MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: are small images likely to be ignored?  (Read 12428 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: February 16, 2008, 19:03 »
0
My camera output 4mp images, so I wonder if anyone can tell that images done with low resolution camera are likely to be ignored by buyers and most likely go for higher resolution alternatives? The reason I'm asking is that although IStock and DT already accepted my photographs I've got bunch of rejections because of noise and artifacting especially on IS as they seems to be very picky to even those photographs which are good for DT.

So I wonder if pictures downsized to 1600x1200 which is minimal resolution right now on both sites,  have any chances to compete with the rest or most likely to be ignored?

As downsizing seems to be the only good option for me right now, as it let me get rid some of JPEG artifacts originally left by camera compression.


« Reply #1 on: February 16, 2008, 20:49 »
0
Well , I guess you are certainly having hard time shooting stock with 4mp camera , especially If you are using point and shot and shooting jpeg. You have to loose too much time processing your photos , dealing with noise problems etc.

Few years ago , you would be fine , but standards are much higher now and its hard to push photos to picky sites.

I don't know about others , but most of my work that sells is at least 6 mp and up. I do sell low res and they make probably about 20% or so , of all my sells , but on most sites such sell brings you few times less than higher resolution downloads.



« Reply #2 on: February 16, 2008, 20:57 »
0
Thanks for response, Lizard!
Indeed I'm having P&S camera with good zoom 12x it's Dimage Z3.
Would you mind to tell where such photographs are sold better or there are no real difference?

« Reply #3 on: February 17, 2008, 00:13 »
0
Thanks for response, Lizard!
Indeed I'm having P&S camera with good zoom 12x it's Dimage Z3.
Would you mind to tell where such photographs are sold better or there are no real difference?


Hm , I think I noticed that maybe on Fotolia Im getting quite a few XS downloads , and they are not uncommon on IS too , but I think there is not some noticeable difference between the sites.





« Reply #4 on: February 17, 2008, 04:45 »
0
Thanks! Too bad that Fotolia wouldn't accept my images as they have to be a 2400x1600 in time when my camera output 2272 x 1704. So guess I'll try to give more priority to IS.

« Reply #5 on: February 17, 2008, 05:18 »
0
It is worth buying a camera with more mp's, a 6mp slr is the minimum I would use.  You make more from the higher prices and less are going to be rejected.  If you are good, the camera will soon pay for itself.

« Reply #6 on: February 17, 2008, 05:32 »
0
Quote
It is worth buying a camera with more mp's, a 6mp slr is the minimum I would use. 

Thanks sharpshot, that's my main reason of participating on stocks, to accumulate cash for upgrading my camera to dSLR, as they are expensive here especially comparing to salaries and I can't afford one right now.

Quote
You make more from the higher prices and less are going to be rejected.

yeah, I'm realizing this but hoped that temporarily I could use downsizing to get less noise and artifacts.

Quote
If you are good, the camera will soon pay for itself.

I'm not sure in this, many people like photos I'm doing but they are mostly my friends and it's not good for measuring how good I'm in stock photography. Here some photos I've already upload to PS and DT and I'm not sure they got big selling potential especially considering that they have smaller resolution than the most photographs on stocks.

michealo

« Reply #7 on: February 17, 2008, 09:19 »
0
Maybe another Kiva loan situation .. ? ..

« Reply #8 on: February 17, 2008, 09:28 »
0
Maybe another Kiva loan situation .. ? ..
actually I've already got loan to pay to local bank :P I'm not familiar with Kiva loans but guess they wouldn't issue it as I don't have regular job with fixed payments, I'm freelancer right now and income depends from amount of orders.

« Reply #9 on: February 17, 2008, 16:01 »
0
Denis,

The 4MPix is not a hindrance, it is only a limitation.  As said, you are likely to have more noise, perhaps less sharpness and more chromatic aberration (depending on your camera), and less room for cropping.  So you're likely to have more rejections with your current P&S or compact camera than you would with a DSLR.  If you can hold your frustration and try to focus on being original and working with good light (to minimize noise), you can produce some reasonable shots.

One more thing: I believe there is room for some local subjects (you're in Ukraine, is it?).  I have a series of images I shot with three currencies (USD, EUR and Brazilian Reals) and the latter has been the more successful of the three.  I even produce a new set only with Brazilian Reals and they are doing well (for my standards).  So maybe this is a niche you can try to fulfill: money, financial subject in general, street signs.

Just for the records, I uploaded an image to FT the other day, 1704x2272, so 3.87MPix. 

And off the records, it was in fact a 3.15MPix original.   ::)

Regards,
Adelaide

« Reply #10 on: February 17, 2008, 16:15 »
0
Denis,

The 4MPix is not a hindrance, it is only a limitation.  As said, you are likely to have more noise, perhaps less sharpness and more chromatic aberration (depending on your camera), and less room for cropping.  So you're likely to have more rejections with your current P&S or compact camera than you would with a DSLR.
chromatic abberations isn't an issue, this was one of the main factors in choosing camera as it's really annoying for me, and Z3 is good in producing chromatic free photos.

Quote
If you can hold your frustration and try to focus on being original and working with good light (to minimize noise), you can produce some reasonable shots.
that's the only thing I could do now, I should concentrate on strong sides of my equipment and use it to extent.
The reason I'm posting such questions is that I didn't get any sales and not sure if would so trying to check all factors.

Quote
One more thing: I believe there is room for some local subjects (you're in Ukraine, is it?). 
I have a series of images I shot with three currencies (USD, EUR and Brazilian Reals) and the latter has been the more successful of the three.  I even produce a new set only with Brazilian Reals and they are doing well (for my standards).  So maybe this is a niche you can try to fulfill: money, financial subject in general, street signs.
Thanks for suggestion but I'm afraid that it couldn't be done, as from what I remember it's illegal to make such photographs(I could be wrong, should try to check it somewhere) and if it's truth of course it's illegal to sell them.

Quote
Just for the records, I uploaded an image to FT the other day, 1704x2272, so 3.87MPix. 
Do you remember how long it was? As from what I understand 2400x1600 enforcement appeared just recently.

Quote
And off the records, it was in fact a 3.15MPix original.   ::)
not sure what to say  ::) as if I upsize some of my pictures they would look really blurry at best. Anyway I guess that need to upload some photo to FT regardless resolution and see if they reject it or not.

« Reply #11 on: February 17, 2008, 17:20 »
0
The reason I'm posting such questions is that I didn't get any sales and not sure if would so trying to check all factors.


Most of my sales in IS and FT are small sizes (XS, S, M), in StockXpert M is more common, in DT is mixed.

Thanks for suggestion but I'm afraid that it couldn't be done, as from what I remember it's illegal to make such photographs(I could be wrong, should try to check it somewhere) and if it's truth of course it's illegal to sell them.

What is normally lllegal (correct me anyone if I'm wrong), is photographing a banknote in a way it can be misused.  If the banknote appears cropped in the image or partially blurred by shallow DOF, you can use it.  Hmm, there was a link to a site in which such information is available, isn't there?

Quote
Just for the records, I uploaded an image to FT the other day, 1704x2272, so 3.87MPix. 

Do you remember how long it was? As from what I understand 2400x1600 enforcement appeared just recently.

Yesterday.  ;D

Quote
And off the records, it was in fact a 3.15MPix original.   ::)

not sure what to say  ::) as if I upsize some of my pictures they would look really blurry at best. Anyway I guess that need to upload some photo to FT regardless resolution and see if they reject it or not.

If the original is sharp and depending on the image, 10% in each side is really nothing.  This is the image:
http://us.fotolia.com/id/6248694
Also this one, originally a 7.1Mpix, but slightly upsized to fit the XL minimum size:
http://us.fotolia.com/id/6152417
(and yet IS rejected the original size for overprocessing - good Lord, I almost did not touch this image!).

Regards,
Adelaide

« Reply #12 on: February 17, 2008, 18:07 »
0
Another option is to take two or more photos and join them together.  I sometimes do this in photoshop but it can be done with free image editing software.  This can turn a 4mp camera in to whatever you want it to be.

This 27mp photo was taken with a 6mp camera.

http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-2082834-teamwork-in-colored-pebbles-on-an-isolated-white-background.html

« Reply #13 on: February 17, 2008, 19:53 »
0
Most of my sales in IS and FT are small sizes (XS, S, M), in StockXpert M is more common, in DT is mixed.

thanks for info, it's what I'm looking for, just wish to figure out if there any preferences from users of particular stock.

Quote
What is normally lllegal (correct me anyone if I'm wrong), is photographing a banknote in a way it can be misused.  If the banknote appears cropped in the image or partially blurred by shallow DOF, you can use it.  Hmm, there was a link to a site in which such information is available, isn't there?

Not sure which site you're talking but I'm afraid that it may be not relevant to our laws, as we have some weird or stupid laws which actually slowing development of our country...(I'm not talking about images of money). And regarding money, if I remember well any reproduction of national currency is forbidden, not sure where to check it out yet, should do some searching I guess.

Quote
If the original is sharp and depending on the image, 10% in each side is really nothing.  This is the image:
http://us.fotolia.com/id/6248694

very nice photo! wonder where it was taken?

Quote
Also this one, originally a 7.1Mpix, but slightly upsized to fit the XL minimum size:
http://us.fotolia.com/id/6152417
(and yet IS rejected the original size for overprocessing - good Lord, I almost did not touch this image!).

great shot and beautiful Chrysanthemums! did you grow them yourself?(asking because gardening is my second hobby and most things I'm photographying is grown by me and my wife).

Another option is to take two or more photos and join them together.  I sometimes do this in photoshop but it can be done with free image editing software.  This can turn a 4mp camera in to whatever you want it to be.

This 27mp photo was taken with a 6mp camera.

http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-2082834-teamwork-in-colored-pebbles-on-an-isolated-white-background.html

thanks for suggestion Sharpshot! You've did good job with stitching those elements together in one picture. I'm going to use this technique when it would be possible but right now I can't find a good way to use it for closeups which is the only kind of photography I can do right now(don't have time to go out of home).

« Reply #14 on: February 17, 2008, 20:48 »
0
Denis,

This is the link I was talking about:
Banknotes & Counterfeit Deterrence

But I don't see Ukraine there.  Maybe if you look in the Russian version? 

Although we have some flower pots, we don't grow big plants here (we live in an apartment). The chrystantemuns were bought (hmmm, when was that, Mother's Day?).

The dry lake bed was taken in Namibia.

Regards,
Adelaide

« Reply #15 on: February 18, 2008, 05:11 »
0
Denis,

This is the link I was talking about:
Banknotes & Counterfeit Deterrence

But I don't see Ukraine there.  Maybe if you look in the Russian version? 

I've checked it out and we're not existent there :) But thanks for resource, as it have good info I was looking for about USD and EUR, so if I got them in my hands some day I'll know what way they could be photographed.


Quote
Although we have some flower pots, we don't grow big plants here (we live in an apartment). The chrystantemuns were bought (hmmm, when was that, Mother's Day?).

they still look great, and as for growing in pots we have all free space consumed by pots :)

Quote
The dry lake bed was taken in Namibia.

so it was seasonal dry out?

« Reply #16 on: March 01, 2008, 15:14 »
0
Photographing bank notes, government documents, government or military buildings, airports, railway stations etc. is generally illegal in most countries, including Russia and USA. Especially now with "war against terrorism" you could run into serious trouble.

Btw. photograph of bank note is for copyright law the same as photographing someone elses photo so it should be baned anyway. Wonder why so copyright/logo/trademark picky stock agencies easily accept bank notes, coins or map photographs which are all covered by copyright?!

« Reply #17 on: March 05, 2008, 22:00 »
0
Great topic, I've always this wondered myself.  I'm just like you...saving everything I'm earning from stock to put towards a DSLR.  I'm getting decent sales selling almost everything at 3.9 mp through Dreamstime.  It's good by my point of view, since I only got into stock photography in mid-December.  I've got a good camera, but I'm craving more.  You have some great stuff in your portfolio, just stick with it and eventually you'll have some people buying your work.

« Reply #18 on: March 05, 2008, 22:24 »
0
Great topic, I've always this wondered myself.  I'm just like you...saving everything I'm earning from stock to put towards a DSLR. 
It's nice to hear that I'm not alone on saving for dSLR on stocks, as it's look like that most successful photographers got either dSLR or at least decent cameras with good resolution :)

Quote
I'm getting decent sales selling almost everything at 3.9 mp through Dreamstime.
good job, you've got some nice shots in gallery so no wonder they was bought so quickly.

Quote
It's good by my point of view, since I only got into stock photography in mid-December.
indeed, it's seems like a good result to me, I've came into stock photography last month and submit few images when had free time, but my only downloads happen on iStock, I still awaiting for my first download on DT as right now it got biggest collection of my photos.

Quote
I've got a good camera, but I'm craving more.
can't complain that my camera is bad, I like it a lot and it suits perfectly to what I'm photographing for myself, it's quality just marginally enough for stocks, but not for me.

Quote
You have some great stuff in your portfolio, just stick with it and eventually you'll have some people buying your work.
thanks for compliment! wish that buyers would think alike and I got some sales finally ;)

« Reply #19 on: March 05, 2008, 22:27 »
0
basti, sorry I've somehow missed notification of your reply and spot it only once I've posted reply to topic.
I have no idea why stocks have other regulations as I've also heard the same things you're telling about currencies.
But Europe seems always have not as strict custom and some other rules as xUSSR, so maybe same thing apply to banknotes...
Not sure why stocks are closing eyes for money photographs probably editors may be not well instructed about this matter or it's really legitimate, have no idea :P

« Reply #20 on: March 06, 2008, 02:00 »
0
Banknotes aren't copyright for photography puposes, but they are covered for reproduction under anti-conterfeit, terrorism and money laundering laws.

The basis rule is that a banknote should note be photographed or photocopied in its entirety or as a complete 'flat copy'.  Such a reproduction could assist counterfeiting.

You can submit as many banknote photographs to the microstock agencies as you wish so long as the entire notes are not visible.

The exception is the Malaysian Ringgit, which may not be reproduced in any form.

Similar laws apply to postage stamps, which can be photographed and reproduced so long as they have been franked.

« Reply #21 on: March 06, 2008, 02:18 »
0
Banknotes aren't copyright for photography puposes, but they are covered for reproduction under anti-conterfeit, terrorism and money laundering laws.

The basis rule is that a banknote should note be photographed or photocopied in its entirety or as a complete 'flat copy'.  Such a reproduction could assist counterfeiting.

You can submit as many banknote photographs to the microstock agencies as you wish so long as the entire notes are not visible.

The exception is the Malaysian Ringgit, which may not be reproduced in any form.

Similar laws apply to postage stamps, which can be photographed and reproduced so long as they have been franked.

I've always wondered though why you don't need a model release / property release for the engraving of the Queens head on the back of the pound coin.

« Reply #22 on: March 06, 2008, 09:14 »
0
One thing you can do to your images to get them a little bigger without upsizing the image is to add more to them.  This is especially easy for isolation shots, make your canvas a bit bigger to get over the threshold and add some more white. 

You can do the same with a pure blue sky (like the comp critique shot that I did for you), you just have to use the clone stamp.  Do the vertical dimension (the top) first because you'll want to remove any vignetting (it would look weird) before expanding in the horizontal dimension (not too many apps, but I just had one so they do exist, it was a shot that I thought would be perfect with a square comp, without cropping however, so I just added.  It is selling well at SS so I'm happy with the results).  You'll need to carefully clone when you expand horizontally because of the natural gradient of the sky.

The last way that I know of to make a shot bigger is to take multiple shots and let a panoramic stitching program assemble them.  Some programs can stitch in 2 dimensions automatically (autostitch comes to mind, the free version can only use .jpegs, but it really embarrasses Canon's and Adobe's stitching programs in performance).  Even if the quality isn't superb of the final product (.jpeg jaggies, though it can save at 12 quality), if you are stitching lots of photos together (overlap, overlap, overlap is the key) you can severely downsize in either Gimp or PS to eliminate the jaggies.  On my first try it assembled a 29 shot pano no problem for me (somewhat bad input files too, handheld with varying WB and exposure, perfect assembly though, completely seamless), the resulting file is absolutely ridiculous (60 mb .jpeg), but it is one heck of a cool panoramic.  Even with a 4 mp camera, if you do a 3x3 pano (9 shot) with good overlap and a little downsizing, you should be able to submit files that are just as big as those taken with a 12 mp camera without a problem.

All these methods are more work, but they'll get you closer to actually purchasing a high MP camera so you don't have to do them.

« Reply #23 on: March 06, 2008, 09:16 »
0
iStock will refuse files that have had extra white added to images.  They refuse files that are larger than your camera is able to shoot, unless it's clearly been stitched together or multiple views in one file etc - but you should put a note to the reviewer in that case.

One thing you can do to your images to get them a little bigger without upsizing the image is to add more to them.  This is especially easy for isolation shots, make your canvas a bit bigger to get over the threshold and add some more white. 


« Reply #24 on: March 06, 2008, 09:26 »
0
FT doesn't though, that is where the issue is arising for him.  Would they reject for extra sky?  It is a technique that I like to do on occasion, especially with a minimal diagonal comp, where I get as much of the object in the frame knowing that I am going to expand the sky in PP to get the final comp right.  Might as well add to instead of taking away from images if you can, especially since the final product will be better (higher resolution).


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
0 Replies
2865 Views
Last post March 11, 2007, 19:45
by mangia
10 Replies
3360 Views
Last post January 16, 2008, 20:12
by a.k.a.-tom
22 Replies
8246 Views
Last post April 23, 2008, 02:33
by .shock
1 Replies
2328 Views
Last post March 26, 2008, 11:21
by jsnover
3 Replies
746 Views
Last post September 13, 2019, 05:46
by gillian vann

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results