Convert Raw to JPEG without shrinking the file

[Matt Kynaston 3]

Hi,

 

I am trying to upload 3 images for my first stock submission, and obviously want to stay within the guidelines.

 

I can't seem to find a way or any advice on how to save an image on Photoshop or Lightroom into a jpeg without shrinking the file down.

 

An example, the .raw file I want to submit is 23mb but shrinks to 7mb when I try to save it. How can I change this?

 

Looking forward to hearing your thoughts.

 

Many thanks,

 

Matt

[John Morrison 2,637]

Hi Matt...

 

Your numbers look fine to me. The jpg format condenses the file, and when the customer opens up the image in PS, it will be full-size again.

 

Just upload your 7mb files to Alamy (having checked for critical focus, dust-spots, etc)...

[Avpics 687]

15 hours ago, Matt Kynaston said:

Hi,

 

I am trying to upload 3 images for my first stock submission, and obviously want to stay within the guidelines.

 

I can't seem to find a way or any advice on how to save an image on Photoshop or Lightroom into a jpeg without shrinking the file down.

 

An example, the .raw file I want to submit is 23mb but shrinks to 7mb when I try to save it. How can I change this?

 

Looking forward to hearing your thoughts.

 

Many thanks,

 

Matt

If it's the QC guidelines that's worrying you, then those figures will be fine. As said, it's the uncompressed image size rather that the saved file size that counts.

[DDoug 2,844]

9 minutes ago, Avpics said:

If it's the QC guidelines that's worrying you, then those figures will be fine. As said, it's the uncompressed image size rather that the saved file size that counts.

Of course, but some might interpret this to mean that the extent of JPEG compression doesn't matter. JPEGs saved at low quality levels such as 2 or 3 will have more compression artifacts than those saved at 10 or 12. Best to save at the highest JPEG quality levels to be on the safe side.

[Matt Kynaston 3]

Thank you so much for your responses. I definitely misunderstood the QC guidelines to mean that the file sizes had to be 17mb on submission. I have submitted my first 3 stock photos and will see what comes back.

 

Thanks again!

[jodyko 34]

AlamySizeCheck

 

http://www.braeside.plus.com/photography/alamy/alamy.html

 

I use this and it's worked well for me. Mostly useful if I crop something and am in doubt.

 

It's probably worth mentioning that there is a "Not secure" warning preceding the URL. Entry of sensitive information such as credit card/ passwords is not recommended. Not necessary as it's DonationWare.

 

I've had no issues with the software itself. Perhaps others will have thoughts or experience to share. This issue seems to come up from time to time, particularly with new contributors. I know it was confusing to me.

[LawrensonPhoto 469]

3 hours ago, Matt Kynaston said:

Thank you so much for your responses. I definitely misunderstood the QC guidelines to mean that the file sizes had to be 17mb on submission. I have submitted my first 3 stock photos and will see what comes back.

 

Thanks again!

These were guidelines issued when the dinosaurs roamed the earth, I wish they would ditch this and just say that all files have to have a minimum of 3000 pixels on the longest side, would save a lot of hassle!!!

[Harry Harrison 112]

2 hours ago, jodyko said:

I use this and it's worked well for me.

Well yes, apart from the fact that it only approves images in the Adobe RGB (1998) Colour Space. That's fine, and of course you can upload in that space (they will be converted) but Alamy supply all images in the sRGB colour space but with no profile, so you may as well upload in sRGB also. There is an exhaustive thread on this:

 

https://discussion.alamy.com/topic/11753-colour-space/page/6/

 

Edited September 18 by Harry Harrison

[Allan Bell 1,619]

2 hours ago, jodyko said:

AlamySizeCheck

 

http://www.braeside.plus.com/photography/alamy/alamy.html

 

I use this and it's worked well for me. Mostly useful if I crop something and am in doubt.

 

It's probably worth mentioning that there is a "Not secure" warning preceding the URL. Entry of sensitive information such as credit card/ passwords is not recommended. Not necessary as it's DonationWare.

 

I've had no issues with the software itself. Perhaps others will have thoughts or experience to share. This issue seems to come up from time to time, particularly with new contributors. I know it was confusing to me.

 

I used to use this excellent software too back in the day. Not so much now.

 

Allan

 

[Harry Harrison 112]

2 hours ago, LawrensonPhoto said:

I wish they would ditch this and just say that all files have to have a minimum of 3000 pixels on the longest side

Yes, I would welcome something simpler also but that wouldn't take into account Micro 4/3, square or panoramic images, all of which would need different figures. A 3000 pixel panoramic would be too small. A chart would be good by way of clarification.

[jodyko 34]

15 minutes ago, Harry Harrison said:

Well yes, apart from the fact that it only approves images in the Adobe RGB (1998) Colour Space. That's fine, and of course you can upload in that space (they will be converted) but Alamy supply all images in the sRGB colour space but with no profile, so you may as well upload in sRGB also. There is an exhaustive thread on this:

I remember going through that discussion and admit that much of it is over my head. I use  it simply for pass or fail and disregard the profile warnings.

[Harry Harrison 112]

2 minutes ago, jodyko said:

I use  it simply for pass or fail and disregard the profile warnings.

OK, maybe I'm missing something, can you change the parameters? It seems to be working on 24MB minimum uncompressed file size. I suppose the way to use it is to ignore all the warnings and let it calculate the uncompressed file size. But, as mentioned above, if you've got a standard '35mm' format sensor (Full frame, APS-C, Sony RX100 etc.) then it is much easier surely to just make sure the longest size is always greater than 3000 pixels.

[jodyko 34]

15 minutes ago, Harry Harrison said:

I suppose the way to use it is to ignore all the warnings and let it calculate the uncompressed file size

That's the way I use it and really only when I crop which is not often. I use mostly Micro 4/3. Saved at level 12 (98%) in Adobe Elements I get 4608 x 3456, 45.56 MB uncompressed.

[jodyko 34]

3 minutes ago, jodyko said:

30 minutes ago, Harry Harrison said:

I suppose the way to use it is to ignore all the warnings and let it calculate the uncompressed file size

That's the way I use it and really only when I crop which is not often. I use mostly Micro 4/3. Saved at level 12 (98%) in Adobe Elements I get 4608 x 3456, 45.56 MB uncompressed.

 

Micro 4/3 resized to 3000 x 2250 uncompressed 19.31 MB. Passed by Sizecheck.  Mostly this is beyond me technically at present so I'll stop here.

[Harry Harrison 112]

1 hour ago, jodyko said:

Passed by Sizecheck

Well that sounds OK, the information with the last update in February 2015 said the following, which was clearly based on earlier Alamy standards:

 

Colour codes Size - Red for less than 24MB (Fail), Blue for 24 to 48MB, Green for 48MB and above.

 

I can see that it can be useful and I should probably spend more time looking at it before commenting, it's very quick and you can sort on the uncompressed size column.

[jodyko 34]

Just now, Harry Harrison said:

Well that sounds OK, the information with the last update in February 2015 said the following, which was clearly based on earlier Alamy standards:

 

Colour codes Size - Red for less than 24MB (Fail), Blue for 24 to 48MB, Green for 48MB and above.

 

I can see that it can be useful and I should probably spend more time looking at it before commenting, it's very quick and you can sort on the uncompressed size column.

 

Sounds good to me!  😊

[LawrensonPhoto 469]

2 hours ago, Harry Harrison said:

Yes, I would welcome something simpler also but that wouldn't take into account Micro 4/3, square or panoramic images, all of which would need different figures. A 3000 pixel panoramic would be too small. A chart would be good by way of clarification.

1:1 = 3000 x 3000

4:3 = see above

Panoramas = Why would you ever downsize a panoramic image when the whole point is to increase pixels!!!???

 

[Keith Douglas 469]

2 minutes ago, LawrensonPhoto said:

1:1 = 3000 x 3000

4:3 = see above

Panoramas = Why would you ever downsize a panoramic image when the whole point is to increase pixels!!!???

 

If the size constraint is more than 6,000,000 pixels, which I believe it is, then it's 3000 x 2000 (3:2) or 2450 x 2450 (1:1) or 2829 x 2122 (4:3)

[MDM 1,019]

 

I  can never understand why this size thing is problematic for experienced photographers. In Photoshop the pixel dimensions are clearly displayed in MB in the Image SIze dialog box as well as the Info panel. Lightroom gives the size in MP so if it is showing 6MP then it is over the 17MB limit with a simple x3 multiplication. I know the x3 isn't exact bit it should be sufficient in the vast majority of cases.

 

I can understand of course why novices don't understand the relationship between pixel dimensions and file size on disk but surely that indicates that they have a bit of background work to do to bring their knowledge up to scratch. This has to be the No 1 FAQ on here and it never goes away. 

[LawrensonPhoto 469]

Just now, Keith Douglas said:

If the size constraint is more than 6,000,000 pixels, which I believe it is, then it's 3000 x 2000 (3:2) or 2450 x 2450 (1:1) or 2829 x 2122 (4:3)

I was just trying to simplify it with a minimum 3000 px , it doesn't seem to be getting through though

[Harry Harrison 112]

23 minutes ago, LawrensonPhoto said:

Why would you ever downsize a panoramic image

That's what I was pointing out, a panoramic with a longest side of 3000 pixels would be downsizing, it wouldn't meet the Alamy spec.

[Harry Harrison 112]

20 minutes ago, Keith Douglas said:

If the size constraint is more than 6,000,000 pixels, which I believe it is, then it's 3000 x 2000 (3:2) or 2450 x 2450 (1:1) or 2829 x 2122 (4:3)

Yes, absolutely, and you could add 2:1, 2.5:1, 3:1 panoramics to that I guess, so a chart like this would be a guide and help new contributors understand but ultimately Alamy have got it right by specifying a minimum uncompressed size and getting the photographer to understand the basics.

[LawrensonPhoto 469]

"That's what I was pointing out, a panoramic with a longest side of 3000 pixels would be downsizing, it wouldn't meet the Alamy spec. "

 

Depends on the aspect ratio ;D

 

Edited September 18 by LawrensonPhoto

[jodyko 34]

10 minutes ago, MDM said:

they have a bit of background work to do to bring their knowledge up to scratch

In my case I certainly agree. Just one area among many.

[M.Chapman 1,079]

3 hours ago, Harry Harrison said:

OK, maybe I'm missing something, can you change the parameters? It seems to be working on 24MB minimum uncompressed file size. I suppose the way to use it is to ignore all the warnings and let it calculate the uncompressed file size. But, as mentioned above, if you've got a standard '35mm' format sensor (Full frame, APS-C, Sony RX100 etc.) then it is much easier surely to just make sure the longest size is always greater than 3000 pixels.

 

Alamy SizeChecker - You may need to update to the latest version which accepts 17MB

 

Mark