Should I upscale?

[Flash68]

When I started contributing to Alamy back in 2003, I was using a 6mp Konica Minolta Dynax 7D. It was a great camera for its time and all of my submissions were accepted (and many have sold, even fairly recently).

I've just come across quite a large batch of photos taken with this camera that were not submitted, many of which I'd like to submit.

My question is, are 6mp photos still relevant today?

According to the submission guidelines they will still scrape through - just. 

Dimensions are 2000x3008, uncompressed file size of a sample image is 17.2MB and compressed 3.2MB

So I'd assume that if I submitted them they will pass QC. Is its likely though that anyone would want images of this size (maybe for web / presentation use). Would I be better upscaling them? If so, has anyone had issues with upscaling, does Alamy check the size of file against that expected from the EXIF data? And if upscaling is acceptable, what are you using? Photoshop, Gigapixel AI etc?

Edited January 9, 2021 by Flash68

[Allan Bell]

Agree upscaling in my early days with Alamy caused me a lot of problems and QC fails.

 

Allan

 

[Harry Harrison]

Bear in mind that upscaling in the early days of Alamy was extreme, if you're talking about very minor upscaling to get over the 17.2MB uncompressed threshold, if you've cropped very slightly for example, then I wouldn't think it would affect the quality enough to matter. No idea if Alamy check against the EXIF but I don't think you have to include it anyway so probably not. At the end of the day, like all of us, you have to be the judge of the quality and whether the picture is worth it. There's always the 'Archive' route if you have permission for it and the pictures are relevant to that category but that shouldn't be used as a way to avoid QC.

[Cal]

10 minutes ago, Harry Harrison said:

Bear in mind that upscaling in the early days of Alamy was extreme, if you're talking about very minor upscaling to get over the 17.2MB uncompressed threshold, if you've cropped very slightly for example, then I wouldn't think it would affect the quality enough to matter. No idea if Alamy check against the EXIF but I don't think you have to include it anyway so probably not. At the end of the day, like all of us, you have to be the judge of the quality and whether the picture is worth it. There's always the 'Archive' route if you have permission for it and the pictures are relevant to that category but that shouldn't be used as a way to avoid QC.

 

What were the upscaling requirements before they dropped it to 6MP? I have read the number 48 but I am not sure whether that was 48megapixels (which is frankly absurd!) or 48MB, which I think works out at about 16MP.

 

Regardless, to the OP: 6MP is the minimum size for Alamy today which works out at approximately 3000x2000 so your files will be accepted. I occasionally downsize my own 24MP files to 3000x2000/6MP, usually where I've cropped significantly and want to keep the image sharp or perhaps if noise is a little higher than I'd like in its full size. I have no data on how well such downsized images sell compared to their full size counterparts, but given that 3000x2000 is still significantly larger than HD resolution and at 150 DPI big enough to just about fill the entire front page of a broadsheet newspaper, I suspect it isn't much of an issue.

[Flash68]

Thanks for the advice everyone, I'll keep them as they are and upload as 6MP.

[Harry Harrison]

33 minutes ago, Cal said:

I have read the number 48 but I am not sure whether that was 48megapixels (which is frankly absurd!) or 48MB, which I think works out at about 16MP.

The latter but it was before my time, I think it then went down to 24MB later but someone else will need to confirm. Actually here's an article from 2009 that demonstrates that there was still the same potential confusion about file sizes as there is now.

 

https://www.photocrati.com/sizing-for-alamy/

Edited January 9, 2021 by Harry Harrison

[sb photos]

1 hour ago, Cal said:

but given that 3000x2000 is still significantly larger than HD resolution and at 150 DPI big enough to just about fill the entire front page of a broadsheet newspaper, I suspect it isn't much of an issue.

 

I've uploaded many 3000 x 2000 17.2mb images that have sold, previously live news, then lapsed live news, and now reportage. Used to be for faster uploads using my phone as a hot spot. Last were so noise was acceptable as they were shot at iso 5000 under night street lighting. 

[John Mitchell]

These days, upscaling is risky IMO. Most uses are small, so 6 MP is probably just fine a lot of the time. I had an RF sale last month, and the buyer chose 1842 pixels (medium). I still upload images that were taken with my 10 MP Sony a100, which was really a Minolta in disguise. It too was a very nice camera. 

[Chuck Nacke]

16 hours ago, Cal said:

 

What were the upscaling requirements before they dropped it to 6MP? I have read the number 48 but I am not sure whether that was 48megapixels (which is frankly absurd!) or 48MB, which I think works out at about 16MP.

 

Regardless, to the OP: 6MP is the minimum size for Alamy today which works out at approximately 3000x2000 so your files will be accepted. I occasionally downsize my own 24MP files to 3000x2000/6MP, usually where I've cropped significantly and want to keep the image sharp or perhaps if noise is a little higher than I'd like in its full size. I have no data on how well such downsized images sell compared to their full size counterparts, but given that 3000x2000 is still significantly larger than HD resolution and at 150 DPI big enough to just about fill the entire front page of a broadsheet newspaper, I suspect it isn't much of an issue.

Cal,

 

48MB, I thought it was 55MB.  These days with stock agencies or libraries most demand at least 50+MB files.

 

In answer to the OP's original question, yes it is worth VERY CAREFULLY upsizing (upscaling) IF THE SUBJECT OF THE IMAGE IS WORTH IT.

One of my most licensed images on Alamy was shot with a very high-end at the time 2.1MP DSLR.

 

Luckily I only shoot in RAW in 14bit color, which gives me a lot more ability to upsize.

 

Chuck

Edited January 10, 2021 by Chuck Nacke

[Phil Robinson]

Due to a lack of other opportunities, I have recently been going back to RAW files I took in 2006/7 with a Nikon D100 - also 17.2MB.
Better software and 15 years experience of Photoshop mean I can now produce much better looking JPEGs than I could back then (not to mention captioning and keywording).

Any cropping or even straightening means they drop below the 17MB limit so I have been resizing some of them, but only by the minimum necessary.
They've all got through QC so far, though I'm not sure anyone's actually looked at any of them...

As Chuck said, lucky we got into the habit of shooting RAW early on.

 

Edited January 10, 2021 by Phil Robinson

[Cee Dee Dickinson]

On 09/01/2021 at 10:12, Flash68 said:

When I started contributing to Alamy back in 2003, I was using a 6mp Konica Minolta Dynax 7D. It was a great camera for its time and all of my submissions were accepted (and many have sold, even fairly recently).

I've just come across quite a large batch of photos taken with this camera that were not submitted, many of which I'd like to submit.

My question is, are 6mp photos still relevant today?

According to the submission guidelines they will still scrape through - just. 

Dimensions are 2000x3008, uncompressed file size of a sample image is 17.2MB and compressed 3.2MB

So I'd assume that if I submitted them they will pass QC. Is its likely though that anyone would want images of this size (maybe for web / presentation use). Would I be better upscaling them? If so, has anyone had issues with upscaling, does Alamy check the size of file against that expected from the EXIF data? And if upscaling is acceptable, what are you using? Photoshop, Gigapixel AI etc?

All my images have been recorded using a D50. All upload sets have passed QC. Which means  they are of sufficient size and quality  to be used on websites and in print. 

 

My advice is leave upsizing to the customer.

Hope this helps

 

 

Edited January 10, 2021 by Cee Dee Dickinson

[spacecadet]

3 minutes ago, Cee Dee Dickinson said:

All my images have been recorded using a D50. All upload sets have passed QC. Which means  they are of sufficient size and quality  to be used on websites and in print. 

Hope this helps

 

 

Then presumably you do not crop, as the D50 is just above the minimum.

Edited January 10, 2021 by spacecadet

[Cee Dee Dickinson]

3 minutes ago, spacecadet said:

Then presumably you do not crop, as the D50 is just above the minimum.

Correct. My legs are the cropping tool.  

[Cal]

5 hours ago, Chuck Nacke said:

 

 

In answer to the OP's original question, yes it is worth VERY CAREFULLY upsizing (upscaling) IF THE SUBJECT OF THE IMAGE IS WORTH IT.

One of my most licensed images on Alamy was shot with a very high-end at the time 2.1MP DSLR.

 

 

I would love to know what make and model of DSLR that was. The earliest DSLR I've used, a Canon 1Ds, was 11MP and launched in 2002.

[spacecadet]

52 minutes ago, Cal said:

 

I would love to know what make and model of DSLR that was. The earliest DSLR I've used, a Canon 1Ds, was 11MP and launched in 2002.

One of the Kodak DCSs, I expect, Chuck? 315 or 330? The D50 was only 6MP. Sigma SD9 was only 3.4MP in 2002.

 

[sb photos]

37 minutes ago, spacecadet said:

One of the Kodak DCSs, I expect, Chuck? 315 or 330? The D50 was only 6MP. Sigma SD9 was only 3.4MP in 2002.

 

 

I remember a friend buying his first digital camera new, a Canon D30 3MP camera, and using the lenses from his EOS-1 film camera. I didn't rate it.  My introduction to digital cameras was a Fujifilm S602 Pro Zoom 3.1MP that had an option to interpolate to 6MP internally. Cost over £600 at the time. Most of my photography then was scanned film.

[John Mitchell]

I'm no expert on these matters, but I think that images from low MP cameras might have upsized well due to the larger pixels (compared to today's high MP APS-C sensor cameras). I know that images from my Sony a100 (10 MP) upsized to 48MB very well. I don't think that I ever had a QC failure due to upscaling when we had to do that.

Edited January 10, 2021 by John Mitchell

[MDM]

On 09/01/2021 at 10:12, Flash68 said:

When I started contributing to Alamy back in 2003, I was using a 6mp Konica Minolta Dynax 7D. It was a great camera for its time and all of my submissions were accepted (and many have sold, even fairly recently).

I've just come across quite a large batch of photos taken with this camera that were not submitted, many of which I'd like to submit.

My question is, are 6mp photos still relevant today?

According to the submission guidelines they will still scrape through - just. 

Dimensions are 2000x3008, uncompressed file size of a sample image is 17.2MB and compressed 3.2MB

So I'd assume that if I submitted them they will pass QC. Is its likely though that anyone would want images of this size (maybe for web / presentation use). Would I be better upscaling them? If so, has anyone had issues with upscaling, does Alamy check the size of file against that expected from the EXIF data? And if upscaling is acceptable, what are you using? Photoshop, Gigapixel AI etc?

 Nowadays, because the majority (perhaps vast majority) of sales are for web usage, there is much less of a need for large images and upscaling would be pointless given that the uncropped images are already large enough. 

 

48 minutes ago, John Mitchell said:

I'm no expert on these matters, but I think that images from low MP cameras might have upsized well due to the larger pixels (compared to today's cameras). I know that images from my Sony a100 (10 MP) upsized to 48MB very well. I don't think that I ever had a QC failure due to upscaling when we had to do that.

I have never heard that about lowMP cameras. Not saying it is wrong, just that I have never heard it. 
 

Back in those days of minimum 48MB images, there was no sharpening at all permitted so I think maybe Alamy QC took that into account. Images did not necessarily have to look pin sharp - they just had to look like they could be properly sharpened. As sensor sizes went up and Alamy file size requirements went down as well as there seemingly being.a tolerance for some basic sharpening (e.g. Lightroom or ACR default sharpening), I started to aim for sharper looking images. 

Edited January 10, 2021 by MDM

[Chuck Nacke]

10 hours ago, Cal said:

 

I would love to know what make and model of DSLR that was. The earliest DSLR I've used, a Canon 1Ds, was 11MP and launched in 2002.

Cal,

 

That was the KODAK / NIKON DCS-620.  It was a really great DSLR camera,  I have a number of images on Alamy that were made with it.

I also had several DCS-460's with the 6MP CCD sensor, those were very difficult to work with, even had a 460 that was modified by

NASA for Shuttle flights.  I used FUJI DSLR's for years, S-2 to S-5's.  At low ISO's I still think the CCD sensors were better.

 

Back to the point I was making, the image (subject) is more important than the MP's of the sensor that shot the image.

 

Chuck

[Flash68]

An update to this. I exported my 6MP images from Lightroom and found that some did not meet the minimum compressed size so I upscaled these by 150% to just exceed the minimum. Using Photoshop's 'Preserve Details 2.0' in the resample option. Zooming in I could not tell any difference in quality or sharpness and they have just passed QC this morning - a mixture of direct 6MP exports and some upscaled 150%

[Harry Harrison]

39 minutes ago, Flash68 said:

Zooming in I could not tell any difference in quality or sharpness and they have just passed QC this morning - a mixture of direct 6MP exports and some upscaled 150%

That's good news, out of interest have you compared just upscaling in Lightroom using the Export option compared to Photoshop? You can set a megapixel minimum size there.

[spacecadet]

41 minutes ago, Flash68 said:

An update to this. I exported my 6MP images from Lightroom and found that some did not meet the minimum compressed size so I upscaled these by 150% to just exceed the minimum. Using Photoshop's 'Preserve Details 2.0' in the resample option. Zooming in I could not tell any difference in quality or sharpness and they have just passed QC this morning - a mixture of direct 6MP exports and some upscaled 150%

Presumably you mean uncompressed, because of cropping? There isn't a minimum compressed size as such, but overcompression might cause a QC fail. Anything 90% or above (LR) is fine.

[Flash68]

Harry, I've not tried exporting in LR with increased size. From what I read Preserve Details 2.0 resampling in PS offers the best quality but for some reason is not the default in PS so I would be surprised if it was used in LR. I'll do some tests at the weekend.
Spacecadet, no I didn't crop, although they were all over 17MB uncompressed, some were around 2.8MB compressed though. I think I had wrongly read that 3.2MB uncompressed was a requirement when this was probably stating that this is an approximate size of a 17MB image when compressed so I probably didn't need to upscale them anyway.

[spacecadet]

In case you didn't know, you can set an export preset in LR for a fixed resize. I use it to downsize high ISO images, just over the minimum at 3250px long side, but if you untick the "don't enlarge" box it will upsize as well.

There's no choice of interpolation method but I've never had any trouble with it.

Edited January 13, 2021 by spacecadet

[Olli]

On 10/01/2021 at 21:18, MDM said:

 Nowadays, because the majority (perhaps vast majority) of sales are for web usage, there is much less of a need for large images and upscaling would be pointless given that the uncropped images are already large enough. 

Totally agreed. Plus if your images are editorial in nature, then you'll have even less of an issue regarding size. Many images on news wire services are no bigger than 4000 px longest side. Anything bigger we usually downsized to about 3500px