MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Envato Elements

Author Topic: Is megapixel important for stock stills?l  (Read 1138 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: February 23, 2019, 09:00 »
0
Hi there ,I own a panasonic g85 and couple panasonic lenses (12-35 and 35-100).I started to upload some photos and videos to istockphoto .As you may now my camera is 16mp , and I want to ask is megapixels so important in stock photography? Do I need to change my camera to a newer one with more megapixes? (forexample a7riii or a7iii).
Thanks ...


« Reply #1 on: February 23, 2019, 09:20 »
0
A lot will say that they still sell old 4mpx in huge quantities, that most photos are downloaded for web use.
But consider two other sides:
- You might be missing on sales for other uses, large prints and such.
- With more mpx body you have more ability to crop and more importantly you have more room for downsizing not so perfect photos to mask out the imperfections which will enable you to shoot more relaxed, not to worry much about ISO, tripod, heavy post etc and include photos that otherwise you would discard for lack of technical quality.

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #2 on: February 23, 2019, 10:58 »
+4
Say you buy a Sony for $2,000 or so, how much more money will you make with that, in how long, to pay back for having more pixels? How long does it take to make the same money, plus the $2,000 and start making more money than just sticking with what you have?

18MP is no tiny camera, there's plenty of room to crop. Many people actually downsize for Microstock, 6-8MP, and do just fine. Because it is Microstock. If you are selling bigger photos and big use places, by all means, get the newer bigger, better camera.

If only Microstock, the question should be, is the investment going to make you enough more money to pay for the camera and how long will that take. Or maybe make the money first and learn, then buy a newer better camera?

Owning a better camera or more lenses or something that shoots more megapixels will not promise you, that you'll make any more money.

« Reply #3 on: February 23, 2019, 12:14 »
0
I totaly get both of you ,thanks for your commets @Uncle Pete and @qunamax.Do you think in long term will more megapixels worth to try  or just travel more with that money and use the same equipment ?  By the way I have only one account in istock exclusive photography and video ,I dont know if this is called microstock.

« Reply #4 on: February 23, 2019, 12:25 »
0
I am a beginner at Microstock and currently I also work with 16MP and MFT. Later I would like to switch to full format. I've heard with 45MP there are no more downloads than with 25MP at Microstock. But you would earn more with higher resolution. Is that right?

« Reply #5 on: February 23, 2019, 12:34 »
0
All things being equal the higher MP would be better, but all things aren't equal. I think the photo and keywords and where they show up in search are more important than the megapixels. If you make few sales with lower sized images it is unlikely you will make a lot with a bigger sensor.

There are advantages to newer and better cameras and lenses and other toys. I'm not sure that actually making more $ in this business is one of them. I have not noticed any increase in sales with better cameras - that might be more in the nature of the decline in microstock over the same time period. Moving from a point and shoot to a dslr made it a lot easier to get images accepted. Moving from a 10 mp to a 16 mp made much less difference as did moving up to a FF. In my experience there are very few sites where there are a lot more large size big $ downloads. Most of the large size downloads are subs and make no more $.

« Reply #6 on: February 23, 2019, 13:06 »
0
Interesting. I normally use 12mpx but I guess more than 24mpx is just exaggeration.

About this, I have had some rejected photos (specially in Adobe) and you are saying it would be a good idea to reduce the megapixels in order to reduce imperfections and avoid technical difficulties. How do you that in Lightroom? I would like to give it a try. For example reducing from 12 to 8 mpx in order to enhance quality.

Thank you.

Enviado desde mi ALP-L29 mediante Tapatalk


« Reply #7 on: February 23, 2019, 16:32 »
0
Interesting. I normally use 12mpx but I guess more than 24mpx is just exaggeration.

About this, I have had some rejected photos (specially in Adobe) and you are saying it would be a good idea to reduce the megapixels in order to reduce imperfections and avoid technical difficulties. How do you that in Lightroom? I would like to give it a try. For example reducing from 12 to 8 mpx in order to enhance quality.

Thank you.


Enviado desde mi ALP-L29 mediante Tapatalk

In the Export window you have a Resize section. Or you can do it in Photoshop - Image - Resize - Best for reduction option.

« Reply #8 on: February 23, 2019, 16:35 »
0
Interesting. I normally use 12mpx but I guess more than 24mpx is just exaggeration.

About this, I have had some rejected photos (specially in Adobe) and you are saying it would be a good idea to reduce the megapixels in order to reduce imperfections and avoid technical difficulties. How do you that in Lightroom? I would like to give it a try. For example reducing from 12 to 8 mpx in order to enhance quality.

Thank you.


Enviado desde mi ALP-L29 mediante Tapatalk

In the Export window you have a Resize section. Or you can do it in Photoshop - Image - Resize - Best for reduction option.
Thanks

« Reply #9 on: February 23, 2019, 18:10 »
+5
Without knowing what sort of work you do, I would suggest that there'd be other things to spend any spare cash on that might help you more than a camera with a higher number of pixels. Good (off camera) lighting and lighting modifiers, for example.

If you find you can sell a decent volume of work using your existing equipment, you might then consider upgrading your gear. If you're not selling, I very much doubt the issue is your 16mp camera. I'd also suggest that you upload to other agencies as iStock probably isn't a good place (these days) to test your ability to produce saleable stock.

« Reply #10 on: February 24, 2019, 10:51 »
0
Without knowing what sort of work you do, I would suggest that there'd be other things to spend any spare cash on that might help you more than a camera with a higher number of pixels. Good (off camera) lighting and lighting modifiers, for example.

If you find you can sell a decent volume of work using your existing equipment, you might then consider upgrading your gear. If you're not selling, I very much doubt the issue is your 16mp camera. I'd also suggest that you upload to other agencies as iStock probably isn't a good place (these days) to test your ability to produce saleable stock.
Thanks for your answer.I'm mostly shooting outdoors and travel photos .I guess Lighting equipments is not for me.And last year I had earned half of my equipment's price.I was just thinking ,even if I had used a newer camera last year ,would my earnings be better?
Thanks for you answers.

« Reply #11 on: February 27, 2019, 00:56 »
0
I have to supply pictures large enough to be able to print a double spread at 300dpi - about 65mb.

Sent from my Presto using Tapatalk


« Reply #12 on: February 27, 2019, 01:21 »
0
Hi there ,I own a panasonic g85 and couple panasonic lenses (12-35 and 35-100).I started to upload some photos and videos to istockphoto .As you may now my camera is 16mp , and I want to ask is megapixels so important in stock photography? Do I need to change my camera to a newer one with more megapixes? (forexample a7riii or a7iii).
Thanks ...

Years and years ago when iStock was easily the most successful stock agency they offered pictures in various sizes - from small to medium, to large, extra large etc.  The largest size was XXL and equated to about 21mp.  Sometimes they skewed the search to place an emphasis on those images available at the largest sizes.  This caused many photographers to want to upgrade equipment to at least 21mp (and why the Canon 5Dii was such a big seller).

However life has changed a lot since those days, with the largest share of the buyers market being for electronic delivery (web pages) where such large sizes are simply not necessary.  As web pages change daily what those buyers want is a huge supply of attractive and relevant images but they only need sizes for their web designs.  Yes there is still a market for printed media, billboards, company reports etc but those markets are dwindling.  The newest market is cellphones of course and an increasing need for images just to display on phones and tablets.

So I don't think size matters any more.  And to show how relevant this is, iStock took away their various size options and now offer only a one size download.

If you are an ad agency photographer shooting fashion, advertising etc for the big corporations, then it's still important to deliver maximum size and quality.  But for basic stock photography anything in the 24-36mp area is certainly large enough.  And frankly most high quality starter cameras now come at 24mp.

« Reply #13 on: February 27, 2019, 16:37 »
0
Hi there ,I own a panasonic g85 and couple panasonic lenses (12-35 and 35-100).I started to upload some photos and videos to istockphoto .As you may now my camera is 16mp , and I want to ask is megapixels so important in stock photography? Do I need to change my camera to a newer one with more megapixes? (forexample a7riii or a7iii).
Thanks ...

Years and years ago when iStock was easily the most successful stock agency they offered pictures in various sizes - from small to medium, to large, extra large etc.  The largest size was XXL and equated to about 21mp.  Sometimes they skewed the search to place an emphasis on those images available at the largest sizes.  This caused many photographers to want to upgrade equipment to at least 21mp (and why the Canon 5Dii was such a big seller).

However life has changed a lot since those days, with the largest share of the buyers market being for electronic delivery (web pages) where such large sizes are simply not necessary.  As web pages change daily what those buyers want is a huge supply of attractive and relevant images but they only need sizes for their web designs.  Yes there is still a market for printed media, billboards, company reports etc but those markets are dwindling.  The newest market is cellphones of course and an increasing need for images just to display on phones and tablets.

So I don't think size matters any more.  And to show how relevant this is, iStock took away their various size options and now offer only a one size download.

If you are an ad agency photographer shooting fashion, advertising etc for the big corporations, then it's still important to deliver maximum size and quality.  But for basic stock photography anything in the 24-36mp area is certainly large enough.  And frankly most high quality starter cameras now come at 24mp.
Thanks for your answer.Mine is 16mp ,and in istockphoto my photos are only XL  ,that's why I was thinking a higher mp camera.But I totally get you ,nowadays higher mp is not so necessary like in the past.

« Reply #14 on: February 27, 2019, 19:51 »
+1
Size only matters in porno. In Stock average to small size is just fine.

Envato ElementsMicrostock Insider

 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
22 Replies
6256 Views
Last post July 02, 2009, 01:56
by Jonathan Ross
10 Replies
3500 Views
Last post May 19, 2011, 19:07
by luissantos84
10 Replies
4157 Views
Last post May 29, 2011, 11:25
by Giuseppe Parisi
8 Replies
4437 Views
Last post March 16, 2012, 07:33
by digitalexpressionimages
10 Replies
1580 Views
Last post June 20, 2013, 07:27
by Daniel Dash

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

Envato Elements