Entering a photography contest, and the rules state that the image should have an approximate size of 3000x2000 pixels.
but it also says the jpegs should be AT LEAST 2 megabytes. It also says a maximum of 4 megabytes, but larger files will be accepted.
Here is my problem: the picture im entering is way less than 2 megabytes at 3000x2000 pixels.
Is there any way I can increase the file size besides increasing the pixel dimensions? I know the point of jpeg is to minimize file size, but it has to remain jpeg format.
So if you have a 6Mpx JPEG that is below 2MB, you have an image with a lot of very smooth, detail-free area. I think Shannon has the right idea. Increasing image dimensions ramps up file size by the square of the increase, e.g. if you increase by 10% to 3300 x 2200, your size should increase about 21%. Another option that I suggest somewhat tongue in cheek is to add a very small amount of noise. That will increase size rather dramatically while being imperceptible, or barely so, to the viewer.
So if you have a 6Mpx JPEG that is below 2MB, you have an image with a lot of very smooth, detail-free area. I think Shannon has the right idea. Increasing image dimensions ramps up file size by the square of the increase, e.g. if you increase by 10% to 3300 x 2200, your size should increase about 21%. Another option that I suggest somewhat tongue in cheek is to add a very small amount of noise. That will increase size rather dramatically while being imperceptible, or barely so, to the viewer.
Yes, I already played with the noise idea, it is a good one. doesn't work for the image though, and it's very noticeable, because most of the image is a pure black background (as you already predicted)
What is your ppi density? It doesn't matter for Internet display, but if the contest is run by a magazine, they may need a 300 ppi image for print purposes.
240, but changing ppi doesn't really change the size, does it?9
File size, yes. I am NOT suggesting you convert your current image to a higher ppi, as you would lose some quality due to resampling. Go back to your original image capture. It should have been exported to your computer at 300ppi or higher. Retain that resolution for print purposes. If the destination is a printer and a high resolution print, you will find 240 ppi to be marginal.
changing ppi doesn't really change the size, does it?
No, it doesn't. The pixel density is not relevant here. If the publisher want to use your photo for print, they'll convert it to 300dpi / CMYK themselves and 3000px is plenty.
changing ppi doesn't really change the size, does it?
No, it doesn't. The pixel density is not relevant here. If the publisher want to use your photo for print, they'll convert it to 300dpi / CMYK themselves and 3000px is plenty.
The pixel density is not relevant for Internet display devices. It is relevant for physical print devices. Like… very relevant! I think the organization is simply trying to require high resolution images that do not require conversion and resampling. But, I'm just offering an opinion.
The pixel density is not relevant for Internet display devices. It is relevant for physical print devices. Like… very relevant!
Pixel density not relevant to LanndonKane's issue. I'm well aware of printing requirements (professional print production has been my day job for 30+ years). 3000px is plenty for a typical magazine regardless of the original file's density, and it's not uncommon for high-res stock photos to come in at 240ppi or even 72ppi.
I can't imagine why they would have a minimum file size. That just doesn't make sense.
Save it at the highest quality jpg (12 in Photoshop) and that's all you can do except increase the pixels.
I'm in this camp -- if the pixel dimensions meet their requirements and you save at the highest-quality JPEG setting you should be fine -- I'd just attach a note saying that's what you've done, and that the (commpressed) file is smaller (in bytes) than what they list because it is largely monochomatic and noise-free.
