Jump to content

Recommended Posts

The minimum file size on Alamy is 17.5mb. I use a canon 5D mark III on the largest resolution possible - Raw (large) this creates file sizes of approximately 27mb. I then convert the images to JPEGS which compresses the image down to between 12-20mb (300dpi) (SRGB) with little loss in quality. The dimensions are kept at 5760 x 3840. I converted them to JPEGS at the highest resolution possible (100%). I use Lightroom 5.

Is this the same work flow other people use? The issue I'm having is, using this process about half of the images I convert end up below the magical 17.5 mark..

 

Looking at other work on Alamy, photographers regularly are posting images around 50mb. How are they creating such large files?

 

Any ideas welcome!

 

Neil

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

The 17 MB is the minimum size of the 8 bit TIFF when open, the jpeg must be made from a file that is larger than that but the jpeg, on disc, will much smaller.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In your third sentence do you mean TIFF not JPG? (Otherwise you have written that you convert to JPG twice)

 

If you do mean TIFF then your TIFF file size looks too small. I get a 48 mb TIFF from a RAW conversion from a 16mp DSLR.

 

The 17.5 mb min file size is the TIFF size not the final JPG.

 

My workflow is: RAW (20mb) > TIFF 48mb > JPG roughly 12mb

 

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The minimum file size on Alamy is 17.5mb. I use a canon 5D mark III on the largest resolution possible - Raw (large) this creates file sizes of approximately 27mb. I then convert the images to JPEGS which compresses the image down to between 12-20mb (300dpi) (SRGB) with little loss in quality. The dimensions are kept at 5760 x 3840. [/size]I converted them to JPEGS at the highest resolution possible (100%). I use Lightroom 5.[/size]

Is this the same work flow other people use? The issue I'm having is, using this process about half of the images I convert end up below the magical 17.5 mark..[/size]

 

Looking at other work on Alamy, photographers regularly are posting images around 50mb. How are they creating such large files?

 

Any ideas welcome!

 

Neil

 

Hi FileSize,

 

This has been discussed many times before: it's all based around confusion between compressed and uncompressed file sizes.  Your images are fine.  Download Alamy SizeCheck (take a look at the screenshot on that page and compare Size MB and Comp MB) which will confirm that all is well.

 

BTW: If you're using LR, no real reason to convert to TIFF in workflow: just import (converting to DNG, if you like) and export as JPEGS to Alamy as required.

Edited by losdemas
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In your third sentence do you mean TIFF not JPG? (Otherwise you have written that you convert to JPG twice)

 

 

No, you've misinterpreted his words. The second time he said "I converted them to JPEGS at the highest resolution possible", which was an additional bit of information relating to the first reference.

 

Alan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The minimum file size on Alamy is 17.5mb. I use a canon 5D mark III on the largest resolution possible - Raw (large) this creates file sizes of approximately 27mb. I then convert the images to JPEGS which compresses the image down to between 12-20mb (300dpi) (SRGB) with little loss in quality. The dimensions are kept at 5760 x 3840. I converted them to JPEGS at the highest resolution possible (100%). I use Lightroom 5.

Is this the same work flow other people use? The issue I'm having is, using this process about half of the images I convert end up below the magical 17.5 mark..

 

Looking at other work on Alamy, photographers regularly are posting images around 50mb. How are they creating such large files?

 

Any ideas welcome!

 

Neil

As has already been said, this has been discussed many many times before.

 

You are fine. The 17.5 Mb is the uncompressed file size (such as a tiff), NOT the size of the jpg on your disk.

 

By the way, there is no QC fail for getting file size wrong in either direction (I have failed on too big a few times).

Edited by TokyoM1ke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just as an example, this photo is a crop from a 5D Mk2 and was uploaded at 3628 x 2419 pixels and it is still 25.1 MBs uncompressed but the jpeg that I uploaded to Alamy is only 4.34 MBs.  I can reduce or crop down to 3000 x 2000 and still have a 17.2 MB uncompressed image.  I use Photoshop's image size which is normally used for resizing to check that I am above the 17 MB limit.  With different aspect ratios the minimum dimensions will be different to stay above the 17MB threshold. 

sleepy-two-week-old-husky-puppies-with-t

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just make sure that your images are at least 6 megapixel. Then it will fit.

 

Mirco

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You should use Adobe RGB not sRGB.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You should use Adobe RGB not sRGB.

Why? I never have

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

"Unless you have reason to do otherwise". The camera produces sRGB.

Ken Rockwell doesn't think so either.

Look at the swatch.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/adobe-rgb.htm

 

As seen on the internet is the key phrase - aRGB produces a wider gamut for CMYK, ProPhoto would be better. It's industry standard as you are concerning the conversion for printing. The net has so many variables with browsers that using it as  the standard (which really has none) means little.

 

If you don't want to use it then fine but it's aRGB for a perfectly valid reason.

Edited by Guest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On a different note...

I have a good few images that are 4500+px on the long side, but are pictures with minimal detail. So they end up being "too small" according to the friendly robot that checks the files.
I understand there should be a minimum file size to an image, but these bots can't see the content of an image.
If I would upload an image with half white and half 50% black @ 10,000px wide, it would still tell me it's too small, because of the lack of detail.

Do I really have to interpolate all these images that the friendly robot find "too small"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No.

You are confusing compressed and uncompressed. 4500x3000 is nearly 40MB.

4500 long side is big enough. I use it.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I'm not confusing compressed and uncompressed, and I'm not talking about the little numbers in the lower left corner in Photoshop. I know what the difference is between compressed and uncompressed.
I'm talking about images that are rejected upon UPLOAD by the Alamy bot, because the file size is too small.

Like I said, if your image is one of a winter landscape, with primarily snow and maybe a haze of a tree (my example), the file is too small in terms of file size, which is what the Alamy bot uses to determine the file size. Not the pixel size.

I have pictures with a lot of detail that I cropped to 2500px (shot on D800) and that are bigger in file size than original sized pictures of 7000+px with very little detail.
The file size in MB shouldn't be paramount to the decision whether a picture is too big or too small.

2832 x 4256 (4.5MB jpg) -> winter image, content mainly snow (so white/light, (almost) no data) -> rejected for being too small
2832 x 4256 (8.5MB jpg) -> to black and white converted street scene with a lot of detail -> accepted

Having checked, I even found an image of 5500px on the long side that were deemed too small (5500 x 3432 (4.4MB jpg)).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Arno, with the dimensions you have given the file size is 34.5. Images with little detail will be a smaller jpg, but that is just the compressed size. If you don't believe me, go to Photoshop and create a new file with your pixel size, then look at the file size.  BTW, I still use the original Canon 5D, a 12.8 camera. I can crop around half the image and still meet Alamy file size....irrespective of subject matter!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I resize to 4500 long side.

4500x3000x3=40.5MP. This figure is relevant to Alamy.

Compressed, between 3 and 7MB. This figure is generally not relevant.

 

A quote from submission guidelines

Our standard advice for preparing digital camera files for Alamy is as follows:

  • Use a pro-level camera with a “true” (non-interpolated) resolution of at least 6 megapixels. This will give an uncompressed file size of at least 17MB at 8 bit.
  •  

(my emphasis)

 

If the uploader is rejecting your 4500 long size images then there is a fault with it which is apparently not affecting anybody else.

 

BTW I see somebody is dishing out red arrows again. Would someone mind topping me up?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

No, I'm not confusing compressed and uncompressed, and I'm not talking about the little numbers in the lower left corner in Photoshop. I know what the difference is between compressed and uncompressed.

I'm talking about images that are rejected upon UPLOAD by the Alamy bot, because the file size is too small.

 

Like I said, if your image is one of a winter landscape, with primarily snow and maybe a haze of a tree (my example), the file is too small in terms of file size, which is what the Alamy bot uses to determine the file size. Not the pixel size.

 

I have pictures with a lot of detail that I cropped to 2500px (shot on D800) and that are bigger in file size than original sized pictures of 7000+px with very little detail.

The file size in MB shouldn't be paramount to the decision whether a picture is too big or too small.

 

2832 x 4256 (4.5MB jpg) -> winter image, content mainly snow (so white/light, (almost) no data) -> rejected for being too small

2832 x 4256 (8.5MB jpg) -> to black and white converted street scene with a lot of detail -> accepted

 

Having checked, I even found an image of 5500px on the long side that were deemed too small (5500 x 3432 (4.4MB jpg)).

 

This doesn't make sense. I've uploaded many images which are smaller (on disk) than 4MB, some as small as 914KB as pictured below - which is 4200 x 4200 pixel dimensions. They are easily over the uncompressed size which is the only minimum size that Alamy set. Subject matter influencing file size for a jpeg is not a factor with the upload.

 

gpk-01-ccacc0.jpg

 

Green arrow applied to Mark's posts.... wot's with the reddies???? :rolleyes:

Edited by Guest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

re Arno's post

Perhaps this is some temporary problem with Alamy's own processing/checking system.  They do seem to do quite a lot of fiddling with the system.  I know they made changes a few months back because images from the same batch were suddenly being transferred from "processing " to "awaiting QC" on an individual basis rather than en masse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i have just submitted my first four test images. I'm sure i will be rejected on size. Ive read all these comments and am still confused. I use an Oly OM EM5. my raw pics come out at around 12-14 MB but on conversion to jpeg are between 2 and 7 MB, will they be ok?

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.