Jump to content
  • 0

Size of submissions


Question

Hi, I wonder if anyone can answer my query.

 
I have just sent in a submission of 40 images but 5 have been rejected for being too small and not in the 3-5 mb size.
 
I have checked the images and the images are as follows;
 
AAB9502 - 2377 x 2343 - 6.15mb
 
AAB9503 - 2050 x 2377 - 5.54mb
 
DSC0025 - 2691 x 2005 - 7.59mb
 
DSC0025 - 2701 x 2183 - 6.56mb
 
DSC0033 - 2412 x 2000 - 4.82mb. 
 
Can you enlighten me as to how these images are not within the required size please.
 
What am I missing?
 
Regards
 
Colin
Link to post
Share on other sites

Recommended Posts

  • 0
24 minutes ago, M.Chapman said:

 

However, what's important to this thread is that PS, Alamy and the Alamy size checker app are all using the original definition of a Megabyte, i.e. 1MB = 1,048,576 bytes. Probably another reason why Alamy should change the minimum size to 6MP (6 million pixels) to avoid another source of confusion/ambiguity..

 

Mark

 

True and we have been saying this for years. The guidance is way out of date and lacks clarity in the description. Having said that, it should really be obvious to anyone with a basic knowledge of digital imaging what it really means. It is not rocket science as the man said more or less and then went on to make a dog's dinner of his explanation which is the only reason I bothered to post. I decided quite some time back not to answer questions about file size and Alamy QC having answered such  questions numerous times and still Alamy does nothing to properly update the guidance. Now where is the Nurofen? 😀

Edited by MDM
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
4 hours ago, Klinger said:

uploading exactly 3000 x 2000 may get rejected as under 6MP.

As Mark Chapman says above, 6MP is slightly over Alamy's threshold of 17MB uncompressed, which actually would equate to 2,986  x 1,991 pixels. Many people downsize to 3000 x 2000 pixels on here.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
17 hours ago, Harry Harrison said:

 

In my opinion pixel dimensions (and the easy-to-remember 6MP rule) are far and away the easiest way to work out if your images are of sufficient size.

 

 

 

Did learn about using 16 bit over lower bit rates. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
5 hours ago, MDM said:

I think Alamy's use of MB comes from advice based around the use of Photoshop which traditionally gave the pixel size of the image in Megabytes in the Image Size dialog. If they would stop using terms like "Uncompressed Image Size" it might help as this term is effectively meaningless for Lightroom users. 


Minimum measurements of 3000 by 2000 does seem to get through the import size filter, and that will show up in Lightroom.   The other requires opening Photoshop, but that's not absolutely necessary.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
53 minutes ago, MizBrown said:


Minimum measurements of 3000 by 2000 does seem to get through the import size filter, and that will show up in Lightroom.   The other requires opening Photoshop, but that's not absolutely necessary.

 

Exactly. I agree and that is what I am saying. The guidance is entirely based on Photoshop which a lot of people don't use nowadays. The actual proportions don't matter though - they could equally be 4000x1500 or 6000x1000 as long as they are 6,000,000 pixels which will easily clear the 17MB bar (3x 6,000,000). You can set Lightroom to give the size in megapixels. The idea of an open file size is meaningless in Lightroom. If it was up to me I would rewrite the guidance in very simple terms for Lightroom and Photoshop users. I don't understand why Alamy have never done this. 

Edited by MDM
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

I check Image Size in Photoshelter when I crop files from my Canon 5D mk3.

 

I find it important to have a routine so that all these little decisions don't take up precious time. For some reason I can't even remember I set myself a minimum file size of 26M ( it must have been an agency that wanted them at 25M plus I add a margin) 

 

I0000sY8G3SX1Yv4.jpg

 

I generally resize to 3800 longest side and then just check that it is over my 26M minimum. I can see at a glance that the file is 27.5M so that all is well.

 

Finally, I'd say that if your camera is only capable of reaching Alamy's bare minimum then you really need to get a better camera.

 

 And if you say 'I can't afford to' I would reply that 'you can't afford not to'. No point spending lots of time and effort creating images if they are going to be only marginal. 

Edited by geogphotos
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
16 hours ago, Harry Harrison said:

My fault, a typo, not helpful obviously, should be 2828 x 2121!

 

LOL yeah we all do that. 😎  Wait, what is 2828 x 2121? 5,998,188 it's still under 6,000,000? But I understand where you are headed, for the 4:3 camera, I don't have one and I'm not going to worry about an odd pixels here or there as long as my calculations are over 6,000,000 before I upload something here.

 

3 hours ago, NYCat said:

OMG. You guys are on the 3rd page of this..... 

 

Paulette

 

Guilty as charged

 

Possibly the last one, but some days I can't help myself? 🤡

 

Really short answer: MegaPixels measure the size of digital images, sensors and displays. MegaBytes measure the size of digital files.

 

Yes, Alamy should drop the confusing mix of definitions, terms and requirements. We've been having this same discussion for at least 12 years now.

 

Logically speaking, I thought the simple answer would be what I do. I get out the calculator, multiple #### x #### and I have Megapixels. But what could be easier? scratch.gif

Definition of megapixel: one million pixels

I'll guess that doesn't mean the following is correct, because I'll admit the Internet is an infinite echo chamber of misinformation, disinformation and people just copy from others which reproduces more misinformation. But since definition sites and photo sites, list the following, I guess I'm buying it? (make that I don't know, but I like the simple use a calculator answer)

 

megapixel
[ˈmeɡəˌpiks(ə)l]
NOUN
computing
megapixel (noun) · megapixels (plural noun) · MP (noun) · MPs (plural noun)
  1. a unit of graphic resolution equivalent to one million or (strictly) 1,048,576 (220) pixels.
     
     
    Another site:
    How many pixels are in one megapixel?
    A Megapixel is simply a unit of graphic resolution equivalent to one million. Or more precisely 1,048,576 (220) pixels.
     
    beatdeadhorse.gif
     
    Could someone please explain why the Moon looks bigger when it's rising, but photographs the same size and when it's higher in the sky? I mean if it was water vapor, then wouldn't the photograph show it larger as well?
     
    “Do We Perceive the Corporeal World?”
     
    Or explain why I think a megapixel is 1,048,576 (220) when logically, it's a simple as 1000 x 1000?
     
    As a insomniac, agnostic, dyslexic person I do lay awake some nights wonder if there is a Dog.
     
     
     
     
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
55 minutes ago, Klinger said:

 

LOL yeah we all do that. 😎  Wait, what is 2828 x 2121? 5,998,188 it's still under 6,000,000? But I understand where you are headed, for the 4:3 camera, I don't have one and I'm not going to worry about an odd pixels here or there as long as my calculations are over 6,000,000 before I upload something here.

 

 

Guilty as charged

 

Possibly the last one, but some days I can't help myself? 🤡

 

Really short answer: MegaPixels measure the size of digital images, sensors and displays. MegaBytes measure the size of digital files.

 

Yes, Alamy should drop the confusing mix of definitions, terms and requirements. We've been having this same discussion for at least 12 years now.

 

Logically speaking, I thought the simple answer would be what I do. I get out the calculator, multiple #### x #### and I have Megapixels. But what could be easier? scratch.gif

Definition of megapixel: one million pixels

I'll guess that doesn't mean the following is correct, because I'll admit the Internet is an infinite echo chamber of misinformation, disinformation and people just copy from others which reproduces more misinformation. But since definition sites and photo sites, list the following, I guess I'm buying it? (make that I don't know, but I like the simple use a calculator answer)

 

megapixel
[ˈmeɡəˌpiks(ə)l]
NOUN
computing
megapixel (noun) · megapixels (plural noun) · MP (noun) · MPs (plural noun)
  1. a unit of graphic resolution equivalent to one million or (strictly) 1,048,576 (220) pixels.
     
     
    Another site:
    How many pixels are in one megapixel?
    A Megapixel is simply a unit of graphic resolution equivalent to one million. Or more precisely 1,048,576 (220) pixels.
     
    beatdeadhorse.gif
     
    Could someone please explain why the Moon looks bigger when it's rising, but photographs the same size and when it's higher in the sky? I mean if it was water vapor, then wouldn't the photograph show it larger as well?
     
    “Do We Perceive the Corporeal World?”
     
    Or explain why I think a megapixel is 1,048,576 (220) when logically, it's a simple as 1000 x 1000?
     
    As a insomniac, agnostic, dyslexic person I do lay awake some nights wonder if there is a Dog.
     
     
     
     

 

Perhaps you should ask the people who are providing erroneous information. A megapixel is 1,000,000 pixels and that is simple fact. 

 

I read years ago that the moon thing is an optical illusion. That is fascinating. I don't understand it. 

 

There is definitely a dog. It keeps me awake at night barking. There is also a cock. It wakes me up before dawn crowing. I must sleep in between.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
7 minutes ago, MDM said:

 

Perhaps you should ask the people who are providing erroneous information. A megapixel is 1,000,000 pixels and that is simple fact. 

 

I read years ago that the moon thing is an optical illusion. That is fascinating. I don't understand it. 

 

There is definitely a dog. It keeps me awake at night barking. There is also a cock. It wakes me up before dawn crowing. I must sleep in between.

 

 

 

 

Thanks for understanding the conundrum of an infinite echo chamber of disinformation. When is 1 million not 1 million? When some sites claim it's a byte count instead of a pixel count? But my simple point was (which I made to complex as usual) The software that is used for intake of images, might be calculating wrong. I know on another site that uploading an image that exactly 4MP = 4,000,000 will get a size rejection, but 4,096,000 will pass.

 

The Moon illusion is another example, when a search is simple and has the answer... which isn't the answer? Water droplets? Give me a break!

 

https://www.verywellmind.com/the-moon-illusion-some-possible-explanations-4111097#:~:text= Possible Explanations for the Moon Illusion ,two of the most prominent theories%2C... More

 

Kcoc? 😉

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
3 hours ago, Klinger said:

Wait, what is 2828 x 2121? 5,998,188 it's still under 6,000,000

Sure, but just to be pedantic, Alamy don't have a 6MP lower threshold at the moment but a lot of us here would like them to adopt one so that everyone could use their calculator as you suggest. At the moment it is 17MB uncompressed which is 5,941,930 pixels as Mark has stated above somewhere.

 

However, you're right, my figures should match 6MP so I've rounded them up to 2832 x 2124.

Edited by Harry Harrison
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
7 hours ago, geogphotos said:

Finally, I'd say that if your camera is only capable of reaching Alamy's bare minimum then you really need to get a better camera.

 

 And if you say 'I can't afford to' I would reply that 'you can't afford not to'. No point spending lots of time and effort creating images if they are going to be only marginal. 

 

I have better cameras now, but everyone is wearing masks so street photography now would get dated fast.   And I have enough cat and dog photos and I've shot multiples of my plants.   🙂

 

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
16 hours ago, M.Chapman said:

 

Lots on the internet about this. e.g. https://www.photoshopessentials.com/essentials/16-bit/

 

Mark

 

 

Since I mostly work in Lightroom Classic, I went searching and found this:  http://asktimgrey.com/2017/06/09/bit-depth-in-lightroom/

 

SO, LRC just does it.  I think some of the communications issues have been Lightroom  not quite having the same information available within the program that Photoshop has.  

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
6 hours ago, MizBrown said:

I think some of the communications issues have been Lightroom  not quite having the same information available within the program that Photoshop has.  

That's true, you can set the 'Cropped dimensions' to appear in the grid or loupe view but not 'Cropped megapixels', at least not in LR 6.14. You can export to a fixed Megapixel size but that's not especially useful as an image would still slip though if you had 'Don't enlarge' checked. I don't usually downsize for Alamy and I don't crop much so it's never been a problem for me as my lowest resolution camera is 12MP.

 

The Alamy Size Checker does seem to work well as a final check on exported jpegs though I wish he would update his one and only screenshot to reflect the (not very) new Alamy Size threshold of 17MB uncompressed as it's just going to confuse new contributors even more, he has updated the program but in the screenshot a 23.2MB is shown as having failed.

 

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

Edited by Harry Harrison
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
2 hours ago, Harry Harrison said:

The Alamy Size Checker does seem to work well as a final check on exported jpegs though I wish he would update his one and only screenshot to reflect the (not very) new Alamy Size threshold of 17MB uncompressed as it's just going to confuse new contributors even more, he has updated the program but in the screenshot a 23.2MB is shown as having failed.

 

The screenshot on the webpage hasn't been updated, but fortunately the software has. The only thing that hasn't been updated is that it still gives an unnecessary warning if the profile is sRGB instead of AdobeRGB

 

Mark

Edited by M.Chapman
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
16 hours ago, Harry Harrison said:

The Alamy Size Checker does seem to work well as a final check on exported jpegs though I wish he would update his one and only screenshot to reflect the (not very) new Alamy Size threshold of 17MB uncompressed as it's just going to confuse new contributors even more, he has updated the program but in the screenshot a 23.2MB is shown as having failed.

 

Doesn't appear to work with Catalina.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

If confused might it be easier for some people to start by using cms/inches for image dimension ( size) instead of pixels?

 

ie) approx 10 x 7 inches 

Edited by geogphotos
  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
9 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

If confused might it be easier for some people to start by using cms/inches for image dimension ( size) instead of pixels?

 

ie) approx 10 x 7 inches 

 

Oh no, I don't think so Ian, that will mean introducing the concept of 'dpi' as well, and dpi really has nothing to do with it quite apart from being yet another concept that is difficult to explain. 

 

So if you take 3000 x 2000 pixels as the (not quite) minimum then this is:

 

10" x 6.67" @ 300 dpi

12.5" x 8.3" @ 240 dpi

41.7" x 27.8" @ 72 dpi

 

The dpi setting on upload is completely ignored by Alamy as it has no bearing on the image size or quality. For full resolution images they will set it to 300 dpi on download, for fixed size royalty-free images they set it to 72 dpi for Small & Extra Small, 150 dpi for Medium and 300 dpi for Large, Extra Large and Extra Extra Large. I've always thought that 150 dpi for Medium is pretty weird, neither one thing or another.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
14 minutes ago, Harry Harrison said:

 

Oh no, I don't think so Ian, that will mean introducing the concept of 'dpi' as well, and dpi really has nothing to do with it quite apart from being yet another concept that is difficult to explain. 

 

So if you take 3000 x 2000 pixels as the (not quite) minimum then this is:

 

10" x 6.67" @ 300 dpi

12.5" x 8.3" @ 240 dpi

41.7" x 27.8" @ 72 dpi

 

The dpi setting on upload is completely ignored by Alamy as it has no bearing on the image size or quality. For full resolution images they will set it to 300 dpi on download, for fixed size royalty-free images they set it to 72 dpi for Small & Extra Small, 150 dpi for Medium and 300 dpi for Large, Extra Large and Extra Extra Large. I've always thought that 150 dpi for Medium is pretty weird, neither one thing or another.

 

 

 

 

I never ever think about DPI and I didn't mention it either. 

 

The amount of confusion over megapixels and megabytes - demonstared by this HUGE thread suggests to me that some people might benefit from taking a different approach to image dimension when they get started.

 

Everybody is used to standard print sizes from their home printer, and without having any idea of the reasons most people know that 300dpi is 'standard'.

It just IS.

 

6x4 inches - too small for Alamy

7x5 - ditto

10x8 - approx minimum size for Alamy 

Edited by geogphotos
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
3 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

Everybody is used to standard print sizes from their home printer

 

6x4 inches

7x5

10x8

Sorry Ian, that just doesn't make sense without dpi whether you mention it or not, a home printer will have a bash at producing a print from a range of pixel dimensions.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
2 minutes ago, Harry Harrison said:

Sorry Ian, that just doesn't make sense without dpi whether you mention it or not, a home printer will have a bash at producing a print from a range of pixel dimensions.

 

 

Okay, but more people are familiar with standard print sizes than all this endless confusion over pixels and bytes. 

 

Just a thought. 

 

If it was easy to explain why are we on page 3?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
2 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

If it was easy to explain why are we on page 3?

I think that's just because the OP has never returned so we're all just whistling in the wind. It was clear from the pixel dimensions that he gave what his problem was, we just don't understand why he was uploading such small images. Then some time was spent trying to explain to Shareece what her problem was but he/she didn't come back either.

 

Pixel dimensions are all that are needed and hopefully Alamy might one day set a new easy to remember 6MP threshold.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.