Image Size
Jul 30, 2012 14:20:51 #
This makes a lot of sense to me. I'll check my processing/editing program to see if I have a default setting that I missed. Thanks for the explanation!
Jul 2, 2013 02:49:44 #
Yup indeed, I agree with photog1.
There is a big difference between the "size of an image", and the "size of an image file".
Resizing the images will cause a lot of problems, such as changing the size of the image file, try to check your processing program to see if there is a default setting that you've missed.
I hope you success.
Best regards,
Arron
There is a big difference between the "size of an image", and the "size of an image file".
Resizing the images will cause a lot of problems, such as changing the size of the image file, try to check your processing program to see if there is a default setting that you've missed.
I hope you success.
Best regards,
Arron
Jul 2, 2013 16:04:40 #
sheelister wrote:
Well, right now I have a 10-megapixel DSLR and I shoot at the largest image "size" available. I submitted a photo that I cropped approx. 5%, and it was rejected because it was not 5mb. So, I figured one must need a "larger" camera if cropping is needed.
Anyway, I guess you can't simply multiply pixels-by-pixels and assume an image "size."
Anyway, I guess you can't simply multiply pixels-by-pixels and assume an image "size."
Did you set your software for the highest quality/lowest compression JPEG? Or did you just take the default settings?
Check out Black and White Photography section of our forum.
Aug 5, 2013 11:11:07 #
Reinr
Loc: Staffordshire. UK
You don't say what size your original file was before cropping. Unless, as has been stated, there wasn't a great deal of information in the file, I would have thought that only cropping 5% would not have lowered the file size significantly.
Also, are you shooting in raw or jpeg? If jpeg, then the files are already compressed in camera. They are then compressed a bit more each time you open the image and do a fresh save.
Also, are you shooting in raw or jpeg? If jpeg, then the files are already compressed in camera. They are then compressed a bit more each time you open the image and do a fresh save.
Aug 5, 2013 11:53:36 #
bluemerc wrote:
Is there any reason to use anything less than the 3648 x 2736 and the "fine" image quality other than to save disc space.
Is there any reason to use anything less than the 3648 x 2736 and the "fine" image quality other than to save disc space.
Hi, blue. First realize that everything (except cats) has a purpose. For your purpose (stock) and for most of the rest of us bigger is better, more pixels = better image.
For Uncle Bob with his iPhone 5, he wants to post on Facebook, and email snapshots to his friends. Less pixels = less disk space and faster loading. If he'd try to upload a 1 Gigabyte scan to Facebook, it would probably break their system. iPhone's large size is 2 megapixel and only takes 1/2 megabyte of storage. This can even be reduced to the smaller 640 X 480 size and 1/4 MB. Sample below, 640 X 480 pixels.
Looks okay here, but don't try a 16 X 20 inch print.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Check out Commercial and Industrial Photography section of our forum.