24MP and 36MP Workflow

[Marvin McAbee]

So far I have used my D200 and D90 and did not change the size coming out of the camera for Alamy but I now have a D3200 24MP and was wondering if I should change anything.  I have read that some downsize high MP files to get better sharpness.  I am currently using Lightroom 3 but looking to upgrade to 5.

Marvin

 

[Martin P Wilson]

Well I have never downsized my 20+Mp Canon 1DS3 images. Never felt the need and I upload as 100% jpgs.

[spacecadet]

If you don't have fibre broadband you might downsize to reduce upload time otherwise don't bother.

[David Kilpatrick]

Depends on how you use the gear. I do not often need to downsize 24MP full frame files and when I do, it's nearly always because of depth of field - which also applied when shooting some 36 or similar mp files, and especially when using medium format. With smaller formats, APS-C and 20MP RX100, I downsize most often to reduce very high ISO noise and improve sharpness if the noise has been reduced in a way which slightly softens detail.

[Ray]

I reckon you should be fine with your 24mp files even if they contain complex detail. I got a rejection a while back and stupidly didn't realise straight away it was because the 36mp files from my D800 often exceed the 200mb uncompressed file limit if there is detail in the shots. So now when I export from Lightroom 4 I frequently have to check the compressed file size. I find about 24mb compressed is about right. I have to play with the pixel size, but I've never gone below 6000 x 4000px (~24mp) to get in under the limit.

[Marvin McAbee]

Thanks for the info I think I will just leave them as is.  I usually export from lightroom at highest quality JPEG.  My internet runs OK but I am thinking about upgrading to the higher speed.

[SFL]

With files from 36MP camera, if there are a lot of details,  28mm + was used (24-70mm f/2.8) and compressed size is under 24MB, then I upload as they are.  Otherwise, I down size to around  24MP.  Sometimes smaller depending on the subject, ISO, etc.  Downsizing is mainly due to uploading speed in my case.

 

 

 

I reckon you should be fine with your 24mp files even if they contain complex detail. I got a rejection a while back and stupidly didn't realise straight away it was because the 36mp files from my D800 often exceed the 200mb uncompressed file limit if there is detail in the shots. .....

 

Does it really go over 200mb (uncomp)?  Aren't they around 108MB (36MP x 3, as a rule of thumb)? 

 

Sung

[Russell Watkins]

Just to play the Devil's Advocate, have a look at this current Alamy thread.

 

Then ask yourself why on Earth you're uploading super hi-res images when there's the significant likelihood of only making a measly few dollars. 

[SFL]

Just to play the Devil's Advocate, have a look at this current Alamy thread.

 

Then ask yourself why on Earth you're uploading super hi-res images when there's the significant likelihood of only making a measly few dollars. 

 

One of the reasons I didn't mention previously is the merit of the image which might or could be used for a much bigger size.  If I decide that's is the case (of course my personal opinion), I will upload highest resolution possible.  

 

It's a similar question asking 'why do you upload so many images when you know most of them are not going to be sold?' IMHO

 

One can be hopeful, can't he/she?    Let's be positive!  

 

Sung

[Ray]

With files from 36MP camera, if there are a lot of details,  28mm + was used (24-70mm f/2.8) and compressed size is under 24MB, then I upload as they are.  Otherwise, I down size to around  24MP.  Sometimes smaller depending on the subject, ISO, etc.  Downsizing is mainly due to uploading speed in my case.

 

 

 

I reckon you should be fine with your 24mp files even if they contain complex detail. I got a rejection a while back and stupidly didn't realise straight away it was because the 36mp files from my D800 often exceed the 200mb uncompressed file limit if there is detail in the shots. .....

 

Does it really go over 200mb (uncomp)?  Aren't they around 108MB (36MP x 3, as a rule of thumb)? 

 

Sung

Hi Sung yes that's a typo  it should be 100mb ucompressed  7360 x 4912 x 3 = 108. Alamy says its limit is 200mb but I think it is actually 100mb. Their file checker utility I downloaded certainly trips out at 100mb and I have had trouble uploading full res files, they are rejected.

[Ray]

Just to play the Devil's Advocate, have a look at this current Alamy thread.

 

Then ask yourself why on Earth you're uploading super hi-res images when there's the significant likelihood of only making a measly few dollars. 

It doesn't take any more work and opens the possibility of a larger sale. Why not?

[Russell Watkins]

 

Just to play the Devil's Advocate, have a look at this current Alamy thread.

 

Then ask yourself why on Earth you're uploading super hi-res images when there's the significant likelihood of only making a measly few dollars. 

It doesn't take any more work and opens the possibility of a larger sale. Why not?

 

Yup, as I said, I was playing the Devil's Advocate.

 

I submit the maximum MP files that I can too.

 

But the norm seems to be diminishing contributor royalties.

 

Also in the equation is that at 300dpi, an 8.2MP image will be enough for a full bleed A4-ish magazine page. So 16MP or thereabouts will give you a full bleed double truck (A3-ish) in a magazine. Newspapers have bigger pages but print at 150-200 dpi so the sums are similar. 

 

I think that in spite of my Devil's Advocacy, my point is relevant and I do wonder if processing and uploading large, hi-res files is a waste of CPU processing cycles, bandwidth and time. 

[Ray]

 

 

Just to play the Devil's Advocate, have a look at this current Alamy thread.

 

Then ask yourself why on Earth you're uploading super hi-res images when there's the significant likelihood of only making a measly few dollars. 

It doesn't take any more work and opens the possibility of a larger sale. Why not?

 

Yup, as I said, I was playing the Devil's Advocate.

 

I submit the maximum MP files that I can too.

 

But the norm seems to be diminishing contributor royalties.

 

Also in the equation is that at 300dpi, an 8.2MP image will be enough for a full bleed A4-ish magazine page. So 16MP or thereabouts will give you a full bleed double truck (A3-ish) in a magazine. Newspapers have bigger pages but print at 150-200 dpi so the sums are similar. 

 

I think that in spite of my Devil's Advocacy, my point is relevant and I do wonder if processing and uploading large, hi-res files is a waste of CPU processing cycles, bandwidth and time. 

Well I haven't sold many full size images but I do get searches with the FS option, so there are people looking at the file size. The only downside I see is that it takes a little longer to upload a large file, which is no big deal really. The thing is, I'd hate to miss a big sale (or any sale) because I didn't upload the biggest size I can.

And you never know how the market will change in the future. Maybe there'll be a stronger demand for larger files. Maybe there won't, but I wouldn't want to have to upload them a second time. 

It is hard to know what to do in this industry with media outlets seemingly happy to take shitty phone pics if they can get them cheap or free, but I want to give myself every opportunity I can. If it doesn't pay off I know it wasn't because I didn't do everything I could to make it work.

If I had all the answers I'd be sitting on a sunny beach somewhere planning my next photoshoot instead of slaving over Photoshop and Manage Images v2   :-)