pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Image sizes  (Read 13114 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: February 19, 2011, 13:52 »
0
Hi all, I have just been accepted at SS (thanks to the people who offer advice on the critique forum, I've learnt a lot from the advice offered there over the last few months).

I'm guessing the 7/10 that were accepted are already on sale, although they don't show up in my portfolia or keyword searches yet, the site is reporting that I have one d/l already ?

I downsized all my pics for teh application to just over 4mp, is this the best way to go from now on or is there an advantage in trying to get larger image sizes accepted?

TIA

Sponner.


« Reply #1 on: February 19, 2011, 14:26 »
0
By scaling everything down to the minimum, I suspect you're reducing the number of subscription downloads you'll get, as well as On Demand and Extended License sales.  A lot of clients will want/need more resolution than that.  Will they notice the low resolution before they click the Download button?  Maybe, maybe not.  Will they get annoyed once they discover there's not enough resolution and vow never to touch your work again, or at least to check resolution before they download?  Again, maybe and maybe not.  Will availability at higher resolution on Shutterstock reduce your ability to sell those same images on other sites?  Yeah, you know what I'm going to say.

Some folks say they submit lower resolution to Shuttestock than to others.  Me, I give them all the same files.  I'm lazy like that.  And I suspect it hasn't cost me much, since I believe people with monthly subscriptions get most of their images that way.  But of course I can't be sure.

microstockphoto.co.uk

« Reply #2 on: February 19, 2011, 17:13 »
0
On a few occasions, resizing can be useful to reduce noise from very high iso.

Otherwise, I don't downsize for SS: I suspect I could miss some sales by limiting available resolution.

« Reply #3 on: February 21, 2011, 12:24 »
0
ta for the replies

« Reply #4 on: February 21, 2011, 16:29 »
0
fyi, I can see your 7 images...if you still don't see them, go to your portfolio and change the view to "newest first" and you should see them.

« Reply #5 on: February 21, 2011, 16:55 »
0
same here, I don't downsize for shutterstock at all unless the image needs it.  Downsizing is a great solution to a little too much noise or slight blur.

« Reply #6 on: February 22, 2011, 12:29 »
0
cheers, I can see them now just ook a few days to get indexed I suppose.

« Reply #7 on: February 22, 2011, 19:54 »
0
Presumed you are using Photoshop: How exactly do you downsize images?

(Sorry if I translated some words wrong here, but I am not using an English version of Photoshop. Hope you understand what I mean.)
I use: Image, then Imagesize and in Documentsize I choose Percent.
Then 90 or 95 percent and Bicubic sharper for reduction.

For I am not very impressed by the differences, I am asking myself if there are better ways to downsize.
(Google is not my best friend here :( )
Perhaps someone here can help me out with a good suggestion?

RacePhoto

« Reply #8 on: February 23, 2011, 02:51 »
0
I used to and like just about everyone else, it wasn't worth the time. I know some people think that selling for a lower price, they should sell smaller images. Maybe the buyers look at the sizes, so it's counter productive? I don't know, but I know I'm lazy, so I don't bother anymore.

Last place I used to downsize before upload was StockXpert and they are gone.

Answer: Get Irfanview, it's free. There's a batch conversion tool that will resize and also do other things if you want, but just reducing the size is easy. You set the longest side dimension and click... bing, it's done. I'd say use the automatic rename function at the same time, also included, so you know they are the reduced files. Something like <filename>-SS.jpg for example and you know it's a SS file. Easy.

http://www.irfanview.com/

Get the software and get the plugins, it's small, and It's Free! It works.


Presumed you are using Photoshop: How exactly do you downsize images?

(Sorry if I translated some words wrong here, but I am not using an English version of Photoshop. Hope you understand what I mean.)
I use: Image, then Imagesize and in Documentsize I choose Percent.
Then 90 or 95 percent and Bicubic sharper for reduction.

For I am not very impressed by the differences, I am asking myself if there are better ways to downsize.
(Google is not my best friend here :( )
Perhaps someone here can help me out with a good suggestion?

« Reply #9 on: February 23, 2011, 12:00 »
0
Presumed you are using Photoshop: How exactly do you downsize images?

(Sorry if I translated some words wrong here, but I am not using an English version of Photoshop. Hope you understand what I mean.)
I use: Image, then Imagesize and in Documentsize I choose Percent.
Then 90 or 95 percent and Bicubic sharper for reduction.

For I am not very impressed by the differences, I am asking myself if there are better ways to downsize.
(Google is not my best friend here :( )
Perhaps someone here can help me out with a good suggestion?

I reduce the pixel dimensions (never noticed the percentage, until you mentioned it). Save as Bicubic, then usally unsharp mask, usually at 1%. Sometimes I do things differently also, but usually this. I haven't got a clue if this is right or if there are better methods, I would be interested to know.

« Reply #10 on: February 23, 2011, 12:48 »
0
I am one of the people who recommended downsizing the images for the initial application. That's how I was accepted originally after the 3rd try - several years ago now. The reviewers are more picky on the initial application. I agree that you shouldn't have to downsize in most cases. Congratulations on getting accepted.

« Reply #11 on: February 23, 2011, 12:57 »
0
I usually dowsize by percentage, and use percentages that easiest to calculate and hence - I hope - I get the best results.

For example

80% (removes 1 pixel for every 5 pixels)
75% (removes 1 pixel for every 4 pixels)
66,666666666667% (removes 1 pixel for every 3 pixels)
50% (removes 1 pixel for every 2 pixels)

(No, I haven't run any scientific tests, but I think the results are better)

fxegs

  • FXEGS http://fxegs.photoshelter.com

« Reply #12 on: February 23, 2011, 14:56 »
0
After accepted, I submit the images without downsizing them, and the cases I get a refusal caused by noise or sharpness, I resubmit that ones downsized. This way I get accepted about 70% of refused files.

I downsize to the minimum accepted, so I put directly the number of pixels of the largest side. 2400*1600 is the minimum, so only if putting 2400 the other side has less than 1600 I put a higher value. You can induce if the total is 4Mb multiplying (approx, because the system is not decimal, but binaric, and 1MB is not 1000*1000 but 1024*1024).

If you use Photoshop I guess you have also Bridge. There, Tools/Photoshop/Image processor (or similar, I neither use English version) lets you to resize a batch (and apply actions if you want).

« Reply #13 on: February 23, 2011, 15:36 »
0
I downsize to the minimum accepted, so I put directly the number of pixels of the largest side. 2400*1600 is the minimum, so only if putting 2400 the other side has less than 1600 I put a higher value. You can induce if the total is 4Mb multiplying (approx, because the system is not decimal, but binaric, and 1MB is not 1000*1000 but 1024*1024).

The bits and bytes doesn't have anything to do with megpixels.

« Reply #14 on: February 23, 2011, 16:08 »
0
Thanks very much for the replies, but downsizing on itself is not my problem. I know several ways to do so. Sorry if I have been misunderstood by being not clear enough.
And I have Irfan view and Faststone viewer installed on my computer already.
(Faststone is great for a quick first selection of Raw files)

My problem is that I find the quality of the downsized image nearly as worse as the original (when viewed at 100 percent).

Scott Kelby gives a solution in his book too with the motto: Everything Looks Good When It Is Small.
But the price you pay: you are throwing lots of information from an image away by downsizing this way and I was asking myself if there is perhaps a better way to do it without losing so much info.

RacePhoto

« Reply #15 on: February 24, 2011, 03:00 »
0
Thanks very much for the replies, but downsizing on itself is not my problem. I know several ways to do so. Sorry if I have been misunderstood by being not clear enough.
And I have Irfan view and Faststone viewer installed on my computer already.
(Faststone is great for a quick first selection of Raw files)

My problem is that I find the quality of the downsized image nearly as worse as the original (when viewed at 100 percent).

Scott Kelby gives a solution in his book too with the motto: Everything Looks Good When It Is Small.
But the price you pay: you are throwing lots of information from an image away by downsizing this way and I was asking myself if there is perhaps a better way to do it without losing so much info.

Yes, it's going to look worse if you view it Full Screen, which is not the same as Actual Size, because now you are enlarging it. You will get a worse looking image. I suspect you aren't viewing them both at 100%?

If viewed at 100% the original will be larger than the new file, but the new smaller file should look just as good or possibly better, because you have smaller pixels. That is unless someone changed the compression when downsizing or something else is modified?

By the way, even though it was off the question you asked, the size for 4MP image that I use is 2460 x 1640 which comes out to... 4,034,400  Some sites list 4MP as 2464x1632 = 4,021,248

If your question is how do you make something smaller and lose no data, that's like saying pour a 1 liter bottle of water into a 750ML jar and still have 1 liter? The fact that you downsize equals less data, you can't have it both ways.

fxegs

  • FXEGS http://fxegs.photoshelter.com

« Reply #16 on: February 24, 2011, 04:13 »
0
I downsize to the minimum accepted, so I put directly the number of pixels of the largest side. 2400*1600 is the minimum, so only if putting 2400 the other side has less than 1600 I put a higher value. You can induce if the total is 4Mb multiplying (approx, because the system is not decimal, but binaric, and 1MB is not 1000*1000 but 1024*1024).

The bits and bytes doesn't have anything to do with megpixels.

Yes, you're right, I know, sorry about writing fast without taking care.


Yes, it's going to look worse if you view it Full Screen, which is not the same as Actual Size, because now you are enlarging it. You will get a worse looking image. I suspect you aren't viewing them both at 100%?

If viewed at 100% the original will be larger than the new file, but the new smaller file should look just as good or possibly better, because you have smaller pixels. That is unless someone changed the compression when downsizing or something else is modified?

By the way, even though it was off the question you asked, the size for 4MP image that I use is 2460 x 1640 which comes out to... 4,034,400  Some sites list 4MP as 2464x1632 = 4,021,248

If your question is how do you make something smaller and lose no data, that's like saying pour a 1 liter bottle of water into a 750ML jar and still have 1 liter? The fact that you downsize equals less data, you can't have it both ways.

+1
You're loosing information, in fact you're cutting out a great lot of pixels. But for the same reason you loose noise, and unsharpness sensation. Anyway, you should do this only with previously refused files. Do you prefer a minor information file (and for the web and small prints works fine) or nothing?
I know that you only are trying to preserve the maximum quality and information, another way is not to downsize and try to reduze the noise or sharpen the image, but this doesn't work sometimes. But... try, refusals in shutterstock don't matter, you can reupload the files several times.


« Reply #17 on: February 24, 2011, 16:03 »
0
Quote
that's like saying pour a 1 liter bottle of water into a 750ML jar and still have 1 liter
No of course I am not that stupid...  ;D  There is no lossles compression with jpg's.
Is this a good example? Printing a 10 mp image at A5 is much sharper than printing the same image on A4. So this way you can put  1500 ml in a 750 ml jar

When downsizing you do this kind of thing virtual. A smaller image looks sharper. (And you are loosing info.)
But reviewers look at images at 100 percent or more and then the same problems pop up. Perhaps they let them pass, not for the image is really better, but the usability for buyers is (seems) better?

 
Quote
the new smaller file should look just as good or possibly better, because you have smaller pixels
You can have more pixels in an inch (dpi), but how can you have smaller pixels?

I was only asking myself if there is possibly a better way to downsize, loosing not too much info (never said loosing no info at all!). Propably there is none. :(

fxegs

  • FXEGS http://fxegs.photoshelter.com

« Reply #18 on: February 25, 2011, 05:26 »
0
When downsizing you do this kind of thing virtual. A smaller image looks sharper. (And you are loosing info.)
But reviewers look at images at 100 percent or more and then the same problems pop up. Perhaps they let them pass, not for the image is really better, but the usability for buyers is (seems) better?

Even if reviewers look them at 100% they don't see the same after downsizing. Test it yourself. They see a bigger percentage of the image, and things in the pic, smaller. The same problems don't  pop up unleast the image were excessively unsharpness or or had too much noise and it still is visible.

You can have more pixels in an inch (dpi), but how can you have smaller pixels?

Of course you haven't smaller pixels, and neither you have more pixels in an inch. You have the same pixels in an inch and they (every one) sizes the same. When you downsize the image, you loose pixels, you delete them. If your image is 12Mp in the original and you downsize it to 4Mp, you loose 8Mp! 66% of the information. If you view the image 100% before and after, the second time you view all 66% smaller (at 100%, yes, for seeing the same size than before, you have to view it 300% this time, in this case) and you view in your screen 66% more of the image than before.

There is no way to preserve information, you are deleting it! You have to choose. Anyway, for downsizing, Photoshop recommends to use the Bicubic sharper option in the case 'Resample Image'.

But you should downsize only in a few cases. The result is not so bad: 2464*1632 as RacePhoto suggest, is an image at 300ppi resulting in 8.213*5.44 inches. 300ppi is for industrial prints. For a best quality printing in a home printer you have 220ppi , 11.2*7.418 inches, or a good / medium quality printing 150ppi , 16.427*10.88 inches. For the web, which uses 72ppi, you have 34.222*22.667 inches!. I think web usage is the more common one (I guess).

Only in a very very few cases one client will need an extra-large file for a perfect print at a great size. For all the others, a 4Mp file works. And a downsized 12Mp to 4Mp file is not worse than an original 4Mp image.

RacePhoto

« Reply #19 on: February 25, 2011, 05:42 »
0
I'll say it again and leave out the details.

100% the images will look better. (that's the same as viewing actual size) Full Screen, they will look worse because now you are zooming in and expanding the image more. The two terms are not interchangeable.

Here's a small language lesson, please accept it without criticism. Lose is a loss, or lost. Loose is like loosen or make looser like threads or shoe laces.


Quote
that's like saying pour a 1 liter bottle of water into a 750ML jar and still have 1 liter
No of course I am not that stupid...  ;D  There is no lossles compression with jpg's.
Is this a good example? Printing a 10 mp image at A5 is much sharper than printing the same image on A4. So this way you can put  1500 ml in a 750 ml jar

When downsizing you do this kind of thing virtual. A smaller image looks sharper. (And you are loosing info.)
But reviewers look at images at 100 percent or more and then the same problems pop up. Perhaps they let them pass, not for the image is really better, but the usability for buyers is (seems) better?

 
Quote
the new smaller file should look just as good or possibly better, because you have smaller pixels
You can have more pixels in an inch (dpi), but how can you have smaller pixels?

I was only asking myself if there is possibly a better way to downsize, loosing not too much info (never said loosing no info at all!). Propably there is none. :(

« Reply #20 on: February 25, 2011, 08:15 »
0
OK, sorry for my mistakes. English is not an easy language. (Perhaps no language is...)
But I learn better every day.... ;)

So the conclusion is: there is no better way to downsize images.
Perhaps I have to downsize more to see better results. 10 percent is propably not enough to see much difference.

RacePhoto

« Reply #21 on: February 25, 2011, 23:46 »
0
OK, sorry for my mistakes. English is not an easy language. (Perhaps no language is...)
But I learn better every day.... ;)

So the conclusion is: there is no better way to downsize images.
Perhaps I have to downsize more to see better results. 10 percent is propably not enough to see much difference.

Whatever your language is, I don't have a clue, so you are ahead of me. :D

As long as you are using modern software and doing bicubic, you should get similar results.

What you need to watch out for are extended settings that some software may have set as a default or you may have set. I don't sharpen after resizing unless it's a snapshot for a web page or an email. Nothing that someone else would be using. I don't make automatic adjustments of anything when downsizing. I take the final TIF (even if it was originally a jpg convert it to a TIF first) then you can do all your editing and save as a JPG again.

Others may be of a different opinion, but the last step I do is the downsizing from the TIF but save the full size TIF for future use. I'd hate to work on the smaller image, when the big one is easier to see, and I'd hate to save it small and find out, I wanted to fix something later. So I do everything full size, save the TIF, then reduce the size and save as a jpg.

If you are going to do batch conversions, it's pretty easy to set the longest side and everything will be reduced, and you're done.

I don't think that downsizing is ever going to make a picture "better", it may appear better. But keep in mind what I was trying to explain. If you downsize and pack more pixels into a smaller space and view at 100%, it will look better, and if there is fringing or CA, that will be condensed when you make the image smaller, so it won't be standing out as much. You have in effect reduced the stray pixels or any feathering at the same time. You are also reducing the size of each pixel, and making them closer together, when you reduce the size of the image.

fxegs

  • FXEGS http://fxegs.photoshelter.com

« Reply #22 on: February 26, 2011, 04:10 »
0
Others may be of a different opinion, but the last step I do is the downsizing from the TIF but save the full size TIF for future use. I'd hate to work on the smaller image, when the big one is easier to see, and I'd hate to save it small and find out, I wanted to fix something later. So I do everything full size, save the TIF, then reduce the size and save as a jpg.

+1

« Reply #23 on: February 26, 2011, 10:08 »
0
I would not downsize.  Remember that they have on-demand as well as subscription.  On demand is size related.  I make an extra 50-60 a month with OD's.  And if a designer purchases a sub plan and is looking for high res content, you're hosed.  And finally......Futurama Bender thinking here.....IF SS changes their model for whatever reason to be more like IS or FT and less of SUB site, OR if they get purchased by another site that uses a different model that sells imagery by scalable factors (i.e. files sizes) you would be extremely limited in your RPD.  If you have all high resolution images, they would theoretically be transferred to that new site and you're good to go.

Just some food for thought.

James Bond.

fxegs

  • FXEGS http://fxegs.photoshelter.com

« Reply #24 on: February 27, 2011, 04:27 »
0
I would not downsize.  Remember that they have on-demand as well as subscription.  On demand is size related.  I make an extra 50-60 a month with OD's.  And if a designer purchases a sub plan and is looking for high res content, you're hosed.  And finally......Futurama Bender thinking here.....IF Shutterstock changes their model for whatever reason to be more like IS or Fotolia and less of SUB site, OR if they get purchased by another site that uses a different model that sells imagery by scalable factors (i.e. files sizes) you would be extremely limited in your RPD.  If you have all high resolution images, they would theoretically be transferred to that new site and you're good to go.

Just some food for thought.

James Bond.

Mantis, we're not talking about downsize as a rule, but in very specific circumstances, in which the alternative is downsize or nothing. The post talks about how to downsize in those cases and if it is possible to save quality or information in the process.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
9 Replies
7475 Views
Last post May 30, 2006, 17:35
by madelaide
7 Replies
5898 Views
Last post October 07, 2007, 23:47
by digitalshooter
14 Replies
4848 Views
Last post May 14, 2012, 08:49
by JPSDK
14 Replies
4845 Views
Last post April 17, 2013, 12:29
by Leo Blanchette
2 Replies
2325 Views
Last post September 05, 2013, 11:52
by eZeePics

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors