MicrostockGroup

I have just uploaded my first files in months.  They are 8.2 megapixel images, yet the "large" option is downsized to less than 5 megapixels.  And, these images are not being offered at the larger sizes because they aren't "big" enough.  Maybe it's just me, but it seems quite a leap in sizing to go from 5 MP to 12 MP, which is what is listed as the XLarge size on LO.

Bryan, why do you resize the images?  Doesn't that affect image quality?  I know we've heard this issue here before, but I haven't seen a satisfactory answer yet.

http://www.luckyoliver.com/bank/purchase

Here is our size chart- we cut it off if it falls below a certain dimension. We've talked about lumping the rest of the remaining pixels into the largest size available, but with our extended license rollout it got put lower down the priority list.  If you offer a buyout or extended license the full size image is available.

The jump between 5mp (most cameras now) and 12 mp is quite large. There is a large pricing gap between large and both x-large for that reason.

While I'm at it, I might as well be constructive rather than merely critical.  Here's my suggestion:  Base your pricing differences on an approximate doubling of megapixels.  Most pros will tell you that it isn't worth upgrading a camera unless the resolution doubles (or the features improve substantially, which is more infrequent), so this is a reasonable pricing strategy.  I suggest you set your base price at the "large" size.  Using my suggested pricing strategy, here are the new prices:

blog:  1 token for a 1 megapixel image
small:  2 tokens for a 2 megapixel image
medium:  4 tokens for a 4 megapixel image
large:  8 tokens for a 6 to 8 megapixel image
X-large:  16 tokens for a 12-16 megapixel image
XX-large:  32 tokens for a 22 megapixel or larger image (if someone is mad enough to use medium format for microstock, this would give a decent jump for them and the client)

As for trying to fit images into the size categories, I suggest you stop resizing the images.  Instead, you round down to the next lowest size.  So, a 5 megapixel image would be priced as a medium; a 10 megapixel image would be large; etc.

He allready replied on this thread about 4 posts ago.

he is user bryan_luckyoliver

Ha! I'll reply again.  Professorgb, I like your thinking. It's worth looking at in the future.

I'll have to be honest with you though, we're in the midst of working on many new features for buyers- as well as marketing, so this might take awhile before we circle back around to the idea. I understand the desire to increase royalties per image- right now we're focused on getting more downloads.

Bryan:

I would also agree that downsizing a file at its largest size does not make much sense.  If a file is 8 or 10 MP, it just doesn't seem right to downsize it to 5 MP.  I believe that you are the only stock site that does this.  I would recommend leaving the image at its maximum size.  This would also save your servers from processing the image, and increase performance.


GeoPappas

I agree.