Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
September 08, 2010, 05:18

Microstock Group - A meeting place for microstock photographers

Microstock Group - A meeting place for microstock photographers » Forum » Macro Stock / Midstock » Alamy.com » 24 is the new 48

Microstockgroup Sponsors

« previous next »

Pages: 1 [2]

Topic: 24 is the new 48

(Read 5097 times)

etienjones

« Reply #25 on: May 27, 2010, 04:02 »

Quote from: sharpshot on May 27, 2010, 02:59

Big hard drives are cheap now and when the re-sized image is uploaded, is there any point in keeping it? It will save a bit of time uploading but I still fear that the site is now going to be swamped with microstock images and sales will be diluted. I am uploading my microstock portfolio now, I have resisted so far but this has changed my mind.

I too have tried to respect Alamy as a non micrtostock type site. I am not too sure anymore, especially after recieving 50 cents for a sale last month.


« Last Edit: May 27, 2010, 04:37 by etienjones »	Ignore \| Logged

borg

« Reply #26 on: May 27, 2010, 05:10 »

Quote from: Gannet77 on May 27, 2010, 03:26

Quote from: Stu49 on May 27, 2010, 02:49

Quote from: madelaide on May 26, 2010, 20:24

Quote from: cclapper on May 26, 2010, 17:52

For me, it wasn't so much the time of upsizing, I also use an action for that. It's the whole new workflow and the taking of yet more space on my hard drives.

Yes, and now I can get rid of the "Alamy" folder!

Not if u only have a 10MP camera !! Still need a separate folder and some up-sizing ! Sad

I don't think so - surely a 10MP image is about 28MB, uncompressed?

Right!!!

10MPx pic has TIFF 8bits about 28MB


	Ignore \| Logged

donding

« Reply #27 on: May 27, 2010, 11:31 »

If they do lean more towards microstock, which is what they seem to be doing, do you think it would take off???


	Ignore \| Logged

borg

« Reply #28 on: May 27, 2010, 14:38 »

Alamy is not going to become microstock, they compete with microstock,still remain same licenses over RF and RM, but more friendly to photographers...

Here is good explanation about photo market in general:

http://seanlockedigitalimagery.wordpress.com/2009/02/20/the-right-value-for-your-money/


	Ignore \| Logged

shiyali

« Reply #29 on: May 27, 2010, 17:22 »

Now that they have modernized their upload requirements, maybe they will update their antiquated payout system as well. Let's hope so.


	Ignore \| Logged

dbvirago

« Reply #30 on: May 27, 2010, 18:00 »

Quote from: shiyali on May 27, 2010, 17:22

Now that they have modernized their upload requirements, maybe they will update their antiquated payout system as well. Let's hope so.

Antiquated? Last payout, the canoe pulled up right on time and offloaded a bale of beaver pelts, just like always.


	Ignore \| Logged

donding

« Reply #31 on: May 27, 2010, 18:55 »

Quote from: shiyali on May 27, 2010, 17:22

Now that they have modernized their upload requirements, maybe they will update their antiquated payout system as well. Let's hope so.

Payout...what's that? Huh

? I've never reached it. Of course I don't have 5000 photos on there either and deleted alot of them last year. I think I might have 50 on there.....doubt I will EVER reach payoput at $200


	Ignore \| Logged

shiyali

« Reply #32 on: May 27, 2010, 20:12 »

200.-? I think it is 250.-U$, which is hard to reach with many sales being at close to micro-midstock prices, as has been reported on this forum. Even if you reach 250.-, where I live cashing an overseas cheque will cost me 10 to 15 U$.


	Ignore \| Logged

stockstudios

New Member

« Reply #33 on: June 03, 2010, 14:01 »

Quote from: shiyali on May 27, 2010, 20:12

They also have a wire transfer option. It doesn't cost me anything.


	Ignore \| Logged

michealo

« Reply #34 on: June 04, 2010, 04:45 »

Quote from: borg on May 27, 2010, 14:38

I had a quick look - and google ads was serving a shutterstock ad, how ironic ...


	Ignore \| Logged

ShadySue

« Reply #35 on: June 04, 2010, 18:36 »

Quote from: michealo on June 04, 2010, 04:45

Quote from: borg on May 27, 2010, 14:38

I had a quick look - and google ads was serving a shutterstock ad, how ironic ...


« Last Edit: June 04, 2010, 18:42 by ShadySue »	Ignore \| Logged

mtkang

« Reply #36 on: July 28, 2010, 01:36 »

Hi all, so if i am using a 6MP camera or my file is cropped and less than 24MB uncompressed size, does alamy still accept if i upsize them to 24MB?


	Ignore \| Logged

ShadySue

« Reply #37 on: July 28, 2010, 02:16 »

Quote from: mtkang on July 28, 2010, 01:36

Hi all, so if i am using a 6MP camera or my file is cropped and less than 24MB uncompressed size, does alamy still accept if i upsize them to 24MB?

Yes, subject to not being SOLD etc.


	Ignore \| Logged

mtkang

« Reply #38 on: July 28, 2010, 02:36 »

oic, thank you very much.

Quote from: ShadySue on July 28, 2010, 02:16

Quote from: mtkang on July 28, 2010, 01:36

Hi all, so if i am using a 6MP camera or my file is cropped and less than 24MB uncompressed size, does alamy still accept if i upsize them to 24MB?

Yes, subject to not being SOLD etc.


	Ignore \| Logged

Zeus

« Reply #39 on: July 28, 2010, 10:11 »

I've sold enough images in the 50M range in the past year to make it worthwhile uprezing to this size if you can do it properly.


	Ignore \| Logged

madelaide

Premium Member

« Reply #40 on: July 28, 2010, 10:43 »

Quote from: Zeus on July 28, 2010, 10:11

I've sold enough images in the 50M range in the past year to make it worthwhile uprezing to this size if you can do it properly.

I thought about this too. Even if not true-size, would a buyer be more interested and give preference to a larger file?

Will Alamy QC be more picky now, so that large-size files need to be ultra sharp like they could not be before when upsized? (That is, only images created in large MPix cameras woud pass QC in large size).


	Ignore \| Logged

Dreamframer

« Reply #41 on: July 28, 2010, 11:10 »

They could do upsize too


	Ignore \| Logged

Zeus

« Reply #42 on: July 28, 2010, 11:54 »

Quote from: madelaide on July 28, 2010, 10:43

Quote from: Zeus on July 28, 2010, 10:11

I've sold enough images in the 50M range in the past year to make it worthwhile uprezing to this size if you can do it properly.

It seems they are more picky with noise etc. but if you're carful you can still get a decent upsizing. However, for most modern cameras this just isn't a consideration anymore. If anything we are now downsizing. I don't know how I would make out submitting my older upsized images today. They do sell though.


	Ignore \| Logged

mtkang

« Reply #43 on: July 29, 2010, 00:48 »

how about in getty and corbis..or other RM agencies, are they requesting upsized images as well? I have no idea what is the reason to upsize an image..


	Ignore \| Logged

ShadySue

« Reply #44 on: July 29, 2010, 02:01 »

Quote from: mtkang on July 29, 2010, 00:48

how about in getty and corbis..or other RM agencies, are they requesting upsized images as well? I have no idea what is the reason to upsize an image..

Getty for sure, yes.


	Ignore \| Logged

Zeus

« Reply #45 on: July 29, 2010, 10:54 »

Quote from: mtkang on July 29, 2010, 00:48

how about in getty and corbis..or other RM agencies, are they requesting upsized images as well? I have no idea what is the reason to upsize an image..

It's a historical thing. Back when it was determined that the best size to have a digital image file was around 50M based on usage sizes in print. These early files were derived from scans. Digital cameras developed but none were really good enough from mainstream stock until the 1Ds. The 1Ds files at 11MP(33M) could be upsized to 50M nicely meeting the 50M requirement already established. Other agencies adopted this de-facto standard.


	Ignore \| Logged

borg

« Reply #46 on: July 29, 2010, 11:31 »

50M is the best size if customer need the biggest size...
So if you selling there RF photos will you allways sell maximum size?
I don't think so...

Maybe 50MB file size is more imortant for RM pics...


	Ignore \| Logged

Zeus

« Reply #47 on: July 29, 2010, 12:35 »

Quote from: borg on July 29, 2010, 11:31

50M prints an 11x17 double page spread at 300dpi. A standard the stock industry felt was the best overall maximum size to have. It was the same standard for RM as for RF and had nothing to do with a license type. Your statement should read " Maybe 50M file size is more important to macro pics than micro..." as they are rooted in print advertising.


	Ignore \| Logged

Pages: 1 [2]

« previous next »

Jump to:

Follow Microstockgroup

Microstockgroup Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Site	Earnings Rating
Top Tier - Big 4
Shutterstock	5.80.16
iStock	5.10.05
Fotolia	4.20.03
Dreamstime	4.10.07

Middle Tier
123RoyaltyFree	3.40.06
Bigstockphoto	2.90.07
Veer	2.80.52
Canstockphoto	2.70.1
GraphicLeftovers	20.15

Low Earners
DepositPhotos	20.03
Crestock	20.05
YayMicro	1.70.08
Cutcaster	1.50.1
FeaturePics	1.50.1
Pond5
PhotoSpin
VectorStock
PantherMedia
Polylooks
Clipcanvas
USphotoStock
Regimages
Zoonar
ClipDealer
Stockfresh
PhotoSociety
Paxxion
ImageVortex
ScanStockPhoto
StockPhotoMedia
The3dStudio
Pixmac
moodboard
MostPhotos
PhotoCase
ArcticStockImages
Vivozoom

More Poll Results

Advertise on Microstockgroup.com | Contact: mail@microstockgroup.com