Salvaging below standard images

[Chris P]

I've inadvertently taken a series of images with the camera set at JPEGs with the resolution too low for Alamy. I can't find a way to attach an example. Does anyone know of a way to salvage them to fit Alamy's quality requirements please? They have dimensions (EXIF - Lightroom) of about 3000x2000 but come out as JPEGs of about 2-3 MB. For some time now I've abandoned the habit of taking RAWs alongsided my JPEGs so have nothing to fall back on.

 

Regards

 

Chris

[BidC]

11 minutes ago, Chris P said:

I've inadvertently taken a series of images with the camera set at JPEGs with the resolution too low for Alamy. I can't find a way to attach an example. Does anyone know of a way to salvage them to fit Alamy's quality requirements please? They have dimensions (EXIF - Lightroom) of about 3000x2000 but come out as JPEGs of about 2-3 MB. For some time now I've abandoned the habit of taking RAWs alongsided my JPEGs so have nothing to fall back on.

 

Regards

 

Chris

 

I've sometimes put images like that into PS and then increased the pixels. I think it really depends upon the pictures, but might be worth a try (?)

[Inchiquin]

If they're 3000x2000 they should be just about big enough for Alamy as they are. If not, they would only require a tiny amount of upsizing.

 

Alan

[geogphotos]

Depending on the camera/lens and the ISO they have every chance of passing QC with the minimum of resizing to just over Alamy's minimum.  I can't remember Alamy minimum size without checking but I have got into the habit of using 3800 long side and just over 26Mb on ones shot at high ISO and I am downsizing to reduce noise. Often I have to use Levels to reduce noise further - but I am talking here about dark, church interiors. 

 

EDIT - But mine are all RAWS.

 

 

Edited August 30, 2019 by geogphotos

[sb photos]

1 hour ago, Chris P said:

I've inadvertently taken a series of images with the camera set at JPEGs with the resolution too low for Alamy. I can't find a way to attach an example. Does anyone know of a way to salvage them to fit Alamy's quality requirements please? They have dimensions (EXIF - Lightroom) of about 3000x2000 but come out as JPEGs of about 2-3 MB. For some time now I've abandoned the habit of taking RAWs alongsided my JPEGs so have nothing to fall back on.

 

Regards

 

Chris

 

I shot the beginning of an event in the last few months with jpg selected by mistake. This may have been ok if the light was good, but was indoors in very challenging light. I noticed this later, switched to RAW for the remainder of the day, and ended up with sufficient good 3000 x 2000 images of 17.2MB open. The jpg's didn't look good, so I ditched them. I usually shoot RAW mirroring on both cards, or if I might be pushed for time, RAW on one card and jpg on the other. I normally check my camera's settings before I arrive where I'll be shooting, but obviously missed it that day.

 

Alamy will accept images of a minimum of 17mb open, so 3000 x 2000 meets those requirements, as long as the quality is sufficient. If after pp the quality isn't good enough, you then you have no pixels in reserve so can't down size. If the quality isn't good enough at 3000 x 2000, I doubt up sizing will leave you with a satisfactory stock image. If it is a satisfactory image but it needs to be larger for its likely use, you can only but try upsizing. Let us know how you get on.

 

[spacecadet]

3 hours ago, Chris P said:

 I've abandoned the habit of taking RAWs alongsided my JPEGs so have nothing to fall back on.

 

Regards

 

Chris

OT, but why? RAWs are inherently sharper. If you'd kept up your RAW+jpeg habit you'd have been home and dry.

If they're spot-on in good light you may just get away with it. I have to say I never change my image size in camera. My standard downsize is 3250 but as sb says 3000 should just qualify.

2-3MB compressed is about right for 3000x2000.

 

Edited August 26, 2019 by spacecadet

[Chris P]

I was using a Fujifilm X-T2 with 16-55 mm lens. ISO mostly 200, sometimes 400. They look really good in Lightroom including at 100% enlargement. Well exposed, sharp, good depth of field. 3008x2000 dimensions but only 2.52MB (the Alamy minimum is 5MB I think). I suppose all I can do is put one up for QC and see what they make of it. It was an event in Gloucester held only once a year and, this year, in lovely light.

 

Thank you all for your comments and suggestions.

 

Regards

 

Chris

[spacecadet]

1 minute ago, Chris P said:

I was using a Fujifilm X-T2 with 16-55 mm lens. ISO mostly 200, sometimes 400. They look really good in Lightroom including at 100% enlargement. Well exposed, sharp, good depth of field. 3008x2000 dimensions but only 2.52MB (the Alamy minimum is 5MB I think). I suppose all I can do is put one up for QC and see what they make of it. It was an event in Gloucester held only once a year and, this year, in lovely light.

 

Thank you all for your comments and suggestions.

 

Regards

 

Chris

AFAIK there isn't a compressed minimum as such. I submit plenty well below 5MB compressed.

[MDM]

The file size on disk is totally irrelevant. All that matters is the pixel dimensions or uncompressed file size in Alamy terminology(17MB). The file size of a JPEG depends on the content of the image whereas the uncompressed file size simply depends on the number of pixels (and the bit depth but that is 8 for a JPEG anyway).  So, for example, pictures with lots of sky and little detail have small file sizes as the compression algorithm does its thing. It would make no sense to impose minimum restrictions on file size. 

[M.Chapman]

7 hours ago, Chris P said:

(The Alamy minimum is 5MB I think)

 

You're are confusing the compressed jpg file size with the uncompressed image size.

Alamy doesn't have a lower file size limit for compressed jpgs.

They do however have a minimum uncompressed image size limit of 17MB (17 Megabytes). This equates to just under 6MP (megapixels) because each pixel uses 3 bytes (one each for red, green and blue). So a 2000 x 3000 pixel image is fine as this is just over 17MB (uncompressed). As MDM says the size of the compressed jpg file will depend on the level of detail in the image.

 

Mark

Edited August 26, 2019 by M.Chapman

[sb photos]

2 hours ago, M.Chapman said:

 

You're are confusing the compressed jpg file size with the uncompressed image size.

Alamy doesn't have a lower file size limit for compressed jpgs.

They do however have a minimum uncompressed image size limit of 17MB (17 Megabytes). This equates to just under 6MP (megapixels) because each pixel uses 3 bytes (one each for red, green and blue). So a 2000 x 3000 pixel image is fine as this is about 18MB (uncompressed). As MDM says the size of the compressed jpg file will depend on the level of detail in the image.

 

Mark

 

Dead right Mark. I shoot a lot at 3000 x 2000 pixels if using the full frame with no cropping. In photoshop they all show as 17.2MB opened, and typically at 3.1 - 5.1MB file size if saved at quality 12.

 

Based upon Chris's last post he should have nothing to worry about. In most cases uploading full resolution images is way over the top for most usage, but depends on the market you are trying to sell into.

[M.Chapman]

3 hours ago, sb photos said:

I shoot a lot at 3000 x 2000 pixels if using the full frame with no cropping. In photoshop they all show as 17.2MB opened

 

So they do. I've modified my post slightly to say "just over 17MB", rather than "about 18MB". I forgot that Mega typically denotes 1,048,576 in the computing/digital imaging world, rather than 1,000,000.

 

Mark

[Chris P]

Thank you all for your help. My test was successful. The (potentially) below standard jpeg passed QC. I had increased the resolution to 240x240 (which as I recall was my old standard Nikon value) ending up with a nice image of around 3.5MB whaich was enough to satisfy QC.

 

Should anyone want to see the image its ID is  WCCXNR.

 

Chris

Edited August 30, 2019 by Chris P

[M.Chapman]

3 hours ago, Chris P said:

240x240

 

Typo?

240 x 240 would be rejected by the uploader.

2440 x 2440 is just OK (17.03MB)

 

WCCXNR is not yet on sale.

 

Mark

[Chris P]

I'm not sure now where I saw resolution 240x240 - possibly in the preview pane on my iMac. In Lightroom, the original JPEG was 72x72 (small setting on camera). Dimensions show as 3008 x 2000 and file size 2.53 MB. Whatever I did to it before uploading, the same preview pane for the uploaded image after passing QC showed resolution as 240x240 and the file size had increased to a little over 3 MB. 

[sb photos]

2 hours ago, Chris P said:

I'm not sure now where I saw resolution 240x240 - possibly in the preview pane on my iMac. In Lightroom, the original JPEG was 72x72 (small setting on camera). Dimensions show as 3008 x 2000 and file size 2.53 MB. Whatever I did to it before uploading, the same preview pane for the uploaded image after passing QC showed resolution as 240x240 and the file size had increased to a little over 3 MB. 

 

Chris, something doesn't add up here. A image 240 x 240 is square, and wouldn't up res to 3008 x 2000, which is rectangular. I suspect you were confusing the preview pane size with the open file size as mentioned in your post above. Also the file size is not important, unless it indicated you had saved/exported at the lowest possible jpg quality, which would likely fail QC. The minimum open size of 17MB is necessary to be accepted by Alamy. 

 

Whatever happened, the crucial outcome is that you uploaded a satisfactory image. 

 

Edit - just checking my cameras before jumping on a train, Nikon small file size shows as 3008 x 2008, had to check as never used it. So subject to no down sizing required you were OK.

Edited August 31, 2019 by sb photos

[BidC]

On 30/08/2019 at 06:02, Chris P said:

Should anyone want to see the image its ID is  WCCXNR.

 

Lovely image. Glad you were able to upload it !

[Chris P]

Thank you. I can see that it doesn't look right but I can't explain the anomalies. I've just recreated the process I used for that trial image with two other images from the same shoot.

 

Very slight exposure adjustments in LR. Exported to my archive of images processed for Alamy with format "jpeg" and quality 100%. No changes to Image Sizing except resolution changed from 72 to 240. Once again the dimensions showing in my preview pane are 3008x2000 but the resoluton has moved from 72x72 of the original to 240x240 and image size a little over 3MB in both cases according to the LR Library view of the processed images. All of the original open sizes from the shoot show in LR Library as around 2.5MB. I, too, would have expected square images but they are most definitely rectangluar with the same visible proportions as the originals.

 

These two images have just uploaded successfully and I'll see what QC makes of them next week.

[Chris P]

2 minutes ago, BidC said:

 

Lovely image. Glad you were able to upload it !

Thank you. Me too. It was probably a unique occasion so I'm pleased that I've managed to salvage someting after my own stupidity with the camera setting.

[Harry Harrison]

The resolution you mention is the 'pixels per inch', so 72 ppi and 240 ppi, it's not relevant to the image size for Alamy at all. Whatever option you choose in Lightroom they will change it to 72 ppi for web previews and 300 ppi for the high resolution download. To avoid confusion it might be better to keep to 300 ppi for Alamy and maybe save an export preset accordingly. As has already been said, for '35mm' format DSLR images keep the pixel dimensions above 3000 x 2000 and you'll be fine.

 

Alamy specify 17MB uncompressed so different formats (Full frame/APS-C, square, micro 4/3, panoramic etc.) will have different minimum pixel dimensions.

Edited August 31, 2019 by Harry Harrison

[BidC]

15 hours ago, Chris P said:

Thank you. Me too. It was probably a unique occasion so I'm pleased that I've managed to salvage someting after my own stupidity with the camera setting.

 

Easily done - don't beat yourself up  

[Phil Robinson]

Glad you found a way of sorting it out.

I've recently abandoned the habit of taking JPEGs alongside RAWs. Processing in the field takes a couple of extra mouse clicks but I'm much happier with my workflow.

[Avpics]

On 26/08/2019 at 07:27, Chris P said:

I've inadvertently taken a series of images with the camera set at JPEGs with the resolution too low for Alamy. I can't find a way to attach an example. Does anyone know of a way to salvage them to fit Alamy's quality requirements please? They have dimensions (EXIF - Lightroom) of about 3000x2000 but come out as JPEGs of about 2-3 MB. For some time now I've abandoned the habit of taking RAWs alongsided my JPEGs so have nothing to fall back on.

 

Regards

 

Chris

2005 called and wanted my Pentax *ist D back. Before it went I worked through some of the images it had captured which at its maximum size are similar to those, at 72ppi. Never used RAW on my early DSLRs because of the buffering and file sizes filling the affordable low capacity memory cards. As many of the subjects are of the time and couldn't be replicated I thought it was worth the effort processing them and so I've worked on many of them by upscaling for uploading to Alamy. I only sent images which I was happy with at 100% so all of those sent passed.

[M.Chapman]

4 hours ago, Avpics said:

Pentax ist D..... ...... upscaling for uploading to Alamy.

 

Since Alamy's minimum size requirement was reduced to 17MB (just under 6MP), Pentax ist D images no longer need upscaling for Alamy. It's allowed me to salvage some of my older images too. 72ppi isn't relevant for Alamy submissions.

 

Mark

Edited September 12, 2019 by M.Chapman

[Avpics]

24 minutes ago, M.Chapman said:

 

Since Alamy's minimum size requirement was reduced to 17MB (just under 6MP), Pentax ist D images no longer need scaling for Alamy. It's allowed me to salvage some of my older images too.

 

Mark

I'd like to think that the images are the better for it though, anyway.