MicrostockGroup

I started with a Canon 10D (6 MP) and later a Canon 20D & 30D (8 MP).  Recently a got a Canon 400D as a light travel camera and the pro 1D MK III (both 10 MP). 

I am somewhat undecided on whether I should submit images of the full 10 MP to sites such as SS that offer subscription sales.  To give away a 10 MP image for 25 or 30c does not feel right.  Alternatively I can submit the full resolution images only to those sites that charge according to size (such as StockXpert) and submit a smaller version to the subscription sites – but then how much smaller?  Two further problems with this: It will complicate my workflow and it may happen that a site that do not offer subscription sales today may decide to do so tomorrow (as was the case with Dreamstime).  What about the future?  10 MP may seem quite large today, but in a year or two that may be quite average.     

I will appreciate your thoughts on this.

Forgive me if I'm wrong but my understanding was that Shutterstock interpolates our files up after submission so honestly, the argument about 25 (or 30 cents) for a large file doesn't really hold up.  I thought I read somewhere about that in their submission requirements.

I have a 16.7mp camera and an 8mp camera.  I've found that there are certain sites I HAVE to downsize images in order to get them on.  BigStock is the first one that comes to mind - they don't accept anything over 10mb in size.  Some images make it, others don't.

I only downsize when I need to - ether on an individual basis for places like BigStock or in order to create a better composition or to salvage something that wasn't 100% in focus for the same reason Leaf states.

I always submit the hi-res (10mp) unless like others have mentioned to "salvage the shot" and I have to hide artifacts or soft focus then I will downsize.

I submit max size in case they change the rules.  Fotolia never gave higher amounts for bigger photos   When they chagned, tehre were a lot of upset people who had downsized their photos and would now miss out on more $$.

I downsize to 4MP for SS and 5MP (size L) for IS.
DT, FT, and StockXpert get full sized images (17MP for me).

I've found that DT and FT will accept just about anything, but that I occasionally have to downsize to 8MP or 4MP for StockXpert. I downsize for IS only because their review time is usually about a week, and I cannot afford to wait only to have my images rejected for technical reasons. Review times at IS have dramatically shortened recently, which may prompt me to revise my methods.

Downsizing doesn't cost me much extra time - I use a photoshop action to resize and save the image after I've entered the keywords.

I'm also too lazy to downsize, so I just give 'em what I got.  However, I do upsize to meet Alamy's requirements.

My images are not so large - lately I had been using a Canon A620 (7MPix).  For illustrations, I create a "medium" size version (4MPix) that I upload to sites such as BigStock.  I've also done the opposite, creating "extra-large" images (>20MPix) to a few sites.

If I was a SS member, I'd probably use their limit or something close.  That's what I'll do at CS if I ever resume uploading there (I seldom sell anything other than subscription).

Regards,
Adelaide

welcome here andresr 

If they delete all my photos... it's a good thing. I can reupload all my images. New files sell much better.

thank you hatman and Tyler I am happy to join you guys around here, never knew there was so much "action" in these forums.

I also don't understand that logic ..... never will I think.

Thats a peculiar way of seeing it.
1. It's not a matter of buyers using or not your photos. They see them anyway and they will prefer the higher quality over the lower quality ones.
2. 90% is ok 4mp? not true ..... my vast experience at other sites will tell me that at least 25% of the buyers buy Large+ size. (6mp+)
3. Do you really think a user will go to another site to look for your image at a higher resolution? no mate, Let's be realistic if you find a buyer that wants your photo at a high res and can't find it at SS they will move on and buy another one they are there.
They are not going to search the whole microstock for your photo until they find a suitable size so it's a sale you just've lost.

Low res submissions = lower sales.
Higher Res submissions = more sales


Do you see yuri arcurs, kirsty, liv-friss, and ALL other top submitters downsizing images?

well those shots for me are not microstock material ....... they are more suitable for a RM agency

It seems like extra work to create different sizes for different sites, with little to show for it. I'm only on SS and IS specifically because their business models are completely different so sales don't cannibalize each other (subscription versus pay-per-photo). Maybe if you're talking about two sites with the same business model but large discrepancies in pricing between the sizes then I could see a reason. The only other reason I can see to limit size to SS would be to eliminate noise. Otherwise, I fail to see how the extra work actually benefits the photographer.