MicrostockGroup

My camera output 4mp images, so I wonder if anyone can tell that images done with low resolution camera are likely to be ignored by buyers and most likely go for higher resolution alternatives? The reason I'm asking is that although IStock and DT already accepted my photographs I've got bunch of rejections because of noise and artifacting especially on IS as they seems to be very picky to even those photographs which are good for DT.

So I wonder if pictures downsized to 1600x1200 which is minimal resolution right now on both sites,  have any chances to compete with the rest or most likely to be ignored?

As downsizing seems to be the only good option for me right now, as it let me get rid some of JPEG artifacts originally left by camera compression.

Thanks for response, Lizard!
Indeed I'm having P&S camera with good zoom 12x it's Dimage Z3.
Would you mind to tell where such photographs are sold better or there are no real difference?

Thanks! Too bad that Fotolia wouldn't accept my images as they have to be a 2400x1600 in time when my camera output 2272 x 1704. So guess I'll try to give more priority to IS.

Thanks sharpshot, that's my main reason of participating on stocks, to accumulate cash for upgrading my camera to dSLR, as they are expensive here especially comparing to salaries and I can't afford one right now.


yeah, I'm realizing this but hoped that temporarily I could use downsizing to get less noise and artifacts.


I'm not sure in this, many people like photos I'm doing but they are mostly my friends and it's not good for measuring how good I'm in stock photography. Here some photos I've already upload to PS and DT and I'm not sure they got big selling potential especially considering that they have smaller resolution than the most photographs on stocks.

actually I've already got loan to pay to local bank I'm not familiar with Kiva loans but guess they wouldn't issue it as I don't have regular job with fixed payments, I'm freelancer right now and income depends from amount of orders.

chromatic abberations isn't an issue, this was one of the main factors in choosing camera as it's really annoying for me, and Z3 is good in producing chromatic free photos.

that's the only thing I could do now, I should concentrate on strong sides of my equipment and use it to extent.
The reason I'm posting such questions is that I didn't get any sales and not sure if would so trying to check all factors.

Thanks for suggestion but I'm afraid that it couldn't be done, as from what I remember it's illegal to make such photographs(I could be wrong, should try to check it somewhere) and if it's truth of course it's illegal to sell them.

Do you remember how long it was? As from what I understand 2400x1600 enforcement appeared just recently.

not sure what to say  as if I upsize some of my pictures they would look really blurry at best. Anyway I guess that need to upload some photo to FT regardless resolution and see if they reject it or not.

Another option is to take two or more photos and join them together.  I sometimes do this in photoshop but it can be done with free image editing software.  This can turn a 4mp camera in to whatever you want it to be.

This 27mp photo was taken with a 6mp camera.

http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-2082834-teamwork-in-colored-pebbles-on-an-isolated-white-background.html

Denis,

This is the link I was talking about:
Banknotes & Counterfeit Deterrence

But I don't see Ukraine there.  Maybe if you look in the Russian version? 

Although we have some flower pots, we don't grow big plants here (we live in an apartment). The chrystantemuns were bought (hmmm, when was that, Mother's Day?).

The dry lake bed was taken in Namibia.

Regards,
Adelaide

Photographing bank notes, government documents, government or military buildings, airports, railway stations etc. is generally illegal in most countries, including Russia and USA. Especially now with "war against terrorism" you could run into serious trouble.

Btw. photograph of bank note is for copyright law the same as photographing someone elses photo so it should be baned anyway. Wonder why so copyright/logo/trademark picky stock agencies easily accept bank notes, coins or map photographs which are all covered by copyright?!

It's nice to hear that I'm not alone on saving for dSLR on stocks, as it's look like that most successful photographers got either dSLR or at least decent cameras with good resolution

good job, you've got some nice shots in gallery so no wonder they was bought so quickly.

indeed, it's seems like a good result to me, I've came into stock photography last month and submit few images when had free time, but my only downloads happen on iStock, I still awaiting for my first download on DT as right now it got biggest collection of my photos.

can't complain that my camera is bad, I like it a lot and it suits perfectly to what I'm photographing for myself, it's quality just marginally enough for stocks, but not for me.

thanks for compliment! wish that buyers would think alike and I got some sales finally

Banknotes aren't copyright for photography puposes, but they are covered for reproduction under anti-conterfeit, terrorism and money laundering laws.

The basis rule is that a banknote should note be photographed or photocopied in its entirety or as a complete 'flat copy'.  Such a reproduction could assist counterfeiting.

You can submit as many banknote photographs to the microstock agencies as you wish so long as the entire notes are not visible.

The exception is the Malaysian Ringgit, which may not be reproduced in any form.

Similar laws apply to postage stamps, which can be photographed and reproduced so long as they have been franked.

One thing you can do to your images to get them a little bigger without upsizing the image is to add more to them.  This is especially easy for isolation shots, make your canvas a bit bigger to get over the threshold and add some more white. 

You can do the same with a pure blue sky (like the comp critique shot that I did for you), you just have to use the clone stamp.  Do the vertical dimension (the top) first because you'll want to remove any vignetting (it would look weird) before expanding in the horizontal dimension (not too many apps, but I just had one so they do exist, it was a shot that I thought would be perfect with a square comp, without cropping however, so I just added.  It is selling well at SS so I'm happy with the results).  You'll need to carefully clone when you expand horizontally because of the natural gradient of the sky.

The last way that I know of to make a shot bigger is to take multiple shots and let a panoramic stitching program assemble them.  Some programs can stitch in 2 dimensions automatically (autostitch comes to mind, the free version can only use .jpegs, but it really embarrasses Canon's and Adobe's stitching programs in performance).  Even if the quality isn't superb of the final product (.jpeg jaggies, though it can save at 12 quality), if you are stitching lots of photos together (overlap, overlap, overlap is the key) you can severely downsize in either Gimp or PS to eliminate the jaggies.  On my first try it assembled a 29 shot pano no problem for me (somewhat bad input files too, handheld with varying WB and exposure, perfect assembly though, completely seamless), the resulting file is absolutely ridiculous (60 mb .jpeg), but it is one heck of a cool panoramic.  Even with a 4 mp camera, if you do a 3x3 pano (9 shot) with good overlap and a little downsizing, you should be able to submit files that are just as big as those taken with a 12 mp camera without a problem.

All these methods are more work, but they'll get you closer to actually purchasing a high MP camera so you don't have to do them.

FT doesn't though, that is where the issue is arising for him.  Would they reject for extra sky?  It is a technique that I like to do on occasion, especially with a minimal diagonal comp, where I get as much of the object in the frame knowing that I am going to expand the sky in PP to get the final comp right.  Might as well add to instead of taking away from images if you can, especially since the final product will be better (higher resolution).