pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Shutterstock - downsizing to 6mp - thoughts?  (Read 36858 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

« Reply #75 on: April 19, 2014, 22:11 »
+4
Hello All,

This topic has come up in the past and I strongly recommend against downsizing and encouraging others to downsize.   

First, it's not in your best interest as a contributor.   While many of our images are licensed through the subscription model to both large and small businesses, many of you have seen sales through our enterprise products (where royalties can be up to $120 or more).  Many of those enterprise clients are advertising agencies, Fortune 500 companies, etc., who are looking for images of good or high technical quality.  If you're downsizing images, you're potentially losing out on some of your highest-potential sales in many markets around the world.   With nearly 1 million customers now searching for images at Shutterstock, you want your portfolio to be of the highest quality to generate the highest amount of earnings across that broad and diverse customer base.


Best,

Scott
VP of Content
Shutterstock

You keep REJECTING tact sharp ISO 100 no photoshop adjustment no shadow lifting noise free images. I keep reducing file size, deal?


« Reply #76 on: April 19, 2014, 23:47 »
+3
"Sharpness is an illusion based on focus and quality of light".

Focus and sharpness is not the same. A photo can be in focus and not look sharp. Postprocessing can greatly improve the percieved sharpness.

« Reply #77 on: April 20, 2014, 03:07 »
+2
After reading this thread I took my last 20 rejections, downsized them to 6MP, and had 14 accepted. That settles it for me.
Maybe it settles it for you in the easy way, but there is a lesson you didnt learn.
Question: Can you not shoot quality in full size?
Answer: it is not always possible (convenient), and sometimes you have to downsize to maintain image quality.

But if you have to do it on a regular basis, it shows that your are either working in a borderline field or are not good enough as a photographer.

Maybe I am not good enough, or maybe I am just not trying hard enough. I don't know, but I suspect both are very possible. Frankly though, I don't really care. Why?

Well, what I do know is that the same images that don't get accepted at 20 MP do get accepted at 6 MP, and they sell. Where is my incentive to *not* downsize them, I ask? Preserve the overall quality of Shutterstock's image bank? Pleeeeease. And, really, if they didn't want 6 MP images -- or 4 MP images for that matter -- why oh why do they accept them?

Ron

« Reply #78 on: April 20, 2014, 03:40 »
0
According to a lot of long time contributors their old work outsells their new work. Older work was shot with low res cams, SS requirement back then was 2MP. If 2-6mp work of the old days still sells like gang busters, then the competition of 36MP files hasnt eroded sales on the old files much if I have to believe the general comments on the SS forum.

« Reply #79 on: April 20, 2014, 08:55 »
+5
"Sharpness is an illusion based on focus and quality of light".

Focus and sharpness is not the same. A photo can be in focus and not look sharp. Postprocessing can greatly improve the percieved sharpness.

Exactly.  But regarding downsizing, I do it ONLY when the images just doesn't look sharp and I need to in order to get accepted.  However, maybe I'
ll get flamed here but.......

I upload full resolution sizes from my 24MP camera even if I only make 38 cents.  Why? The amount of work I put into an image with a Nikon D100 (6mp camera) is the same as the work I put into my D7100 24 mp camera.  If I take the mentality that I spend too much on equipment and these large images are too costly to give to MS sub sites (SS) what am I going to do with them? Why shoot? My work by in large isn't good enough for high end RM/midstock sites, probably good enough for Getty but impossible to get in, so I chose micro stock.  Aren't I shooting myself in the foot if I refuse to upload to SS now that I've upgraded my camera? I have accepted that 38 cents is my high volume DL's but if I can enhance my earnings through OD and other revenue streams with larger files, I increase revenue potential.  It's my choice to upgrade my equipment but I don't upgrade then say, these are only for Getty, Offset, or Stocksy because  I'll never get in those outlets. So I am being more or less realistic with my MS business.

« Reply #80 on: April 20, 2014, 09:06 »
+4
I tend not to downsize and that is partly because I get 38c for subs - and it's not worth all the extra clicks and disc space involved in making big and small versions for different sites. I crop and size according to what I think is appropriate, if I get a focus rejection I might or might not take the trouble to downsize and upload again.

Ron

« Reply #81 on: April 20, 2014, 09:33 »
+2
In my workflow there is no extra work or space involved, all agencies get the same size

farbled

« Reply #82 on: April 20, 2014, 10:33 »
+4
Me too, very small workflow process. I take the picture, barest minimum of tweaks/crops and submit and forget. If its in, its in, if not, I wouldn't know, I rarely read the acceptance/rejection emails. On to the next one!

« Reply #83 on: April 20, 2014, 10:54 »
+2
I shoot travel images, often with tripod and on ISO 100. I used to downsize 16mp files (Nikon D7000) to 12mp. And now I downsize 36mp files (Nikon D800) to 12mp.
 
Only partly because of approval issues, mostly because I don't see the point of selling 36mp files for subscription prices. Probably for lifestyle images it doesn't really matter, but in my opinion for landscape and travel it does... The full-res files I only use in POD shops. Also 500px Prime has my full-size images, but it remains to be seen if they can sell anything at all.

stockphotoeurope

« Reply #84 on: April 20, 2014, 11:45 »
+1
You should be able to get a noise free tack sharp image at full resolution, and if you are not you need to work on your technique.

Enlighten me Barry, how do you shoot noise free at a concert when flash is not allowed?

PS: CanStockPhoto has a zoom option, dont use it, because you might find out you want to downsize some images of yours.

Very easy! Set iso 100-200-400 use tripod,fast prime lens and wait for good light than press the button and camera will do the rest.


using a tripod on a gig? ;D


Some musicians can stand very still:
http://www.neubauten.org/garden

« Reply #85 on: April 21, 2014, 08:25 »
+2
Today I'm having to downsize one because the uploader won't take a file bigger than 30 megabytes, and it won't show up after sending it via FTP.

stockphotoeurope

« Reply #86 on: April 21, 2014, 08:53 »
0
Today I'm having to downsize one because the uploader won't take a file bigger than 30 megabytes, and it won't show up after sending it via FTP.

It will. It's just taking a bit more than usual for files to show up from FTP lately.

ethan

« Reply #87 on: April 26, 2014, 15:15 »
+3
Since the new (ish) problems with reviewers at SS I now downsize all my images to around 4.5 - 4.6mb, just high enough to clear their 4mb minimum size requirement. Ever since doing so, I have had 100% acceptance on all images :)

The sad thing is (for SS customers), all the other sites get the exact same images, but they all get them at 20-25mb in size, sometimes even bigger.

I shoot RAW, NEFF files at a native 26MB (sensor size) which produce files of around 40-60 MB in TIFF format so I always bring them down a little anyway when converting to RGB JPEG.

The other sites also get my images sooner as I have to be careful as to when I upload to SS to avoid the new part-time and weekend reviewers, so I save them all up in a folder called (SS-Smaller). It's a bit of a pain, but doesn't take too long to upload them all, they're so tiny they upload on the normal web access in a matter of a few seconds.

I sometimes feel bad for the SS customers that only have access to the really small JPEGs (or upsized by SS JPEGs) but when I consider the 100% acceptance factor not to mention the measly 0.38c payback and no false rejections for focus/noise on new submissions I can live with it.

I actually see it as an SS problem more than a problem for me. They need to employ better reviewers and invest in better technology.

And I also have to say, the argument about not getting EL's etc with smaller files doesn't seem to affect my sales either, I get my fair share of EL's every month as I do from other sites too.

Like I say, I believe it's the fault of SS that their customers get 'second rate' images (in terms of image resolution), they need to pull up their A game a bit and sort out their 'new' appallingly bad and inconsistent image inspector/reviewer problem.

When or if it happens, then, and only then, will SS ever get access again to my images at the very best resolutions enjoyed by their competitors, again, I feel a bit sorry for their customers :(
« Last Edit: April 26, 2014, 15:42 by ethan »

ruxpriencdiam

    This user is banned.
  • Location. Third stone from the sun
« Reply #88 on: April 26, 2014, 19:52 »
-3
Since the new (ish) problems with reviewers at SS I now downsize all my images to around 4.5 - 4.6mb, just high enough to clear their 4mb minimum size requirement. Ever since doing so, I have had 100% acceptance on all images :)
Now this is new!

You downsize the file info, MB and not the file size MP?

When did SS start this?

ethan

« Reply #89 on: April 27, 2014, 04:29 »
0
^ By newish I mean over the last four to six weeks, that was when I noticed rejections for noise/focus - however when viewed at 100% they were all clean and tack sharp. When those same images were downsized (by up to 50% from the original size) and resubmitted they were all accepted. The dpi was not changed just the pixel dimensions.

stockphotoeurope

« Reply #90 on: April 27, 2014, 04:45 »
+1
^I think "ruxpriencdiam" is just noting that the correct unit is megapixels, not megabytes (MB).

I see this error quite often here (and everywhere).
« Last Edit: April 27, 2014, 04:56 by stockphotoeurope »

« Reply #91 on: April 27, 2014, 05:32 »
+2
I shoot 36Mp D800 RAW images in ISO100 with tripod and use high quality prime lenses. I also suffered from "out of focus" rejections for my tack sharp still images. Now I downsample to 12Mp and "out of focus" rejections are minimal as well as noise rejections. So, you will reduce "Noise" rejections as well by downsampling...


ethan

« Reply #92 on: April 27, 2014, 07:39 »
+5
I shoot 36Mp D800 RAW images in ISO100 with tripod and use high quality prime lenses. I also suffered from "out of focus" rejections for my tack sharp still images. Now I downsample to 12Mp and "out of focus" rejections are minimal as well as noise rejections. So, you will reduce "Noise" rejections as well by downsampling...

Thanks for posting this. I'm glad I'm not the only one :)

I also shoot with a tripod with prime Nikkor lenses and even use a infrared remote AND stacking focus software occasionally too :)

It's complete madness.  I belief the current situation with SS reviewers is nothing short of ridiculous.

« Reply #93 on: April 27, 2014, 12:57 »
+1
Hello,

Anyone who has had a review of a very large file that was "tack sharp" (or in their estimation, very sharp) should send a link to the original images or the batch number to the support team at
[email protected].  That creates a ticket in our system which can be tracked and resolved.  If it's been more than a round or two and you're not getting a satisfactory response, you can also escalate to me.  If a specific review was reversed, but then you experienced the issue a second time, please take the same approach.

The truth is that many complaints we see were legitimate rejections where the focus point was off (i.e., the image is back-focused) or there's motion blur, etc...   However, if there's a problem with the review process, a specific review or a specific reviewer, we want to know about it so that we can make it right.  With increased resolution, varying camera types, lenses of different quality, different post-processing methods, displays, etc..., the best way to do that is to see the original images.   If there's a policy or process improvement to make, we'll make it.


Thanks!

Scott
VP of Content
Shutterstock 


ethan

« Reply #94 on: April 27, 2014, 13:15 »
+6
Hello,

Anyone who has had a review of a very large file that was "tack sharp" (or in their estimation, very sharp) should send a link to the original images or the batch number to the support team at [email protected].  That creates a ticket in our system which can be tracked and resolved.  If it's been more than a round or two and you're not getting a satisfactory response, you can also escalate to me.  If a specific review was reversed, but then you experienced the issue a second time, please take the same approach.

The truth is that many complaints we see were legitimate rejections where the focus point was off (i.e., the image is back-focused) or there's motion blur, etc...   However, if there's a problem with the review process, a specific review or a specific reviewer, we want to know about it so that we can make it right.  With increased resolution, varying camera types, lenses of different quality, different post-processing methods, displays, etc..., the best way to do that is to see the original images.   If there's a policy or process improvement to make, we'll make it.


Thanks!

Scott
VP of Content
Shutterstock

With the greatest respect, you are the one that has a problem.

That problem is mentioned here and also on your own forum. ALthough on your own forum you fail to even respond to the concerns voiced.

I suggest you sort that too.

The last thing a public company needs to have is a 'live' issue where leading contributors are submitting 'sub-standard' files (in resolution terms) to a company as a direct result of insufficiently trained staff or an appropriate technology available to your review team.

When your subscribers learn they can get higher resolution versions of the exact same images from your competitors they will leave and cancel their subscription contracts.

The problem is not actually one for us to prove to you.

The problem is for you to solve at your end, that's where the problem lies.

Until then, as I already stated, as far as I am concerned, you'll only get my sub-standard images (in terms of resolution) as they are the only types your reviewers accept.

Ergo - you sort it.

« Reply #95 on: April 27, 2014, 13:30 »
+2
Maybe my technique is better, or maybe I'm using better glass, but I hardly ever get focus rejections, and when I do, I can almost always see what the reviewer saw.  Given how subjective the review process can be, I'm surprised I don't have more images rejected.

I shoot with a Nikon D800, and I reduce the images by 25% in each dimension (36 MP down to 19 MB).  That's plenty of resolution for most any customer, and the file sizes are a lot more manageable.  I check my images at 200%; I edit on a retina MacBook Pro, where individual pixels are so small that Photoshop CC won't show me image problems at 100%.

Maybe I'm just lucky, but I have a hard time believing that perfect images are being rejected for focus on a regular basis.  Not at Shutterstock, at any rate.

« Reply #96 on: April 27, 2014, 16:21 »
+2
I shoot 36Mp D800 RAW images in ISO100 with tripod and use high quality prime lenses. I also suffered from "out of focus" rejections for my tack sharp still images. Now I downsample to 12Mp and "out of focus" rejections are minimal as well as noise rejections. So, you will reduce "Noise" rejections as well by downsampling...

Thanks for posting this. I'm glad I'm not the only one :)

I also shoot with a tripod with prime Nikkor lenses and even use a infrared remote AND stacking focus software occasionally too :)

It's complete madness.  I belief the current situation with SS reviewers is nothing short of ridiculous.

I forgot to mention that I shoot all my photos with mirror up and shutter release delay in D800 to prevent vibration. My prime lens I mostly use is Nikon PC-E lens which allow me to shoot sharper images by tilting with wider aperture to prevent softness due to diffraction. All the RAW images processed in CaptureOne pro and reviewed in Photoshop at 200% on 24" IPS monitor.
As understood, I did my part for a sharp image by spending a lot of time on each image and I don't want to spend more to prove my images by sending tickets, mails etc. So, SS please solve the problems with the reviewers.
« Last Edit: April 28, 2014, 00:28 by max headroom »

« Reply #97 on: April 27, 2014, 16:59 »
+3
Maybe my technique is better, or maybe I'm using better glass, but I hardly ever get focus rejections, and when I do, I can almost always see what the reviewer saw.  Given how subjective the review process can be, I'm surprised I don't have more images rejected.

I shoot with a Nikon D800, and I reduce the images by 25% in each dimension (36 MP down to 19 MB).  That's plenty of resolution for most any customer, and the file sizes are a lot more manageable.  I check my images at 200%; I edit on a retina MacBook Pro, where individual pixels are so small that Photoshop CC won't show me image problems at 100%.

Maybe I'm just lucky, but I have a hard time believing that perfect images are being rejected for focus on a regular basis.  Not at Shutterstock, at any rate.

Or maybe you don't get focus rejections because you downsize?  Try submitting full size and see if you have a "problem"  it would be a good experiment.

I wonder if the problem is that the larger files take longer to load, so the "sharpness" doesn't appear until the image is fully loaded.  Reviewers, in order to make money, have to cycle through as many images as they can.  They don't wait for the image to fully load before rejecting....

ruxpriencdiam

    This user is banned.
  • Location. Third stone from the sun
« Reply #98 on: April 28, 2014, 16:57 »
0
Maybe my technique is better, or maybe I'm using better glass, but I hardly ever get focus rejections, and when I do, I can almost always see what the reviewer saw.  Given how subjective the review process can be, I'm surprised I don't have more images rejected.

I shoot with a Nikon D800, and I reduce the images by 25% in each dimension (36 MP down to 19 MB).  That's plenty of resolution for most any customer, and the file sizes are a lot more manageable.  I check my images at 200%; I edit on a retina MacBook Pro, where individual pixels are so small that Photoshop CC won't show me image problems at 100%.

Maybe I'm just lucky, but I have a hard time believing that perfect images are being rejected for focus on a regular basis.  Not at Shutterstock, at any rate.

Or maybe you don't get focus rejections because you downsize?  Try submitting full size and see if you have a "problem"  it would be a good experiment.

I wonder if the problem is that the larger files take longer to load, so the "sharpness" doesn't appear until the image is fully loaded.  Reviewers, in order to make money, have to cycle through as many images as they can.  They don't wait for the image to fully load before rejecting....
Once you load the image to SS it is already uploaded and when the reviewer clicks it it is there just the same as when you open it in PS they dont wait for anything they click zoom make the call and move on.

Ron

« Reply #99 on: April 28, 2014, 17:01 »
0
How do you know? You are just guessing.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
1 Replies
3408 Views
Last post September 19, 2007, 10:21
by w7lwi
35 Replies
14739 Views
Last post May 25, 2009, 11:09
by KB
11 Replies
4776 Views
Last post June 07, 2011, 05:50
by Gannet77
1 Replies
2350 Views
Last post March 15, 2012, 13:08
by sgoodwin4813
29 Replies
15459 Views
Last post February 24, 2014, 22:24
by MicrostockExp

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors