PDA

View Full Version : Not big enough for stock?


MargaretR
6th August 2015, 04:33 PM
OK, colour me puzzled. :confused:

Curiosity had me checking out submission requirements for stock, and (a random example, since it's in the UK) Alamy specifies that they take images 17MB size minimum. They also have a list of "approved" cameras (and unapproved ones) for producing good enough quality images.

OM-D models are on the approved list. However, as far as I can see from checking my own images for size, my ORF files are only about 15 MB; once saved as Jpegs (another requirement) they're down to about 13MB.

How then could these be submitted to Alamy? Other agencies require even larger files. Would OM-D files ALL have to be upsized, with the potential hazards of reduction in image quality that might bring? Seems a bit of a catch 22 here...

Anyone have experience of stock submission from the OM-D series, and can enlighten?

Graham_of_Rainham
6th August 2015, 04:46 PM
Most will not accept RAW files and require 16bit TIFF or DNG.

Convert an ORF to TIFF and it will "grow"

I do not recommend re-sizing an image to grow it as this will de-grade the quality

MargaretR
6th August 2015, 06:03 PM
Yes, once edited I normally save as Tiff. However, Alamy specifies JPEG files, which I'm guessing for less than full frame, involves upsizing. I know this can reduce quality, hence the catch 22. Maybe I'll ask over there if anyone uses OM-D, and if so, what they do.

MargaretR
6th August 2015, 06:39 PM
Hmm, well, this appears to be a continual source of total confusion for Alamy newbies, given by the number of threads in their forum, and the long-suffering replies from old hands!

Apparently, RAW files are compressed. Who knew. I certainly didn't. But saving your RAW as Tiff gives an uncompressed true size, and a maximum quality JPEG saved from that is 'big enough'. Basically, any camera of >6Mpix is fine, but that's not at all clear from the "17mb" cited in the first place.

At least I'm not the only idiot who didn't understand them.... :D

Daveart
6th August 2015, 06:44 PM
Hi margaret, what raw editor doyou use, I use capture one, I get JPEG images on average 28 meg in size and they are not upsized at all they are saved as 100% ie no compression. It must be the way it is processed.
When I used to use Photoshop or light room, this was difficult to do as jpegs came out around 7 meg, not sure if that still applies with the latest software from adobe.

Dave

MargaretR
6th August 2015, 08:02 PM
I'm processing in Lightroom, or plug-ins within it, and if using a plug-in (like Nik) then Saving As a tiff file. I was then doing "Export" in LR, to jpeg, not sized down, and getting a final file around 13Mb.

Safe to say I don't really understand the finer points of file types, other than "don't save jpegs repeatedly".

Anyway, it doesn't seem to be an issue in the end. Just confusing!

Pjphoto59
8th August 2015, 08:23 AM
This is a very common source of misunderstanding with Alamy newcomers. The 17MB refers to an uncompressed file size and refers to a minimum number of pixels. It bears no easy relationship with the size of the jpg file you would submit.

I start my PP in Lightroom and finish in Photoshop. I find LR of little use in describing the size of the image, which is much easier done in Photoshop.

In Photoshop, go to - Image/Image Size this opens a box showing the pixel dimensions. At the top of the box it shows pixel dimensions. I typically make my images 4040 x 3030 px, which gives a pixel dimension of 35.0, or just over twice the minimum size.

The reduction in minimum size to 17MB is fairly recent, when I joined Alamy 10 years ago, the minimum size was 48MB, requiring substantial up-sizing of images from most cameras available then. Especially my E1 which gave 14.1.

The minimum image size of 17MB is what you would get from a 6MP camera, leaving plenty of room for cropping with any 12 or 16 MP Camera.

pdk42
8th August 2015, 08:48 AM
What's the experience of people with Alamy so far as earning any money goes?

Pjphoto59
9th August 2015, 07:37 AM
My experience with Alamy has been good. I have been a contributor for nearly 10 years. I tried other agencies too, but I closed them down and concentrate on Alamy, as it is the one which consistently makes sales for me.

I have earned enough from it to pay for all my equipment upgrades.

The stock image market is unfortunately massively over supplied now, and consequently sales prices are much lower than they used to be. There are 61 million images on Alamy with 1 million added in the last two months. Buyers have a big selection to choose from.

MargaretR
9th August 2015, 02:44 PM
This is a very common source of misunderstanding with Alamy newcomers. The 17MB refers to an uncompressed file size and refers to a minimum number of pixels. It bears no easy relationship with the size of the jpg file you would submit.

I start my PP in Lightroom and finish in Photoshop. I find LR of little use in describing the size of the image, which is much easier done in Photoshop.

In Photoshop, go to - Image/Image Size this opens a box showing the pixel dimensions. At the top of the box it shows pixel dimensions. I typically make my images 4040 x 3030 px, which gives a pixel dimension of 35.0, or just over twice the minimum size.

The reduction in minimum size to 17MB is fairly recent, when I joined Alamy 10 years ago, the minimum size was 48MB, requiring substantial up-sizing of images from most cameras available then. Especially my E1 which gave 14.1.

The minimum image size of 17MB is what you would get from a 6MP camera, leaving plenty of room for cropping with any 12 or 16 MP Camera.


Thank you, Peter, for a much more constructive and civilised response than I obtained on the Alamy forum, which basically boiled down to "Oh no, not this AGAIN, why don't you newbies p*** off and do some basic research, we're all sick of your questions".

In case I haven't said it out loud before, thank you to all in this forum for being Nice People, and making this such a good place to hang out and learn. I certainly won't be bothering with Alamy's forum again. And based on that, maybe not even Alamy.

David M
9th August 2015, 02:58 PM
Stock is a joke these days with fees not even covering the time involved in preparing a submission. I was discussing rates with a friend who's with a specialist library. Two decades ago his quarterly sales were in five figures.at times. A decade ago they'd dropped to four figures and now they're down to three figures. He's had sales that earned him 5, still not as low as one of his colleagues who had a 3 sale.

Pjphoto59
9th August 2015, 03:04 PM
In my early days on Alamy it did not have its own Forum. There was a forum on Yahoo Groups, open to people who were contributors. I enjoyed that one better!

I correspond regularly with another like-minded contributor in New York, but I do not usually bother with the Alamy forum.

Yours was a very common question, and many of the answers given are not very enlightening. Sorry if they were rude.

MargaretR
10th August 2015, 03:13 PM
Sorry if they were rude.

Don't apologise ... not your fault if 99.9% of 'the internet' has no manners! ;)

Petrochemist
10th August 2015, 04:37 PM
Don't apologise ... not your fault if 99.9% of 'the internet' has no manners! ;)
Although it sometimes feels like it, I'm fairly sure it's not quite that bad. Probably just about 10% with no manners - trouble is they are the loudest 10%...

From what I've found of Alamy I'm sure they will be plagued by questions on that clause - which seems to be incredibly badly worded, and not based on the necessary information at all.

Wouldn't something along the lines of 'at least 6MP, 24bit colour JPEGs saved at 100% (no compression)' be more meaningful?