Author Topic: Uploading sizes (Read 3944 times)

fxegs · « **on:** December 17, 2010, 14:48 »

Recently, in other topic, some people have been discussing about downsizing their files when uploading to those agencies who works with subscription plans. I confess I have never thought about it, and I'm interested, because is frustating when you have many subscribtion sales in wich you gain $0.20-0.40 depending on the site, for files at maximum size.

Subscription sites I contribute to are:
Fotolia - min 4Mp (2400*1600)
Dreamstime - min 3Mp (2000*1500)
Canstockphotos - don't know minimum
Depositphotos - min 4Mp (2400*1600)
123RF - min 6Mp (2900*2175 aprox)
Panthermedia - doesn't matter since you have the chance to disable subscription sales.
Crestock - don't know minimum
Pixmac - min 3Mp (3000*1500)

I'm temptated to only upload files to those sites at the minimum size, but...
For example, in Dremstime, I have had 42 sales until now, many of them subscripted, others no. Of those 42, 6 (one of seven) I have sold no-subscripted and at a size large or maximum. That kind of sales produces a satisfaction, is when I see my little gains grown. And I would have lose part of this money if I have uploaded the files at the minimum size required. I even think that many of the subscription-frustrating sales could not be existed if I haven't had the maximum size of the file, and buyer could have chosen another photographer's file (and little by little, they are a strong percentage of gains).

I would like to know what do you think about this question. Someone in the other post says he upload in subscription sites at a size of 5Mp, when his camera has 17 or 18, don't remenber, and argues that downsizing also increases quality of files (in many cases it's truth that the file is better this way).

What do you do? What do you think about?

lisafx · « **Reply #1 on:** December 17, 2010, 16:58 »

Well, I seem to be the minority in this, but I can't be bothered to resize images for various sites. It makes more work for me and I don't get paid any extra for it.

In fact, uploading low-res to sub sites may cost me sales because if a buyer gets a XL from one of those sites and it turns out to be a lousy uprezzed image instead of high quality, they probably won't buy my images again.

Yes, it rankles to get those sub sales. It does and I won't deny it. But if people object so much to subscriptions that they are willing to expend their uncompensated time and energy just to give customers the lowest quality possible, maybe microstock is not the place for them?

sc · « **Reply #2 on:** December 17, 2010, 17:06 »

Quote from: lisafx on December 17, 2010, 16:58

Well, I seem to be the minority in this, but I can't be bothered to resize images for various sites. It makes more work for me and I don't get paid any extra for it.

In fact, uploading low-res to sub sites may cost me sales because if a buyer gets a XL from one of those sites and it turns out to be a lousy uprezzed image instead of high quality, they probably won't buy my images again.

Yes, it rankles to get those sub sales. It does and I won't deny it. But if people object so much to subscriptions that they are willing to expend their uncompensated time and energy just to give customers the lowest quality possible, maybe microstock is not the place for them?

+1

Fotonaut · « **Reply #3 on:** December 17, 2010, 17:17 »

Quote from: lisafx on December 17, 2010, 16:58

But if people object so much to subscriptions that they are willing to expend their uncompensated time and energy just to give customers the lowest quality possible, maybe microstock is not the place for them?

I will not spend time resizing, thus have paused uploading for the most part. I really miss iSyndica which did this automatically (among other things).

For my part, I dislike microstock subs all over. I see it as the end of (micro)stock. It’s just too cheap and too little reward. Not downsizing for it is giving away pixels for free. The lack of big size OD sales is a bummer, though. Except on iStock that get full resolution as their sub sales are virtually non existent (for me).

cathyslife · « **Reply #4 on:** December 17, 2010, 17:54 »

Quote from: lisafx on December 17, 2010, 16:58

Well, I seem to be the minority in this, but I can't be bothered to resize images for various sites. It makes more work for me and I don't get paid any extra for it.

In fact, uploading low-res to sub sites may cost me sales because if a buyer gets a XL from one of those sites and it turns out to be a lousy uprezzed image instead of high quality, they probably won't buy my images again.

Yes, it rankles to get those sub sales. It does and I won't deny it. But if people object so much to subscriptions that they are willing to expend their uncompensated time and energy just to give customers the lowest quality possible, maybe microstock is not the place for them?

+2

If I were submitting to an all-sub site, perhaps. But I still make quite a few larger size OnDemand and some EL sales on SS, so I don't want to miss out on that money, which helps make up for the pitiful sub sales.

RacePhoto · « **Reply #5 on:** December 17, 2010, 23:59 »

Quote from: lisafx on December 17, 2010, 16:58

Well, I seem to be the minority in this, but I can't be bothered to resize images for various sites. It makes more work for me and I don't get paid any extra for it.

In fact, uploading low-res to sub sites may cost me sales because if a buyer gets a XL from one of those sites and it turns out to be a lousy uprezzed image instead of high quality, they probably won't buy my images again.

Yes, it rankles to get those sub sales. It does and I won't deny it. But if people object so much to subscriptions that they are willing to expend their uncompensated time and energy just to give customers the lowest quality possible, maybe microstock is not the place for them?

+1

Maybe the vocal minority? I don't resize. I started out downsizing and found the same as you, that it wasn't worth my time and effort.

If it's big enough for Alamy, it goes there. If it's not, then it becomes Micro. The only time I may do some downsizing is if I crop and edit and want to compress pixels a little to make it more likely to get accepted.

lagereek · « **Reply #6 on:** December 18, 2010, 02:54 »

FWIW, I believe in uploading the absoloute maximum size, always! I will tell you why. All these agencies, even the subs-agencies, are slowly, slowly moving towards Macro and Im sure the day will come, not now but in a few years time, when XL/XXL-files will be a min criteria for even joining any of these agencies.

fxegs · « **Reply #7 on:** December 18, 2010, 06:59 »

Thanks to all of you

I needed to have some impressions. I always submit at maximum size and quality (yes, if I don't crop for other reasons as composition or pixel quality), but yesterday I was doubting about. Your arguments are very reasonables.

One question, RacePhoto, I'm thinking in going through Alamy... how much is 'big enough'?

mtkang · « **Reply #8 on:** December 18, 2010, 10:57 »

if one has time to reduce photo size smaller to sell in subscriptions site, why not use the time to create a better images to sell in a stock agencies as higher price?

at least in the end, you will end up as a better photographer instead of a photographer which is busy resizing images.

rubyroo · « **Reply #9 on:** December 18, 2010, 11:23 »

I don't resize anything by choice. I was asked once by an agency to downsize and resubmit an image because it was a touch too soft, but that's about it.

There's so much else to do that I completely agree with spending the saved time taking more and better photographs, and also constantly improving skills across the board.

stockastic · « **Reply #10 on:** December 18, 2010, 11:47 »

I think this idea has merit, except that as others have posted, these sleazeballs would probably just up-res the images and sell them as XL anyway.

Long term, I want to pull all my images from SS, because almost all the sales are subs. And although I sell best on IS, I expect my sales there to fade away as IS continuies herding buyers to Vetta and other premium sale. DT sells only a fraction of what SS and IS sell. So eventually, I hope to drop the Big 3 altogether and give my images only to agencies that pay a reasonable commission like Graphic Leftovers. Those sites aren't generating significant sales yet, but they're my hope for the future. I'm not giving any more images to DT, IS, or DT at this time.

sam100 · « **Reply #11 on:** December 18, 2010, 15:01 »

Quote from: lisafx on December 17, 2010, 16:58

Well, I seem to be the minority in this, but I can't be bothered to resize images for various sites. It makes more work for me and I don't get paid any extra for it.

In fact, uploading low-res to sub sites may cost me sales because if a buyer gets a XL from one of those sites and it turns out to be a lousy uprezzed image instead of high quality, they probably won't buy my images again.

Yes, it rankles to get those sub sales. It does and I won't deny it. But if people object so much to subscriptions that they are willing to expend their uncompensated time and energy just to give customers the lowest quality possible, maybe microstock is not the place for them?

+1

Fotonaut · « **Reply #12 on:** December 18, 2010, 18:53 »

With an automated process there is absolutely no extra work involved.
To suggest that choosing to downsize disqualify from microstock or that choosing to downsize will lessen photography skills is off the mark.
Downsizing for subs is a matter of efficient workflow and preference not to give away work for free.

RacePhoto · « **Reply #13 on:** December 18, 2010, 21:13 »

Quote from: fxegs on December 18, 2010, 06:59

Thanks to all of you

I needed to have some impressions. I always submit at maximum size and quality (yes, if I don't crop for other reasons as composition or pixel quality), but yesterday I was doubting about. Your arguments are very reasonables.

One question, RacePhoto, I'm thinking in going through Alamy... how much is 'big enough'?

Pretty much their standards, if I have a shot with minimal or no cropping.

* JPEG’s saved at a high quality setting (i.e. Photoshop level 10 or above).
* Alpha-numeric file names ending in .jpg.
* RGB files, not single channel greyscale or CMYK.
* Uncompressed file sizes of more than 24MB. This means you should make your JPEG file from an 8 bit TIFF file that is at least 24MB. If you have a camera that is capable of producing an uncompressed 8 bit file of over 24MB then leave it that size.

When the image is a smaller portion then say 90% of the original (just a rough number) I will still consider it for Micro. I also have a S90 which doesn't pass Alamy standards, even though it does produce a big enough image. Easiest is just figure a 10MP DSLR with good lenses and you'll get shots that pass Alamy QC.

I have 10D shots that passed, but that way three or four years ago. They claim the standards have not changed, but some people seem to think the reviews are a little more critical because the new larger format cameras just make the older one look a little softer. And the 10D shots I had to upsize to 48MB back then. Talk about pixel peeping.

Easiest thing to add is Micro and Alamy are very different buyers and markets. What I sell on Alamy won't even get accepted on Micro. Good micro producers don't necessarily make good sales on Alamy.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Uploading sizes (Read 3944 times)

fxegs

lisafx

sc

Fotonaut

cathyslife

RacePhoto

lagereek

fxegs

mtkang

rubyroo

stockastic

sam100

Fotonaut

RacePhoto

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors