MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Min. Image Size Upgrade  (Read 11907 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

« Reply #25 on: November 24, 2010, 17:43 »
0
I guess this just means I'll have one less site to worry about uploading to.  I regularly downsize to 6 MP, too, plus my backup body is an old 6 MP D70, and no way am I changing my workflow just to please my second lowest earning site.

« Reply #26 on: November 24, 2010, 21:17 »
0
You should accept at least 6mp...

Hi All,

Thanks for your feedback, we've lowered the requirement to 6 MP for the foreseeable future, although the pages on the site still says 8 mp. All files that were previously accepted or is currently in the review queue will remain as they were.

Thank you very much.

Alex
for 123RF.com
« Last Edit: November 24, 2010, 21:20 by alex123rf »

« Reply #27 on: November 24, 2010, 21:38 »
0
Please lower the requirements to a minimum of 4 mpix just like before. And I'm sure it will be ok for everyone.

« Reply #28 on: November 25, 2010, 00:35 »
0
we've lowered the requirement to 6 MP for the foreseeable future
Bingo for my crystal ball.  :P
Thanks Alex.

« Reply #29 on: November 25, 2010, 00:40 »
0
Please lower the requirements to a minimum of 4 mpix just like before. And I'm sure it will be ok for everyone.
123RF has a tradition of large sizes. They had 4MP already back in 2005 when other sites still accepted 2MP. An update after 5 years is reasonable in that perspective, but 4 > 8MP was a bit steep. 6MP is fine, for a while.

« Reply #30 on: November 25, 2010, 01:33 »
0
What does the size of the camera sensor have to do with being or not a weekendsnapper?  

"Have you heard of Dr. Freud, Mr Ismay Lagereek? His studies on the male preoccupations with size might be of interest to you." - Rose (Titanic Film).  ;)


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.
« Last Edit: November 25, 2010, 01:40 by Digital66 »

lagereek

« Reply #31 on: November 25, 2010, 01:58 »
0
Yap!  Dr Freud was a big lad himself, armed with a MII  and a 1000 mil, f2.8.  No weekend-snapping there but serious intellectual snapping.

« Reply #32 on: November 25, 2010, 02:00 »
0
You should accept at least 6mp...

Hi All,

Thanks for your feedback, we've lowered the requirement to 6 MP for the foreseeable future, although the pages on the site still says 8 mp. All files that were previously accepted or is currently in the review queue will remain as they were.

Thank you very much.

Alex
for 123RF.com


Thanks, sounds like a good compromise. :) :) :)

« Reply #33 on: November 25, 2010, 09:49 »
0
Perfect news on a cold Thanksgiving morning.  Thanks Alex!!!   ;D

tupungato

  • Europe
« Reply #34 on: November 25, 2010, 10:01 »
0
That's bad. I shoot 18mpix, but quite frequently downsize to 4-5mpix. Sometimes it's necessary, to keep the good quality. For example in landmark interiors it's often not allowed to used tripods. I shoot ISO 800 with IS then, but image needs to be downsized to look good.

Please note that industry leader iStock, requires only 2mpix and Shutterstock requires 4mpix in general, but 2.5mpix for veterans.

« Reply #35 on: November 25, 2010, 11:11 »
0
I'm pleased they changed this quickly, 4mp would be better but I can live with 6mp.  Still don't see why mp requirement is increasing when print is on its way out and 2mp is enough for most web use.  What about all these small screen tablets and smart phones?  Seems a shame to lose lots of images that would be suitable for a big market.

microstockphoto.co.uk

« Reply #36 on: November 25, 2010, 11:29 »
0
Thanks for listening to feedback. Although I would have kept 4 Megapixels, 6 is fine.

lagereek

« Reply #37 on: November 26, 2010, 02:28 »
0
On a serious note. I dont mind any size upgrade, I already work with HD3, D3X and MII, so I can easlily supply shots from a 50MP digital back, no problem.

Before I do that, well,  with all PP, work, etc,  the agency in question will have to provide me with a hell of a lot more proof of selling power then what 123 have done so far.
Its no good pretending getting in among the big boys, not showing equal results.

« Reply #38 on: November 27, 2010, 20:11 »
0
I guess this just means I'll have one less site to worry about uploading to.  I regularly downsize to 6 MP, too, plus my backup body is an old 6 MP D70, and no way am I changing my workflow just to please my second lowest earning site.

Having the same backup, and giving allowance to crop - my downsize is 5.1M.
Thanks for helping making my decision!
Will wait for next payout - and out. They will not probably miss me, but fro sure - I will not miss them.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
6 Replies
2689 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
2276 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