Fine Art America is the world's most powerful sales and marketing tool for photographers and visual artists.
Simply open an account, upload your images, set your prices for all our available products, and you're instantly in business! FAA provides you with an e-commerce website, fulfills your orders for you, and sends you your profits each month.
Have you been told your image is not good enough for a sale?
Are you worried it may not be?
Do you need help editing an image?
Are you worried it may not be?
I have been recently going to peoples artwork when they post in the forum, especially those that are discussing marketing and no sales.
I have been disappointed with many of them on the quality of the uploads (NOT the art itself which is pretty awesome)
PLEASE everyone, look at your own full res previews on your image page. Is it crystal clear? If a painting, can you see the depth of the paint, the canvas etc? Is the full res preview as clear as the painting itself?
If a drawing, is it discoloured on here?
Have you got pixels showing (little blocks and uneven lines caused by enlarging images)
Is the work slightly blurry?
Can we see edges of the work? Frames?
If the answer to any of these is the wrong one, or even slightly the wrong one, please read up on how to photograph your work, or read the manual on your scanner to get the very best image you can.
The image on the left is perfect. The image on the right was refused for print
If you do not fix them, if you get a sale, which is not likely with blurry pixellated images, then FAA will be contacting you to re upload before they will print and that can take time and lose you the sale!
To tell the truth, if I were looking for art to buy and saw problems like those, I'd definitely keep looking, but on a different site. By the same token, any buyer whose transaction is delayed or cancelled because the site discovered at the last minute that the image wasn't suitable for printing, isn't going to be a happy bunny at all.
I've argued before that all uploads should be checked by FAA for printability before being offered for sale (for the sake of the site's professional reputation, if nothing else), but the response has always been that they don't have the resources - maybe it's time for a rethink in that department?
I agree and fully support Beth's suggestions. I would consider it a slap in my face should I be contacted to upload a replacement. I am constantly fine tuning my gallery and deleting poor quality (and I have some) photos. Fortunately, I have yet to be asked to upload a better quality photograph for any of my sales. We all make mistakes, but best we catch and fix them before they sell. As artist's we have to remember we are editor's as well.
I'm currently in the process of removing options to print and fixing the images. This is my first time on a POD site and I didn't realize that some of my images were as blurry as they were until they were put up here. It would have been helpful for FAA to inform me at the uploading stage. I had lost my photoshop when my computer crashed a while back so I was limited on what I could do to my images. Installing the new photoshop today, in fact. A lot of work ahead for me, but I'll fix it. Some day, I'll be able to get back to painting. Sheesh! The learning curve is killing me! :-)
Rein that is a pretty obvious statement really. IF you r images are meant to have soft focus then that will show and is not what we are talking about.
For instance if someone puts up a photo of a canvas painting then you should see the paint and the canvas texture. Quite often the image is not sharp or clear enough to see that.
A photo that is meant to be of of focus or slightly blurred is not what we are talking about here
I notice that most of my pics can't be blown up to large sizes. Is that an indication that my pictures are blurry? Also, my file sizes tend to be over 2mg, and I've been assuming the larger the file, the better the print. Is that accurate?
No that is not always accurate. You can have a really bad quality large image.
If the full res doesnt work it normally means the image is small pixel-wise. Could be a good quality image though.
Rein the fact that they are the printers and have been in the business for years. Anyone can see normally by looking at a picture.
Ok here you are, let's try an example....
Take a look at this picture (which is amazingly good ;) LOL)
It is ok to look at normal size on the page and looks like it could be alright as a prints, sort of although you can tell the colouring is off... should be white, so that is a no-no for printing. It would not give an accurate print really but, colour is choice HOWEVER, if you click the full preview you can see clearly that it is not ok for printing, besides the bad colouring......
If your images look like that then they are not printable. This is completely different from this
I can also attest that FAA will work with you to get a decent print.
But the last thing you want is to have to pull things out and reshoot them in a rush, to get a good image over to them.
I would like to know that once something is in my gallery, I never have to worry about it again, ever. Alas, two years and I'm still working on it, lol.
Just in case nobody has seen this I am bumping it up again.
Please check your full res previews, or even better, check your images at 100% on your computer. If any marks, bnlurriness, sharp spots, pixellation is there.. if you cannot see the canvas under a canvas painting, or the texture of the paint strokes, then it probably is not print ready.
It is the artists responsibility to make sure their own images are print ready.
Question; When you hit the full res preview button at what DPI or PPI are you previewing the image on the computer screen*
The reason I ask is that some images that might show some issues at 72 or 100 PPI on a high res view will print wonderfully at prints done at 150 or 200 DPI. I know a couple of my images will not print at 40"x30" but look absolutely spectacular at 20"x30". I have some others that may show artifacts from both the camera and editing at "full res" but will print wonderfully at half that.
I look at each image before I upload and do my own tests as to how large they will print well. Of course the problem is clients will base judgement on how clear the image is based on the green box when that may or may not be true at the sizes offered for sale. That's OK as most of my images are fine even high res but hand held macros and snake shots generally will not work at a full res printing.
As far as I know, and I am sure Sean will put me right during the week, you see whatever you uploaded. You see your own image at whatever you uploaded it at.
However when I look at yours it looks awfully sharpened.
This is a very popular discussion with 458 responses. In order to help the page load faster and allow you to quickly read the most recent posts, we're only showing you the oldest 25 posts and the newest 25 posts. Everything in the middle has been skipped. Want to read the entire discussion? No problem: click here.
A bit grainey and mostly obvious in the sky/clouds. I would remove the grain from the sky and let the rest be what it is. Grain in the rock or trees,isn't so much of an issue. While you're here, and the green box is now working, I did see some sensor dirt in the sky, in at least the two places I looked,
finally it opened. they are looking at the flat areas when it comes to noise, and what you have is a splotchy noise, though while large, and it shouldn't matter unless they get a 72" print, it should be mashed with median or something. oddly the stone doesn't look sharp - was this a panorama? if so, the overlap may be just a bit off making it look soft. or you used an enlarger of some kind. i don't see a paint effect, i think the pixels are just a bit soft looking. you shouldn't have to blur it more to fix things
i'm looking at your other work, and they all seem to have like 8000px - do you have a really high end camera? or are you doing something else? because that's abnormally high
this one here is the pixel size i was expecting - 3000x5000 or so
then this one is a 6000x9000 and it's doubtful this was a panorama, and i do see light blocking in the sky. if it was stretched it was done pretty well, but up close it still looks lossy. and the larger you make these, the smaller in megs you have to make it, creating lossy images.
Wow,,thanks for all the feedback,,i really think its really helpful,,,I start with a 21 mp camera,,then do global adjustments in LR and then bring it in to photoshop to adjust for the sky and clouds with a little structure,then will selectively sharpen using Pixelgenius only in specific points of interest in photographs..I will ad these as layers, then flatten and bring back into Lightroom. And thats it,,when exporting to FAA i am starting with 10000x10000 pixels but will bring it down if need be to get as close to 25mp as possible .this is at 300 dpi and Jpegs of course,
I always thought that you want to get as close to 10,000 MP as possible when exporting
Mike- I am using a canon 5d mkIII
Isabella-thanks for the feedback,,i will get that dust spot, i missed that one!!
No need to mess with the pixel size. What comes out of your camera is what you process and what you upload. Resampling is where you are getting into problems. If your camera gives you 21 MP, best to just stay with that. Save as a JPEG at the highest quality. I am repeating myself.
if your using a mark 3 then your native is 5760x3840 - your size should never get larger than that. and if you crop it should be less than a 1/4 of that or you'll have issues. any time the image is enlarged you lose detail. and unless you shoot these as a panorama the image should never be larger. like my crop size is 5550x3700 - same camera. the camera is capable of getting good detail, but you can't enlarge it in any way. and the sharpening is set to fine, since your increased the size of the image, you lost the detail in the rock and trees, but the noise remained. the noise was sharpened along with stretch marks. then the problem was compounded when you tried to save a file that was much too large, you lost more detail because you were forced to save it lower.
don't worry about selling things in all sizes. 6200 is the cut off for this camera anyway, and i never have ever sold a 72" print. and i don't increase the size of my images just so i can.
I am going through all my images to check for quality with the "full resolution view" tool to decide whether to reduce the size of the image or delete it all together. That "magnifier" tool has not worked for me for a couple of weeks now, no matter how long I wait. It was really helpful in deciding.
the magnifier is meant for, not for you. you have the original file. and if you load that file into any graphic viewer you can load the 1:1 view or 100% view of that image and look at it there. just use what you have at home.
Bummer...Dawn reviewed my photo before printing and declared it wasn't good enough. Then she ignored 3 follow up emails. Still, I have only heard there was a problem. I needed to log on to the site to learn the order was cancelled. Is this typical?
@shane - typically if i can send a cleaner image, and tell them you did - it's usually ok. sometimes they send mail back and it never gets to us for different reasons. sometimes they can wait but it depends on the customer. if you tried and it failed, then too bad. it depends on which image you have - if it didn't print now it won't in the future, so at least fix it now.
I'm just guessing, but I think they are fine,for the sizes you specify. My only comment, is the first one,where you can see the "fabric" showing,where the white paint should be,was that intentional? Bothers me, but maybe not others. Green birch trees, slightly soft, but probably good for the largest size you have listed,
Wow, this has been an amazing journey through this thread. I have read every single post. I intend to shoot in raw from now on, but am still dealing with my original work and I would just like to boil two things down. First-When I open an image in Photoshop and my resolution defaults at 72, If I raise that to 100 dpi for FAA or 180 for Nations Lab or 300 like I've seen people (not here) say is a requirement for some printers, am I correct that doing that is not the same thing as enlarging the image, and that it has no bearing on the image quality as far as sharpness, pixilation etc? I can do that without worry? As long as my image looks good at 100% I'm o.k.?
Second, a Photoshop question- am I correct that the Actual Pixels view = 100% view?
Hope I'm right on both counts...lol. Thank You Thank You Thank You to all who have contributed to this great thread!!!