Author Topic: Does size matter? (Read 3991 times)

melastmohican · « **on:** August 20, 2008, 14:22 »

I have been uploading for last 3 months. From the beginning I assumed that I am only minimal size required per site. Do bigger photos sell better?

epantha · « **Reply #1 on:** August 20, 2008, 14:23 »

I prefer to give them the largest and most artifact free size that can be produced from my cameras. I think it is best to give the buyer a choice of different sizes, the more the better.

Freezingpictures · « **Reply #2 on:** August 20, 2008, 14:28 »

Yes size matters! I have many large downloads and also quite a few downloads with XL and XXL where available. But it also depends on the subject you are selling. If I would just upload the minimum size required to every site, I guess I would loose somewhat around 30-50% of my income.

sharply_done · « **Reply #3 on:** August 20, 2008, 14:41 »

I posted this a few weeks ago in response to a similar question regarding XL and XXL image sales on IS:

Here are the numbers from the last 500 sales of 5 of my XXL images (100 sales from each image):

	DLs	Avg. Price	Earnings
XS	151	$0.25	$37.75
S	100	$0.72	$72.00
M	141	$1.18	$166.38
L	70	$2.44	$170.80
XL	22	$3.47	$76.34
XXL	16	$4.98	$79.68

These graphs show things a bit more clearly:

Although XL and XXL sales are low in volume, they together make up 26% of the total earnings of these 5 images.

melastmohican · « **Reply #4 on:** August 20, 2008, 14:43 »

Some sites upsize pictures anyway so it's just waste of bandwidth when uploading... At the moment I got two buckets:
2M - StockXpert, FP, BigStock
4M - SS, 123RF, DT, FT, IS

I could upload 4M to everyone but I do not see any value in uploading original size which is 8.3M

melastmohican · « **Reply #5 on:** August 20, 2008, 14:46 »

@sharply_done: maybe it makes sense for IS but for me it's only 50 photos accepted in 3 months and sales are almost null :-)

cdwheatley · « **Reply #6 on:** August 20, 2008, 14:54 »

XL's pay $5.00 and XXL"s pay $7.50 on StockXpert..

melastmohican · « **Reply #7 on:** August 20, 2008, 15:05 »

I might try to move StockXpert to my 4M bucket and see if it helps with sales

sharply_done · « **Reply #8 on:** August 20, 2008, 18:24 »

A word of advice: 4MP is Medium size on most sites. If you're going to downsize, you need to do your homework and do it so that you are at least uploading Large size images. You are severely handicapping your income with your current methodology.

Kngkyle · « **Reply #9 on:** August 20, 2008, 18:59 »

Always upload the highest resolution possible to pass their inspections. That's what I go by, and it makes the most sense financially.

DanP68 · « **Reply #10 on:** August 20, 2008, 22:29 »

I have never downsized an image, and my acceptance rate since I started using my 5D is north of 90%. My advice to the OP is to focus on solving the problems in camera, and upload high res images.

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #11 on:** August 20, 2008, 23:17 »

I played with downsizing early on and got stung. I think it was bigstock that changed their tiers and suddenly my larges became mediums. So I now always upload full camera resolution.

Bottom line is size does matter. Buy the biggest MP camera you can afford.

Bateleur · « **Reply #12 on:** August 21, 2008, 01:59 »

As a matter of interest, what cameras do you guys who upload XXLs use?

cdwheatley · « **Reply #13 on:** August 21, 2008, 02:41 »

Canon 1ds Mark III as of recently. Canon 5d composite files before.. If the 2 combined images increase 5d file size to 3700 pixels on the short side it will be XXL at all micro sites.

Most XXL files on microstock were probably shot with 16mp canon Mark II.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Does size matter? (Read 3991 times)

melastmohican

epantha

Freezingpictures

sharply_done

melastmohican

melastmohican

cdwheatley

melastmohican

sharply_done

Kngkyle

DanP68

PaulieWalnuts

Bateleur

cdwheatley

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors