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.

Actually I found some images that PS said were 24MB weren't big enough for Alamy.

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.

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...

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.

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.

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?

thanks everyone. glad it wasn't just me being a twit. appreciate the info. so if my pixel dimension number is 54.6....is that large enough? I shoot Nikon D3X

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.

Like pancaketom i've some problem with files with 24 and 24,1 MB on alamy.

Actually work fine with 3600*2400 ( 24,7 MB ), around 8,6 mpx

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

Quote from: SNP on October 21, 2011, 19:43

Quote from: Ed on October 21, 2011, 18:56

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

thanks. on another submission topic, I read that I can designate RM licenses only on Alamy when I upload. is this correct?

If the images you upload are also on MS, then you MUST license them as RF.  If they are only on RM sites then you can license them RM.

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. 

Quote from: Mantis on October 21, 2011, 20:05

Quote from: SNP on October 21, 2011, 19:43

Quote from: Ed on October 21, 2011, 18:56

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

thanks. on another submission topic, I read that I can designate RM licenses only on Alamy when I upload. is this correct?

If the images you upload are also on MS, then you MUST license them as RF.  If they are only on RM sites then you can license them RM.

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.

any images I would license on Alamy would not be anywhere else. they would be editorial that iStock won't accept and that I'm not sending to news wires. if Alamy's new breaking news format seems to work well, I might even supply there instead of elsewhere. but I'd never supply the same content as RM if it is already sold as RF. my sense of integrity wouldn't allow me to do something like this either.

iStock's exclusivity contract won't let us license anything as RF, no matter what it is. even if it isn't admissible on iStock. so I'm looking for a cozy home for my unpublished editorial images as RM.

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:

Oh yeah, well, I thought that was apparent in the part that said "exclusive agent"...

Quote

Sean, could you kindly give us an example where in your opinion one and the same image should be uploaded as RF to one agency and as RM to another.

I'm not saying anyone _should_ do it.  Just that as long as nothing in whatever locations' agreements prohibits it, you could if you want to.  In general, there is nothing that says you can't do it.  RM and RF are just groups of rights you are selling.  You just can't offer history or exclusivity if an image was RF.

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?