I'm trying to submit images to an agency, but they are all failing their quality control for “blown highlights and jaggy edges” and “breaking up and losing definition at double page size”.
I'm exporting JPGs, Image Quality 12, Size to Original Size (I've also tried very large CM settings) at 300 DPI in Adobe (1998) RGB, as per the agency specs. The photos were shot RAW with a Nikon D300 with minimal cropping which I am assured should be generating sufficient quality images.
Any ideas ? Thanks !
Hi Steve,
The sharpening may be causing Jaggy edges. The only think left is sending tif but a jpg at 12 should not show a loss of detail, I think that is lossless. Who is the company?
davidbmoore@mac.com
Twitter= @davidbmoore
Scottsdale AZ
Steve I did look up the D300 and I think it is a little low in file size, 12 MP. Stock places probably are only taking images from 18- 80 MP now. If they are going to increase their database the file must meet more needs than internet and small (5-7 @ 300dpi) images. Stock houses can be very particular because there are so many images/Photographers to choose from. Take this with a grain of salt. I was in a stock agency in Las Vegas but they are now out of business.
davidbmoore@mac.com
Twitter= @davidbmoore
Scottsdale AZ
Steve,
Agreed… your camera is only 12 megapixel, which is pretty low by current stock standards. Which is silly since most micro stock are selling for web use, but still, it’s what they want.
And if you’re cropping at all, that resolution drops pretty quickly. For example, look at this screenshot of a 12 Megapixel original, barely cropped and already down to 10 megapixels: [screenshot]
@PhotoJoseph
— Have you signed up for the mailing list?
Many thanks all - useful. It’s a UK agency, 4Corners.
Steve
I have to up-res my images for submission to my agency as they only accept huge files.
I shoot D3s bodies which are ‘only’ 12Mp but no problems when up-resed in PS (actually the only reason I own PS!).
If you need to have specific pixel edge dimensions, use Imagewell as Aperture does not seem to get that right either.