Jump to content

Recommended Posts

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 by Flash68
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd go ahead and upload them, if they date from 2003ish they will have some historical value too.

 

I've submitted photos using a Sony Alpha 200 3724x2592 pixels admittedly slightly larger than yours and never had a problem.

 

If the image size is too small for Alamy it usually tells you at the image upload stage that file is too small.

 

I wouldn't upscale them as it leads to all sorts of quality issues in my view

Edited by David Pimborough
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

Allan

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by Harry Harrison
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by Chuck Nacke
  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by Phil Robinson
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by Cee Dee Dickinson
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by spacecadet
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by John Mitchell
Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by MDM
Link to post
Share on other sites
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

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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%

  • Like 3
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by spacecadet
  • 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.