pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Beware of uploading RAW files  (Read 7333 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: April 11, 2007, 10:57 »
0
I have contacted support for clarification but...

Over Easter I received an email from DT requesting that I upload my RAW file as an addition format due to a customer request. (I could have said no & will in the future)

I did this thinking that it would be an 8 credit sale. Lo and behold, 5 minutes after it is approved... the RAW file gets grabbed via subscription sale.

Credit to me?  A lousy $0.25 cents.

SUCKS!!!

Never again.


« Reply #1 on: April 11, 2007, 11:21 »
0
 :o    :o    :o

(As you can see I'm speechless)

red_moon_rise

« Reply #2 on: April 11, 2007, 12:10 »
0
Ridiculous. No scruples.  RAW should not be available for 25 lousy cents. It would be so easy to implement 40 Subscription DLs per RAW. I never even considered giving my RAWs to a microstock agency regardless of price.

« Reply #3 on: April 11, 2007, 17:37 »
0
Special file types should get a different treatment.  I am an oponent of 25c JPEGs already, what to say about a RAW or a vector file...  Thanks for warning us.

Regards,
Adelaide

digiology

« Reply #4 on: April 12, 2007, 01:40 »
0
I am interested to hear what support says. Please keep us updated and thanks for the heads-up.

« Reply #5 on: April 12, 2007, 01:46 »
0
I was given a request for a raw files once - but couldn't be bothered to upload it.  I am not sure what the original was downloaded at, but I think it would take at least $10.00 for me to go back and dig up the raw file and spend the time uploading it and then considering a fair price for it.  I don't think that the raw files are SO valuable as many people feel, but i would still need a bit of encouragement to be bothered to upload it.

« Reply #6 on: April 12, 2007, 01:51 »
0
Special file types should get a different treatment.  I am an oponent of 25c JPEGs already, what to say about a RAW or a vector file...  Thanks for warning us.

Even SS charges more for a tiff and they are only generated from the jpeg.  Raw should be an EL.

« Reply #7 on: April 12, 2007, 01:53 »
0
well.. sorta off topic but.  Why would shutterstock create a tiff from a jpg then sell it for more??  Doesn't that defeat the purpose - the two files are identical, why would one cost more?
« Last Edit: April 12, 2007, 01:56 by leaf »

« Reply #8 on: April 12, 2007, 05:25 »
0
Why would shutterstock create a tiff from a jpg then sell it for more??  Doesn't that defeat the purpose - the two files are identical, why would one cost more?

According to SS (from a thread when this was first implemented), this was a feature that was requested from buyers.

Many buyers purchase an image and then work on it over time.  As they open and close a JPG image, it degrades (because of the re-compression).

To avoid this, the first thing buyers will do when they download an image is convert it to a TIFF, so that opening and closing the image will not degrade it.

So this essentially saves them time from converting the image.  You can think of SS providing buyers a service (converting JPG to TIFF) that they are now charging for.

« Reply #9 on: April 12, 2007, 06:11 »
0
well.. sorta off topic but.  Why would shutterstock create a tiff from a jpg then sell it for more??  Doesn't that defeat the purpose - the two files are identical, why would one cost more?
Geopappas explained it but lots weren't convinced.  They made SS put a disclaimer that it was geneated from a JPEG as they thought it was misleading.

From a designers perspective, I guess the price is low compared to macro sites and most places pass costs onto clients anyway.

« Reply #10 on: April 12, 2007, 06:33 »
0
well.. sorta off topic but.  Why would shutterstock create a tiff from a jpg then sell it for more??  Doesn't that defeat the purpose - the two files are identical, why would one cost more?
Geopappas explained it but lots weren't convinced.  They made SS put a disclaimer that it was geneated from a JPEG as they thought it was misleading.

From a designers perspective, I guess the price is low compared to macro sites and most places pass costs onto clients anyway.

CJPhoto:

Thanks for adding that.  I had forgotten about that crucial piece.

Although I love SS, I sometimes wonder why they uprez images 100% and why they create a TIFF from a JPG.  They both seem pretty silly to me.

But if that is what the customer wants, then...

« Reply #11 on: April 12, 2007, 16:45 »
0
So this essentially saves them time from converting the image.  You can think of SS providing buyers a service (converting JPG to TIFF) that they are now charging for.
I could open a business to do this, and I'd probbaly charge much cheaper.  :)

Regards,
Adelaide

« Reply #12 on: April 12, 2007, 18:01 »
0
alamy upsizes their images too (they just have the submitter do it).  I am still in the dark why they would do it.

« Reply #13 on: April 13, 2007, 16:38 »
0
I had a request for a simplified version of one of my illustrations at featurepics I made a 12mp version set it $5 (no resizing) uploaded within an hour as they said they wanted it quickly and waited and waited.  :'(

Finally after a week I had the sale and earned me $3.50  ;D

« Reply #14 on: April 13, 2007, 16:49 »
0
Fintastique,

I also received an email from FP admin about a buyer wanting a change in colors for one illustration, I did it, also waited for days, then it sold as an EL!  :D

Regards,
Adelaide
« Last Edit: April 13, 2007, 16:56 by madelaide »


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
8 Replies
6010 Views
Last post November 18, 2006, 04:22
by khwi
3 Replies
2422 Views
Last post March 26, 2007, 04:54
by fintastique
14 Replies
6220 Views
Last post December 12, 2007, 09:48
by jorgeinthewater
11 Replies
6340 Views
Last post November 19, 2008, 02:45
by nicemonkey
17 Replies
8525 Views
Last post July 07, 2010, 09:39
by donding

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results