Zoner Photo Studio X: The photo editor for your entire workflow

Genuine Fractals Question


pfheyes 18 254 1 United Kingdom
25 Apr 2005 1:01PM
Hi There

I'm about to start preparing some images for submission to Alamy and have a quick GF question (and provide the opportunity to display my ignorance).

When resizing images to a larger size, is it better to increase the image size in increments and sharpen each time until I reach the desired image/file size? Or, is it better to increase in one hit without intermediate sharpening? Does it make a difference either way?

For your info, I am starting with images that are 3000px on the longest side. Looking at file sizes, I am looking to increase from a file size of approx. 17mb to 48mb.

Thanks in advance,

Pete (peedeephoto)

p.s. I'm aware of the Alamy policy for unsharpened images - just wondering if there is any benefit to incrementing in small chunks plus sharpening
wgfarquhar 18 473
25 Apr 2005 2:46PM
Before you do anything pete, do not sharpen any of your images. Alamy puts this in it's requirements list for a reason, and if your original images aren't sharp and clear, there isn't much point submitting them.

Using GF I upsize in one step 17mb----48Mb, none have been rejected as of yet.

Hope that helps.
Grant
pikey 18 861
25 Apr 2005 2:49PM
I too have had to deal with upsizing for stock, and as a result I looked into the various ways in which it could be done.

Like anything in digital imaging/imaging software, there are various schools of thought,and eventually you have to make a decision about what is best/most viable for you...

To cut to the chase, the greater percentage of the research I did all pointed to a concensus that sharpening should be the very last thing you do, and that quality is not affected by doing the the increase in one go, as opposed to small increments.

I have to say, that in practice, adhering to that, I have had no complaints whatsover from my stock library (and they're a darn sight fussier than alamy ! ) ; )

Good luck..
elikag 18 749
25 Apr 2005 10:22PM
It does make a difference if you upsizing in one go or by "stairs", example here (NO SHARPENING!). Although, if one go is acceptable then it's acceptable.

Personally, I'd make an action in PS for "stairs" (or in GF if it's possible). That way I wouldn't waste much more time going stairs but I'll get better results, and maybe on one of my photos that's what going to make a sale. Isn't it worth it?

Ilia Kagan.
stuwhitt Plus
18 1.4k United Kingdom
25 Apr 2005 11:53PM
Pete do you shoot in RAW? Although I don't submit to Alamy (yet!) I process my RAW shots using C1 Pro, if I process them as 16 bit Tiffs I get left with a 36mb file from my Canon EOS 300D, by scaling the image using C1 Pro, I end up with a nice sharp file of 56mb or so, I don't apply any sharpening in C1 either, I prefere to apply that later in PS.
I have tried Genuine Fractals and have found the above method works best for me.

Stu
kit-monster 19 3.7k 2 Singapore
25 Apr 2005 11:59PM
Unfortunately when stock libraries quote image size, they are referring to 8 bit TIFFS not 16 bit TIFFS.
stuwhitt Plus
18 1.4k United Kingdom
26 Apr 2005 12:04AM
Cheers Edward, but will the same principle apply? Is it better to upsize at the Raw stage or afterwards using GF?

Stu
kit-monster 19 3.7k 2 Singapore
26 Apr 2005 12:14AM
Yep - I shoot RAW and have just switched from C1 LE to Pro . . . 10d to 1D2. I haven't had a need to scale yet. I thought about the stock route a year or so ago and made lots of enquires and mentioned the fact I was starting with a 36MB TIFF . . . they all came back stating the size requirements are for 8 bit files.
IanA 18 3.0k 12 England
26 Apr 2005 12:16AM
Your best bet is to work with 16 bit TIFF files to achieve a file size of 96mb+ which you should achieve with a picture size of about 5100 pixels on the longest side, and then convert to 8 bit Tiff for submission. My camera will produce 78mb 16 bit files straight from the RAW converter (SPP2.1) which means a simple 25% increase that is achieved in PS. Nothing rejected to date.

Ian
plutoman 18 347
26 Apr 2005 12:36AM
As an aside, I have downloaded GF but it dosent seem to work with Elements 2. Does anyone know if this is the case or I am I doing something wrong?

Craig
kit-monster 19 3.7k 2 Singapore
26 Apr 2005 12:39AM
On their web site requirements page . . .

System Requirements

Windows

* Windows 2000 or XP
* Adobe Photoshop 7.0 or later

Macintosh

* Mac OS 10.2 or later
* Adobe Photoshop 7.0 or later
plutoman 18 347
26 Apr 2005 12:43AM
Cheers Edward, I had spotted that earlier but I was hoping against hope that it wasnt accurate Smile. Emailed the website where I downloaded the GF trial from(cant remember what it was called offhand) and they replied to the effect that Elements 3 definately works but they were unsure of Elements 2..

Craig
kit-monster 19 3.7k 2 Singapore
26 Apr 2005 12:51AM
If you want the horses mouth . . . www.lizardtech.com/products/gf/overview.php
plutoman 18 347
26 Apr 2005 1:08AM
Cheers Edward, I will check it out. Im pretty sure thats where I downloaded the free trial from..

Craig
plutoman 18 347
26 Apr 2005 2:05AM
*Update* Just downloaded the GF trial again from Lizardtech, unzipped and installed the plugin. This time it works with Elements 2, and I have interpolated a 17Mb tiff by 300% which created a file of 141Mb?

Craig

ps Any mathemeticians out there know the percentage increase required to interpolate tiffs to 50Mb for Alamy?

pps just done a quick calculation and it seems to be around the 180% mark for a 17Mb interpolate to 50Mb plus tiff file. Just posted for info in case anyone is having similar trials..

Sign In

You must be a member to leave a comment.

ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.

Join For Free

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.