I don't mind upsizing for alamy, it take me about 3 seconds.  It is obvious after upsizing if the image is a bit soft or has other faults and I don't upload it.  Might be why I have a 100% success rate with their inspectors (apart from one upsizing error).  It must be easier for their inspectors when all the images are at least 48mb.  They need to keep costs down, as they pay more commission than the microstock sites, if they did the upsizing, they would probably have millions more images that were not up to their standards and would be rejected.

Quote from: Vonkara on December 05, 2009, 00:49
LOL That's why they need to stop doing this it's almost embarassing

One company (e.g. Alamy) couldn't stop while others (e.g. Getty) are still doing it.

Quote from: Vonkara on December 03, 2009, 18:47

Upsizing was used back when the best cameras were 6mpx. Dinosaur habit

I gotta laugh at this. Vonkara, you age yourself as way young. LOL. You see, upsizing is still going on. It was okay WAY back then (6-8 years), and is still okay now. Mainstream digital shooting didn't really hit until the 1Ds with 11MP, which upsized very nicely. I still sell ( and many others on this board) sell many images a month (upsized of course) from this dinosaur of a camera.

Do you sell many upsized images... on Alamy, because that's prohibited on microstock ? What I meant about dinosaur habit is the upsizing action, not shooting with a 11mpx camera

Quote from: Vonkara on December 05, 2009, 17:09
Do you sell many upsized images... on Alamy, because that's prohibited on microstock ? What I meant about dinosaur habit is the upsizing action, not shooting with a 11mpx camera

prohibited is such strong word. I sell upsized images in ALL markets.

Oh well, if it sell, why not. I used upsized backgrounds on some of my pictures. But I made them blurry and it have been accepted. Like this one.


The background is an image taken with a Nikon point and shoot. The table with glasses have been taken in studio. I had to upsize the background a little and add grausian blur filter. Never thought the agencies were accepting upsized images without blur or being the main subject though

I have upsized images in microstock sites.

oh yeah actually this is something i wanted to ask.... the other day i made a mistake and prepared a file for alamy and loaded it to the microstock sites.... it was accepted....but i felt quite guilty! should i replace the file or something?

Quote from: simsi on December 07, 2009, 00:34
oh yeah actually this is something i wanted to ask.... the other day i made a mistake and prepared a file for alamy and loaded it to the microstock sites.... it was accepted....but i felt quite guilty! should i replace the file or something?

Your choice; but I think it shows that a limited amount of upsizing has no discernible effect on the appearance of the file. In fact, iStock say that they check the camera's natural maximum resolution, rather than claiming they can tell an upsized image by eye.

Quote from: simsi on December 07, 2009, 00:34
oh yeah actually this is something i wanted to ask.... the other day i made a mistake and prepared a file for alamy and loaded it to the microstock sites.... it was accepted....but i felt quite guilty! should i replace the file or something?

It is up to you.  I still prefer keeping my portfolios separate.  The thought of losing a big sale with alamy because they found the same image on a micro stops me doing it.  I was considering putting my microstock portfolio on alamy but from what I have read, it probably wont sell much.  I will stick with separate portfolios for now.

Quote from: ShadySue on December 07, 2009, 08:10In fact, iStock say that they check the camera's natural maximum resolution, rather than claiming they can tell an upsized image by eye.

That made me laugh.  If you can't detect upsizing "by eye" then what possible difference does it make?  Are they selling images to people, or to computers?

Quote from: stockastic on December 07, 2009, 16:03

Quote from: ShadySue on December 07, 2009, 08:10In fact, iStock say that they check the camera's natural maximum resolution, rather than claiming they can tell an upsized image by eye.

That made me laugh.  If you can't detect upsizing "by eye" then what possible difference does it make?  Are they selling images to people, or to computers?

Computers for sure, hands down,  because that is who they edit for. "ooo look at the sharpness around those pixels, ohoh is that I slight blue fringe I detect at 600% on the very edge of the image?" "Reject, reject!!!!"

Quote from: Vonkara on December 05, 2009, 00:49
LOL That's why they need to stop doing this it's almost embarassing

Almost?

Quote from: Zeus on December 07, 2009, 16:41

Quote from: stockastic on December 07, 2009, 16:03

Quote from: ShadySue on December 07, 2009, 08:10In fact, iStock say that they check the camera's natural maximum resolution, rather than claiming they can tell an upsized image by eye.

That made me laugh.  If you can't detect upsizing "by eye" then what possible difference does it make?  Are they selling images to people, or to computers?

Computers for sure, hands down,  because that is who they edit for. "ooo look at the sharpness around those pixels, ohoh is that I slight blue fringe I detect at 600% on the very edge of the image?" "Reject, reject!!!!"

LOL had one the other day, fringing - I found it at 300% on a 24mp image. you would need to print it over 5ft long to see it.

50mb is common for many macro agencies. I laughed when I got the sony a900 because I can downsize to 48mb now and remembered being so careful with composition on 6mp so that I didnt have to crop.

I dont see it as a big deal. I just grab the images in bridge and run the action, takes a couple of minutes (rates better than keywording, adding categories or disambiguting on my dislike meter )