MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Min. Image Size Upgrade  (Read 11909 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.



« Reply #1 on: November 24, 2010, 02:13 »
0
how about some consistent reviewers also?

« Reply #2 on: November 24, 2010, 03:00 »
0
Ahhh, s**t, I usually crop my square images to 2800 x 2800.  ::)  :'(
(= 7,84 Megapixel)


« Reply #4 on: November 24, 2010, 04:36 »
0
What kind of "allowances"?
(where's the forum on 123? I can't find it)
« Last Edit: November 24, 2010, 05:29 by ibogdan »

« Reply #5 on: November 24, 2010, 06:38 »
0
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

Why?

« Reply #6 on: November 24, 2010, 06:50 »
0
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.

Fotonaut

« Reply #7 on: November 24, 2010, 06:58 »
0
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.

+1
I downsize to 4.5 mp for sub sites.

eggshell

« Reply #8 on: November 24, 2010, 07:05 »
0
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

« Reply #9 on: November 24, 2010, 07:39 »
0
What about the images under 8mpix that are at the moment in pending? Rejected?

« Reply #10 on: November 24, 2010, 07:42 »
0
You should accept at least 6mp...

microstockphoto.co.uk

« Reply #11 on: November 24, 2010, 09:54 »
0
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

« Reply #12 on: November 24, 2010, 10:08 »
0
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.
« Last Edit: November 24, 2010, 10:17 by Perry »

« Reply #13 on: November 24, 2010, 10:17 »
0
why?

microstockphoto.co.uk

« Reply #14 on: November 24, 2010, 10:21 »
0
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

lagereek

« Reply #15 on: November 24, 2010, 10:25 »
0
May I suggest they make it 12 MPs instead, getting rid of all the riff-raff :P

microstockphoto.co.uk

« Reply #16 on: November 24, 2010, 10:34 »
0
May I suggest they make it 12 MPs instead, getting rid of all the riff-raff :P

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?
« Last Edit: November 24, 2010, 10:37 by microstockphoto.co.uk »

lagereek

« Reply #17 on: November 24, 2010, 10:38 »
0
May I suggest they make it 12 MPs instead, getting rid of all the riff-raff :P

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?
[/quote

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

microstockphoto.co.uk

« Reply #18 on: November 24, 2010, 10:44 »
0
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  ;D
« Last Edit: November 24, 2010, 10:51 by microstockphoto.co.uk »

« Reply #19 on: November 24, 2010, 11:28 »
0
I hope we get a reason why this is happening?  My highest earning photo was 2mp and as a lot of our photos end up being used on the web, 8mp is overkill.  I can't believe many buyers are asking for this and if they are, why can't they search by size?  It just looks like another excuse to slow down uploads.

« Reply #20 on: November 24, 2010, 11:46 »
0
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.  :P

WarrenPrice

« Reply #21 on: November 24, 2010, 11:48 »
0
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.  :P

"Weekendsnappers" ... is that like "Regulars?"  ::)

« Reply #22 on: November 24, 2010, 11:53 »
0
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.  ::) :P
« Last Edit: November 24, 2010, 12:15 by FD-regular »

« Reply #23 on: November 24, 2010, 12:05 »
0
"Weekendsnappers" ... is that like "Regulars?"  ::)
No worse! The regulars snap all the time but they don't sell and that's a conspiracy!  ;)

« Reply #24 on: November 24, 2010, 15:34 »
0
If they accepted 640x480, I would upload to them.   ;D


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
6 Replies
2690 Views
Last post June 09, 2008, 03:17
by chellyar
12 Replies
5039 Views
Last post July 31, 2010, 22:18
by mollypix
7 Replies
2277 Views
Last post January 06, 2011, 10:56
by ShadySue
3 Replies
3309 Views
Last post July 25, 2011, 23:08
by RacePhoto
7 Replies
1570 Views
Last post May 09, 2012, 14:20
by JPSDK

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results