Size of submissions

[colin seddon]

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

[geogphotos]

2 minutes ago, Harry Harrison said:

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.

 

 

The same confusion has been shown on this forum MANY, MANY times. 

 

I agree that Alamy should make it clearer.

[MDM]

There are several reasons why print size is a complete non-starter as Harry has said.

 

Basically, print size is completely meaningless without quoting the resolution in pixels per inch or pixels per cm. So not mentioning DPI (actually strictly speaking that should be PPI) makes the whole idea even more meaningless. What is the print size of a 6MP image? What is the print size of an 18MB image? How long is a piece of string? In addition, as I have already said above, quoting the proportions as inches, cm, pixels, picas, miles, light years is completely misleading as there are no set proportions. So an image could have relative proportions of 3x2, 1x1, 5x4 and so on. The only quantity that has any importance is the total number of pixels for a JPEG file (covering the bit depth thing there but never mind that). 

 

To clarify the guidance, I think it is necessary to briefly describe how to estimate the minimum quantity that Alamy requires for the most popular imaging software programs, updated for the present day, when many people no longer use Photoshop. What is clear is that the guidance badly needs updating.I would happily do this in a logical, clear and concise way for a reasonable fee 😀.

 

 

 

Edited October 5, 2020 by MDM

[geogphotos]

2 minutes ago, MDM said:

There are several reasons why print size is a complete non-starter as Harry has said.

 

Basically, print size is completely meaningless without quoting the resolution in pixels per inch or pixels per cm. So not mentioning DPI (actually strictly speaking that should be PPI) makes the whole idea even more meaningless. What is the print size of a 6MP image? What is the print size of an 18MB image? How long is a piece of string? In addition, as I have already said above, quoting the proportions as inches, cm, pixels, picas, miles, light years is completely misleading as there are no set proportions. So an image could have relative proportions of 3x2, 1x1, 5x4 and so on. The only quantity that has any importance is the total number of pixels for a JPEG file (covering the bit depth thing there but never mind that). 

 

To clarify the guidance, I think it is necessary to briefly describe how to estimate the minimum quantity that Alamy requires for the most popular imaging software programs, updated for the present day, when many people no longer use Photoshop. What is clear is that the guidance badly needs updating.I would happily do this in a logical, clear and concise way for a reasonable fee 😀.

 

 

 

 

 

Why not do it here on page 1?

Edited October 5, 2020 by geogphotos

[MDM]

Just now, geogphotos said:

 

 

Why not do it here on page 1?

 

It's at least a couple of day's work. I would do it but not for free. I would have to check out the various different types of software as well and do screenshots. Call it a good week's work.

[geogphotos]

9 minutes ago, MDM said:

 

It's at least a couple of day's work. I would do it but not for free. I would have to check out the various different types of software as well and do screenshots. Call it a good week's work.

 

 

So not exactly straightforward then! 

 

 

[MDM]

18 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

 

 

So not exactly straightforward then! 

 

 

It is when you understand it like many things in life. A big problem is the use of imprecise terminology. I do understand it very well.  It does definitely need tearing down and rebuilding. 
 

Incidentally a good analogy to talking about print sizes without quoting resolution would be to give someone a map and ask them to calculate distances without providing a scale. So it might be 6 inches or 15 cm from London to Manchester on the map but without a scale it is meaningless. 

[geogphotos]

1 hour ago, MDM said:

It is when you understand it like many things in life. A big problem is the use of imprecise terminology. I do understand it very well.  It does definitely need tearing down and rebuilding. 
 

Incidentally a good analogy to talking about print sizes without quoting resolution would be to give someone a map and ask them to calculate distances without providing a scale. So it might be 6 inches or 15 cm from London to Manchester on the map but without a scale it is meaningless. 

 

 

I would have thought that most photographers do understand that 300dpi is the industry standard ( for whatever reason). And they can visualise a 10 x 8 print. It was just a thought to try and get beyond this 'mega' confusion. Just as they would know that London and Manchester are a fair distance from each other. 

 

Everybody would know that you can't download a tiny thumbnail picture from the internet and make a 10x8  print of any quality. The image is just too small. Similarly Alamy's customers need  images of sufficient size for their needs. 

 

I would start somewhere around there if I was asked to teach this. 

 

All that needs to be understood for Alamy is the dimensions - the width x height - giving you an overall size. Nothing at all to do with what digital information is held within the picture. 

 

Basically people get confused between megabytes ( content) and megapixels ( dimension). Not surprising really. ie) 'mega confusion'

 

The best test for how well you understand something is how well you can explain it to somebody who doesn't.  I certainly learnt that in teaching. And very often the more you understand and know yourself about a particular subject the harder it is to unravel that because you can't imagine not knowing and understanding. 

 

 

 

 

Edited October 5, 2020 by geogphotos

[M.Chapman]

6 hours ago, geogphotos said:

I would have thought that most photographers do understand that 300dpi is the industry standard

You'd be surprised

6 hours ago, geogphotos said:

Everybody would know that you can't download a tiny thumbnail picture from the internet and make a 10x8  print of any quality.

Then you'd be surprised again... But also, sometimes you can with right click Save As... depending on how the image is hosted.

 

6 hours ago, geogphotos said:

All that needs to be understood for Alamy is the dimensions

Yes, if those dimensions are specified in pixels. But absolutley not if they are in mm or inches which will just add a further layer of confusion.

 

I wonder if it would be worth putting together an Alamy FAQ webpage that we can simpy refer newbies too? 4 pages of discussion on File submission size is extraordinary, and hardly a concise reference for newbies. Topics (and short answers) that spring to mind straight away are;

• Discoverability - Ignore it
• sRGB or AdobeRGB - You can submit either but be aware Alamy convert AdobeRGB to sRGB
• What size images does Alamy accept - Over 5,941,931 pixels (e.g. 2,000 x 3,000)
• What's a Supertag - A tag given a higher rating than an ordinary tag by Alamy's search engine
• What's CTR? - Click through rate = Views/Zooms expressed as a percentage
• Why haven't my images gone on sale - Add caption, and tags and wait 24hrs for database update

Obviously I've "paraphrased" the answers, the actual webpage would add more detail.

 

Mark

Edited October 5, 2020 by M.Chapman

[geogphotos]

Alamy already has webpage advice for newbies wanting information - they tell them to come here and ask! 

 

What did you think that the forum was for? 🤪 

[Mr Standfast]

33 minutes ago, M.Chapman said:

You'd be surprised

Then you'd be surprised again... But also, sometimes you can with right click Save As... depending on how the image is hosted.

 

Yes, if those dimensions are specified in pixels. But absolutley not if they are in mm or inches which will just add a further layer of confusion.

 

I wonder if it would be worth putting together an Alamy FAQ webpage that we can simpy refer newbies too? 4 pages of discussion on File submission size is extraordinary, and hardly a concise reference for newbies. Topics (and short answers) that spring to mind straight away are;

• Discoverability - Ignore it
• sRGB or AdobeRGB - You can submit either but be aware Alamy convert AdobeRGB to sRGB
• What size images does Alamy accept - Over 5,941,931 pixels (e.g. 2,000 x 3,000)
• What's a Supertag - A tag given a higher rating than an ordinary tag by Alamy's search engine
• What's CTR? - Click through rate = Views/Zooms expressed as a percentage
• Why haven't my images gone on sale - Add caption, and tags and wait 24hrs for database update

Obviously I've "paraphrased" the answers, the actual webpage would add more detail.

 

Mark

Nail on the head! 

[M.Chapman]

41 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

Alamy already has webpage advice for newbies wanting information - they tell them to come here and ask! 

 

What did you think that the forum was for? 🤪 

 

Ideally, not for 4 pages of confusing and sometimes contradictory respones to the OP's simple question. That's where a FAQ could be very useful. Validated and concise answers complied from knowledgeable forum members.

 

Mark

Edited October 5, 2020 by M.Chapman

[geogphotos]

It's a nice idea Mark but people learn in very different ways. Not everybody is good at absorbing written information especially of a technical kind. 

[M.Chapman]

35 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

It's a nice idea Mark but people learn in very different ways. Not everybody is good at absorbing written information especially of a technical kind. 

 

Yes I agree. If there's a long list of FAQ, or the answers are overly technical or complex, it won't work as folks won't wade their way through it. But, simple, concise, validated individual answers, which we can link to, could work? Certainly 4 pages of "ramblings" doesn't get the job done. At least we know/hope those asking the questions can read, as they've posted a witten question in the first place, although language differences may hinder.

 

Mark

Edited October 5, 2020 by M.Chapman

[geogphotos]

26 minutes ago, M.Chapman said:

 

Yes I agree. If there's a long list of FAQ, or the answers are overly technical or complex, it won't work as folks won't wade their way through it. But, simple, concise, validated individual answers, which we can link to, could work? Certainly 4 pages of "ramblings" doesn't get the job done. At least we know/hope those asking the questions can read, as they've posted a witten question in the first place, although language differences may hinder.

 

Mark

 

Didn't Alamy have some 'Stickies' for this sort of thing?

 

Where they could edit the responses to just provide the most helpful answers. That would share the load.

 

 

 

[Harry Harrison]

10 hours ago, geogphotos said:

Didn't Alamy have some 'Stickies' for this sort of thing?

 

Where they could edit the responses to just provide the most helpful answers. That would share the load.

That would be a step in the right direction generally but really just making the information on this page clearer wouldn't take long but ideally it would mean moving away from this 17MB uncompressed threshold to a new 6,000,000 pixel (6MP) one because currently 17MB uncompressed corresponds to  5,941,931 pixels:

 

https://www.alamy.com/contributor/how-to-sell-images/guidelines-for-submitting-images/

 

Regarding size it says:

• 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.

As others have said, many people are using programs other than Photoshop these days so since this size problem seems to be the most misunderstood part of the submissions process a link to a page that goes in to a bit more detail with examples from different programs would be handy. 

 

The standard confusion is between 'uncompressed' size and 'size on disc' because both are represented in MB (Megabytes) and not everyone knows just what 'compressed' would mean with respect to a jpeg anyway. A move to a 6MP (MegaPixel) threshold would remove this ambiguity in a stroke.

Edited October 6, 2020 by Harry Harrison

[DDoug]

20 hours ago, geogphotos said:

 

 

I would have thought that most photographers do understand that 300dpi is the industry standard ( for whatever reason).

 

 

150lpi, or lines per inch, is the standard for sheet-fed lithographic printing. The pixels/dots per inch of a photograph should be twice the lines per inch on the press, hence 300dpi. Prepress technicians will often use a higher resolution for raster images of typography, but the 2-1 ratio holds for photos.

Edited October 6, 2020 by DDoug
clarity

[M.Chapman]

2 minutes ago, Harry Harrison said:

That would be a step in the right direction generally but really just making the information on this page clearer wouldn't take long but ideally it would mean moving away from this 17MB uncompressed threshold to a new 6,000,000 pixel (6MP) one because currently 17MB uncompressed corresponds to  5,941,930 pixels:

 

https://www.alamy.com/contributor/how-to-sell-images/guidelines-for-submitting-images/

 

Regarding size it says:

• 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.

As others have said, many people are using programs other than Photoshop these days so since this size problem seems to be the most misunderstood part of the submissions process a link to a page that goes in to a bit more detail with examples from different programs would be handy. 

 

The standard confusion is between 'uncompressed' size and 'size on disc' because both are represented in MB (Megabytes) and not everyone knows just what 'compressed' would mean with respect to a jpeg anyway. A move to a 6MP (MegaPixel) threshold would remove this ambiguity in a stroke.

 

Yes. In reality a FAQ page shouldn't be needed as much of the confusion could be reduced if Alamy made some tweaks to their existing help pages and popup messages. But, frustratingly, the confusion over the 17MB limit has gone on for years (just try a Goggle search for 17MB Alamy). Alamy forum moderators must have noticed the numerous threads on this, and although they've made small tweaks over the years, the core problem (the use of uncompressed MB in thier description) hasn't changed.

 

The same comment applies to some of the other items I suggested for the FAQ (e.g. sRGB/AdobeRGB and Discoverability). Alamy have made very helpful forum posts in some of the issues, but these then sink into the "forum archive".  It would be more effective if the help pages were updated. But at the moment (with Covid), I think we need to be grateful that the Alamy's systems are continuing to work as well as they are, and that sales keep coming. Hence my idea of a separate FAQ page, setup and curated by knowledgeable contributors.

 

Mark

[Harry Harrison]

22 minutes ago, M.Chapman said:

sRGB/AdobeRGB

I have a feeling that, considering the efforts that you had to go to get an answer from them, Alamy probably don't want to even mention this, they probably think it might put people off, and so they 'deal' with it themselves by converting everything to sRGB as you eventually managed to discover.

 

22 minutes ago, M.Chapman said:

Discoverability

Any honest 'FAQ' page would have to say that Alamy's claims about any promised Discoverability from turning the bar green is nonsense in most circumstances. Indeed I've noticed a tweet  recently from them that actively discouraged getting too imaginative with your keywords, I think it was taken from this page:

 

https://www.alamy.com/blog/alamykeywording

 

"Customers are people too and so there is no need to start reading the thesaurus or doing in-depth Google and Wikipedia research into every permutation of each word you add to your images. Customers don’t generally look for: “Juvenile female, facial expression, eco-friendly transportation device, mid-adult couple, familial togetherness, non-urban environment”. 

Actual people are more likely to be looking for: “girl, smiling, riding, bike, family, countryside”."

 

It's a pretty good page actually, also mentions Alamy Measures.

 

Edited October 6, 2020 by Harry Harrison

[MizBrown]

9 hours ago, Harry Harrison said:

The standard confusion is between 'uncompressed' size and 'size on disc' because both are represented in MB (Megabytes) and not everyone knows just what 'compressed' would mean with respect to a jpeg anyway. A move to a 6MP (MegaPixel) threshold would remove this ambiguity in a stroke.

 

I can get pixel dimensions in Mac's Photo (menu dive), in DXO PhotoLab 3,  and in Capture One Express for Sony (metadata drop down menu).  That's what I have on my iMac.   "Get Info" on Macs will also show file dimensions in pixels.  I haven't checked on anything Windows centric.   When the operating system has a way to show pixel dimensions independent of graphics programs, then Mac is covered, and probably Windows (I can pull my Windows laptop out of the closet if nobody has a Windows machine open when reading this.   Give people how to check in various programs that are commonly used and then how to check through the OS if they're using a graphics program not covered. 

 

Looks like the more experienced photographers have been using pixel dimensions already, and that Alamy filters on those for turning down photos that are too small.

 

 

[MDM]

45 minutes ago, MizBrown said:

 

I can get pixel dimensions in Mac's Photo (menu dive), in DXO PhotoLab 3,  and in Capture One Express for Sony (metadata drop down menu).  That's what I have on my iMac.   "Get Info" on Macs will also show file dimensions in pixels.  I haven't checked on anything Windows centric.   When the operating system has a way to show pixel dimensions independent of graphics programs, then Mac is covered, and probably Windows (I can pull my Windows laptop out of the closet if nobody has a Windows machine open when reading this.   Give people how to check in various programs that are commonly used and then how to check through the OS if they're using a graphics program not covered. 

 

Looks like the more experienced photographers have been using pixel dimensions already, and that Alamy filters on those for turning down photos that are too small.

 

 

 

The important parameter is not the pixels dimensions themselves but the product of the dimensions: so it is the length x height and preferably for simplicity (length x height)/1,000,000 to give the result in megapixels. If we were talking about land, then we would be talking about the area of a field (so hectares or acres). It doesn't matter if it is a very long thin field (panorama) or a nicely proportioned out of camera one (3x2). I can't see the product in MP in any of those places - they all give the individual dimensions (I don't have Capture One)

 

OK it is a very simple calculation but the people who tend to ask these questions probably need it on a plate. So Lightroom gives this figure as MP.  Photoshop gives it in MB which can be slightly confusing but is easily gotten around as it is approximately 3xMP for 8-bit images . Rewriting the guidance clearly for the 2020s with examples for the various imaging apps is the only way forward I think. 

 

 

 

 

 

[wiskerke]

3 hours ago, MizBrown said:

I can get pixel dimensions in Mac's Photo (menu dive), in DXO PhotoLab 3,  and in Capture One Express for Sony (metadata drop down menu).  That's what I have on my iMac.   "Get Info" on Macs will also show file dimensions in pixels.  I haven't checked on anything Windows centric. 

 

I have never used this before, but yes in File Explorer on Windows, go to the file and right-click; click on Properties (last on the list); open the details tab and scroll down to Dimensions, where there will be something like 976x1216 and just to clarify this, underneath it will display the same numbers as Width and Height in pixels.

 

My guess is that some people even have no idea what pixels are or resolution or ppi or dpi or even Mb or megapixels, other than a word on the box.

So not better explaining it could well have been a an extra hurdle to keep the blatantly ignorant out. Intended or not.

 

wim

 

edit: My guess is that on a plain vanilla Windows machine an image will automatically open in Photos, just like on a Mac.

So in Photos, with an image open right click on it and go to File info at the bottom of the fly out menu. There are the dimensions under, you guessed it, Dimensions.

 

Edited October 6, 2020 by wiskerke

[MDM]

30 minutes ago, wiskerke said:

 

 

My guess is that some people even have no idea what pixels are or resolution or ppi or dpi or even Mb or megapixels, other than a word on the box.

So not better explaining it could well have been a an extra hurdle to keep the blatantly ignorant out. Intended or not.

 

 

 

I think a lot of people nowadays have a reasonable idea what MP means (not talking about British politicians - that is far more complex) as a lot of or even most people are coming to photography through phones and camera quality on phones is a high priority selling point. And a lot probably know that bigger MP does not necessarily mean better quality. 

 

As for the second bit, it could be true but I think it is more likely that Alamy know that someone on the forum will answer the question. I don't bother any more. I just came in here to correct some factual errors as things got more and more confusing. 

 

 

Edited October 6, 2020 by MDM

[MizBrown]

On 06/10/2020 at 13:45, wiskerke said:

 

I have never used this before, but yes in File Explorer on Windows, go to the file and right-click; click on Properties (last on the list); open the details tab and scroll down to Dimensions, where there will be something like 976x1216 and just to clarify this, underneath it will display the same numbers as Width and Height in pixels.

 

My guess is that some people even have no idea what pixels are or resolution or ppi or dpi or even Mb or megapixels, other than a word on the box.

So not better explaining it could well have been a an extra hurdle to keep the blatantly ignorant out. Intended or not.

 

wim

 

edit: My guess is that on a plain vanilla Windows machine an image will automatically open in Photos, just like on a Mac.

So in Photos, with an image open right click on it and go to File info at the bottom of the fly out menu. There are the dimensions under, you guessed it, Dimensions.

 

 

Basically, use a camera that has a 16 MP M4/3rds sensor or bigger unless you have enough experience to use one of the best 1 inch sensors (and for the money, a entry level apsc will be cheaper).  Don't crop too much unless your sensor is well bigger than 24 MP.

 

My impression was in at least three recent inquires about "why are my photos being rejected as too small," people wanted us to tell them how to fix Alamy's uploading screening, not how to fix their problems with files that are too small.

 

I think I'm finished scraping my old photo files.  3,000 by 2,000 worked for finding Nikon D50 and Panasonic GF1 files that could be exported.  D300 and the Sony cameras -- if it's in focus, exposed correctly, and I remember it after all these years, it will export fine unless it's cropped too much.