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

[NathanD]

13 hours ago, MDM said:

 

 

 

This is a new one even though it refers to the same old same old problem. And it is purely down to this very odd terminology that Alamy uses for pixel dimensions of an image - i.e. uncompressed file size. Alamy's explanation used to be a bit more detailed but now all it says is: 

 

File size of over 17MB (when uncompressed/open)Your JPEG file is likely to have a compressed size of 3-5MB. Opening a JPEG in an image program such as Adobe Photoshop will show you the uncompressed/open file size.

 

I have never seen the terminology uncompressed file size anywhere else and it has caused so much confusion. 

 

So to the OP. Check the size of your image in Photoshop in the Image Size dialog box. It should show you what were then (CS6) called the pixel dimensions in MB. If that number is ≥17MB, then you are ok. Save as a JPEG at the highest quality (12) and submit. 

 

 

 

This post illustrates the problem with using pixels as I don't think that figure is anywhere visible in Photoshop (correct me if wrong). OK it is a simple multiplication of the pixel dimensions but it adds extra complexity - not a lot for sure but it is that little bit more complex.

 

I would suggest that Photoshop users check out the Image Size box which displays the size in MB (≥17MB) and Lightroom uses set up the program to show the MP size. Then as long as the final cropped JPEG is ≥6MP all is ok.

Okay, I'll give it a go. I never tried submitting anything under the 17mb from Photoshop as I got the error massage about reading the faq on file submissions so many times

[M.Chapman]

1 hour ago, NathanD said:

Hi, 

My images have 15,925,248 pixels and saving quality 10 or above only adds 1mb size from the 'original' (compressed) 

Ignore the compressed size.

Mark

[Harry Harrison]

9 minutes ago, NYCat said:

What is the difference between MP and MB and why does Alamy say MB and not MP? I know I once learned this but it flies out of my head.

There's a little bit of a thread on this....!

 

MP is less ambiguous, it's the number of pixels in your image, so if you didn't crop it would be the same as your camera sensor. The minimum for Alamy would be 3000 x 2000 pixel image or 6,000,000 pixels or 6 Megapixels or 6MP.

 

MB in effect refers to the size on disk, or the size it would open up to in Photoshop etc. and confuses everyone greatly at first because it could be either the compressed or uncompressed size, both measured in MB (megabytes).

[MDM]

7 hours ago, M.Chapman said:

 

I wonder if we could come up with a form of words that keeps everyone happy, that Alamy could then use?

 

We mustn't forget that when working in 16bit mode (as recommended during editing) PS will show the size as 34MB. The pixel width and height dimensions are easy to display and appear during editing, cropping, resizing in PS and other editors. I concede multiplication is required to get the total, but at least that’s easy to understand, wheres 17 or 34MB clearly isn’t for everyone (as evidenced by the same question cropping up over and over again).  Any explanation needs to be brief and include 17MB as well as 6MP and (I would argue) 6,000,000. What terminology should be used instead of uncompressed/open file size? I used "Alamy accepts images which contain at least 17MB of uncompressed 8 bit image data" in a previous posting to avoid mentioning the word file.

 

Mark

 

 The mention of uncompressed once again potentially causes confusion as in this post. As I said, it is only Alamy that uses this term and it is part of the problem. The problem with your 6,000,000 pixlels as I said before is that Photoshop does not provide the number of pixels in the image and Lightroom provides the size in Megapixels. OK the maths are not difficult but spoonfeeding is the only way I think given the frequency of the problem. Furthermore people are used to the concept of megapixels.

 

So quoted numbers need to be clearly visible in the programs used without the need for calculations - hence 17MB and 6MP. A simple explanation as to where to find these numbers in the various programs would be sensible.

 

Having said all that, should this type of spoonfeeding be necessary if people have sufficient grasp of the basics of digital image to consider selling images? The answer is probably yes and no 😀

 

 

[NYCat]

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

[Betty LaRue]

58 minutes ago, 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

Don’t feel bad. I’m left handed, and whether that has anything to do with my problem, I have no idea.  It if someone tells me to look right, I often look left. Tell me, when I’m driving, to turn left, I quickly think in my head, I’m left-handed so turn to the direction my left hand is on. I often try to go OUT the IN door, and have come close to smashing my face when in a hurry. If it says push, I pull. I think some of it happens because I’m preoccupied, but not all.

We all have our little roadblocks.

Betty

[M.Chapman]

20 hours ago, 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

 

Good point. We all have our different strengths and weaknesses. I'm OK at maths and science and engineering, but I have a blank spot when it comes to people's names and family relationships. If I'm introduced to someone who shakes my hand, I immediately forget their name, it's as if there's an erase button built into the palm of my hand. And don't ask me to explain a family tree and the relationships between folks on it, it's like a foreign language to me.

 

So it's clear, any explanation about Alamy's 17MB needs to cover all bases 

 

PS. When I use the "i" key in LR it shows me the pixel dimensions (e.g. 3000 x 2000), do you have yours set to show the size in MB (if that's even possible) or do you use the pixel dimensions?

 

Mark

[NYCat]

I do the same as you. I don't know whether you can do MB. Perhaps I will investigate some day. It's been a long time since I set up the info descriptions.

 

Paulette

[Harry Harrison]

37 minutes ago, NYCat said:

Pame as you. I don't know whether you can do MB

You can do MP but not MB, at least not on my version, you also can have two different templates that you get to by clicking on 'I' twice.

 

View > View options > Loupe info 1 & Loupe info 2.

[NYCat]

3 minutes ago, Harry Harrison said:

You can do MP but not MB, at least not on my version, you also can have two different templates that you get to by clicking on 'I' twice.

 

Now we come to the thing I never seem to retain in my wee brain. What is the difference between MP and MB and why does Alamy say MB and not MP? I know I once learned this but it flies out of my head.

 

Paulette