max file size

[stamkar]

Hello,

I am trying to upload a panorama but a I get an error "Rejected: uncompressed file too large". What is the maximum file size limit?

 

[spacecadet]

Do you mean image dimensions? 200MP.

[Robert M Estall]

You don't seem to have any images uploaded yet. So never mind the whopping big panorama file, just read the guidelines and offer up FOUR nice neat files without issues and get past initial Quality Control

 

learn to walk, then learn to run. jumping in good time......

[stamkar]

Thanks for the replies. I have already uploaded my first 4 photos. I've read the guidelines, but I didn't see anything regarding max file size/resolution (maybe I missed something?- could you maybe send me a link where I can find the relevant information?). I tried downsizing the panorama's resolution to less than 200MP but I still get the same error. "Uncompressed size too large". So is there an upper limit for the file size (max megabytes?)

[wiskerke]

200 Mb=Megabytes uncompressed. Meaning as a Tiff.

Not MP=Megapixels

 

wim

 

edit: this limit seems to have vanished from the guideline.

[stamkar]

Thanks. This worked. How would you suggest to reduce the file size? For the moment I did it with photoshop's "image size". Is there a better way to do it, to better preserve image quality?

[spacecadet]

Do you mean image dimensions? 200MP.

Sorry for confusing you OP. I'm quite wrong. It should be under (200/3)MP. About 67.

PS is OK.

[stamkar]

This also worked. And how do i preserve best picture quality:

1) With lightroom: export-> image sizing -> resize to fit 67megapixels OR

2) With photoshop -> image -> image size. 

3) Other better option that I am not aware of?

 

Using the lightroom method, I ended up with a 188MB- 66MP uncompressed file.

Using the photoshop method, I ended up with a 199.9MB-35MP uncompressed file.

Am I doing something wrong?

[spacecadet]

. If you have no PS work to do, just stick with LR.

I can't explain the difference because you haven't said what your original image size is. Are you in 8-bit mode in PS?

[stamkar]

When I asked " how do i preserve best picture quality", I meant which resizing method results in a better looking image. For example, using the two different methods described above ("lightroom->export->image sizing" versus "photoshop->image->image size") the end result is different. The file exported from LR is 66MP and looks sharper than the resulting PS file (just 35MP).  So, unless I am doing something wrong, it looks like the lightroom method is better. Am I doing something wrong with photoshop?

 

What do you mean "90 is sufficient with lightroom"?

[spacecadet]

Sorry, I edited that out because it related to export, not resizing.

Unless you state your original image size and explain exactly what you are doing in PS I don't see how we can help because we can't see what you are doing.

[MDM]

Using the lightroom method, I ended up with a 188MB- 66MP uncompressed file.

Using the photoshop method, I ended up with a 199.9MB-35MP uncompressed file.

Am I doing something wrong?

 

 

When I asked " how do i preserve best picture quality", I meant which resizing method results in a better looking image. For example, using the two different methods described above ("lightroom->export->image sizing" versus "photoshop->image->image size") the end result is different. The file exported from LR is 66MP and looks sharper than the resulting PS file (just 35MP).  So, unless I am doing something wrong, it looks like the lightroom method is better. Am I doing something wrong with photoshop?

 

What do you mean "90 is sufficient with lightroom"?

That doesn't make sense. The megapixel size doesn't change on export or on saving as JPEG from PS. Also the pixel dimensions (uncompressed file size in Alamyspeak) should be the same for both files. The pixel dimensions will be different between the same image as 16-bit or 8-bit but it can't be a bit depth issue as JPEGs are 8-bit only. And given that it is an 8-bit JPEG (I assume that it is JPEG), a 35MP has to have pixel dimesnsions in and around 105MB. It is simply impossible for a 35MP JPEG to have pixel dimensions of 199.9 MB. You must somehow have downsized the original file in PS but that will usually mean a sharper image. You need to explain exactly what you are doing as there is definitely a mix up here.

 

However, the bottom line is that I doubt there will be any difference in image quality between a JPEG exported from LR at 100 quality and a JPEG generated from Photoshop at level 12. Never mind exporting at 90% quality from LR - that is not relevant here as it will only affect the file size on disk not the pixel dimensions or MP size.

[stamkar]

I also believe I am doing sth wrong, as the 35MP-199,9MB combination doesn't make sense. So here is what I am doing:

The original file is a tiff file. 746,1MB. 17198 x 7536 pixels

1) Resizing in Photoshop: I open the file in photoshop. Then go to Image -> image size. Then, considering a max uncompressed file size of 200MB, I reduced the dimensions until the image size was 199,9MB. To reduce the image size to 199,9MB I had to reduce the dimensions to 8929x3913 pixels (i.e. 34,9MP-199,9MB... which doesnt make sense to me, but i don't see what I am doing wrong). Then I press ok (with "resample" set to "automatic"). Then I export as jpeg at 100% quality and bicubic automatic resampling.

2) Resizing in Lightroom: I go to File-> Export...-> File settings: JPEG, sRGB, quality 100. Image Sizing: Resize to Fit -> Megapixels->66 megapixels -> export. Then I open the resulting file in Photoshop to check "image size": 188,8MP and 65,9MP (12272 x 5377 pixels).

So?

[spacecadet]

Because I can't work out what's going wrong I would ignore the PS and use LR.

With that out of the way, I find 90% export quality is sufficient for Alamy and reduces the file size on disk by almost half. It was more relevant when upload speeds were much slower. I just haven't changed it.

[MDM]

You are comparing apples and oranges as they say. Firstly, your TIFF file is 16-bit - I know this by the image size. An 8-bit fiile with those image dimensions will be 370 MB. So first thing to do is to convert to 8 bit, then save it as a TIFF. Then downsize it in PS to 199.9MB. Then save this as a level 12 JPEG. Then go to LR and export the  same downsized TIFF as 100% quality JPEG. I would guess the two files should be indistinguishable. I've never heard that there is any difference between highest quality JPEGs from LR versus PS but if there is a difference in the file size on disk, then the larger one should be the highest quality if the two files are identica. I will check this out now out of interest.

 

You should be saving as AdobeRGB by the way and not sRGB.

[stamkar]

You are comparing apples and oranges as they say. Firstly, your TIFF file is 16-bit - I know this by the image size. An 8-bit fiile with those image dimensions will be 370 MB. So first thing to do is to convert to 8 bit, then save it as a TIFF. Then downsize it in PS to 199.9MB. Then save this as a level 12 JPEG. Then go to LR and export the  same downsized TIFF as 100% quality JPEG. I would guess the two files should be indistinguishable. I've never heard that there is any difference between highest quality JPEGs from LR versus PS but if there is a difference in the file size on disk, then the larger one should be the highest quality if the two files are identica. I will check this out now out of interest.

 

You should be saving as AdobeRGB by the way and not sRGB.

Thanks. I realized that and was about to edit my previous post. Indeed, the resulting JPEG file from photοshop was 34,5MP-100MB. And comparing the exported JPEG from lightroom with an exported jpeg file from PS at the same MP dimensions I see no difference. Sorry, for the confusion

[MDM]

No worries. A bit of brain exercise is not harmful. I did what I suggested above and interestingly the Photoshop-generated JPEG has a larger file size on disk than the Lightroom one (45.2MB compared to 43.5MB). I can not see any difference between the images and am not sure what it means.

[stamkar]

I did what I suggested above and interestingly the Photoshop-generated JPEG has a larger file size on disk than the Lightroom one (45.2MB compared to 43.5MB). I can not see any difference between the images and am not sure what it means.

Same here. But no discernible difference.

[stamkar]

 

 

You should be saving as AdobeRGB by the way and not sRGB.

Thanks for the suggestion. The colors look better indeed. But for uploading to alamy is AdobeRGB prefered vs sRGB?

[MDM]

 

 

 

You should be saving as AdobeRGB by the way and not sRGB.

Thanks for the suggestion. The colors look better indeed. But for uploading to alamy is AdobeRGB prefered vs sRGB?

 

Yes. It used to be in the guidance. I don't know if it still is. Ignore what anybody says - the bigger the colour space the better.

[stamkar]

I found an old thread on the subject: "http://discussion.alamy.com/index.php?/topic/723-adobe-rgb-1or-srgb/"

Even though adobeRBG is better, it seems there are some worries about how the photos look online

[MDM]

If you want to see the effect of going from AdobeRGB to sRGB, then choose an image and go into the develop module in Lightroom. Hit the s key to turn on soft proofing. At the top right you can change the destination profile from AdobeRGB to sRGB (or any other installed icc profile). Make sure that the show gamut warning is showing - little box on top right, same as for highlight clipping in normal develop mode. Depending on the image, you will likely see a lot more red for sRGB than AdobeRGB which is indicating what colours are not available in sRGB. That is an indication of what you are removing if you convert to sRGB. If you don't see any difference, then try using the saturation slider and look at different images. If you see blue, then that indicates colours that your monitor can't show - wide gamut monitors probably show very little blue for AdobeRGB.