Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  

Recommended Posts

Hi all,

I use a Sony Alpha A350 DSLR camera for all of my digital work but I'm having a slight problem with the files sizes if I want to contribute to Alamy. The camera shoots photos in the size region of 3-5MB but of course Alamy requires 17MB minimum [uncompressed/open] file size. I don't have access to Photoshop and do not understand what this alternative file size is that the documentation mentions or how to (if it is even possible) get my camera to shoot larger photos (all settings are on high).

Any help would be appreciated.

Thanks

Edited by Rhyfeddod

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Forget file size. The A350 image size is sufficient.

I used the A350 for years to submit here- in fact I bought it specifically for Alamy.

If you plan to submit in any volume, and shoot RAW, you will need processing software, but that's another question.

Edited by spacecadet
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you Philippe. So in order to view the "size that matters", I can just convert my .jpg into a .tiff file? For example on that was .jpg size 4MB is now a .tiff size of 18.4MB.

Edited by Rhyfeddod

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Forget file size. The A350 image size is sufficient.

I used the A350 for years to submit here- in fact I bought it specifically for Alamy.

If you plan to submit in any volume, and shoot RAW, you will need processing software, but that's another question.

As you have experience with the A350, would you recommend shooting RAW - is the advantage great enough for the effort? My images sometimes appear grainy but I think that's the ISO?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What software are you using to view?

The A350 is OK up to about 400 without noise reduction but if you're seeing grain on jpegs, you need to deal with it. It's unlikely to pass QC now. I cringe at some of my early images (2009) now.

Although I never used RAW on the A350 I should have- there's much more flexibility especially at high ISO. 

I dropped mine on a lino floor and it put the live view out of whack so I moved on 3 years ago, but I would probably still have been using it otherwise- in RAW. 

Edited by spacecadet
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What software are you using to view?

The A350 is OK up to about 400 without noise reduction but if you're seeing grain on jpegs, you need to deal with it. It's unlikely to pass QC now. I cringe at some of my early images (2009) now.

Although I never used RAW on the A350 I should have- there's much more flexibility especially at high ISO. 

I dropped mine on a lino floor and it put the live view out of whack so I moved on 3 years ago, but I would probably still have been using it otherwise- in RAW. 

I have Xara and of course the free GIMP if required. I used to edit a little bit in Photoshop Elements I think as that was what I had but it wouldn't let me transfer my license when I changed pc so I'm a little short handed on good software at the moment. My standard go to ISO is around the 400 mark but I think there was a time when I knock the dial and everything shot at 3200 ISO which may explain my collection of grainy photos from a few years ago. Lessons are learned - keep a closer eye on the dial. I threw my lens out of a first floor window once but it somehow survived.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you Philippe. So in order to view the "size that matters", I can just convert my .jpg into a .tiff file? For example on that was .jpg size 4MB is now a .tiff size of 18.4MB.

 

You don't need to convert anything. As Mark says above, just forget the file size, which is totally irrelevant. The file is merely a container for the image and can be a variety of quite different sizes depending on the degree of compression and/or lossiness. What matters is the image size. I still don't know why Alamy insist on calling it the uncompressed file size because that is too confusing for many people. All it means is the approximate size that a file would be (give or take the header) IF the image was saved uncompressed, which it very rarely is.

 

Most good software will tell you the uncompressed size, but you can work it out easily: camera megapixels x 3 / 1.05.

 

Alan

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I threw my lens out of a first floor window once but it somehow survived.

 

Stanley Kubrick did that in "Clockwork Orange" but he took the precaution of attaching a Newman Sinclair to the back. He got 5 takes before he busted it.

Probably not a bad use for a kit lens, but mine has always been adequate.

Edited by spacecadet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all,

I use a Sony Alpha A350 DSLR camera for all of my digital work but I'm having a slight problem with the files sizes if I want to contribute to Alamy. The camera shoots photos in the size region of 3-5MB but of course Alamy requires 17MB minimum [uncompressed/open] file size. I don't have access to Photoshop and do not understand what this alternative file size is that the documentation mentions or how to (if it is even possible) get my camera to shoot larger photos (all settings are on high).

Any help would be appreciated.

Thanks

The image size (which is different from the file size) needs to be mor than 6MP. As Mark said, the A350 is fine. The easy way to check image size is to right click on the file and either Get Info (Mac) or Properties (Windows). Then multiply length by width. Or if the largest number is above 3000 and the smallest is above 2000, which it will be if you haven't cropped the image too much, then the file is big enough.

 

If you don't crop your images, ignore the above. Your camera has 14 MP.

 

Ian

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I threw my lens out of a first floor window once but it somehow survived.

 

Stanley Kubrick did that in "Clockwork Orange" but he took the precaution of attaching a Newman Sinclair to the back. He got 5 takes before he busted it.

Probably not a bad use for a kit lens, but mine has always been adequate.

 

 

Lenses are pretty tough. I once dropped a Canon 28mm from a bridge onto a road below and it carried on working for many years afterwards. A few months ago my 24-105 suffered a domino effect when I overbalanced, my camera bag swung round off my shoulder, hit the tripod which went crashing into a stone wall, lens first. That was a lucky escape as there was no filter on at the time. It missed the glass by millimeters and the only damage was a dented filter ring which was easily straightened with a pair of pliers.

 

Alan

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not so sure about kit lenses. The 18-55 weighs less than my old 50/1.8. Maybe all the plastic helps it bounce.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

16kN bite force, apparently. Might as well chuck it under a tank.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's my workflow to get the best possible quality:

  1. Shoot in RAW
  2. Edit in RAW
  3. Edit further as Tiff in Photoshop or whatever software (make sure your image is at least 17 Mb)
  4. Save as Jpeg and upload those to Alamy

 

Cheers,

Philippe

Do you also use Photoshop to edit the raw?

 

- On another note, thanks for all the help to everyone and the off-topic is interesting to read - glad it's a friendly community. Thank you again!

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
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • 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.