Amazon Kindle Unlimited Offer: 1-Month For FREE!

How do I acheive a 40mb photo?


moggo 17 46
27 Aug 2003 2:08PM
I wanted to submit a portfolio to a stock agency, but they require photos to be as big as 40mb. I use 35mm film and have them developed onto cd, they are currently 1.1mb. What should I do ?
simonf 18 108
27 Aug 2003 2:12PM
You will probably need to get the negatives rescanned. Most high street processors only scan at low to medium resolution and will charge more if you want them scanned at higher resolution. Depending on how many you have to have rescanned you may want to invest in a special film scanner.
moggo 17 46
27 Aug 2003 2:29PM
Thanks a lot Simon, would you think that getting a 5x7 print scanned on high res would work?
nicanddi 18 316
27 Aug 2003 2:29PM
Welcome to Ephotozine Richard.

You could try finding a high street processor who'll scan your 35mm negs/slides to produce files of around 8-9MB (probably best if these were TIFF's,) then use a program like 'Genuine Fractals' to upsize the file to that required by the library.

I use GF myself and the company recommends you start with files of around 8-9mb as a minimum for best results.

A more drastic measure would be to dump the 35mm body, and switch to a digital one. Most DSLR's now produce TIFF files of around 18MB, which when run through GF, produce absolutely stunning images at un-immaginable sizes, more than sufficient for the most demanding stock agency.

Hope this helps, let us know how you get on submitting to stock agencies, as this is a topic I've posted on recently. Regards Nic.
Nic Cleave Portfolio
moggo 17 46
27 Aug 2003 2:33PM
Thanks Nic...
Looks like I'd better start saving for the digital... How many 18mb shots would I get on a card??? Seems huge to me.
nicanddi 18 316
27 Aug 2003 2:41PM
I get 101 shots on a 256 mb card, but these are saved as jpegs at the highest quality with my Eos 10D (about 1.8 to 2.4 mb each,). As soon as they are downloaded to my pc, they are opened, colour and contrast corrected then immediately saved as TIFF's to avoid any loss of quality.

On a 128 mb card I usually get 50 shots.

Regards, Nic.
nicanddi 18 316
27 Aug 2003 2:44PM
Another thought I just had is that you could consider buying a scanner yourself which would allow you to output the file at the size required? Cheaper than a conversion to digital, but still pretty pricey for a decent one?

Regards, Nic.
moggo 17 46
27 Aug 2003 2:54PM
I'll probably go down the scanner route, at least for the time being.. Thanks again for your help.
BTW nice photos on your website... if I can produce anything aproaching that standard I'll give up working in an office and get on the road.
nicanddi 18 316
27 Aug 2003 3:27PM
You're welcome Richard.

Enjoy your time on Ephotozine, we're a friendly bunch. Thanks for taking the time to review my images, your comments are appreciated.

Redards, Nic.
TanyaH Plus
18 1.3k 411 United Kingdom
27 Aug 2003 3:36PM
Richard - I often scan at 4000dpi and that manages to give me initial file sizes of approximately 40-60 mb. I then resize in a similar way to how Nic describes above. However, doing it this way is processor-hungry, so make sure you've got a decent speed computer ... unless, of course, you've got lots of patience! Good luck with it.
moggo 17 46
27 Aug 2003 3:47PM
Tnaks for your help everyone .. I'll ask the wife for a Canon eos 300D for Christmas.. at least, as I have a regular 300 at the mom I will be able to use my current lenses.
pj.morley 18 947 United Kingdom
30 Aug 2003 9:20PM
Hi moggo,

I upsize the 18MB file size from my DSLR to 50MB using Genuine Fractals for submission to a photo library. None have been rejected yet.
rugbylass 18 403
2 Sep 2003 11:10AM
Be careful with interpolating scanned files- some libraries (Alamy, for example) will not accept these. They will however accept interpolation on digital files- go figure!
mad-dogs 19 2.2k England
2 Sep 2003 2:33PM
rugbylass wrote: Be careful with interpolating scanned files- some libraries (Alamy, for example) will not accept these. They will however accept interpolation on digital files- go figure!

This is most likely because digital files do not have grain and upsize more smoothly than scanned film.
shooter 19 105 Canada
3 Sep 2003 5:15AM
That's exactly it...as mad-dogs notes, there's no nasty grain to size-up with a digital image. Have a look at this 26 foot image, bottom of the page at: www.interpolatethis.com
No grain at all, no matter HOW big you go, with digital your only enemy is pixelization, and that can be dealt with easily.

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.