MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Do you submit maximum resolution images to all sites?  (Read 8090 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: June 18, 2007, 05:05 »
0
I started with a Canon 10D (6 MP) and later a Canon 20D & 30D (8 MP).  Recently a got a Canon 400D as a light travel camera and the pro 1D MK III (both 10 MP). 

I am somewhat undecided on whether I should submit images of the full 10 MP to sites such as SS that offer subscription sales.  To give away a 10 MP image for 25 or 30c does not feel right.  Alternatively I can submit the full resolution images only to those sites that charge according to size (such as StockXpert) and submit a smaller version to the subscription sites but then how much smaller?  Two further problems with this: It will complicate my workflow and it may happen that a site that do not offer subscription sales today may decide to do so tomorrow (as was the case with Dreamstime).  What about the future?  10 MP may seem quite large today, but in a year or two that may be quite average.     

I will appreciate your thoughts on this.


« Reply #1 on: June 18, 2007, 05:48 »
0
yeah, i think there is good arguments for both sides, but I have decided to upload high res files everywhere.  It would really suck to have 5000 images online at 50% resolution only to find out that stock company X now offers varies price levels for image size.

I am not sure what advantage it is to upload low res images to shutterstock.  Those who have an account there are going to buy your pictures no matter what size it is.  I don't think too many will see that it is small then go hunting to another site to make the purchase (and pay more). If they don't like they size they would probably just someone else's image that is the size they need.

« Reply #2 on: June 18, 2007, 08:02 »
0
Forgive me if I'm wrong but my understanding was that Shutterstock interpolates our files up after submission so honestly, the argument about 25 (or 30 cents) for a large file doesn't really hold up.  I thought I read somewhere about that in their submission requirements.

I have a 16.7mp camera and an 8mp camera.  I've found that there are certain sites I HAVE to downsize images in order to get them on.  BigStock is the first one that comes to mind - they don't accept anything over 10mb in size.  Some images make it, others don't.

I only downsize when I need to - ether on an individual basis for places like BigStock or in order to create a better composition or to salvage something that wasn't 100% in focus for the same reason Leaf states.

« Reply #3 on: June 18, 2007, 08:21 »
0
SS,DT,FT: Native 8MPix or smaller if quality at max resolution is insufficient.

IS: 14.4 MB picture dimension 2750x1833 (Minimum size for Large Size) since I do not reach the next higher resolution anyways. It forces the buyer to by my L size because M is just too small.

digiology

« Reply #4 on: June 18, 2007, 09:01 »
0
I always submit the hi-res (10mp) unless like others have mentioned to "salvage the shot" and I have to hide artifacts or soft focus then I will downsize.

« Reply #5 on: June 18, 2007, 10:19 »
0
I submit hi-res files only to IS, FT, FP, StockXpert and DT. They pay more for bigger size files.
SS, BS, 123, LO get only 4mp photos. For me there's no reason to give more for less money. Another reason : with smaller files I get less rejection (noise, artifacts etc).

« Reply #6 on: June 18, 2007, 10:38 »
0
I submit max size in case they change the rules.  Fotolia never gave higher amounts for bigger photos   When they chagned, tehre were a lot of upset people who had downsized their photos and would now miss out on more $$.

« Reply #7 on: June 18, 2007, 13:10 »
0
I submit full size images to all sites.  I don't have the time or patience to adjust sizing for sites like SS.  Plus, as others have noted, you never know when a site might change their policies and suddenly decide to charge more for larger sizes.

« Reply #8 on: June 18, 2007, 14:21 »
0
I downsize to 4MP for SS and 5MP (size L) for IS.
DT, FT, and StockXpert get full sized images (17MP for me).

I've found that DT and FT will accept just about anything, but that I occasionally have to downsize to 8MP or 4MP for StockXpert. I downsize for IS only because their review time is usually about a week, and I cannot afford to wait only to have my images rejected for technical reasons. Review times at IS have dramatically shortened recently, which may prompt me to revise my methods.

Downsizing doesn't cost me much extra time - I use a photoshop action to resize and save the image after I've entered the keywords.

« Reply #9 on: June 18, 2007, 14:44 »
0
I downsize usually for SS, because there it gets most likely to get rejected because of lack of focus. At the other agency I sometimes downsize, if the quality of the image is not so good. My most used lense is not very good.

« Reply #10 on: June 18, 2007, 15:49 »
0
I'm also too lazy to downsize, so I just give 'em what I got.  However, I do upsize to meet Alamy's requirements.

« Reply #11 on: June 18, 2007, 16:32 »
0
I downsize to 4MP for SS and 5MP (size L) for IS.
What if SS brought out a minimum 5mp rule (or IS a 6mp minimum) in 18 months time and deleted all your photos.

(note. when one of the agencies, FT?, increased the size from 2mp to 4mp, old users could still upload at 2mp so I am not suggesting this will happen, just a posiblity.

« Reply #12 on: June 18, 2007, 17:13 »
0
My images are not so large - lately I had been using a Canon A620 (7MPix).  For illustrations, I create a "medium" size version (4MPix) that I upload to sites such as BigStock.  I've also done the opposite, creating "extra-large" images (>20MPix) to a few sites.

If I was a SS member, I'd probably use their limit or something close.  That's what I'll do at CS if I ever resume uploading there (I seldom sell anything other than subscription).

Regards,
Adelaide

« Reply #13 on: June 20, 2007, 03:20 »
0
I submit the maximum resolution possible to all sites. I have never understood why people downsize images at some places especially at SS. Buyers won't know the difference in sizes before downloading a photo at SS because images are interpolated A LOT, so all images display roughly the same sizes no matter what was their native resolution.

When buyers WILL know that your image was originally small is when they download a supersize 14mp image that came from a 4mp file and move to another portfolio with better quality images.


« Reply #14 on: June 20, 2007, 03:45 »
0
welcome here andresr  :D

« Reply #15 on: June 20, 2007, 04:12 »
0
Yes, welcome andresr.

I submit maximum resolution to all agencies.  I fail to see the logic of those who say "I'm not going to sell max res at SS for 30c'; I take the view that SS has the power to sell many hundreds of copies of each picture, and for that they get the best quality I can provide.

« Reply #16 on: June 20, 2007, 06:49 »
0
I downsize to 4MP for SS and 5MP (size L) for IS.
What if SS brought out a minimum 5mp rule (or IS a 6mp minimum) in 18 months time and deleted all your photos.

(note. when one of the agencies, FT?, increased the size from 2mp to 4mp, old users could still upload at 2mp so I am not suggesting this will happen, just a posiblity.
If they delete all my photos... it's a good thing. I can reupload all my images. New files sell much better. ;D


« Reply #17 on: June 20, 2007, 07:24 »
0
I have never understood why people downsize images at some places especially at SS.

In my opinion the majority of buyers on SS download photos even if they don't need them. So the size of 4 MP is not a problem. They will buy your photos anyway.
If the buyer need your picture, in 90% of case 4MP is enough. In other case, if he need a huge size picture, he can still find it on another site and you get 3$ and not 0.3$.

« Reply #18 on: June 20, 2007, 09:54 »
0
Yes, welcome andresr.

I submit maximum resolution to all agencies.  I fail to see the logic of those who say "I'm not going to sell max res at SS for 30c';

thank you hatman and Tyler :) I am happy to join you guys around here, never knew there was so much "action" in these forums.

I also don't understand that logic ..... never will I think.

« Reply #19 on: June 20, 2007, 09:58 »
0
Welcome Andres.

Looking forward to your input.

« Reply #20 on: June 20, 2007, 10:05 »
0
I have never understood why people downsize images at some places especially at SS.

In my opinion the majority of buyers on SS download photos even if they don't need them. So the size of 4 MP is not a problem. They will buy your photos anyway.
If the buyer need your picture, in 90% of case 4MP is enough. In other case, if he need a huge size picture, he can still find it on another site and you get 3$ and not 0.3$.

Thats a peculiar way of seeing it.
1. It's not a matter of buyers using or not your photos. They see them anyway and they will prefer the higher quality over the lower quality ones.
2. 90% is ok 4mp? not true ..... my vast experience at other sites will tell me that at least 25% of the buyers buy Large+ size. (6mp+)
3. Do you really think a user will go to another site to look for your image at a higher resolution? no mate, Let's be realistic if you find a buyer that wants your photo at a high res and can't find it at SS they will move on and buy another one they are there.
They are not going to search the whole microstock for your photo until they find a suitable size so it's a sale you just've lost.

Low res submissions = lower sales.
Higher Res submissions = more sales


Do you see yuri arcurs, kirsty, liv-friss, and ALL other top submitters downsizing images?


« Reply #21 on: June 20, 2007, 11:10 »
0
I have never understood why people downsize images at some places especially at SS.


In my opinion the majority of buyers on SS download photos even if they don't need them. So the size of 4 MP is not a problem. They will buy your photos anyway.
If the buyer need your picture, in 90% of case 4MP is enough. In other case, if he need a huge size picture, he can still find it on another site and you get 3$ and not 0.3$.


Thats a peculiar way of seeing it.
1. It's not a matter of buyers using or not your photos. They see them anyway and they will prefer the higher quality over the lower quality ones.
2. 90% is ok 4mp? not true ..... my vast experience at other sites will tell me that at least 25% of the buyers buy Large+ size. (6mp+)
3. Do you really think a user will go to another site to look for your image at a higher resolution? no mate, Let's be realistic if you find a buyer that wants your photo at a high res and can't find it at SS they will move on and buy another one they are there.
They are not going to search the whole microstock for your photo until they find a suitable size so it's a sale you just've lost.

Low res submissions = lower sales.
Higher Res submissions = more sales


Do you see yuri arcurs, kirsty, liv-friss, and ALL other top submitters downsizing images?



If we are talking about all these isolated strawberries and happy (18 years old) businesswomen (on white) shots you are right. There are hundreds of them.
But take a look here :
http://www.crestock.com/blog/photography/the-crestock-photography-contest-2007-57.aspx
I think that Eco (and others) can get more money if they put small size pictures on one site and huge size on another.
There's only one way to be sure, you have to downsize your photos and compare the numbers... ;)

« Reply #22 on: June 20, 2007, 14:42 »
0
well those shots for me are not microstock material ....... they are more suitable for a RM agency :)

« Reply #23 on: June 20, 2007, 17:33 »
0
Well, from first hand experience, those artist that have larger files will have  higher margins.  Our xLarge and xxLarge sell for $10 and $20- a few of these sales will quickly add up. 

We don't add the extra pixels to the largest size- instead it gets put into the extended license original size.  I've seen many of these purchases made purely for the extra pixels.

Our midstock model allows for custom pricing, so I would think your margins make up for any feeling of losing money on a smaller size.


« Reply #24 on: June 20, 2007, 19:18 »
0
It seems like extra work to create different sizes for different sites, with little to show for it. I'm only on SS and IS specifically because their business models are completely different so sales don't cannibalize each other (subscription versus pay-per-photo). Maybe if you're talking about two sites with the same business model but large discrepancies in pricing between the sizes then I could see a reason. The only other reason I can see to limit size to SS would be to eliminate noise. Otherwise, I fail to see how the extra work actually benefits the photographer.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
9 Replies
4706 Views
Last post December 11, 2009, 16:17
by KB
32 Replies
11844 Views
Last post October 27, 2012, 04:24
by jenniferhoward06
7 Replies
4564 Views
Last post August 09, 2011, 16:52
by cascoly
32 Replies
17044 Views
Last post March 02, 2014, 11:17
by Uncle Pete
2 Replies
1562 Views
Last post March 03, 2015, 14:02
by ArenaCreative

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results