Nav: Home
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
March 11, 2010, 23:26

Login with username, password and session length

Microstock Group - A meeting place for microstock photographers
Microstock Group - A meeting place for microstock photographers » Forum » Big 6 - Top 6 Microstock Photography Sites » Dreamstime.com » Beware of uploading RAW files

Microstockgroup Sponsors

moodboardMicrostock Keywording, Uploading, Submission & AnalyticsPantherMedia.net

« previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: Beware of uploading RAW files  (Read 1475 times)
PenelopeB



« on: April 11, 2007, 10:57 »
I have contacted support for clarification but...

Over Easter I received an email from DT requesting that I upload my RAW file as an addition format due to a customer request. (I could have said no & will in the future)

I did this thinking that it would be an 8 credit sale. Lo and behold, 5 minutes after it is approved... the RAW file gets grabbed via subscription sale.

Credit to me?  A lousy $0.25 cents.

SUCKS!!!

Never again.


Ignore | Logged

Snapixel.com
StockManiac


« Reply #1 on: April 11, 2007, 11:21 »
 Shocked    Shocked    Shocked

(As you can see I'm speechless)


Ignore | Logged

red_moon_rise


« Reply #2 on: April 11, 2007, 12:10 »
Ridiculous. No scruples.  RAW should not be available for 25 lousy cents. It would be so easy to implement 40 Subscription DLs per RAW. I never even considered giving my RAWs to a microstock agency regardless of price.

Logged

madelaide


Premium Member
« Reply #3 on: April 11, 2007, 17:37 »
Special file types should get a different treatment.  I am an oponent of 25c JPEGs already, what to say about a RAW or a vector file...  Thanks for warning us.

Regards,
Adelaide


Ignore | Logged

digiology


« Reply #4 on: April 12, 2007, 01:40 »
I am interested to hear what support says. Please keep us updated and thanks for the heads-up.

Logged

leaf


Premium Member
« Reply #5 on: April 12, 2007, 01:46 »
I was given a request for a raw files once - but couldn't be bothered to upload it.  I am not sure what the original was downloaded at, but I think it would take at least $10.00 for me to go back and dig up the raw file and spend the time uploading it and then considering a fair price for it.  I don't think that the raw files are SO valuable as many people feel, but i would still need a bit of encouragement to be bothered to upload it.


Ignore | Logged

CJPhoto


« Reply #6 on: April 12, 2007, 01:51 »
Quote from: madelaide on April 11, 2007, 17:37
Special file types should get a different treatment.  I am an oponent of 25c JPEGs already, what to say about a RAW or a vector file...  Thanks for warning us.

Even SS charges more for a tiff and they are only generated from the jpeg.  Raw should be an EL.


Ignore | Logged

leaf


Premium Member
« Reply #7 on: April 12, 2007, 01:53 »
well.. sorta off topic but.  Why would shutterstock create a tiff from a jpg then sell it for more??  Doesn't that defeat the purpose - the two files are identical, why would one cost more?
« Last Edit: April 12, 2007, 01:56 by leaf »

Ignore | Logged

GeoPappas


« Reply #8 on: April 12, 2007, 05:25 »
Quote from: leaf on April 12, 2007, 01:53
Why would shutterstock create a tiff from a jpg then sell it for more??  Doesn't that defeat the purpose - the two files are identical, why would one cost more?

According to SS (from a thread when this was first implemented), this was a feature that was requested from buyers.

Many buyers purchase an image and then work on it over time.  As they open and close a JPG image, it degrades (because of the re-compression).

To avoid this, the first thing buyers will do when they download an image is convert it to a TIFF, so that opening and closing the image will not degrade it.

So this essentially saves them time from converting the image.  You can think of SS providing buyers a service (converting JPG to TIFF) that they are now charging for.


Ignore | Logged

CJPhoto


« Reply #9 on: April 12, 2007, 06:11 »
Quote from: leaf on April 12, 2007, 01:53
well.. sorta off topic but.  Why would shutterstock create a tiff from a jpg then sell it for more??  Doesn't that defeat the purpose - the two files are identical, why would one cost more?
Geopappas explained it but lots weren't convinced.  They made SS put a disclaimer that it was geneated from a JPEG as they thought it was misleading.

From a designers perspective, I guess the price is low compared to macro sites and most places pass costs onto clients anyway.


Ignore | Logged

GeoPappas


« Reply #10 on: April 12, 2007, 06:33 »
Quote from: CJPhoto on April 12, 2007, 06:11
Quote from: leaf on April 12, 2007, 01:53
well.. sorta off topic but.  Why would shutterstock create a tiff from a jpg then sell it for more??  Doesn't that defeat the purpose - the two files are identical, why would one cost more?
Geopappas explained it but lots weren't convinced.  They made SS put a disclaimer that it was geneated from a JPEG as they thought it was misleading.

From a designers perspective, I guess the price is low compared to macro sites and most places pass costs onto clients anyway.

CJPhoto:

Thanks for adding that.  I had forgotten about that crucial piece.

Although I love SS, I sometimes wonder why they uprez images 100% and why they create a TIFF from a JPG.  They both seem pretty silly to me.

But if that is what the customer wants, then...


Ignore | Logged

madelaide


Premium Member
« Reply #11 on: April 12, 2007, 16:45 »
Quote from: GeoPappas on April 12, 2007, 05:25
So this essentially saves them time from converting the image.  You can think of SS providing buyers a service (converting JPG to TIFF) that they are now charging for.
I could open a business to do this, and I'd probbaly charge much cheaper.  Smiley

Regards,
Adelaide


Ignore | Logged

leaf


Premium Member
« Reply #12 on: April 12, 2007, 18:01 »
alamy upsizes their images too (they just have the submitter do it).  I am still in the dark why they would do it.


Ignore | Logged

fintastique



« Reply #13 on: April 13, 2007, 16:38 »
I had a request for a simplified version of one of my illustrations at featurepics I made a 12mp version set it $5 (no resizing) uploaded within an hour as they said they wanted it quickly and waited and waited.  Cry

Finally after a week I had the sale and earned me $3.50  Grin


Ignore | Logged

madelaide


Premium Member
« Reply #14 on: April 13, 2007, 16:49 »
Fintastique,

I also received an email from FP admin about a buyer wanting a change in colors for one illustration, I did it, also waited for days, then it sold as an EL!  Cheesy

Regards,
Adelaide
« Last Edit: April 13, 2007, 16:56 by madelaide »

Ignore | Logged

Veer.comGraphic Leftovers
Pages: [1] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Related Topics
Subject Started by Replies Views Last post
Help In Uploading Vector Files in iStockphoto
iStockPhoto.com 		khwi 8 827 Last post November 18, 2006, 04:22
by khwi
Uploading files while away from home.
General Stock Discussion 		sharpshot 3 427 Last post March 26, 2007, 04:54
by fintastique
uploading files to Alamy
Alamy.com 		rosta 14 1978 Last post December 12, 2007, 09:48
by jorgeinthewater
Beware of Shutterstock « 1 2 3 4 »
Shutterstock.com 		crashoran 88 11176 Last post January 26, 2008, 18:19
by photojay
Error uploading svg files
Fotolia.com 		Whitechild 11 871 Last post November 19, 2008, 02:45
by nicemonkey

Follow Microstockgroup

Microstockgroup Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Site Earnings Rating
Top Tier - Big 4
Shutterstock 6.3
iStock 5.9
Fotolia 4.8
Dreamstime 4.4
Middle Tier
DepositPhotos 3.7
123RoyaltyFree 3.4
Bigstockphoto 3.1
Canstockphoto 3
VeerMarketplace 2.7
Low Earners
Cutcaster 2.5
PantherMedia 2.2
ScanStockPhoto 2
Crestock 1.9
YayMicro 1.6
FeaturePics 1.4
MostPhotos 1.3
GraphicLeftovers
The3dStudio
Pollylooks
VectorStock
Pixmac
StockPhotoMedia
Zoonar
moodboard
USphotoStock
ImageVortex
Regimages
PhotoSociety
Paxxion
Thephotostorage
ArcticStockImages
More Poll Results

TinyPortal v1.0.5 beta 1© Bloc
Advertise on Microstockgroup.com | Contact: mail@microstockgroup.com
Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC | Adagio design by Bloc