MicrostockGroup

I'm preparing some images for submission to Alamy for the four "test" images. The following submission guideline is not clear, are they asking for files larger than 24MB. of course they want jpegs which are not uncompressed and most of my jpegs after processing are on average about 10MB.

"Uncompressed file sizes of more than 24MB. This means you should make your JPEG file from an 8 bit TIFF file that is at least 24MB. If you have a camera that is capable of producing an uncompressed 8 bit file of over 24MB then leave it that size."

thanks for additional clarity...

Actually I found some images that PS said were 24MB weren't big enough for Alamy. What they require is over 8.4 megapixels. (as best I can determine). Why they continue to insist on their bizarre uncompressed file size description when they don't want uncompressed files is completely beyond me, perhaps it is an artifact of the days when all their images were scans.

Saving the image as an uncompressed tif would settle the issue one way or the other IIRC SNP shoots a 5DMKII so this is not an issue.

Maybe aim at 25MB as a minimum just to be certain.

PS - me too looking to submit there btw. But mine are scans.

Since in RGB each pixel takes 8 bits per colour, and 8 bits = 1 Byte, and considering the uncompressed size before jpg compression:

24 MB / (3 Bytes / Pixel) = 8 Mpixels

Actually, about 8.4 Megapixel for the reason below.


It may be due to a different definition of K as used in Megapixels (K=1000) or in MB (K=2^10=1024)

Your best guess of 8.4 Megapixel means probably 8*1024*1024=8,388,608 instead of 8*1000*1000=8,000,000

Yes, it's weird - but then what is not bizarre in stock?

Ha..twice as much

The smallest size I will submit to Alamy is 3604x2403.  Not sure if that helps you but it's 8.66 megapixel.

Yes when it was 48 I had to do 48.2 to make sure the difference in the math and reality were not causing a problem. The file size is checked by a computer...

Yes, Elements and CS both show the file size in the lower left corner. It's always there! No magic or clicking around.

Default I believe is Document Dimensions, > click the arrow and change it to Document Size.





They both show it as you are editing.

Yes if your camera takes bigger pictures, leave them larger. Advantage is you can crop, and with the little box in the lower left, see if you are 24.2 (the minimum you want to try to squeeze past)

Yes you can choose the license type, one or the other, I don't think you can offer files as both? That would be a contradiction and conflict, especially on the same site.

No you can't change the license once it's been set and approved.

I think their partner thing may be "Special Use" I know they have a 20% reduction for "Distribution Commission" so they have outside partners and they are called Distributors.

Personally I don't have any restrictions, if someone wants to pay for a picture, fine with me, I'll take the money. Some people do block certain countries because I believe they have so lower license points. Too much time wasted clicking all those restriction boxes, I don't care.

thanks everyone, appreciate the quick replies. racephoto, yes, that's where I see the info....also when I look at image size....cheers

Hey don't blame me folks I didn't open this

Alamy says NO. (don't do it) the other sites say NO, the legal implications say NO, my sense of integrity says No... but I know some people here say, No Problem. 

That's because they haven't been caught.

I know about all that above stuff, but your work should do very well under non-RF terms, including editorial.  Have fun with it.

I understand why it "feels" wrong (to me) to license something on Alamy as RM if it's available as RF elsewhere. That feels 100% wrong.

But what if it is not available as RF elsewhere, but had been sold a few times under an RF license? As long as it is not currently for sale as RF, why is it wrong to offer an image as RM? Yes, one of the RF buyers might use the image again. So? As long as you do not ever, ever, ever sell it as RM exclusive, what's the big deal with selling it as RM after it's sold as RF?

I'm not trying to open that can of worms, just trying to understand the issue.

This answer:



from this thread, http://www.microstockgroup.com/alamy-com/alamy-rm-or-rf/

and I don't understand it.

There's the can and the worms. Good luck.  

Maybe Sean will expand on the dual license part where I get the impression he's saying that if an item is sold or for sale RF, it's legal to sell it somewhere else as RM. Just the simple question, of licensing the same image two different ways?