Space - Depth (8 -16 BIt) - Size - Resolution

In Size is a scrool down and if you select s4096 by 2336 you get 32Meg file.

Wow if we open are eyes and mind what we can find,

[DaveG]

Let's make this really simple.

Shoot in RAW. Converting to 8-bit TIF produces a file of around 24mb without doing anything else. Scaling to 113% in C1 at conversion time produces a TIF of 30mb and next to no degradation of image quality. In BreezeBrowser Pro, under post-processing settings, set image size to a maximum of 13.25x13.25 and 300dpi, to produce a file size of 30mb, again with no discernable degradation. Then simply do any Photoshop work as normal. This is the fastest and easiest workflow that produces the best results.

Forget all the CMYK or 16-bit TIF stuff. Agencies work with, and prefer TIF files. JPG is fine for the web, newsprint and personal prints, but if you want to sell your work via an agency then without a doubt the RAW to TIF workflow wins every time.

But why interpolate it to make a 30 meg file? The agency could do this and do it better. If they REALLY want 30 meg files - with no interpolation - then this won't work, and as I wrote before they'll know from the EXIF information. So find out if 24 meg files would be OK, BEFORE you waste a lot of time.

Three or four times a year I get asked to submit a bid in reply to some agency's assignment specification, and those specs are often pages long. They also can be self contradictory. I had one where the subject's had to be shot on the grey background. It went on - a few pages later - to encourage me to shoot outside. I would often get requests where the shoot had to be done on "2 1/4 x 2 1/4" film. Since I used a Mamiya 645 this was impossible. With all of these concerns a simple phone call fixed the problem. I explained my concern with the spec and how I would work around it and they always said that it would be OK.

You have to understand that these things are often written by someone who put it in years ago and it gets boilerplated into the latest "requirement". Or someone who misunderstands.

I have no concern about you interpolating the file. A 10% increase won't hurt anything. But if the agency wants natural 30 meg files, you are still out of luck. That phone call and an explanation, "My camera makes 24 meg, 8 bit files, and YOU guys can upsize them to 30 meg if you want to. Is this OK?" will probably straighten everything out.

[aeroshots2003]

This discussion is the main reason why I still do wetfilm.

I asked a UK mag a year ago about going digital and what their requirements were in this matter. I suggested buying a 1D MkI, but they immediately advised me to stick with film, because
a) the 1D files would only give them possibility to print A4 size max
b) film would be drum-scanned to get the most info out of it.

Today's 8Mpix DSLRs still don't seem to provide the required A3 size output straight out of the camera (3500 pix/300dpi equals 11,6 inch, so you'd need 4960 pix to get to 16,5 inch), it still requires a 42% (4960/3500) interpolation.
Similarly, the old 1D gives 2500/300dpi = 8,3 inch, so 11,9 inch A4 size print equals a 42% interpolation (the max use of a 4Mpix size image as stated by the UK mag).

But I think that if you provide a non-upsized 8Mpix DSLR image to the editorial staff, it will be most useable. In fact, how many images are printed A3 size? And only if the image is GOOD, they will use it on a two-page spread despite the (slight) image degration due to interpolation.

I am seriously contemplating on buying a 20D (1D MkII is a serious cash-drain to me) and using/submitting digital and wetfilm mixed to the editorial staff. If the 8Mpix images seem workable to the mags, I will sell one of my 1 Series film bodies and give priority to digital photography.

Seems I'm a die-hard wetfilm user... :-)

[f8]

agency i submit to wont accept 16bit tiffs, have to upsize from a 24mb file to 60mb using GF

[kufel]

Longwatcher - every single tiff produced by C1Pro is identical in size (RAW from 1DMkII, previously 10D - same situation))

[vwpilot]

I had something similar happen.

I had a client send me an email saying that the files I had sent them werent large enough for their printer to do the poster they were getting done. They needed 300 dpi files.

So in order to keep the client satisfied I took over working with the printer instead of leaving them thinking that I was not providing good enough photos.

I talked with the printer and they were not so up on the dslr side of things. They wanted 18x24 images at 300dpi and said I could send them prints and they could scan them as needed. I suggested letting me re-size the files and send those and if they were not satisfied with that they could make prints from the files that the client sent them to do their scans.

I used Photo Zoom to re-size the files and thought they looked great, sent them the CD with a letter explaining the colorspace they were in and telling them that I had done no adjustments at all and they would likely need USM as most dslrs do, but since they know their printing gear better than me I would leave that up to them.

So its really a matter of not many agencies and printers being up to speed in the digital world and sometimes they need to be walked through things to make sure your files can be used.

[KennyG]

But why interpolate it to make a 30 meg file? The agency could do this and do it better. If they REALLY want 30 meg files - with no interpolation - then this won't work, and as I wrote before they'll know from the EXIF information. So find out if 24 meg files would be OK, BEFORE you waste a lot of time.

They do not care about interpolation, trust me on this, I have dealt with enough of them to know. They have simple, stupid, tick-box rules - 30mb and 300dpi, and that's it. They would not be happy with something like an upsized 2mb to 30mb JPG however, as the quality loss would really obvious.

I have supplied a number of these files using C 1 for my conversions, never had any rejected and a lot of them used. Most digital pro photographers supplying agencies and some publications with similar stupid, outdated rules have been doing this with D30 and 1D files (done it myself) for the last few years. This is an even bigger step up than from current 6mp or 8mp based sensors. They didn't revert to film/scanning or go out and buy a digital back to get the right file sizes. They used either GF or PS to up-size.

Any agency that works on the scanned film size principal and nothing else does not have long for this world. Some of the old-school agencies I deal with have now changed their rules to 20mb TIF's for digital camera files, which is a sensible compromise. My last two double-page spread shots were 20mb TIFs, one from a 1D (up-sized) and the other from a 1D MK-II (native). The quality was excellent as those that have seen the work will vouch.

[Longwatcher]

Longwatcher - every single tiff produced by C1Pro is identical in size (RAW from 1DMkII, previously 10D - same situation))

I stand corrected.

I just did some research and found that I was remembering old information (like several years old). A non compressed TIF is the same file size as a BMP (or should be) so I stand corrected on TIF. But the LZW compression was lossless and was standard for many years, which is why I got it wrong. I just had not noticed that they had changed it, I just automatically selected no compression in PS and did not think about it.

That's what I get for being an old school image analyst who has been working with digital images since 1984, literally. :D