Nav: Home
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 17, 2012, 06:45

Login with username, password and session length

MicrostockGroup

MicrostockGroup » Forum » Middle Tier » 123RF » Min. Image Size Upgrade

Microstockgroup Sponsors

Pond5Intuos5 Giveaway

« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] Print

Topic: Min. Image Size Upgrade  

(Read 3709 times)
Karimala



« Reply #25 on: November 24, 2010, 17:43 »
I guess this just means I'll have one less site to worry about uploading to.  I regularly downsize to 6 MP, too, plus my backup body is an old 6 MP D70, and no way am I changing my workflow just to please my second lowest earning site.


Ignore | Logged

DepositPhotos.com
alex123rf


123rf
« Reply #26 on: November 24, 2010, 21:17 »
Quote from: tilo on November 24, 2010, 07:42
You should accept at least 6mp...

Hi All,

Thanks for your feedback, we've lowered the requirement to 6 MP for the foreseeable future, although the pages on the site still says 8 mp. All files that were previously accepted or is currently in the review queue will remain as they were.

Thank you very much.

Alex
for 123RF.com
« Last Edit: November 24, 2010, 21:20 by alex123rf »

Ignore | Logged

ibogdan


Dreamstime GaugeiStock Gauge
« Reply #27 on: November 24, 2010, 21:38 »
Please lower the requirements to a minimum of 4 mpix just like before. And I'm sure it will be ok for everyone.


Ignore | Logged

FD



« Reply #28 on: November 25, 2010, 00:35 »
Quote from: alex123rf on November 24, 2010, 21:17
we've lowered the requirement to 6 MP for the foreseeable future
Bingo for my crystal ball.  Tongue
Thanks Alex.


Ignore | Logged

FD



« Reply #29 on: November 25, 2010, 00:40 »
Quote from: ibogdan on November 24, 2010, 21:38
Please lower the requirements to a minimum of 4 mpix just like before. And I'm sure it will be ok for everyone.
123RF has a tradition of large sizes. They had 4MP already back in 2005 when other sites still accepted 2MP. An update after 5 years is reasonable in that perspective, but 4 > 8MP was a bit steep. 6MP is fine, for a while.


Ignore | Logged

Digital66


« Reply #30 on: November 25, 2010, 01:33 »
What does the size of the camera sensor have to do with being or not a weekendsnapper?  

"Have you heard of Dr. Freud, Mr Ismay Lagereek? His studies on the male preoccupations with size might be of interest to you." - Rose (Titanic Film).  Wink


Quote from: lagereek on November 24, 2010, 10:38
Quote from: microstockphoto.co.uk on November 24, 2010, 10:34
Quote from: lagereek on November 24, 2010, 10:25
May I suggest they make it 12 MPs instead, getting rid of all the riff-raff Tongue

Nice provocation... but most new cameras are 12 MP+ nowadays, so that won't cut out the competition: it would only cut any headroom for adjustments. Is it better a slightly lower resolution but perfectly sharp and aligned picture, or a 12 MP full of noise, tilted horizons, bad cropping and soft?
[/quote

Oh alright then, make it 20 MP, just as long as we get rid of the weekendsnappers.
« Last Edit: November 25, 2010, 01:40 by Digital66 »

Ignore | Logged

lagereek


« Reply #31 on: November 25, 2010, 01:58 »
Yap!  Dr Freud was a big lad himself, armed with a MII  and a 1000 mil, f2.8.  No weekend-snapping there but serious intellectual snapping.


Ignore | Logged

Stock_Fox



« Reply #32 on: November 25, 2010, 02:00 »
Quote from: alex123rf on November 24, 2010, 21:17
Quote from: tilo on November 24, 2010, 07:42
You should accept at least 6mp...

Hi All,

Thanks for your feedback, we've lowered the requirement to 6 MP for the foreseeable future, although the pages on the site still says 8 mp. All files that were previously accepted or is currently in the review queue will remain as they were.

Thank you very much.

Alex
for 123RF.com


Thanks, sounds like a good compromise. Smiley Smiley Smiley


Ignore | Logged

Karimala



« Reply #33 on: November 25, 2010, 09:49 »
Perfect news on a cold Thanksgiving morning.  Thanks Alex!!!   Grin


Ignore | Logged

tupungato

New Member


« Reply #34 on: November 25, 2010, 10:01 »
That's bad. I shoot 18mpix, but quite frequently downsize to 4-5mpix. Sometimes it's necessary, to keep the good quality. For example in landmark interiors it's often not allowed to used tripods. I shoot ISO 800 with IS then, but image needs to be downsized to look good.

Please note that industry leader iStock, requires only 2mpix and Shutterstock requires 4mpix in general, but 2.5mpix for veterans.


Ignore | Logged

sharpshot


Dreamstime GaugeiStock Gauge
« Reply #35 on: November 25, 2010, 11:11 »
I'm pleased they changed this quickly, 4mp would be better but I can live with 6mp.  Still don't see why mp requirement is increasing when print is on its way out and 2mp is enough for most web use.  What about all these small screen tablets and smart phones?  Seems a shame to lose lots of images that would be suitable for a big market.


Ignore | Logged

microstockphoto.co.uk


Dreamstime GaugeiStock Gauge
« Reply #36 on: November 25, 2010, 11:29 »
Thanks for listening to feedback. Although I would have kept 4 Megapixels, 6 is fine.


Ignore | Logged

lagereek


« Reply #37 on: November 26, 2010, 02:28 »
On a serious note. I dont mind any size upgrade, I already work with HD3, D3X and MII, so I can easlily supply shots from a 50MP digital back, no problem.

Before I do that, well,  with all PP, work, etc,  the agency in question will have to provide me with a hell of a lot more proof of selling power then what 123 have done so far.
Its no good pretending getting in among the big boys, not showing equal results.


Ignore | Logged

UncleGene



« Reply #38 on: November 27, 2010, 20:11 »
Quote from: Karimala on November 24, 2010, 17:43
I guess this just means I'll have one less site to worry about uploading to.  I regularly downsize to 6 MP, too, plus my backup body is an old 6 MP D70, and no way am I changing my workflow just to please my second lowest earning site.

Having the same backup, and giving allowance to crop - my downsize is 5.1M.
Thanks for helping making my decision!
Will wait for next payout - and out. They will not probably miss me, but fro sure - I will not miss them.


Ignore | Logged

Envateo Photo ToolsMicrostock Insider
Pages: 1 [2] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Related Topics
Subject Started by Replies Views Last post
Image size minimums
Shutterstock.com 		chumley 6 1389 Last post June 09, 2008, 03:17
by chellyar
Can an image this size be taken from IS without a watermark?
iStockPhoto.com 		madelaide 12 2027 Last post July 31, 2010, 22:18
by mollypix
Royalty variation: Same image, same size
iStockPhoto.com 		robggs 7 621 Last post January 06, 2011, 10:56
by ShadySue
Image Size Detection Software
General Stock Discussion 		RacePhoto 3 1048 Last post July 25, 2011, 23:08
by RacePhoto
Photo Image Size
General Stock Discussion 		tab62 7 190 Last post May 09, 2012, 14:20
by JPSDK

Microstockgroup Sponsors

CanstockPhoto



MicrostockGroup Email Updates

Microstock Poll Results

Site Earnings Rating
Top Tier - Big 4
Shutterstock 100 arrow
iStock 67.4 arrow
Fotolia 34.9 arrow
Dreamstime 27 arrow
Middle Tier
DepositPhotos 20.2 arrow
123RF 15.9 arrow
Canstockphoto 11.1 arrow
Bigstockphoto 9.5 arrow
Veer 8.6 arrow
Low Earners
PantherMedia 6.7 arrow
PhotoDune 5.9 arrow
Zoonar 3.6 arrow
GLStockImages 2.7 arrow
Stockfresh 2.2 arrow
YayMicro 1.7 arrow
FeaturePics 1.4 arrow
MostPhotos 1.3 arrow
ScanStockPhoto 1.2 arrow
Crestock 0.8 arrow
Cutcaster 0.6 arrow
ClipartOf
Pond5
RevoStock
Clipcanvas
ClipDealer
DrawShop
PhotoSpin
isignstock
GraphicRiver
VectorStock
Pixmac
PhotoCase
The3dStudio
photaki
SuperHug
PhotoKore
AllYouCanStock
Imagegate
Vivozoom
iRockStock
StockPhotoMedia
ImageVortex
Regimages
ViscoImages
More Poll Results
Updated: 2012-05-17

TinyPortal v1.0.5 beta 1© Bloc
Advertise on Microstockgroup.com | Contact: [email protected]
Sitemap | Powered by SMF 1.1.15 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines | Adagio design by Bloc