Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Well thought out, Peter. I'm curious as to when and why you chose between shooting 3:2 and 4:3?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just did a little test. I had a couple of pictures that I thought were saleable but just a tad soft (focus) at around 16Mpx. I tried downsizing to 70% linear (around 10Mpx) and they still looked just as soft to my eyes (and my wife's and she is not a photographer). Let's face it downsizing does not create any new data.

 

I might have a play with sharpening and downsizing to inform my policy of: If ain't sharp at (where it should be) at native resolution then it ain't good enough as an example of my work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just did a little test. I had a couple of pictures that I thought were saleable but just a tad soft (focus) at around 16Mpx. I tried downsizing to 70% linear (around 10Mpx) and they still looked just as soft to my eyes (and my wife's and she is not a photographer). Let's face it downsizing does not create any new data.

 

I might have a play with sharpening and downsizing to inform my policy of: If ain't sharp at (where it should be) at native resolution then it ain't good enough as an example of my work.

 

Yes, it's weird. Downsizing obviously doesn't add any new data. Nevertheless, with some images, I find that it can make a significant difference to the overall appearance. With others, it has virtually no effect at all. I guess it all depends on the degree of "softness." I'm not terribly good at this stuff. It's all hit or miss with me.

Edited by John Mitchell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well thought out, Peter. I'm curious as to when and why you chose between shooting 3:2 and 4:3?

Hi Ed,

 

I shot 35mm film for about 35 years all 3:2, then when digital got serious about ten years ago, 4:3 became the norm for me with Olympus and Panasonic cameras, so that is what I am used to now. The 4:3 ratio also seems nearer to many paper sizes, although that is not important for stock.  

 

I still often get corners softer than I like with the RX10, so for a while I set it to 4:3, which gives me a format I am used to, plus a 26-217mm zoom, (according to my calculations).   

 

More often now I shoot 3:2 and just crop to 4:3 or 1:1 as suits the picture.   Those 20MP sensors have plenty of room for judicious cropping and still leave a decent 45MB image.

 

So the answer to both when? and why? is:

 

(a)   Because I can,

 

(B)   To make the image how I like it,

 

and © to improve the Image Quality.

 

Another thing:

 

Square images look best as Alamy thumbnails.  Panoramics look worst so 4:3 is a bit better than 3:2

 

Some would say I should keep them native size a let customers do their own crop, but I would rather make them look as good as I can (they often crop them anyway...)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have certainly thought about shooting a significant batch as square, 5:4 or 4:3 just to see if the larger thumbnails result in a better CTR. My main problem is that I started with 35mm and pretty well all my digital cameras have been 3:2 (odd ones were 4:3) so I see in 3:2. I also see pictures with a long lens ~100-120mm - perhaps because I used to shoot mostly sport? If I were limited to primes I would probably adopt same pair as Don McCullin: 35 (perhaps 28) and 135mm equivalent.

 

Might be a good exercise to get me looking at the world differently if I aimed to to shoot square images for a while. At least on the more speculative walk around stuff. It would be a bit of fun.

Edited by Martin P Wilson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do try shooting square images from time to time, but more often I crop to square in LR, if it seems to be a good thing to do.

 

I remember a post a while ago when we were discussing the then new fangled Sony RX100.   A contributor claimed to be using a film Hassleblad,  but scouted for compostions using the RX100 set to square.   This had the added advantage that he could use the RX100 as a light-meter for the Hassleblad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do try shooting square images from time to time, but more often I crop to square in LR, if it seems to be a good thing to do.

 

I remember a post a while ago when we were discussing the then new fangled Sony RX100. A contributor claimed to be using a film Hassleblad, but scouted for compostions using the RX100 set to square. This had the added advantage that he could use the RX100 as a light-meter for the Hassleblad

That's not a funny practice, but something quite common. I have used my Canon as a finder and a light meter for the Sinar. With live view even: tethered. In film days I used an Olympus OM for that. For some expedition where I was not allowed to come along I once prepared an Olympus with a lens and a masked off ground glass that gave the exact same view as a Fuji 617. Fitted with an exact same base plate, the things were interchangeable on a tripod. -Should have thought of that 15 years before-.

 

Now occasionally I have a layout or a special grid on a small piece of clear laser film as an overlay on my live view screen, just like in the view camera days. One could do that tethered of course, but that would be a big hassle. I seem to remember some cameras have square grid lines as an option. Now I get to think of it, maybe even one of the Canons I use has that option ;-)

 

For a square image, one can also stitch or shift and stitch like this one:

 

E63WAY.jpg

 

(Do I declare it digitally altered? - not sure yet.)

 

I have been forced to downsize one of the RX100's images after a QC fail recently.

At 4000 X 2667 I had only 30.5 MB left:

E13E49.jpg

 

It did go through like that.

 

wim

 

(click on an image to enlarge)

edit: kept losing the second link

Edited by wiskerke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Although I was called a hipster and a hepcat back in my teens (I was a jazzman) I think I'll try being a square . . . at least for the next week. I pushed the proper buttons on my RX10 and we'll just have to see. Bebop di bop shado bebop!   :blink:

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll give being square a go for the next week too; my X-T1 is set. At least for the general walk around stuff; I am planning to shoot a sports event for Live News where I will play that normally at 3:2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I crop sometimes to clean the edges, but that´s it. I think, the less you fiddle around with your original files, the less is the chance to make a mistake in some state of the process. If my original file looks not sharp enough, I don´t upload it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to marginally downsize uncroped images from my D800 to get through QC. Otherwise I upsize to 25MB + from D700's.

 

dov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I keep getting funny e mails offering an upsize ;)  :ph34r:  :D

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I keep getting funny e mails offering an upsize ;)  :ph34r:  :D

 

. . . and offering to overcome SoLD too?

 

dd

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I keep getting funny e mails offering an upsize ;)  :ph34r:  :D

 

. . . and offering to overcome SoLD too?

 

dd

 

:P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am going square for the weekend

 

I don't think I'm gonna need the whole weekend. It's not yet dusk here on Saturday and I'm already becoming disinterested with the possibilities. For walking around, for most things, for the unexpected, I'll stay with the 3.2 35mm look. For subjects I know in advance, ones that would work best in a square frame, it's nice to know the 4.3 and 1.1 are there. But we lose our wide end; too high a price to pay. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I am going square for the weekend

 

I don't think I'm gonna need the whole weekend. It's not yet dusk here on Saturday and I'm already becoming disinterested with the possibilities. For walking around, for most things, for the unexpected, I'll stay with the 3.2 35mm look. For subjects I know in advance, ones that would work best in a square frame, it's nice to know the 4.3 and 1.1 are there. But we lose our wide end; too high a price to pay. 

 

 

Ed,

 

I did try a few square ones and found it very restrictive.   It was different back in 1971 when the only camera I had was a 2-1/4 square Minolta Autocord.

 

However I uploaded them August 31 and so far still Awaiting QC, so I must be in the sin bin.   I last had a QC failure 3 years ago.  Since then I have had 224 uploads totaling 2556 images so I suppose a fairly good run.

 

I don't really mind, as I am using the time to try some new things photographic and having a spell of leave from the stock treadmill.

 

Last time I had a QC failure I also had the largest priced single sale I ever made, so hoping my luck holds. . .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peter, in the filmy long ago, I owned the twin-lens Rolli (still have one somewhere), the Hasselblad 500C, a Bronica 6x6 and one other. (???) This format made sense for controlled studio work but was awkward for reportage, travel and most other location work. I had a share in a studio for a brief time, but I didn't have the contacts for enough studio work to make it profitable. At the same time I was being offered a lot of airline marketing shoots.

 

The 35mm DSLR was the perfect compromise for location work. Now we can go even smaller and lighter. I'll stay with the 3.2 frame. Back in my teens, when bebop was briefly king, a "square" who couldn't play it, was called "a rooney." I was a Rooney but not a rooney. The expression and bebop itself disappeared into history. 

 

Sorry to hear you're in the slammer, Peter. Try to get an extra cardigan. Nights can get very cold. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I am going square for the weekend

 

I don't think I'm gonna need the whole weekend. It's not yet dusk here on Saturday and I'm already becoming disinterested with the possibilities. For walking around, for most things, for the unexpected, I'll stay with the 3.2 35mm look. For subjects I know in advance, ones that would work best in a square frame, it's nice to know the 4.3 and 1.1 are there. But we lose our wide end; too high a price to pay. 

 

 

Ed,

 

I did try a few square ones and found it very restrictive.   It was different back in 1971 when the only camera I had was a 2-1/4 square Minolta Autocord.

 

However I uploaded them August 31 and so far still Awaiting QC, so I must be in the sin bin.  

 

 

Move over Peter looks like I'm coming to join you.  Loaded a batch on 7th and still waiting QC.

 

Just came out on 18th Aug.

 

Will I never learn?

 

Allan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

I am going square for the weekend

 

I don't think I'm gonna need the whole weekend. It's not yet dusk here on Saturday and I'm already becoming disinterested with the possibilities. For walking around, for most things, for the unexpected, I'll stay with the 3.2 35mm look. For subjects I know in advance, ones that would work best in a square frame, it's nice to know the 4.3 and 1.1 are there. But we lose our wide end; too high a price to pay. 

 

 

Ed,

 

I did try a few square ones and found it very restrictive.   It was different back in 1971 when the only camera I had was a 2-1/4 square Minolta Autocord.

 

However I uploaded them August 31 and so far still Awaiting QC, so I must be in the sin bin.  

 

 

Move over Peter looks like I'm coming to join you.  Loaded a batch on 7th and still waiting QC.

 

Just came out on 18th Aug.

 

Will I never learn?

 

Allan

 

 

Allan,

 

For me, in recent times, QC has taken up to 5 days to clear so you might still be OK.

 

I don't mind being in the cooler, I am glad to have a little rest from it (stock shooting that is).  

 

Last week I went on a 1-day Workshop with Joe Cornish - I enjoyed it immensely although the light was poor so no handy images.   I learned a great deal, most of which will benefit my submissions to the POD sites rather than Alamy.

 

I am busy with FAA, PHOTO4ME and Artflakes.   How are you getting on with POTO4ME? - I wish they would get their Forum up and running, I could do with the chance to discuss some things there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I just sent the following email to Member Services

 

Dear Sirs,

 

May I suggest a couple of minor revisions to your blog

 

http://www.alamy.com/blog/2014/08/choose-right-file-size-project

 

At the moment it states that for A4 the size range at 300 DPI should be 25 – 48 MB and that A3 should be 49 – 70MB

 

These values are not consistent with the submission size guidelines (now >24MB, previously >48MB) or the minimum file size settings on the search results page (>24, >48, >70MB).

 

I suggest revising the blog so that

 

A4 the size range at 300 DPI should be 24 – 48 MB and that A3 should be 48 – 70MB.

 

Please don’t revise the file size selections on the search page as this would exclude minimum sized submissions from those seeking  A4 suitable results.

 

Also suggest that the terminology needs revising slightly. You indicate that the sizes referred to are RGB JPG, perhaps you should include the word “uncompressed”?

 

Mark

 

Let us know if you get a response. There definitely does seem to be a mismatch between the search results page and the blog. I'm not sure where that awkward 25 MB figure mentioned in the blog came from.

 

 

No response so far, so I've just sent a chasing email to MS and have added a comment to the blog itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I am busy with FAA, PHOTO4ME and Artflakes.   How are you getting on with POTO4ME? - I wish they would get their Forum up and running, I could do with the chance to discuss some things there.

 

 

Peter I have not done much on either FAA or P4M for a while. Not had a sale either. Mind you I do not enter into the "if I like yours you like mine" games or advertise myself through any of the "social" networking sites either.

 

Allan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I just sent the following email to Member Services

 

Dear Sirs,

 

May I suggest a couple of minor revisions to your blog

 

http://www.alamy.com/blog/2014/08/choose-right-file-size-project

 

At the moment it states that for A4 the size range at 300 DPI should be 25 – 48 MB and that A3 should be 49 – 70MB

 

These values are not consistent with the submission size guidelines (now >24MB, previously >48MB) or the minimum file size settings on the search results page (>24, >48, >70MB).

 

I suggest revising the blog so that

 

A4 the size range at 300 DPI should be 24 – 48 MB and that A3 should be 48 – 70MB.

 

Please don’t revise the file size selections on the search page as this would exclude minimum sized submissions from those seeking  A4 suitable results.

 

Also suggest that the terminology needs revising slightly. You indicate that the sizes referred to are RGB JPG, perhaps you should include the word “uncompressed”?

 

Mark

 

Let us know if you get a response. There definitely does seem to be a mismatch between the search results page and the blog. I'm not sure where that awkward 25 MB figure mentioned in the blog came from.

 

 

No response so far, so I've just sent a chasing email to MS and have added a comment to the blog itself.

 

 

I'm pleased to report that after a couple of emails back and forth with Emily Hoskin at Alamy, she has slightly adjusted the jpg file size examples in her blog to align them with Alamy's 24MB minimum submission file size, and with the image size selection check boxes on the Alamy search results page. The guidelines in her blog now indicate that a 24MB uncompressed jpg image is suitable for A4 reproduction.

Edited by M.Chapman
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I am busy with FAA, PHOTO4ME and Artflakes.   How are you getting on with POTO4ME? - I wish they would get their Forum up and running, I could do with the chance to discuss some things there.

 

 

Peter I have not done much on either FAA or P4M for a while. Not had a sale either. Mind you I do not enter into the "if I like yours you like mine" games or advertise myself through any of the "social" networking sites either.

 

Allan

 

 

Allan,

 

I have been adding images to these, and now have 136 on FAA, 120 on P4M (less than FAA because of their wish for MR on people pictures), and 126 on Artflakes.   I have not done any "manipulated" images yet - but I will be giving it a go.  

I too do not "do" social media, life is too short.  I cannot see how being "liked by" a competitor helps to promote sales, but I do let the "I like it" e-mails come in as the numbers than come for a particular image give it a popularity check.  The only one of these sites that has (or rather had) a forum (useful as is this one) is P4M but it has not been reinstated after they reworked the web site a few weeks ago. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

I just sent the following email to Member Services

 

Dear Sirs,

 

May I suggest a couple of minor revisions to your blog

 

http://www.alamy.com/blog/2014/08/choose-right-file-size-project

 

At the moment it states that for A4 the size range at 300 DPI should be 25 – 48 MB and that A3 should be 49 – 70MB

 

These values are not consistent with the submission size guidelines (now >24MB, previously >48MB) or the minimum file size settings on the search results page (>24, >48, >70MB).

 

I suggest revising the blog so that

 

A4 the size range at 300 DPI should be 24 – 48 MB and that A3 should be 48 – 70MB.

 

Please don’t revise the file size selections on the search page as this would exclude minimum sized submissions from those seeking  A4 suitable results.

 

Also suggest that the terminology needs revising slightly. You indicate that the sizes referred to are RGB JPG, perhaps you should include the word “uncompressed”?

 

Mark

 

Let us know if you get a response. There definitely does seem to be a mismatch between the search results page and the blog. I'm not sure where that awkward 25 MB figure mentioned in the blog came from.

 

 

No response so far, so I've just sent a chasing email to MS and have added a comment to the blog itself.

 

 

I'm pleased to report that after a couple of emails back and forth with Emily Hoskin at Alamy, she has slightly adjusted the jpg file size examples in her blog to align them with Alamy's 24MB minimum submission file size, and with the image size selection check boxes on the Alamy search results page. The guidelines in her blog now indicate that a 24MB uncompressed jpg image is suitable for A4 reproduction.

 

 

Good job. Glad to hear the changes have been made.

Share this post


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.