| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/28/2005 02:44:38 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by Gil P:
well exactly...I don't think that a stock agency wants to promote images from which the flaws are aparent!! there is a difference between a 6mp camera and a 22mp camera... and it's not just the price. |
I said my flaws, not the camera's, and if an image is unacceptable,
then I don't submit it. I'm well aware that there is more
then a price difference between a 6 and 22mp camera. To say that you
cannot get a good quality tiff image in the 50MB range from a 6 mp camera, is wrong, you can get a good quality image. Will it be as high quality as your 16mp? well no. But that is like asking which is better, 35mm film or medium format film? |
|
|
|
06/28/2005 03:52:16 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by superdave_909:
Originally posted by Gil P:
well exactly...I don't think that a stock agency wants to promote images from which the flaws are aparent!! there is a difference between a 6mp camera and a 22mp camera... and it's not just the price. |
I said my flaws, not the camera's, and if an image is unacceptable,
then I don't submit it. I'm well aware that there is more
then a price difference between a 6 and 22mp camera. To say that you
cannot get a good quality tiff image in the 50MB range from a 6 mp camera, is wrong, you can get a good quality image. Will it be as high quality as your 16mp? well no. But that is like asking which is better, 35mm film or medium format film? |
Right on, Dave. If Alamy is the standard and they refuse to accept less than 48 megabyte images then they are missing a good bet on some superb images. I noted they sell images of almost any printable size and to reject images that do not meet such an arbitrary file size standard is to reject a lot of good business. Their loss.
|
|
|
|
06/28/2005 05:55:55 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by ElGordo:
Originally posted by superdave_909:
Originally posted by Gil P:
well exactly...I don't think that a stock agency wants to promote images from which the flaws are aparent!! there is a difference between a 6mp camera and a 22mp camera... and it's not just the price. |
I said my flaws, not the camera's, and if an image is unacceptable,
then I don't submit it. I'm well aware that there is more
then a price difference between a 6 and 22mp camera. To say that you
cannot get a good quality tiff image in the 50MB range from a 6 mp camera, is wrong, you can get a good quality image. Will it be as high quality as your 16mp? well no. But that is like asking which is better, 35mm film or medium format film? |
Right on, Dave. If Alamy is the standard and they refuse to accept less than 48 megabyte images then they are missing a good bet on some superb images. I noted they sell images of almost any printable size and to reject images that do not meet such an arbitrary file size standard is to reject a lot of good business. Their loss. |
Well i think the point is alamy don't have to scrape the barrel in their desperation, unlike the 20cent stock agencies. Alamy set their standard because it's the minimum quality that THEY WANT, it is up to us the photographers to deliver up to their standard or go home emptyhanded. This is the difference between selective agencies and the royalty-free sell-anything agencies - the latter beg for your business and will sell any old crap as long as it gives them a few cents, while alamy and "real" agencies want you to work for your pay.
|
|
|
|
06/28/2005 05:58:45 PM · #29 |
There seems to be people on this thread that have interpolated upwards and successfully got into Alamy.
|
|
|
|
06/28/2005 06:01:39 PM · #30 |
I upsized D70 images by roughly 200% into 48 MEG TIFFS for Alamy and all 26 of my first submission were accepted.
I didn't do any noise reduction and the noise that was in the originals is visible in the enlargements but I quite like noise and I am sure purchasers (should there be any) who don't can apply noise reduction should they wish.
Don't forget that 48 MEG files are often printed at twice the size of smaller ones and are intended to be viewed from twice the distance too so the net result, viewing wise, is pretty much the same.
|
|
|
|
06/29/2005 07:28:11 AM · #31 |
Originally posted by riot:
Originally posted by ElGordo:
Right on, Dave. If Alamy is the standard and they refuse to accept less than 48 megabyte images then they are missing a good bet on some superb images. I noted they sell images of almost any printable size and to reject images that do not meet such an arbitrary file size standard is to reject a lot of good business. Their loss. |
Well i think the point is alamy don't have to scrape the barrel in their desperation, unlike the 20cent stock agencies. Alamy set their standard because it's the minimum quality that THEY WANT, it is up to us the photographers to deliver up to their standard or go home emptyhanded. This is the difference between selective agencies and the royalty-free sell-anything agencies - the latter beg for your business and will sell any old crap as long as it gives them a few cents, while alamy and "real" agencies want you to work for your pay. |
I think your both right actually. You really need to have a good clean image with a 6mp camera to upsample to that kind of size. And I think that is what Alamy's goal. They expect, as a minimum, technical superiority, and if they have weed it out by requesting 50mb files, well, then so be it. |
|
|
|
06/29/2005 10:17:24 AM · #32 |
| thanks everyone for all of your help, this is all really useful - riot do you sell to alamy using pictures from your 20d? |
|
|
|
06/29/2005 10:29:44 AM · #33 |
Originally posted by globalcat:
thanks everyone for all of your help, this is all really useful - riot do you sell to alamy using pictures from your 20d? |
I'm waiting for quality control on my first test cd right now :)
|
|
|
|
06/29/2005 11:09:19 AM · #34 |
| how exciting! When did you post it in? Will you let us know how you get on? |
|
|
|
06/29/2005 11:21:02 AM · #35 |
Sent it last thursday or so, it's listed as received but is still waiting for QC. I'll let you know how it goes, if you don't hear anything from me you can assume it didn't go all that well :P
|
|
|
|
06/30/2005 01:16:03 AM · #36 |
| I don't know much about this, but it seems to me if you increased the file size 10% at a time as someone suggested in photoshop, won't that limit the stock company from increasing it further for sale? I thought they required a certain size so they could matipulate the photos to fit their unit pricing. If you take it to the limit, they have no where else to go. Maybe I am way off base. |
|
|
|
06/30/2005 01:29:14 AM · #37 |
| Only some companies (like Shutterstock) take your original and upsize it -- and they do it because they are expecting smaller submissions, and have some control over the quality of the upsizing. They (SS) use special software (similar to Genuine Fractals) to exactly double the size of your submission. They'll take as small as a 2MP image -- about 1800 x 1500 pixels |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 07/19/2025 05:51:25 AM EDT.
