Image Size Demands By Stock Libraries

<p>A stock library I contacted with a view to making submissions said they liked my work and sent a spec sheet. They used to accept scans from flm but now only accept digital capture images with a minimum on the longest side of 5400 pixels.<br>

As far as I am aware only recent cameras such as the 5D k2 and Sony A900 can produce files that big. I can film scan at 4000 dpi on a film scanner produciing a 60meg file from which I can produce high quality poster size prints. However, 4000 dpi aint big enough for some libraries.<br>

This makes me wonder if some stock agencies are playing the numbers game and putting quantity before quality. Policies such as this must also make a lot of existing quality stock unsaleable if anything below these massive sizes are rejected whether the image is peachy or not.<br>

I realise that a certain amount of interpolation is allowable. What are the connotations for interpolating a scanned file versus a digital file in quality terms?</p>

<p>same thing, they should both retain the same quality once its done.</p>

<p>Serious stock agency would only like to work with a 18x24 300ppi RGB image uncompressed TIF. Dont know how it translate in pixel, too lazy to open my photoshop. But thats is a new standard across the globe for printing thing.</p>

<p>Did that mean that everyhting else under it is bad? nope, but at least they can already make a natural selection abut the one who submit there work..the smaller size are rejected, meaning that you have to invest in something more *serious* to play in the big league.</p>

<p>* 5400 x 7200 .. i had a energy boost so i open Photoshop.</p>

<p>I sell through Firstlight and Getty. They require minimum 50MB 8-bit RGB TIFF.</p>

<p>The stock agencies I work with specify an acceptable range of cameras - which in essence coincides with full frame. One asks the photographer to resize to 55MB/8bit; the other ask for for a full res file from my 5D and then they carry out the resizing. The point I guess that yes, stock agencies select cameras in order to achieve their perception of the quality their market demands; but that resizing to meet their file size stipulation is expected.</p>

<p>Interestingly when I supplied medium format film or scans - which I still do in some circumstances- the files were much bigger and were available to buyers at up to 75MB, so 36% bigger than the digital files they now require. Presumably that means that they at least are equating a native 36MB digital file upsized to 55MB as being equivalent to a drum/Imacon scanned MF slide at 75MB with no upsizing. An interesting perspective on which I intend to pass no judgment whatsoever. </p>

<p>Apart, that is from stating that the vast majority of usage would seem to be more than satisfied by a 10MB file.</p>

<p>I'd guess it's a simple situation where they receive a huge amount of garbage from everybody and his brother. To filter out a lot of it, they impose some rather arbitrary rules. Meeting the rules doesn't mean the pictures are good, and failing to meet them doesn't mean the pictures are bad -- but what they demand requires either a high-end camera or some familiarity with a photo-editing program. Either one gives at least some minimal indication that you're at least making some minimum of effort. They undoubtedly throw out the ocassional "baby" along with the proverbial bathwater, but when they have an ocean worth of bathwater, they have to do something!</p>

<p>Simple. I use PS CS3 and uprez using bicubic smoother. Set your resolution to 300 (most use this standard - which really is NOT a standard) and make the longest dimension 5400. Done. Now, if you don't know how to do that then they have weeded you out. Pretty simple.</p>

<p>Thanks for these responses. Most seem to concur with my thoughts on this issue. Interestingly the sample images I sent were film scans. There are film scanners which scan at 5400 from 35mm but the library say they dont want film scans. Why be biased I don't know but I can only assume its something to do with dust and scartch marks which can go escape the photographer at the scanning/retouch stage.<br>

I suppose the individual photographer has to decide if they should invest in a 5dmk2 or the Sony A900 but I wont be as my existing digital gear still works fine and would more than satisfy 95% of image buyers.</p>

<p>I use 3 major Stock cos. who all have a 15Mb minimum image size. Upscaling isn't allowed - since they will do that for the customer if necessary.</p>

<p>Btw, that's 15Mb capture.</p>

<p>A 5400 pixel wide image might be excellent; great; average or poor; or total garbage. As Truman said one cannot polish a turd. Do not assume that over upsizing; or any at all cannot be seen; sensed; or hated by editors TIRED of the GOOBER lay publics confusion over quality. The are selling images; not fluffed up ones full of hot air and egos. Having some sort of standards helps weed out the goobers. So if agency X says no upsizng and you do upsize you input; they may wonder since you lied to them whether the image is yours or stolen; thus you get tagged as typical goober. The few folks I know that deal with these inputs really are very tired of dealing with folks that upsize and say they dont; or folks who submit other's actual images too. Strive to be above board and honest and not tick them off.</p>

<p>A requirement is like a requirement that one have a highschool ; or a college degree for a job; there are exceptions; a requirement at least is some sort of rough filter. If a UFO lands and you have the only shots in the world with your 3 Megapixel camera; buyers will be interested. If you lie and say you graduated from Harvard; this looks bad to an employer. If you go to Walgreen and buy a 10 buck digital; and upsize it to 5400 pixels wide; you will be labeled as a goober; if you retag the header to say a Canon 5D shot it; you get labeled as a fibber.</p>