Are there any way to make file size over 4MB for old photos?

[たまき36427136uocv]

Hi, I have photos which I took many years ago and file size is less than 4MB. The file size is light but quality is around 2000px so that seems enough for web usage I think. But the requirement of stock is over 4MB so I could not post great photos taken a long time ago.

Any advice?

[daniellei4510]

There are plenty of free upscalers available on the internet. Here are three that are compared to each other:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KaxP4to5szQ&t=470s

[たまき36427136uocv]

Thank you. I'll try that!

[Abambo]

Pixels are no measure of quality. And you confound pixel size requirements (minimum 4 mega pixels) with megabytes. This 4 Mp requirement is not very high and images that don't fit that are probably not meating the quality requirements. The resolution of my camera 20 years ago was 8 Mp. 

[たまき36427136uocv]

Thank you, that's new knowladge for me. That helps a lot!

[Abambo]

You're welcome.

[daniellei4510]

I want to step in here again. "Photos taken a long time ago." Between 500 to 1000 minimum? Because that's what you will most likely need to compete with the millions of other assets on Adobe Stock. Are recognizable buildings or architecture pictured? You might need property releases. Are people featured? You'll need model releases. "Great" photos do not necessarily mean they are ready for stock, anymore than Bob Dylan could have gotten judges to rotate their chairs on "The Voice." Stock is a whole different animal. But good luck.

[たまき36427136uocv]

I just have used Adobe Stoke for the first time. I posted a photo taken 20 years ago which two boys are focused and Taj Mahal is behind them, that photo was rejected. The concrete reason is not written, so I have to guess the reasons. I think the architecture requirement is passed because that is built over hundred years ago, and the local boys are not famous models and they are 20 years ago so the boys should pass the model requirement I think. Maybe enlarged pixel causes grains or brightness is darker then the requirement?

[daniellei4510]

You still need a model release. Sorry.

[たまき36427136uocv]

ok, thanks.

[Jill_C]

Model releases are required for each recognizable person in the image, regardless of whether or not they are famous. Everyone deserves control over how and where their images are used, particularly children. Read Adobe's guidelines on model releases.

[Abambo]

, and the local boys are not famous models and they are 20 years ago so the boys should pass the model requirement I think.

By @たまき36427136uocv

Your thinking is wrong. Any person recognizable on your picture needs to sign a model release. No model release no publishing.

However, Adobe always gives you a reason for a refusal. It may be quality, it may be missing model release, it may be a different reason, but you always get a reason.

If you are new to stock, you should consider these resources: https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/tutorials.html
Please read the contributor user manual for more information on Adobe stock contributions: https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/user-guide.html
See here for rejection reasons: https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/reasons-for-content-rejection.html
and especially quality and technical issues: https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/quality-and-technical-issues.html

[daniellei4510]

I have photographed numerous models 20 to 30 years ago. They signed releases, but I have moved numeous times over the years and those releases have been lossed. So no. I can not submit their images for commercial use.