Ahhh, s**t, I usually crop my square images to 2800 x 2800.   
(= 7,84 Megapixel)

What kind of "allowances"?
(where's the forum on 123? I can't find it)

This will stop me uploading to 123rf.  8mp is far too big, I crop or downsize to 6mp a lot of the time and I have seen some of them printed on big posters.

I wish sites would consult us before making changes like this.  I would only be interested if we received more money, subs buyers can get full size images and most of the time I don't want to sell 8mp for less than $1.

Dear Contributors,

Kindly take note that 123RF will no longer accept images below 8 MP as of today.

Thank you very much.

Alex
for 123RF.com

Good night and good luck

You should accept at least 6mp...

I guess more and more pictures are being used on the web - where 320x240 is often enough - instead of press, so the new limit doesn't make a lot of sense in my opinion

+1

I think a better move would to establish a crappystock category where the minimum size would be something like 640*400
(I have lots of great shots that are too soft for stock but are very artistic and look good and would be good enough for web size images. And web size images seem to cover 80% of the uses nowdays...)

Remember, this isn't just a question of numbers, 8mpix enables reviewers to nitpick your images even more for artefacts and sharpess. This is a difficult dilemma; cameras aren't good enought for micros: I sometimes get rejections with my 5DmkII (100ISO, histogram to the right) for noise) if I submit a full size image. And now they are telling not even downsample much. Micro world is crazy... They are really trying to ban "real world" photography (ISO 400, large apertures etc.) and make photographers to jump trough the hoops to make their images as bland as possible (but hey - no noise!)

I didn't think 123rf's problem were too small image sizes... It's their sales/marketing departments who suck.

I'm going to ignore this stupid question of minumum size and continue to do things my way (my minimum size is 4mpix that is enought for most micros), I'll just dump all my image batches to 123rf, and it's up to them to sort them by the size.

I'll just dump all my image batches to 123rf, and it's up to them to sort them by the size.

Yes, of course - the IS/Deepmeta thing is enough hassle for me already, no need to create a special workflow just for 123RF

May I suggest they make it 12 MPs instead, getting rid of all the riff-raff

Nice provocation... but most new cameras are 12 MP+ nowadays, so that won't cut out the competition: it would only cut any headroom for adjustments. Is it better a slightly lower resolution but perfectly sharp and aligned picture, or a 12 MP full of noise, tilted horizons, bad cropping and soft?

Oh alright then, make it 20 MP, just as long as we get rid of the weekendsnappers.

Ok, you won - with 20 MP you got rid of me as well
But what about making it retroactive? D3, D700 

Oh alright then, make it 20 MP, just as long as we get rid of the weekendsnappers.

I use my 5DII only on weekends. Just make it 22MP to be sure. 

8mp is far too big, I crop or downsize to 6mp a lot of the time and I have seen some of them printed on big posters.

I agree 8MP is far too big for a site that sells subs. Subs sites get my standard 6MP and not more. It's also not industry compliant. They will miss a lot this way.
Edit: I looked in my crystal ball (mode microstock on) and it said that Alex will announce that, after ample discussions with the 12345-owners and reporting mostly negative opinions from 0.00001% of the contributors, it was decided that the minimal size will be 5.99999MP, with some tolerance, of course. 

If they accepted 640x480, I would upload to them.