I was reading the guidelines for submitting to Alamy, but perhaps I'm just "duh" - a couple of things confuse me, so if I may ask for clarification from contributors please?

1)  Let's say I'm submitting using images from a Canon 40D (10MP).  It's my understanding that it's now ok to submit in JPG format online and you do not have to convert to TIFF, correct?

2)  It's saying the image file has to be 48mb in size?  So, I should upsize the 40D image until it reaches that size?   If I'm using CS4, what pixel dimensions should then give me around that file size?    Gee, even with a speedy DSL connection, a 48mg upload might take a while!  I guess I'm reading this right.  I can't just upload the 10MP 40D image as-is in it's native size then, huh?

Thanks ahead for clarification.

Here are some guidelines. Upsize the file to approx. 48-52 TiF,  after that you convert to jpg for uploading.
You can use two techniques for upsizing, either use General-Fractals ( program) or use PS, but dont mess with the Pixel-size. Go to picture-size in PS and just change the 100% to 110% ( Bicubic soft) and then in steps increase by 110% until you reach a size of around 50m TIF.
Above precidure is the very last you do and stay well clear of any USM sharpening, they dont really like that.

i used to shoot with a 7 MP camera. i shot in RAW then open the ORF file in photoshop and select the largest size for Alamy's purpose. which will be 5000 px on the longer side. you can process the raw file to sharpen and reduce any noise,etc...
then you save it as tiff. in 16 bit it will be about 100 -110 mb, in 8 bit tiff
it will be 49 -50 mb.
this is the size that you read as requisite for Alamy.
when you save this in jpeg, it will be much smaller, so it will upload faster.
do all your post processing on the raw, or tiff format.
don't save to jpeg until you are completely satisfied.

i hope i explained it as simple as i can. i can understand your confusion.
i was lost too at the beginning when i first join Alamy. but i contribute to Alamy first of all.
of course, if you want to make life easier, borrow or get a 14MP or higher camera. then your image will only need a little to upsize (increase in size).

yes, Alamy does not want you to upsize, no sites encourage this.
but without a high resolution camera ,you still need to upsize.
i hear some people have a software that actually increase the size without loss.
i have not tried it, so i can't tell you whether they work or not.

good luck. Alamy is a great place to join. sales are slow, but don't forget, the money is bigger, so you need less sales to earn the same .

Thanks for the additional info, hali.

I find it funny, and it may actually cause part of the sizing issues at Alamy, if you state a size as uncompressed 48 mb, the resolution does not matter.  But they do state the 300 dpi in their specifications which is kinda dumb in my opinion.

Scott

Yes but frankly. General-Fractals is the best program for uprezing, thats the one used by the Graphic industry.
When uprezing in PS, you can use steps or do the whole thing in one. Bicubic soft is to uprez and Bicubic sharp is for down-rez.

A friend run some tests with GF versus two other tools and frankly I prefered the results of a very unknown program called ClearerZoom.  I even posted samples here once.  These were 640x480 pix images upsized to 1280x960 and the "new" details looked better in CZ than GF.

Regards,
Adelaide

Hi!

Only CZ  can render more artifacts then GF. You see only because it " looks " better,  doesnt mean much, in fact a good sharpener looks more or less as if it hasnt sharpend. If you know what I mean. It sound a bit funny doesnt it.

Yep Hali!  you got it in one.  Good observation.

Lisa,

Firstly I don't think you should upload to Alamy at all, but if you are going to insist on trying to take some of my sales away my advice would be not to worry how many you upload in what size batches, your work is more than up to quality for Alamy.
But in answering your question yes they select random batches and dip check some of the images, the more you upload and the more batches you get passed the less they check as time goes by.
The real point you should consider is the time factor involved once they pass QC, because in order to succeed on Alamy you need to manage your images correctly and the way they're keyworded, and that takes a fair bit of time.
Good luck and I hope you don't sell anything 

I don't know if it is sharpening or the algorithm.

In this image, Blow-up is at left, GF at center, CZ at right:


Do you see anything in GF image that justifies its cost compared to US$25 CZ?  I didn't say CZ was perfect, but that GF is over-rated.

Regards,
Adelaide

I'll second that from RT   but since you are already there and we don't really compete with content, I'd say, start out with smaller batches, say 24 photos in your case and see what happens. The idea at Alamy is  you are your own reviewer and if you find a photo that is on the edge, don't risk uploading it, because everything you have in QC, even if from different pending uploads, will be rejected. One photo fails, everything fails!

I started with 4 or 5 at a time, moved up to 15 and when I got the feel for self regulation, increased batch sizes. My last upload was 124 photos. I've only had one batch rejected and it was some throwaway group of four that I wasn't sure about, and I sent it in by itself. They weren't that bad, but the first motorcycle was a little soft on the number plate and I suppose the reviewer had to do what they do. I may re-submit the other three some day, but for now they are on Featurepics.

Everything I have on Alamy is exclusive, except one RF photo and 95% of my photos there are editorial.

I still use Elements 5 to upsize and have had no rejections because of that. I got accepted with my 6mp 10D, first batch,  and now I'm shooting a 40D. I think that some people have trouble with the big size because they tend to overprocess their photos which can add artifacts. I have never used any noise reduction software like Noise Ninja or Neat Image because I don't like what it does to the sharpness. Could be I don't know how to use it, but when I remove noise, I personally think it makes the pictures look like crap.  

Just pointing out that you don't need to go out and buy something special to resample images. Open the JPG, convert to a TIF, resample... do whatever else you might want to do, save as a JPG.

Might as well mention that sometimes I have saved as Max 10 and sometimes Max 12, and haven't been able to see any difference except in file sizes. I'm open to anyone else's experience with this. I can't tell them apart.

Want some more? Should I start a different Subject about what data fields Alamy reads from ITPC and where they end up? It could save you some time. Once you have photos passed, the process of keywording, clicking licenses and adding data is somewhat time consuming. Another reason to start with smaller batches and get used to the buttons, three different keyword fields (Essential 50 characters, Main 300 characters, Comprehensive 856 ranked by importance), description 2000, location 100, caption 128, all of which are read in searches!

Maybe it's just me but no matter what software I use, the Keywords are truncated at 54 characters, and all keywords get dropped into the Comprehensive field, which means I have to cut and paste them into Essential and Main while I add the words that got hacked off from the original upload.  

Hi Lisa!

If it can be avoided: dont use any sharpening at all, I dont.  As we all know, sharpening can render other wonky things called artifacts and it takes a lot of graphic trickery to get rid of them.
RT is right! theyre a breed apart here and some of the micro language doesnt really suit Alamy ( weve all experienced what happens when a Micro tries to imitate an RM agency! ( Getty-IS ). Blimey, we dont want that pharaphernalia again.
Upload in two batches instead of one big one, because of the QC, anything else you can mail me.
It will be good to have you at Alamy!! We need competition. RT needs FIERCE competition.

PS. Ive always advocated: if possible, stay away from all sharpening, even in PS. Leave that to the client.

best.  Christian

 Hi All,
 
 I was once told by a math nut that the best step up for PS to make images bigger is 112%. I don't know from adam myself but this was someone doing a lot of upsizing in the old days before GF. If I was you I would use Genuine Fractal, they rock. Are there some math nuts out there that might know why the number would matter. Thanks.

Good Luck,
AVAVA