Hi-res APS-C: Should images be downsampled before submitting?

[spacecadet]

I too thought that Alamy picked best answers.

[spacecadet]

 

Heh, I wish Alamy was that active on these forums!  I (the OP) selected that as the "best answer" by clicking on the "Mark Solved" button under it.

. If it's technique, then it's easy to solve.

 

The OP did say that he recalled not being in centre AF mode so it ended up on the twig.

I too thought that Alamy picked so-called "best answers".

[DDoug]

The more angels you have dancing on the head of a pin, the more those angels tend to bump into each other. Downsizing doesn't really change that, by itself, but running noise reduction software prior to downsizing might do the trick.

 

Years ago, when the race was for more and more pixels, Michael Reichmann estimated that around 22 megapixels was probably the maximum for a full-frame 35mm sensor. He might have changed his mind since then, or maybe not.

 

Whatever, putting that many dancing angels on an APS sensor might be the kind of overkill that makes sense only to marketers.

 

For now, and for the foreseeable future, I think that the 16 megapixels that my Fuji X sensor produces, without the smearing of an anti-alias filter, is about right.

[John Mitchell]

If focus has been missed, then I find that downsizing won't help very much. It's seldom about bringing the main subject into focus, but rather about improving the overall look of some images. Again, downsizing is just another tool at our disposal. No big deal IMO. Alamy accepts a variety of file sizes. Also, few lenses -- even very expensive ones -- are perfect under all shooting conditions.

[dbooksta]

Years ago, when the race was for more and more pixels, Michael Reichmann estimated that around 22 megapixels was probably the maximum for a full-frame 35mm sensor. He might have changed his mind since then, or maybe not.

 

Whatever, putting that many dancing angels on an APS sensor might be the kind of overkill that makes sense only to marketers.

 

For now, and for the foreseeable future, I think that the 16 megapixels that my Fuji X sensor produces, without the smearing of an anti-alias filter, is about right.

 

Yeah, after a year of pixel-peeping with the Sony A77II I just think they pushed too far by recording 24Mpx.  Things are beautiful when shooting at the "medium" 12Mpx resolution, but obviously I don't have a choice when shooting RAW but to start with something that at 100% has a grainy quality to it.

 

It's not a deal killer -- Alamy did just accept two such 24Mpx photos I submitted without any special noise-reduction measures.  And I still typically shoot at full resolution just to be sure I don't miss some detail.  But I am beginning to think that before I hand such an image to pixel-peepers I should downsample.

[MDM]

If focus has been missed, then I find that downsizing won't help very much. It's seldom about bringing the main subject into focus, but rather about improving the overall look of some images. Again, downsizing is just another tool at our disposal. No big deal IMO. Alamy accepts a variety of file sizes. Also, few lenses -- even very expensive ones -- are perfect under all shooting conditions.

 

I totally agree which is why it should not be necessary to downsize as a matter of course for every image.

 

It’s not about pixel peeping - it’s about ensuring that the image is technically up to scratch (acceptable sharpness is the Alamy baseline) and the only way to do this is to examine it at 100% on screen. If producing sharp images at 24MP is problematic on a 24MP camera (and technique is good), then one would have to question the suitability of the equipment. Considering the investment of time we put into producing images, it would seem such a waste of that time to produce technically sub-standard images and this could be the source of much regret down the line.

 

 

[John Mitchell]

 

If focus has been missed, then I find that downsizing won't help very much. It's seldom about bringing the main subject into focus, but rather about improving the overall look of some images. Again, downsizing is just another tool at our disposal. No big deal IMO. Alamy accepts a variety of file sizes. Also, few lenses -- even very expensive ones -- are perfect under all shooting conditions.

 

I totally agree which is why it should not be necessary to downsize as a matter of course for every image.

 

It’s not about pixel peeping - it’s about ensuring that the image is technically up to scratch (acceptable sharpness is the Alamy baseline) and the only way to do this is to examine it at 100% on screen. If producing sharp images at 24MP is problematic on a 24MP camera (and technique is good), then one would have to question the suitability of the equipment. Considering the investment of time we put into producing images, it would seem such a waste of that time to produce technically sub-standard images and this could be the source of much regret down the line.

 

 

 

 

I think that Mark (a.k.a. spacecadet) is saying that he downsizes every image as a precautionary measure, not because he thinks it's absolutely necessary. I wouldn't do that myself, but if it helps him sleep better at night, why not.

[spacecadet]

 

 

If focus has been missed, then I find that downsizing won't help very much. It's seldom about bringing the main subject into focus, but rather about improving the overall look of some images. Again, downsizing is just another tool at our disposal. No big deal IMO. Alamy accepts a variety of file sizes. Also, few lenses -- even very expensive ones -- are perfect under all shooting conditions.

 

I totally agree which is why it should not be necessary to downsize as a matter of course for every image.

 

It’s not about pixel peeping - it’s about ensuring that the image is technically up to scratch (acceptable sharpness is the Alamy baseline) and the only way to do this is to examine it at 100% on screen. If producing sharp images at 24MP is problematic on a 24MP camera (and technique is good), then one would have to question the suitability of the equipment. Considering the investment of time we put into producing images, it would seem such a waste of that time to produce technically sub-standard images and this could be the source of much regret down the line.

 

 

 

 

I think that Mark (a.k.a. spacecadet) is saying that he downsizes every image as a precautionary measure, not because he thinks it's absolutely necessary. I wouldn't do that myself, but if it helps him sleep better at night, why not.

 

Yes, he is, and so far it does. I've gone to RAW origination as well, so have changed two variables at once, but I've ticked the box and it will probably stay ticked until I start seeing [FS] searches. Except I won't see them. Oh well.

I even toyed with taking some down to 3250 but thought better of it. 6MP is so 2006.

[John Mitchell]

 

 

 

If focus has been missed, then I find that downsizing won't help very much. It's seldom about bringing the main subject into focus, but rather about improving the overall look of some images. Again, downsizing is just another tool at our disposal. No big deal IMO. Alamy accepts a variety of file sizes. Also, few lenses -- even very expensive ones -- are perfect under all shooting conditions.

 

I totally agree which is why it should not be necessary to downsize as a matter of course for every image.

 

It’s not about pixel peeping - it’s about ensuring that the image is technically up to scratch (acceptable sharpness is the Alamy baseline) and the only way to do this is to examine it at 100% on screen. If producing sharp images at 24MP is problematic on a 24MP camera (and technique is good), then one would have to question the suitability of the equipment. Considering the investment of time we put into producing images, it would seem such a waste of that time to produce technically sub-standard images and this could be the source of much regret down the line.

 

 

 

 

I think that Mark (a.k.a. spacecadet) is saying that he downsizes every image as a precautionary measure, not because he thinks it's absolutely necessary. I wouldn't do that myself, but if it helps him sleep better at night, why not.

 

Yes, he is, and so far it does. I've gone to RAW origination as well, so have changed two variables at once, but I've ticked the box and it will probably stay ticked until I start seeing [FS] searches. Except I won't see them. Oh well.

I even toyed with taking some down to 3250 but thought better of it. 6MP is so 2006.

 

 

Even 2006 pixels might be OK. My best sale ($200) this month is 1/8 page.

[MDM]

 

 

If focus has been missed, then I find that downsizing won't help very much. It's seldom about bringing the main subject into focus, but rather about improving the overall look of some images. Again, downsizing is just another tool at our disposal. No big deal IMO. Alamy accepts a variety of file sizes. Also, few lenses -- even very expensive ones -- are perfect under all shooting conditions.

 

I totally agree which is why it should not be necessary to downsize as a matter of course for every image.

 

It’s not about pixel peeping - it’s about ensuring that the image is technically up to scratch (acceptable sharpness is the Alamy baseline) and the only way to do this is to examine it at 100% on screen. If producing sharp images at 24MP is problematic on a 24MP camera (and technique is good), then one would have to question the suitability of the equipment. Considering the investment of time we put into producing images, it would seem such a waste of that time to produce technically sub-standard images and this could be the source of much regret down the line.

 

 

 

 

I think that Mark (a.k.a. spacecadet) is saying that he downsizes every image as a precautionary measure, not because he thinks it's absolutely necessary. I wouldn't do that myself, but if it helps him sleep better at night, why not.

 

 

I understand and I wouldn't wish sleepless nights on Mark .

 

Continuing this third person discussion (I hope Mark doesn't mind), I have observed Mark's problems with Alamy QC and been involved in more than one discussion here with him about his problems in the last few years. As a total advocate of shooting raw, it is good to see that he has taken that step. The main reason I got involved in this thread is because Mark's response about downsizing was marked as the best answer and I really don't think that is correct and may be very misleading if this thread should be resurrected at some point in the future.

 

For sure if the only likely use of his images is for editorial stock, then having to downsize all of them for his own peace of mind is no big deal.  However, looking at his recent portfolio, it is clear that he does quite a bit of travelling, presumably at some significant cost. If the kit he is using is not able to produce acceptably sharp images at native size for Alamy QC, then he may regret not investing a bit in kit that does produce the goods that he is clearly capable of producing (given that he has been taking picture for a long time, his technique should not be a problem). I'm not talking big money here. Many entry level DSLRs are capable of amazing quality (e.g. the Nikon 3300 is only £290). Similarly perhaps he may secretly regret not having shot raw, even along with the JPEGs all those years which would give a lot more options now or down the line. Just imagine the cost of shooting all those images again, even if that was possible.

[Marianne]

The face and eyes aren't as sharp as the feathers and the branch is the sharpest. Too bad because it's a terrific image otherwise. If you can downsize enough to get the head in focus (if that's possible) I'd go for it. Center-weighted on the bird will never work - and it looks like maybe the head moved which could be the issue. Otherwise, pick something else for your fourth shot. Good luck. 

 

I rarely downsize my images. I mostly shoot with a 12 MP D700 and 16 MP Olympus OMD E-1. I remember the old days when I had to upsize my 6 MP D70 images to 48MB. I hate to downsize now and would feel like I was moving backwards. I haven't upgraded to a 24 MP because I feel like what I have is plenty good enough for most uses. I'd be really frustrated with my kit if my images weren't sharp. When I use my 16 MP D5100 (which I bought for a lightweight backup before the Oly) with the 70-300mm zoom and go beyond 200mm with it, I know the feeling of kit that can't pull its weight and have had to downsize some of those images - and toss a lot of them completely. The D5100 with an inexpensive 35mm f/1.8 on the other hand is super sharp and I love that combo. And the 70-300 on the D700 is a great portrait lens, good on the D5100 for portraits too - but useless for wildlife. It's a question of knowing your equipment and knowing where to focus - and knowing even the pros sometimes get a shot that isn't up to snuff despite knowing what to do. 

 

Good luck with you second application. 

[spacecadet]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I understand and I wouldn't wish sleepless nights on Mark .

 

Continuing this third person discussion (I hope Mark doesn't mind), I have observed Mark's problems with Alamy QC and been involved in more than one discussion here with him about his problems in the last few years. As a total advocate of shooting raw, it is good to see that he has taken that step. The main reason I got involved in this thread is because Mark's response about downsizing was marked as the best answer and I really don't think that is correct and may be very misleading if this thread should be resurrected at some point in the future.

 

For sure if the only likely use of his images is for editorial stock, then having to downsize all of them for his own peace of mind is no big deal.  However, looking at his recent portfolio, it is clear that he does quite a bit of travelling, presumably at some significant cost. If the kit he is using is not able to produce acceptably sharp images at native size for Alamy QC, then he may regret not investing a bit in kit that does produce the goods that he is clearly capable of producing (given that he has been taking picture for a long time, his technique should not be a problem). I'm not talking big money here. Many entry level DSLRs are capable of amazing quality (e.g. the Nikon 3300 is only £290). Similarly perhaps he may secretly regret not having shot raw, even along with the JPEGs all those years which would give a lot more options now or down the line. Just imagine the cost of shooting all those images again, even if that was possible.

 

I'm only downsizing from 4912px and only started a few months ago. I don't think it's a systemic problem. I also started doing it before switching to RAW, since when all's been well, and it only really matters at high ISO so it may not even be relevant anymore. I've also got some new glasses which may be . Perhaps I'll stop when I get my green screen back.

I certainly haven't been doing it for years to cover up shortcomings. Before last year I thought I had QC cracked.

A55, A350 before that. Both recommended by David Kilpatrick. I'd be photographing with a pig on a stick if he said the image quality was good enough.

[MDM]

A55, A350 before that. Both recommended by David Kilpatrick. I'd be photographing with a pig on a stick if he said the image quality was good enough.

 

 

I wouldn't go quite that far but he has certainly influenced my purchases as well. David once described the D800E as "eyewateringly sharp" on the old forum in Sept 2012. It certainly was and it still is. And it's never produced a QC failure even at full size .

[John Mitchell]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I understand and I wouldn't wish sleepless nights on Mark .

 

Continuing this third person discussion (I hope Mark doesn't mind), I have observed Mark's problems with Alamy QC and been involved in more than one discussion here with him about his problems in the last few years. As a total advocate of shooting raw, it is good to see that he has taken that step. The main reason I got involved in this thread is because Mark's response about downsizing was marked as the best answer and I really don't think that is correct and may be very misleading if this thread should be resurrected at some point in the future.

 

For sure if the only likely use of his images is for editorial stock, then having to downsize all of them for his own peace of mind is no big deal.  However, looking at his recent portfolio, it is clear that he does quite a bit of travelling, presumably at some significant cost. If the kit he is using is not able to produce acceptably sharp images at native size for Alamy QC, then he may regret not investing a bit in kit that does produce the goods that he is clearly capable of producing (given that he has been taking picture for a long time, his technique should not be a problem). I'm not talking big money here. Many entry level DSLRs are capable of amazing quality (e.g. the Nikon 3300 is only £290). Similarly perhaps he may secretly regret not having shot raw, even along with the JPEGs all those years which would give a lot more options now or down the line. Just imagine the cost of shooting all those images again, even if that was possible.

 

I'm only downsizing from 4912px and only started a few months ago. I don't think it's a systemic problem. I also started doing it before switching to RAW, since when all's been well, and it only really matters at high ISO so it may not even be relevant anymore. I've also got some new glasses which may be . Perhaps I'll stop when I get my green screen back.

I certainly haven't been doing it for years to cover up shortcomings. Before last year I thought I had QC cracked.

A55, A350 before that. Both recommended by David Kilpatrick. I'd be photographing with a pig on a stick if he said the image quality was good enough.

 

 

By all reports, the A55 is an excellent camera. No doubt, a fair number of Alamy contributors still use it. I almost bought one myself a few years back. Actually, just about any half-decent camera/lens combo is fine for stock. Sony will probably be coming out with a 150 MP "pig on a stick" (whatever that is) if you wait long enough. Hope the green comes back soon.