Cannot save image as uncompressed

[NathanD]

Hi,

 

I'm trying to upload images, but I cannot save images to their uncompressed state (above 17mb). I have JPEG files that are 6mb+ and when in Photoshop, they're about 45mb.

 

But I cannot seem to save them as this uncompressed size?

I have Adobe CS6 - I've seen posts about 'Save for Web' or 'legacy' but when I try this, the images only go upto 8MB.

.tiff files are the correct size, but I can't upload them

 

Please can I have some help, I'd love to upload images

Cheers

Edited September 27, 2019 by NathanD
Added Tags

[M.Chapman]

52 minutes ago, MDM said:

 

The key thing here is to re-import the jpeg file if exporting direct from a raw file

 

Out of interest can LR be set to re-import automatically? It seems tedious to export a cropped jpg from LR (where it should already have been dust spotted - otherwise it's better to export a psd to PS and do it there) to then have to manually reimport the cropped jpg to check how big it is? Or have I mis-understood? 

 

Mark 

[MDM]

3 hours ago, M.Chapman said:

 

Out of interest can LR be set to re-import automatically? It seems tedious to export a cropped jpg from LR (where it should already have been dust spotted - otherwise it's better to export a psd to PS and do it there) to then have to manually reimport the cropped jpg to check how big it is? Or have I mis-understood? 

 

Mark 

 

It is not difficult to set up an auto import. I use it a lot when I want do downsize images and reimport them into the catalog. First of all under the File menu, hit Auto Import and then Auto Import settings. A dialog box opens which enables configuration. The most important things to do are:

 

1. Enable auto import

2. Choose a watch folder (any files that end up in this folder are set to be automatically imported)

3. Choose a destination folder which can be the same as the watch folder.

4. Create an export preset that uses the watch folder as a destination.

 

That is it. The file will be reimported into the active catalog. You could use the same folder as the files are in as well if you want but if you are doing this specifically for Alamy then you could set up a file system specifically for that purpose.

That just answers the first part of your question.

 

My workflow is a little more complicated than that. Final images that are going to clients fall into three categories which I label and keyword in Lightroom. Firstly, there are raw files that need no further work before exporting at full size. Secondly, there are images that might need spotting or other work that I always use Photoshop for. These are saved back into the catalog as PSDs (with layers) and then re-exported at full size (I always keep the PSDs). Thirdly, there are images (raws or PSDs that have had work done) that need to be downsized usually because they have been shot at high ISO in dark conditions (churches and the like). The downsizing can vastly improve image quality. I export these to the watch folder using different export presets that save to specific sizes (usually minimum long dimension). I have different catalogs for different clients so I use a single watch and destination folder and then drag the new downsized files into the main folder I am using within Lightroom. It sounds complicated but once set up it is really easy to manage.

 

For images to be submitted to Alamy, I have always saved as PSDs, then export them to a different folder and don't reimport but always have a last check for spots and sharpness in case I have missed something. For nothing more than historic reasons, I don't keep stock jpegs in my main catalog but do have a keyword in the main catalog to indicate where I have submitted them.

[M.Chapman]

9 hours ago, MDM said:

 

It is not difficult to set up an auto import. I use it a lot when I want do downsize images and reimport them into the catalog. First of all under the File menu, hit Auto Import and then Auto Import settings. A dialog box opens which enables configuration. The most important things to do are:

 

1. Enable auto import

2. Choose a watch folder (any files that end up in this folder are set to be automatically imported)

3. Choose a destination folder which can be the same as the watch folder.

4. Create an export preset that uses the watch folder as a destination.

 

That is it. The file will be reimported into the active catalog. You could use the same folder as the files are in as well if you want but if you are doing this specifically for Alamy then you could set up a file system specifically for that purpose.

That just answers the first part of your question.

 

My workflow is a little more complicated than that. Final images that are going to clients fall into three categories which I label and keyword in Lightroom. Firstly, there are raw files that need no further work before exporting at full size. Secondly, there are images that might need spotting or other work that I always use Photoshop for. These are saved back into the catalog as PSDs (with layers) and then re-exported at full size (I always keep the PSDs). Thirdly, there are images (raws or PSDs that have had work done) that need to be downsized usually because they have been shot at high ISO in dark conditions (churches and the like). The downsizing can vastly improve image quality. I export these to the watch folder using different export presets that save to specific sizes (usually minimum long dimension). I have different catalogs for different clients so I use a single watch and destination folder and then drag the new downsized files into the main folder I am using within Lightroom. It sounds complicated but once set up it is really easy to manage.

 

For images to be submitted to Alamy, I have always saved as PSDs, then export them to a different folder and don't reimport but always have a last check for spots and sharpness in case I have missed something. For nothing more than historic reasons, I don't keep stock jpegs in my main catalog but do have a keyword in the main catalog to indicate where I have submitted them.

 

Many thanks for the detailed insight. Your workflow is (justifiably) more complex than mine. I only submit to stock, and with returns per image being so low, I currently follow a very "lean" workflow.

• Open RAW image in PS ACR which will apply my chosen presets according to camera I'm using (shame it can't change default according to lens in use too)
• Make any global (not local) tweaks to tone and colour and perspective
• Swap into in PS with image in 16bit sRGB space (PS is set to use sRGB working space too)
• Make any further edits (mostly localised tone and spotting etc.)
• Downsize if needed (according to sharpness/noise inspection at 100%)
• Save sRGB jpg (I keep the RAW too)

I like the idea of a watch folder, but my images are stored in my own folder structure according to year and month, so I suppose I'd need to keep changing the watch folder setting? Isn't there a way of automatically reimporting anything that's exported fro LR - irrespective of where it's exported to? 

 

Mark

 

[Harry Harrison]

On 01/10/2019 at 18:27, MDM said:

 

What you say is only correct if thinking in terms of raw files only which have been cropped in Lightroom

 

Not quite true. I wanted to correct the false impression that I had given implying that the 'Megapixel' Loupe Info overlay option would be useful in establishing the size in megapixels of any jpegs exported for Alamy. I hadn’t used it myself but switched it on and then noticed that it only displays the size in megapixels of the file as it was originally imported, not just of RAW files but any file. I incorrectly expected it to reflect any cropping but it doesn’t, unlike the much more useful ‘cropped dimensions’ which I normally display. A ‘cropped megapixels’ option would be useful in this context.

 

It goes without saying that if you import your exported Alamy jpegs back into Lightroom then it will show their size in MP, but that’s not a workflow that I adopt and in any case for me would be too far down the line to be useful.

[MDM]

7 hours ago, Harry Harrison said:

 

Not quite true. I wanted to correct the false impression that I had given implying that the 'Megapixel' Loupe Info overlay option would be useful in establishing the size in megapixels of any jpegs exported for Alamy. I hadn’t used it myself but switched it on and then noticed that it only displays the size in megapixels of the file as it was originally imported, not just of RAW files but any file. I incorrectly expected it to reflect any cropping but it doesn’t, unlike the much more useful ‘cropped dimensions’ which I normally display. A ‘cropped megapixels’ option would be useful in this context.

 

It goes without saying that if you import your exported Alamy jpegs back into Lightroom then it will show their size in MP, but that’s not a workflow that I adopt and in any case for me would be too far down the line to be useful.

 

Actually Harry I think you will find that what I said was correct as I was taking what you said literally: that Lightroom displays only the full megapixels of the sensor. As I said this applies only to raw files (or files that have not been cropped). What I said might be obvious but I think it is necessary in a thread like this to state the obvious as one man or woman’s obvious is another’s source of confusion. It would be sensible if Lightroom displayed the MP size for cropped raw files but it doesn’t - only the pixel dimensions as you observed.

 

The solution in my opinion to all of this confusion would be for Alamy to commission somebody who really knows what they are talking about to write a proper help note explaining how to find the correct minimum file size in various applications required to pass QC. As Mark pointed out elsewhere, the Alamy infographic is full of errors and confusion and the guidance on how to prepare images completely lacks detail. It needs some simple and coherent explanation by someone who understands file sizes, pixel dimensions, ppi and dpi. Terminology might be boring but it is essential to get it right and the infographic is so confused as to be meaningless. Back to basics I say. 😀

[Harry Harrison]

On 03/10/2019 at 17:28, MDM said:

Actually Harry I think you will find that what I said was correct

Right, I see what you're getting at now. Yes, it wasn't clear that I was just referring to the situation where images came direct from the camera into Lightroom, be they RAW or jpeg. That's what I always do as I use LR for all spotting and adjustments but I can see from your workflow why you would be bringing in cropped jpegs destined for Alamy. I was rather hoping that Adobe had added a 'cropped MP' option in their later versions of LR as I can't see that a fixed MP overlay is very useful at all.

 

I don't have huge problems with that Infographic considering the presumed target audience, the figures are broadly right, a little low, though describing a 1000 x 800 px images as Full Screen for the web dates it rather. Choosing 5:4 proportions ignores the fact that they will most likely be cropping from a larger file. The graphics are pretty cheesy, it's at least 3 years old so does need an update.

 

As you say, it's a difficult task expressing digital image sizes to the non-technical buyer and looking around other libraries no one exactly shines. Just as in the other discussion about Alamy minimum file size requirements, to me megapixels (MP) seems better than MB and it also takes into account different formats/aspect ratios. However longest side in pixels may well be simpler, even though it clearly doesn't take into account different formats, the very reason that for me made it unsuitable for Alamy minimum file size requirements.

[MDM]

3 hours ago, Harry Harrison said:

 

 

I don't have huge problems with that Infographic considering the presumed target audience, the figures are broadly right, a little low, though describing a 1000 x 800 px images as Full Screen for the web dates it rather. Choosing 5:4 proportions ignores the fact that they will most likely be cropping from a larger file. The graphics are pretty cheesy, it's at least 3 years old so does need an update.

 

 

Actually that infographic looks like it could have been written by an intern with little knowledge of digital imaging and was not proof read by anybody who understands digital imaging. Read it carefully and all becomes apparent. It is actually embarrassing.l 

 

 1. First of all PPI and DPI are completely irrelevant, DPI is once again misused and the two are thrown in to refer to the same quantity. It reminds me of somebody who throws in an apostrophe randomly in case it might be needed but doesn't really understand the real purpose of an apostrophe.

 

To clarify -DPI is dots per inch and refers to the number of dots per inch laid down by a printer - it has no meaning in relation to a digital image. It is a physical quantity and can in theory at least be measured with an optical device magnifying the print medium. It should only be used when printing as in a printer driver. If referring to a digital file then the quantity is PPI.

 

The author did not understand this and decided that the final purpose would determine whether they used PPI or DPIi referring to whether the intended use is screen viewing or printing. Of course this misuse of nomenclature is industry-wide but mixing the two in the hope that it that will somehow make it correct is ridiculous. The fact is that is both PPI and DPI are completely irrelevant here anyway as the only the pixel dimensions are relevant (or the uncompressed file size in Alamy speak).

 

2. Next issue is they don't state what the MB sizes refer to - clearly it relates to the pixel dimensions but this would be very confusing for the type of customer this is aimed at and all figures are quoted on the search engine page - compressed download size and actual pixel dimensions in pixels as well as MB.

 

3. The distinction between an A4 (297x210mm) and a 10x8 inch (25x20mm) print in terms of file size is insiginificant but they make a big thing out of this having them in two different sections. The fact is that whether producing a decent 10x8" print for a wall or supplying a quality magazine at A4, the file size should be very similar (anything between about 14 and 25 MB depending on what PPI is required). At the resolution they suggest (300 DPI - should be PPI), a 10x8" print would be around 20MB (60MP)

 

A 5MB file for a so-called personal photo print something to hang on a wall would get you around a 6x4", not a 10x8" by quality inkjet or professional lab print. The something to hang on a wall could be anything. 

 

My knowledge of billboard printing is scant so I won't comment on that.

 

Yes this whole thing is amateurish, inaccurate and entirely misleading. It needs a back to the drawing board approach. In fact the survey where Mark originally drew attention to this infographic is equally poorly thought out.

 

Here is the link to the said infographic 

 

 

 

Edited October 4, 2019 by MDM

[M.Chapman]

14 hours ago, MDM said:

 

 

Yes this whole thing is amateurish, inaccurate and entirely misleading. It needs a back to the drawing board approach. In fact the survey where Mark originally drew attention to this infographic is equally poorly thought out.

 

Here is the link to the said infographic 

 

Yes, it's weird. There used to be a different article and graphic which Emily Hoskin (Alamy) used in an earlier blog on the same topic in 2014 which I think was better, but it's been removed. (It's still on wayback machine here). It still needs to emphasis the sizes shown in MB are  and not the (compressed)  jpg file sizes though.  I've no idea why they changed it. There are all sorts of Alamy blogs. Some is very useful, but others are puzzling like this one , especially as I think Alamy only supply jpgs. Converting jpg to PNG would also seem to be pointless to me.  

 

Mark

Edited October 5, 2019 by M.Chapman

[MDM]

On 05/10/2019 at 10:40, M.Chapman said:

 

 Converting jpg to PNG would also seem to be pointless to me.  

 

 

 

PNG can have transparent backgrounds which JPEG can't so can be used for watermarking in Lightroom for example if you want to use an image rather than text. That is the only time I ever use PNG.

[Klinger]

On 28/09/2019 at 12:52, NYCat said:

I think it's possible to have good visual sense at the same time as poor mathematical sense. I had trouble with numbers in photography even before digital. I couldn't remember if f4 was a larger aperture than F8 until I told myself that bigger numbers in photography always made something smaller. So 1/500 is a shorter time than 1/250. I still get confused when I read you guys talking about the numbers with pixels and MBs. I've always grasped the idea of compressed and uncompressed because I can visualize 6,000 "thingys' being compressed so that there are still 6,000 of them but they fit in a smaller box. I have Lightroom set up so that when I am cropping I can just hit the "i" key to see if I am still big enough for Alamy. I don't really understand why numbers are not always easy for me. I loved arithmetic when I was little. When I learned long division I used to do it for fun.

 

Paulette

 

I have a calculator on my desk, I look at the JPEG photo dimensions, multiple the # x # and there it is in Megapixels. 😎

When I started in photography I came up with a way to remember f stops were numbers that... I decided the F stood for Fraction. Fractions, always have a larger number for a small piece or portion. Little did I know 60 years ago, that I was actually right.

 

The f stop number is a fraction of the focal length which tells you the size of the aperture.

 

 

Edited November 1, 2019 by Klinger