MicrostockGroup

Agency Based Discussion => Adobe Stock => Topic started by: whosvegas on June 15, 2016, 10:29

Title: JPEG is too large for uploading
Post by: whosvegas on June 15, 2016, 10:29
Last week i bought a Pentax K-3-II, with a 24 mp sensor
Last weekend i shooted the first images with the new camera.
One of them is good enough to upload. But fotolia gives a message that indicated that the JPEG is to large.
The size of the JPEG is 30,2 mb and in the file Fotolia specs, the max size is 30 mb

Do you have any idea how i can upload my image (without loss of quality)?
Title: Re: JPEG is too large for uploading
Post by: HalfFull on June 15, 2016, 11:33
I'm sure max jpeg size is 28mb at Fotolia.
Title: Re: JPEG is too large for uploading
Post by: suwanneeredhead on June 15, 2016, 11:58
Just make it a little smaller in Photoshop, decrease the image size 10%, you won't lose quality. The quality loss happens when enlarging more than about 5% on a JPG.
Title: Re: JPEG is too large for uploading
Post by: whosvegas on June 16, 2016, 12:51
Thank you!
I have resize the image by 95 %, and the image is now 26,2 mb, good for uploading
Title: Re: JPEG is too large for uploading
Post by: Dook on June 16, 2016, 13:28
I think it can be larger if uploaded by FTP.
Title: Re: JPEG is too large for uploading
Post by: whosvegas on June 16, 2016, 13:37
I think it can be larger if uploaded by FTP.
Ok, next time i will try it to upload with ftp
Title: Re: JPEG is too large for uploading
Post by: whosvegas on June 23, 2016, 10:17
Thanks all!
I have uploaded an 34 MB jpeg with ftp and it works
Title: Re: JPEG is too large for uploading
Post by: Mr Nobody on June 23, 2016, 10:52
for the price of what we are paid do the buyers deserve the image at higher resolutions? For example, the newer canon 5DS (50 mp) cost almost five thousand dollars (body only) plus the cost of decent lenses.  Do we get more $$ for using this high end equipment- No!
Title: Re: JPEG is too large for uploading
Post by: pixel86 on June 23, 2016, 11:36
for the price of what we are paid do the buyers deserve the image at higher resolutions? For example, the newer canon 5DS (50 mp) cost almost five thousand dollars (body only) plus the cost of decent lenses.  Do we get more $$ for using this high end equipment- No!

The microstock model wasn't created to offer images using high-end equipment, or high-dollar shoots. If a photographer wants to pay $5000 for a camera to shoot microstock, that is their choice. The same job can be accomplished with a camera under $1,000. If you have high-end equipment and want to make more money, there are macrostock agencies to submit to that will help you recoup your expenses.  :)
Title: Re: JPEG is too large for uploading
Post by: DaRkWeeDo on June 23, 2016, 13:00
for the price of what we are paid do the buyers deserve the image at higher resolutions? For example, the newer canon 5DS (50 mp) cost almost five thousand dollars (body only) plus the cost of decent lenses.  Do we get more $$ for using this high end equipment- No!

The microstock model wasn't created to offer images using high-end equipment, or high-dollar shoots. If a photographer wants to pay $5000 for a camera to shoot microstock, that is their choice. The same job can be accomplished with a camera under $1,000. If you have high-end equipment and want to make more money, there are macrostock agencies to submit to that will help you recoup your expenses.  :)

Agreed
Title: Re: JPEG is too large for uploading
Post by: MatHayward on June 23, 2016, 13:32
for the price of what we are paid do the buyers deserve the image at higher resolutions? For example, the newer canon 5DS (50 mp) cost almost five thousand dollars (body only) plus the cost of decent lenses.  Do we get more $$ for using this high end equipment- No!

The microstock model wasn't created to offer images using high-end equipment, or high-dollar shoots. If a photographer wants to pay $5000 for a camera to shoot microstock, that is their choice. The same job can be accomplished with a camera under $1,000. If you have high-end equipment and want to make more money, there are macrostock agencies to submit to that will help you recoup your expenses.  :)

I feel like that was probably true a few years back. These days I am seeing more and more very high quality content produced with all levels of cameras. Regardless of what tool you are using you need to have a certain skill set to produce good quality stock imagery. A bad photographer with a great camera is still going to produce a bad image. The reverse is also true. I find the better the tool I'm using, the better quality of work I produce. More wiggle room. Without a doubt, photographers can produce great stock with an inexpensive camera. I think it's more challenging and requires a great level of skill to compete in this market however. I often wonder when I see photographers producing amazing images with inexpensive, low quality cameras how much more potential they could have using better tools. A faster shutter speed can capture an image a split second apart that creates more drama. More dynamic range allows great flexibility in post, etc.

This is my way of justifying the 1DX Mark II I just purchased. At least that's the story I gave my wife before I cut the check. I could see in her eyes she wasn't buying my story but I got away with it anyway.  ::)

-Mat
Title: Re: JPEG is too large for uploading
Post by: pixel86 on June 23, 2016, 14:41
for the price of what we are paid do the buyers deserve the image at higher resolutions? For example, the newer canon 5DS (50 mp) cost almost five thousand dollars (body only) plus the cost of decent lenses.  Do we get more $$ for using this high end equipment- No!

The microstock model wasn't created to offer images using high-end equipment, or high-dollar shoots. If a photographer wants to pay $5000 for a camera to shoot microstock, that is their choice. The same job can be accomplished with a camera under $1,000. If you have high-end equipment and want to make more money, there are macrostock agencies to submit to that will help you recoup your expenses.  :)

I feel like that was probably true a few years back. These days I am seeing more and more very high quality content produced with all levels of cameras. Regardless of what tool you are using you need to have a certain skill set to produce good quality stock imagery. A bad photographer with a great camera is still going to produce a bad image. The reverse is also true. I find the better the tool I'm using, the better quality of work I produce. More wiggle room. Without a doubt, photographers can produce great stock with an inexpensive camera. I think it's more challenging and requires a great level of skill to compete in this market however. I often wonder when I see photographers producing amazing images with inexpensive, low quality cameras how much more potential they could have using better tools. A faster shutter speed can capture an image a split second apart that creates more drama. More dynamic range allows great flexibility in post, etc.

This is my way of justifying the 1DX Mark II I just purchased. At least that's the story I gave my wife before I cut the check. I could see in her eyes she wasn't buying my story but I got away with it anyway.  ::)

-Mat

Everything you are saying I totally agree with. I can justify new toys with the best of them!

My comment was directed more towards the notion that people want to spend thousands and thousands of dollars on new toys, then complain because they don't make any more money in microstock for the expense. For instance, does Fotolia/Adobe pay any more money for a L sized image shot on a 1DX Mark II than they do for a L sized image shot on a point-and-shoot? As far as I know, what a contributor makes off the image isn't based on equipment.

I think the time to spend more money on better equipment was probably 7 or 8 years ago, when things were booming in microstock and people could actually quit their day jobs and make a living shooting microstock full time. But to spend big $$ on equipment today to shoot solely for microstock? I don't see it as a good decision, but just my opinion.

If I were going to diversify my photography over different markets, i.e. my personal website, macrostock, microstock, wedding photography, product photography, etc. spending the money sounds like a good investment. Spending $5,000 for a camera and paying for it by earning 35 cents an image (or less) on microstock, not so much.  :D
Title: Re: JPEG is too large for uploading
Post by: MichaelJayFoto on June 24, 2016, 03:19
Last week i bought a Pentax K-3-II, with a 24 mp sensor
Last weekend i shooted the first images with the new camera.
One of them is good enough to upload. But fotolia gives a message that indicated that the JPEG is to large.
The size of the JPEG is 30,2 mb and in the file Fotolia specs, the max size is 30 mb

Do you have any idea how i can upload my image (without loss of quality)?

Frankly, if 24 megapixel JPG images come at more than 30 megapixels, I would check your quality settings. I'd say the only way that JPGs turn out that large would be if they are oversharpened.

Most of my 21 and 24 megapixel JPGs come out below 10 megapixels, exported with 100% quality from Lightroom or level 12 quality from Photoshop.
Title: Re: JPEG is too large for uploading
Post by: Astonished on June 24, 2016, 03:46
I don't think I could justify buying Leicas or Hasselblads just for shooting microstock.
A P&S camera would be more justified for the couple of cents paid for in microstock in my opinion
Title: Re: JPEG is too large for uploading
Post by: carl.orfus on June 24, 2016, 06:01
This pic is one of my best sellers on Fotolia. It was taken with an old film Nikon F601 camera and scanned with an old Polaroid film scanner around 2007. Last month was selled several times one with extended liscence. Maybe camera is not all you need for selling a photo.

https://es.fotolia.com/id/479559


Enviado desde mi iPhone utilizando Tapatalk