Author Topic: Downsizing Images for Certain Agencies (Read 5651 times)

stock_fan · « **on:** April 27, 2009, 22:25 »

Do you downsize images for certain agencies? Which ones?

Currently I submit all images full-res to all stock agencies.

However, I read that some people here downsize to 4MP for SS?
Does this make sense?
Does it reduce OD sale potential on SS?
Does it lead to improved sales on other agencies?

Thanks.

sharply_done · « **Reply #1 on:** April 28, 2009, 00:41 »

SS automatically upsizes images 4X. This means a 4MP images is upsized to 16MP, and you aren't losing any sales because your image is too small. There are two benefits to downsizing: technical flaws are minimized (which may help borderline images get approved), and upload time is reduced.

rene · « **Reply #2 on:** April 28, 2009, 03:11 »

Quote from: stock_fan on April 27, 2009, 22:25

Do you downsize images for certain agencies? Which ones?

Yes, to all agencies with unlimited subscriptions size : DT and SS. I've stoped uploading to 123rf and opted out at StockXpert. I downsize to 4-5MP.

Quote from: stock_fan on April 27, 2009, 22:25

Does this make sense?

For me it doesn't make sense to sell 24MP for $0.35. I prefer to support sites that pay me much, much more.

Quote from: stock_fan on April 27, 2009, 22:25

Does it reduce OD sale potential on SS?

Not sure but I don't think so.

Quote from: stock_fan on April 27, 2009, 22:25

Does it lead to improved sales on other agencies?

Maybe. IS rocks for me.

donnelt · « **Reply #3 on:** April 28, 2009, 03:26 »

Quote from: sharply_done on April 28, 2009, 00:41

SS automatically upsizes images 4X. This means a 4MP images is upsized to 16MP, and you aren't losing any sales because your image is too small. There are two benefits to downsizing: technical flaws are minimized (which may help borderline images get approved), and upload time is reduced.

Hmmm.. quite where they get all the missing information from to up-size 4x is one of the great mysteries of information theory.

stock_fan · « **Reply #4 on:** April 28, 2009, 04:36 »

Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this one!

donnelt · « **Reply #5 on:** April 28, 2009, 04:42 »

If you downsize using (say) Photoshop's bicubic interpolation, you may wish to sharpen afterward to reduce any moire effect.

null · « **Reply #6 on:** April 28, 2009, 06:42 »

Quote from: donnelt on April 28, 2009, 03:26

Hmmm.. quite where they get all the missing information from to up-size 4x is one of the great mysteries of information theory.

Yes SS found the stone of wisdom: they can make eggs out of omelet and they reversed the second law of thermodynamics. I upload 6MP, not 4MP to SS, because of their extended licenses. Full size to all non-sub sites and to DT, because despite of their 40% subs, they still offer an average RPD of 2$. To pure sub sites that don't even know what price they will offer, like Vivozoom, I don't upload any more. Not that it will help, since some people seem to be prepared to upload 24MP to sites that give 0.001 $

kingjon · « **Reply #7 on:** April 28, 2009, 11:18 »

I started downsizing when I switched to the 5d II. The only sites that get the full sized image are IS, DT, FT. These sites are doing well for me and pay more for the larger sizes. I use the same workflow for SS, SX, BigStock and 123. I run noise removal (because of SS requirements) and downsize to 50%. The noise removal takes out alot of detail but SS used to reject alot of images without it.

lisafx · « **Reply #8 on:** April 28, 2009, 13:19 »

I upload full res to all sites for two reasons -

1. I want buyers to get the best quality images I can give them, regardless of subscription plan or not. A 4x uprezzed image is not going to be the quality of same size image at native resolution. Maybe I am kidding myself, but I think that buyers are more likely to return to portfolios that offer them highest quality images.

and

2. I don't want to be bothered to save different sized files for different agencies.

ETA: I have only rarely bought images, but when I have, sometimes I have been surprised at the poor focus or maybe just lack of resolution from uprezzing on a couple of images I bought. I wouldn't buy from that photog again. Not that I am a big loss as a customer, but if frequent buyers have the same experience I don't want to be the one disappointing them with my image quality.

melastmohican · « **Reply #9 on:** April 28, 2009, 14:04 »

I used to downsize to minimum required but having 3 different sets of images was too much hassle so I switched to 4MP for all. Currently I do 6MP for all. Until this month my camera was 8.3MP, now I got 5Dmk2. I am going to keep it 6MP just to make uploads fast.

Rackman · « **Reply #10 on:** April 28, 2009, 14:46 »

I shoot in RAW with my Nikon D300 and just U/L the image at it's max size (less any cropping) I've done.

The Nikon D300 does a superb job in handling noise and I do use Noise Ninja for higher ISO shots but I very rarely get an image rejected for noise.

I too want to offer the highest resolution possible to buyers.

Joe

madelaide · « **Reply #11 on:** April 28, 2009, 18:37 »

I am not at SS, but I know a lot of people use that tatics of downsizing for them.

I do downsize on occasions for IS, because they are so picky about any minimal noise.

With my raster images from vectors, I generate smaller sizes for sites such as BigStock and 123RF. In BigStock because a larger file doesn't have a differentiated price and 123RF because they sell so much subs (I stopped uploading there for this, in fact).

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Downsizing Images for Certain Agencies (Read 5651 times)

stock_fan

sharply_done

rene

donnelt

stock_fan

donnelt

null

kingjon

lisafx

melastmohican

Rackman

madelaide

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors