| Author |
Message |
lindamuir
Joined: 20 Oct 2006
Posts: 311
Location: CANADA
|
Posted: Fri Nov 30, 2007 7:37 am
|  |
I have just bought (on pre-order should be in next week) a Nikon D300 12mp, upgrading from a Nikon Coolpix P&S 8mp and want to know if I have to make size changes in my photos before uploading to Shutterstock. I know the file sizes will be much larger - do I just keep them at 2400 x 1800?
The D300 is my first ever SLR.....I know I have a big learning curve ahead of me....so, any help would be appreciated. |
|
lilcrazyfuzzy
Joined: 29 Nov 2005
Posts: 12926
Location: 50°46′31″N 6°4′58″E
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 30, 2007 8:44 am
| |
Why resize, just send them, you can send files up to a size of 25MB from what i can remember, D300 JPEGs are no where near that
I'm surprised how many purchase the D300 as first SLR, heard it a few times already, i am jealous! hahaha |
|
hhltdave5
Joined: 20 Jun 2006
Posts: 19188
Location: Our Stock, Food & Portrait photography books at www.rindersmithphotography.com
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 30, 2007 9:41 am
| |
I agree with Cyril, no need to downsize at all. If you shoot jpg just set it to large/fine and let that puppy do its thing. |
|
lindamuir
Joined: 20 Oct 2006
Posts: 311
Location: CANADA
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 30, 2007 9:59 am
| |
Thanks lilcrazyfuzzy and hhltdave5 I was not sure if I had to do anything different.
lilcrazyfuzzy I went with the Nikon D300 as my first DSLR camera as I really like how it feels in my hands and is similar to the Nikon Coolpix that I already have - I feel very comfortable with it.
Plus I was able to purchase two lenses for the price of what it would have cost me for one....I got both the 18-70mm & 70-300mm lenses for $350.00 from a friend
The D300 could possible be my only one and ever DSLR... |
|
jps
Joined: 08 Feb 2007
Posts: 12094
Location: Denmark
|
|
Posted: Sat Dec 01, 2007 1:41 pm
| |
I suggest you crop or resize them to just above 4 mpix.
Mostly to save bandwith in when uploading.
Still there are some possibilities when downsizing fx composing with crop, or minimizing noise. |
|
pharm
Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 8997
Location: Never quite sure
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 02, 2007 12:16 am
| |
| lilcrazyfuzzy wrote: | Why resize, just send them, you can send files up to a size of 25MB from what i can remember, D300 JPEGs are no where near that
I'm surprised how many purchase the D300 as first SLR, heard it a few times already, i am jealous! hahaha |
Agree. The larger the image size, the more possible uses for it, subsequently more possible sales. If I wanted to buy one of your images and use it on a billboard and you've uploaded it as a 12 MP image, I can use it. If you've downsized it to 5 MP or so, I can't use it...sale lost. On the other hand if I need it for a webpage, I can just download the smaller version.
By the way, when you start using the D300, you're going to find that its NOTHING like your Coolpix. You're going to have a blast! Congrats on ordering one. |
|
jps
Joined: 08 Feb 2007
Posts: 12094
Location: Denmark
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 02, 2007 3:12 am
| |
Hm, thats strange. Maybe I have misunderstood something?
I always upload files of 2508 x 1668, cropped from the original 3904 x 2616.
I see that Shutterstock also sell them in a larger version 5016 x 3336, so they must be extrapolated.
So if you opload even larger files than close to 4MP, what sizes do they upsize them to? |
|
kenny123
Joined: 13 Aug 2005
Posts: 5334
Location: -Author-"Keep It Simple, Shutterbug"e-book
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 02, 2007 4:45 am
| |
| jps wrote: | Hm, thats strange. Maybe I have misunderstood something?
I always upload files of 2508 x 1668, cropped from the original 3904 x 2616.
I see that Shutterstock also sell them in a larger version 5016 x 3336, so they must be extrapolated.
So if you opload even larger files than close to 4MP, what sizes do they upsize them to? |
They use "Genuine Fractals" a software you can purchase and download,and blow your images up pretty large without loss of detail. Regards, Ken |
|
lindamuir
Joined: 20 Oct 2006
Posts: 311
Location: CANADA
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 02, 2007 6:56 am
| |
| pharm wrote: | | lilcrazyfuzzy wrote: | Why resize, just send them, you can send files up to a size of 25MB from what i can remember, D300 JPEGs are no where near that
I'm surprised how many purchase the D300 as first SLR, heard it a few times already, i am jealous! hahaha |
Agree. The larger the image size, the more possible uses for it, subsequently more possible sales. If I wanted to buy one of your images and use it on a billboard and you've uploaded it as a 12 MP image, I can use it. If you've downsized it to 5 MP or so, I can't use it...sale lost. On the other hand if I need it for a webpage, I can just download the smaller version.
By the way, when you start using the D300, you're going to find that its NOTHING like your Coolpix. You're going to have a blast! Congrats on ordering one. |
Thanks Everyone - I felt silly for asking that question.
pharm that is very interesting and think I will try and submit the larger files and see what happens although I don't think any of my stuff would ever be considered for a billboard, but would be exciting if that did happen.........I also can't wait for my D300 to get here.....seems like when you pre-order it takes forever, but they tell me they are expecting them in next week and will ship out to me ASAP. I am sooooooo excited I can hardly contain myself. I have already bought a 18-70mm and a 70-300mm for that camera and will be my first experience using different lenes as well. Hopfully this old lady won't have too much trouble with this new learning curve.....LOL
Thanks again for the replies, they were appreciated. |
|
breadmaker
Joined: 01 Sep 2006
Posts: 131
Location: USA
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 02, 2007 12:37 pm
| |
I have read other posts recommending people downsize photos to the minimum accetptable size: 4MP, as this results in less noise and a higher chance for acceptance. Since SS upsizes photos through extrapolation software, what advantage is there to uploading a photo with higher res? |
|
lindamuir
Joined: 20 Oct 2006
Posts: 311
Location: CANADA
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 02, 2007 12:41 pm
| |
| breadmaker wrote: | | I have read other posts recommending people downsize photos to the minimum accetptable size: 4MP, as this results in less noise and a higher chance for acceptance. Since SS upsizes photos through extrapolation software, what advantage is there to uploading a photo with higher res? |
I have no idea what the advantage would be. I am hoping I will have less noise to worry about LOL. Maybe someone can answer that question breadmaker. |
|
breadmaker
Joined: 01 Sep 2006
Posts: 131
Location: USA
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 02, 2007 12:44 pm
| |
So I looked and answered part of my question. It appears that SS upsizes photos as a percentage of the original submitted size. For example, an 8MP original res photo will result in a higher res Super size...than a 4MP photo would.
So this could result in more downloads depending on the needs of the client. I'm not sure if people have noticed many differences in DL's because of this. |
|
mcaryphoto
Joined: 27 Feb 2007
Posts: 660
Location: http://mcaryphotoart.blogspot.com/
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 03, 2007 11:46 pm
| |
| jps wrote: | Hm, thats strange. Maybe I have misunderstood something?
I always upload files of 2508 x 1668, cropped from the original 3904 x 2616.
I see that Shutterstock also sell them in a larger version 5016 x 3336, so they must be extrapolated.
So if you opload even larger files than close to 4MP, what sizes do they upsize them to? |
Images are generally upsized to 200% of the original submitted file.
Few examples
Original ............. Upsized
4368x2912............ 8736x5824
3883x2912........... 7766x5824
Mike |
|
| |
|
Log in
