woody Posted October 6, 2014 Share Posted October 6, 2014 Just uploaded a few images and noticed that restriction is detailed at 17MB or just over 6MP although the published guidance is still 24MB - anyone else see this? Good new for me as that was my standard size for renders up to last year... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted October 7, 2014 Share Posted October 7, 2014 I've noticed the 17MB minimum as well. Guess the uploading info never got updated. Or perhaps we're missing something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Endicott Posted October 7, 2014 Share Posted October 7, 2014 It would be good to get a definitive answer on this - I have some images taken with an 8.2mp camera years ago that I've had to upsize to get through....I still have some of these images that I can edit and upload. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin P Wilson Posted October 7, 2014 Share Posted October 7, 2014 At 8.2Mpx they should have gone through OK when it came down to 24Mbytes but there would have been no room for any but the most trivial cropping. If the 17Mpx is real it brings my old EOS-1D2 back into use, it's OK for news anyway. I should perhaps get some mileage out it as it has been rather under used. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Endicott Posted October 7, 2014 Share Posted October 7, 2014 At 8.2Mpx they should have gone through OK when it came down to 24Mbytes but there would have been no room for any but the most trivial cropping. If the 17Mpx is real it brings my old EOS-1D2 back into use, it's OK for news anyway. I should perhaps get some mileage out it as it has been rather under used. For images taken with the Canon 20d and 30d, I had to upsize just slightly to get them through. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woody Posted October 7, 2014 Author Share Posted October 7, 2014 Guess the best thing to do is try one then Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin P Wilson Posted October 7, 2014 Share Posted October 7, 2014 Or ask member services Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woody Posted October 7, 2014 Author Share Posted October 7, 2014 Or ask member services Ha! If I did that I might start reading the manuals that come with software & kit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin P Wilson Posted October 7, 2014 Share Posted October 7, 2014 RTFM indeed! Real men don't ask for directions! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiskerke Posted October 7, 2014 Share Posted October 7, 2014 Is it because of iPhone cameras? wim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alamy Posted October 8, 2014 Share Posted October 8, 2014 Yes, we've lowered our minimum file size from 24mb to 17mb.We've done this because it brings us in line with the uncompressed file size of a 6 megapixel DSLR camera, which is the minimum specification camera we accept images from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woody Posted October 8, 2014 Author Share Posted October 8, 2014 Excellent!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin P Wilson Posted October 8, 2014 Share Posted October 8, 2014 In time I might be able to submit some rather good Canon D30 images (3Mpx) from my first digital camera! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jill Morgan Posted October 8, 2014 Share Posted October 8, 2014 I think this is great as most editorial usage doesn't require a super large file size. Jill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NYCat Posted October 8, 2014 Share Posted October 8, 2014 It's been announced on Twitter. This is the new requirement... We need: Images from at least a 6 megapixel DSLR or more. See here for: Recommended digital camera list JPEG’s saved at a high quality setting (i.e. Photoshop level 10 or above). Alpha-numeric file names ending in .jpg. RGB files, not single channel greyscale or CMYK. Uncompressed file sizes of more than 17MB. This means you must use a DSLR camera with at least 6 megapixels. Paulette Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Chapman Posted October 8, 2014 Share Posted October 8, 2014 Feels like a further erosion in QC standards as the "race to the bottom" in the stock industry continues... The number of images submitted to will increase further making it even harder to achieve sales. Mmm.... Or am I just being pessimistic? Maybe Alamy could get rid of the "Creative" button and introduce 4 "image quality" buttons instead depending on image QC/resolution (low, med,high,super high). Low = Stockimo. Med = 17MB+ High = 24MB+ Super high = 48MB+. I realise buyers can specify a size limit in MB already, but this would increase the prominence of segregating search results according to image quality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Endicott Posted October 8, 2014 Share Posted October 8, 2014 Feels like a further erosion in QC standards as the "race to the bottom" in the stock industry continues... The number of images submitted to will increase further making it even harder to achieve sales. Mmm.... Or am I just being pessimistic? I disagree - many of us years ago created images with cameras that couldn't produce a 24 megabyte size (or 17 megapixels) so we were upsizing our images prior to submitting them via CD or DVD. That actually decreased "quality" and sharpness in the images when they were interpolated up from 8mp or even 6mp. When Alamy began accepting images online, that standard was dropped to about 9 mp (where it was last week). So our 8.2 mp images were still being upsized but not as dramatically. This change will allow us to upload images here on Alamy, at their native resolution (even if they are cropped from that native resolution) so it raises the bar with relation to sharpness and quality. Because of the lack of decent film scanners out there, this also allows a wider acceptability of film scans at that resolution (better quality). Previously, our only option was to market those images via our own channels or through microstock (where images down to 3mp are accepted). This gives a lot of us more opportunity with relation to marketing images from cameras that we had at the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted October 8, 2014 Share Posted October 8, 2014 Seems like a good move to me. Ultimately, the "quality" is determined by the content rather than by the size of the image. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotoDogue Posted October 8, 2014 Share Posted October 8, 2014 The Archival/Reportage route has had a minimum file size of 5mb for quite some time. This has allowed me to submit older photos from my D100 (18 mb files) without uprezzing and has resulted in more sales. So why not lower the threshold a bit for everyone? When I deal with clients directly they rarely ask for a 50mb file and most don't want to download anything larger than they need. fD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woody Posted October 8, 2014 Author Share Posted October 8, 2014 Seems like a good move to me. Ultimately, the "quality" is determined by the content rather than by the size of the image. Couldn't agree more Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin P Wilson Posted October 9, 2014 Share Posted October 9, 2014 Size only limits usage, and even at 17Mpx only excludes very limited potential usages. Perhaps anything above a full page, how many of those do most pictures get, justify? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Chapman Posted October 9, 2014 Share Posted October 9, 2014 Feels like a further erosion in QC standards as the "race to the bottom" in the stock industry continues... The number of images submitted to will increase further making it even harder to achieve sales. Mmm.... Or am I just being pessimistic? Maybe Alamy could get rid of the "Creative" button and introduce 4 "image quality" buttons instead depending on image QC/resolution (low, med,high,super high). Low = Stockimo. Med = 17MB+ High = 24MB+ Super high = 48MB+. I realise buyers can specify a size limit in MB already, but this would increase the prominence of segregating search results according to image quality. Judging by the comments, I am being over pessimistic. That's good news I feel better already. I still think it would be a good idea to have 4 image quality buttons, but I agree that "quality" is the wrong term, maybe it should be "Resolution, low, med, high, super high" and get rid of that "creative" button that currently serves no useful purpose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Jordan Posted October 10, 2014 Share Posted October 10, 2014 Maybe there will be a new flood of smaller images from agencies Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
george Posted October 13, 2014 Share Posted October 13, 2014 * Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted October 13, 2014 Share Posted October 13, 2014 Maybe there will be a new flood of smaller images from agencies Interesting point, but a lot of other (non-microstock) agencies have a 10-12 MP camera minimum requirement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.