Jump to content

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, Rudy Umans said:

As long as you don't go for the bottle, you will be fine. 

Rather a bottle in front o' me than a frontal lobotomy.😄

 

Bottles11-650.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/25/2020 at 10:02 PM, Wilm Ihlenfeld said:

Heide

 

this is not meant badly, but wouldn't you send the wrong signal if it was possible to upload full-res images?

Many of the photos here can be taken by the buyer himself with his cell phone. That may also be the reason why buyers are less and less willing to spend money. The second reason for the sinking incomes lies naturally also in the strong competition of the Microstock agencies. And of course the fact that contributors upload to free agencies - for whatever reason.

Nevertheless: Is it in times, where you often only get 10 cents for a download and something is still deducted from it for the conversion with paypal, the right sign to reward the agency or the thrifty buyer still with high-end photo material?

Wouldn't it make more sense in case of doubt to offer the 60 MP images where the RPD still justifies it? Because not many people have a 60 MP camera. An argument for the fact that such a photo must simply be worth more in my eyes.

So I personally see no reason why you should be annoyed about a file size limit when uploading.

 

Cheers,  Wilm

 

Absolutely spot on. I'm planning to shoot large format sheet film (likely 4 x 5) some time in the future and there's no way I would upload those images here. Even before the earnings change, it wouldn't have been justifiable. I have previously removed my medium format film images from here. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Milo J said:

Gorgeous. It should sell well!

Thank you, Milo.

 

I didn't dare to upload it here. I feared a rejection because of "out of focus" and "noise".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Wilm Ihlenfeld said:

I have just created a 100 Megapixel file and saved it in maximum Quality. The file size is about 640 KB - less than 1 MB. If you want to see it in full resolution - here we go...

100MP.jpg

Hmmm? Tried that too but when I create and save the same 100Mp file in jpeg max quality, I get 6.3Mb!

BTW....I'd prefer black (also 6.3Mb)!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, stevemart said:

Hmmm? Tried that too but when I create and save the same 100Mp file in jpeg max quality, I get 6.3Mb!

BTW....I'd prefer black (also 6.3Mb)!

Did you download my impressive and beautiful image, Steve? How much disk space doe it need on your system?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Wilm Ihlenfeld said:

Did you download my impressive and beautiful image, Steve? How much disk space doe it need on your system?

Yes, Wilm. I downloaded it and on my system it says it needs 1.49Mb. My own 100Mp creations require 6.3 Mb (as JPG 12 max) whether black, white or any colour as long as it's solid.1330192691_NickPic0502020-09-2812_12_27.jpg.6bf6044ba9dad6d9b09798b070e0da22.jpgYour file downloaded at full size.

 

My 100Mp files black or white:

662249081_NickPic0512020-09-2812_13_37.jpg.9d35d5f943bfeabb0cde2c06281d3ad1.jpg

 

Your file info on SS before download (1.56Mb):

1266273515_NickPic0492020-09-2812_08_08.jpg.77d09a4c34f079850931e8d46ce45116.jpg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, stevemart said:

Yes, Wilm. I downloaded it and on my system it says it needs 1.49Mb. My own 100Mp creations require 6.3 Mb (as JPG 12 max) whether black, white or any colour as long as it's solid.1330192691_NickPic0502020-09-2812_12_27.jpg.6bf6044ba9dad6d9b09798b070e0da22.jpgYour file downloaded at full size.

 

My 100Mp files black or white:

662249081_NickPic0512020-09-2812_13_37.jpg.9d35d5f943bfeabb0cde2c06281d3ad1.jpg

 

Your file info on SS before download (1.56Mb):

1266273515_NickPic0492020-09-2812_08_08.jpg.77d09a4c34f079850931e8d46ce45116.jpg

 

I've just tried that now once more, Steve.

Here on this Mac, the file also has 6.3 MB when I create it with Photoshop.
The image yesterday I created on an older Mac with an older version of Photoshop. Apparently the jpgs created with newer versions of Photoshop are more memory intensive. Yesterday I also saved at maximum quality (baseline 12).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's an amazing difference, Wilm. I also tried it with two versions of Photoshop; the latest CC 2020 and an old Elements 6 (2007) and they both gave the same result = 6.3Mb at JPG-12. How old is your older version of PS?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, stevemart said:

That's an amazing difference, Wilm. I also tried it with two versions of Photoshop; the latest CC 2020 and an old Elements 6 (2007) and they both gave the same result = 6.3Mb at JPG-12. How old is your older version of PS?

I'm not quite sure and can't look at the moment. But I think it is the first version of CS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Wilm Ihlenfeld said:

I'm not quite sure and can't look at the moment. But I think it is the first version of CS.

CS 1 was launched in 2003 and CS2 in 2005. I once had an even older version before CS. That was Photoshop 7. I hardly ever used it but was asked to store it for a business contact because he was forever deleting programs from his desktop or having to get a new computer because he got a virus. He could never find anything again so he asked me to keep the CD-Rom for him. Don't think it was a legal version though....that's why he kept getting viruses in his computers; always trying to do stuff on the cheap!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/25/2020 at 5:10 AM, Heide Pinkall said:

61 MP, full frame

That's the exact reason I'm NOT buying a camera with more megapixels, I don't want to have to deal with giant files and having to get more storage for them. My 20something megapixel camera is plenty for stock.

Also, MP is not the same as MB.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Wilm Ihlenfeld said:

I have just created a 100 Megapixel file and saved it in maximum Quality. The file size is about 640 KB - less than 1 MB. If you want to see it in full resolution - here we go...

100MP.jpg

 

This is the famous white horse in a snow storm!

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/25/2020 at 5:10 AM, Heide Pinkall said:

I recently invested into a new camera - Sony A7R4 with 61 MP, full frame. It is really a pitty that I have to downsize my pictures now because of the 50 MB limitation...
I think Shutterstock should re-think this.
Just a thought...

 

grafik.png.e625ba9b84b3b4f9cdfef138b370888a.png

Hopefully with all the wise answers you have realized that file size on disk is MB and file size in Megapixels MP is different.

Even with editing, save at level 10, and sRGB (not Ruth Bader Ginsberg as someone wrote RBG? 😃 )

One of my panoramas, that I just selected at random, is 19278 x 5969 =  115MP before editing. 23MB file size on disk.

No you shouldn't have to downsize your images, unless you want to. 👍 Some buyers want larger images and on some sites, won't even look at anything under 10MP. If you are going to reduce for some reason, maybe keep that in mind? Is downsizing going to harm sales?

17 hours ago, Rudy Umans said:

Actually, don't mean to be frank, but if you care about photography and you want to upload your images to stock sites or PoD sites, you should care because sooner or later you will run into this issue and it would be good then if you know the difference between MB, MP, and DPI. (I threw in DPI to make it more interesting and I could throw in 8bit and 16bit, but I won't. lol)

And DPI doesn't matter for stock uploads, only for printing. Since we upload sRGB for stock sites, there aren't any 16 bit files to be concerned with. (and yes you did throw it in... LOL) That does make me wonder about POD sites and DPI because everything comes out of my camera at 72 and they print just fine.

Now what about pixel pitch and how a 61MP photo on a phone isn't the same as a 61MP photo from Heide's Sony? Hmmm?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, HodagMedia said:

And DPI doesn't matter for stock uploads, only for printing. Since we upload sRGB for stock sites, there aren't any 16 bit files to be concerned with. (and yes you did throw it in... LOL) That does make me wonder about POD sites and DPI because everything comes out of my camera at 72 and they print just fine.

Now what about pixel pitch and how a 61MP photo on a phone isn't the same as a 61MP photo from Heide's Sony? Hmmm?

 

I know that many PoD sites print art prints in 100-150 DPI and they look just fine. Recently I sold four 60 inch prints to a hotel and they were all printed at that DPI and they look just fine. Book and calendar printers prefer 300 DPI and for magazines it depends.

sRGB or any RGB has nothing to do with 8 or 16 bit.  (any) RGB determines what colors within the color gamut are covered.  Adobe RGB for example covers a greater range of colors than sRGB. (Adobe cover more in the green areas.) That's why images look more dull when edited and saved in  Adobe RGB, but converted to sRGB later on. RGB is not related to the number of colors, which can be the same for any RGB. With Adobe and Prophoto RGB for example, a larger number of shades within one color goes at the expense of fewer shades in another color.

8 or 16 bit (or 32) is about the color density, meaning the number of colors within a particular color space. 8 bit shows 16 million colors and 16 bit 280 trillion colors.  It doesn't matter what particular colors are covered or not, That is what RGB gamut is for. The number of bits, and therefor colors, determines how smooth one color flows into another. 16 bit images have usually more leeway with editing than 8 bit images and things like banding etc. are less likely to occur with 16 bit. For that reason, everybody should make it a habit to work in 16 bit. especially for stock or any other curated site.

The only thing is that JPG images are not capable of showing that number of colors, so if you want to work in 16 bit (and you should) , you have to work in RAW of TIFF (converted from RAW). So, shoot RAW, Convert to 16 bit TIFF and work in sRGB. At least that's what I do when I work in color. 

 

I am gonna stop now, Don't want to give Debbie a hangover.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sari ONeal said:

 

This is the famous white horse in a snow storm!

 

 

Yes, and it was hard work to create it! My fingers still are frozen!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Rudy Umans said:

 

I am gonna stop now, Don't want to give Debbie a hangover.

LOL. I have been skim reading this thread since last night. As the complexity of the replies increased my ability to read quickly sped up commensurately.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Studio 2 said:

LOL. I have been skim reading this thread since last night. As the complexity of the replies increased my ability to read quickly sped up commensurately.

Don't blame you. It's as boring as hell! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Sari ONeal said:

 

This is the famous white horse in a snow storm!

 

 

Think this is closer...........😀

 

DSC_6480-denoiseJ2sR2.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

2 hours ago, stevemart said:

Think this is closer...........😀

 

DSC_6480-denoiseJ2sR2.jpg

Beautiful, Steve! But my variant needs much less memory and stimulates the imagination of the viewer much better! :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Rudy Umans said:

I know that many PoD sites print art prints in 100-150 DPI and they look just fine. Recently I sold four 60 inch prints to a hotel and they were all printed at that DPI and they look just fine. Book and calendar printers prefer 300 DPI and for magazines it depends.

sRGB or any RGB has nothing to do with 8 or 16 bit.  (any) RGB determines what colors within the color gamut are covered.  Adobe RGB for example covers a greater range of colors than sRGB. (Adobe cover more in the green areas.) That's why images look more dull when edited and saved in  Adobe RGB, but converted to sRGB later on. RGB is not related to the number of colors, which can be the same for any RGB. With Adobe and Prophoto RGB for example, a larger number of shades within one color goes at the expense of fewer shades in another color.

8 or 16 bit (or 32) is about the color density, meaning the number of colors within a particular color space. 8 bit shows 16 million colors and 16 bit 280 trillion colors.  It doesn't matter what particular colors are covered or not, That is what RGB gamut is for. The number of bits, and therefor colors, determines how smooth one color flows into another. 16 bit images have usually more leeway with editing than 8 bit images and things like banding etc. are less likely to occur with 16 bit. For that reason, everybody should make it a habit to work in 16 bit. especially for stock or any other curated site.

The only thing is that JPG images are not capable of showing that number of colors, so if you want to work in 16 bit (and you should) , you have to work in RAW of TIFF (converted from RAW). So, shoot RAW, Convert to 16 bit TIFF and work in sRGB. At least that's what I do when I work in color. 

 

I am gonna stop now, Don't want to give Debbie a hangover.

Right, so if we have a JPG to upload it's never going to be 16 bit. That's what I meant. My mistake in the way I stated that. And while we do upload to these agencies, it should be sRGB because they are web based. DPI means nothing in Microstock or on the computer or web display. People need to forget about DPI when making their stock photos.

Interesting on the POD sites, never knew what their potential standard would be. Of course since I upload from the camera, as I mentioned, they are going to be 72, and if I wanted I can go into Irfanview and change the dpi to 1200 and that changes nothing for our web based purposes, I can post side by side images, and no one here could see the difference.

DPI only matters when something is physically printed or when we are scanning.

So back to the start, a 60MP image is going to be less than 50MB so no problems with limits. If there are size problems, save at 10, not 12.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Rudy Umans said:

You could have saved me some time Pete, but hopefully my lengthy post was helpful to somebody anyway

I though your post covered things quite well. I was filling in some holes in the details. We aren't all dealing with the same outlets or uses for our images. I was targeting Stock Photos for the web and computer use.

  

On 9/27/2020 at 4:07 PM, stevemart said:

Forgot to say that in my example above we are talking about 8 bits RBG!! 😁


I know she was short but 8 bits is tiny?

 

 

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

×
×
  • Create New...