Author Topic: Downsizing pics? (Read 5288 times)

fercalgm2 · « **on:** May 26, 2011, 15:49 »

Hello all,

I'm about a month in to discovering and working on stock photography. It's been enjoyable and I look forward to staying up late working on the whole process after my real job ; ). I've found this forum and have found it quite helpful. This community seems really dedicated.

Now my question is regarding sizing of pics. Do many of you consider it general practice to downsize pictures from the original full size of your camera down smaller or even to the smallest acceptable to agencies? Do many of you guys do this or does it depend on the picture?

Looking forward to hopefully keep doing stock photography!

luissantos84 · « **Reply #1 on:** May 26, 2011, 15:55 »

have done it 2 or 3 times (not more), I do it when I feel it isn´t tack sharp and I cannot shoot again..

cathyslife · « **Reply #2 on:** May 26, 2011, 16:00 »

Quote from: fercalgm2 on May 26, 2011, 15:49

Hello all,

I'm about a month in to discovering and working on stock photography. It's been enjoyable and I look forward to staying up late working on the whole process after my real job ; ). I've found this forum and have found it quite helpful. This community seems really dedicated.

Now my question is regarding sizing of pics. Do many of you consider it general practice to downsize pictures from the original full size of your camera down smaller or even to the smallest acceptable to agencies? Do many of you guys do this or does it depend on the picture?

Looking forward to hopefully keep doing stock photography!

My camera shoots a size between XL and XXL, so I always downsize so that I still can get an XL payment, but the reduction helps with sharpening. I would never downsize to the smallest acceptable, you're just cheating yourself out of money, IMHO.

Karimala · « **Reply #3 on:** May 26, 2011, 16:16 »

The only time I ever downsize is when it will correct minor softness or focus issues. Otherwise, no. All it would do is impact my pocketbook in a negative way.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #4 on:** May 26, 2011, 16:18 »

exactly.. IS, FT, SF and a few other can get you a few extra "buck" for a bigger size and the buyer might look into it too..

microstockphoto.co.uk · « **Reply #5 on:** May 26, 2011, 17:56 »

downsizing means renouncing to higher revenues at many sites possibly

so I only do it when it's absolutely necessary or advisable: i.e., to save otherwise too soft or noisy pictures, or to pass initial tests

other than than, it's better not to resize

steheap · « **Reply #6 on:** May 26, 2011, 20:15 »

It also depends on the original size of the files, I guess. I really should put the effort into seeing what the maximum size of a file could be, above which, there is not benefit from higher priced sales. Perhaps someone knows of a table that shows what the different sites pay for each file size? If not, I'll add it to my list of things to do.

I shoot with the Canon 5D Mk2, and I always reduce files so that the longest edge is around 4000 pixels. I don't know why I chose that number - something in the past about reducing the size of the image helping with iStock acceptance rate, I think. I then use Lightburner to distribute the files and I reduce the Shutterstock ones to about 6M overall size using their file reduction option.

Steve

lthn · « **Reply #7 on:** May 27, 2011, 04:34 »

It's pointless unless you'v got some minor focus / niose problem, bit If so, absolutely, downsize & selective sharpen rather than just throw the shot away.

ShadySue · « **Reply #8 on:** May 29, 2011, 08:02 »

Interesting thread. I often downsize high ISO pics, but I also crop a lot for composition, because cropping with your feet often doesn't work (stepping off a steep cliff or into a river, not getting too near wildlife etc) and also because often a panoramic shot is really what the photo is and the top and bottom is just 'wasted space', so I crop it, hoping the buyer will be grateful not to pay for 'useless pixels' - or sometimes I provide 'similars', one full frame, one cropped to panoramic. Of course, you could also shoot with a panoramic camera or stitch several pics together, but in my very limited experience of stitching, and that of two CN friends, often stitched large images are purchased as small or even XSm dls.

raclro · « **Reply #9 on:** June 06, 2011, 20:14 »

I only know iStock, but an inspector once suggested downsizing certain types of submissions. That tip has worked well for me, very high acceptance for that type when downsized a bit. When I crop, I try to at least stay in the large range if possible, 2700 for the larger dimension. I have relatively few XL sales, even though many are available. It is a fine line between better acceptance vs potential loss of larger sales. Somewhere on the iStock forums there is a list of dimensions and sizes.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #10 on:** June 06, 2011, 20:18 »

Size    Pixels*    Approximate Print Size*
XSmall    300x400    1"x 1.5" @ 72dpi
Small    600x800    2"x 3" @ 72dpi
Medium    1200x1600    4" x 5" @ 300dpi
Large    1920x2560    6" x 8" @ 300dpi
XLarge    2800x4200    9" x 14" @ 300dpi
XXLarge    3300x4900    11" x 16" @ 300dpi
XXXLarge    3700x5600    12" x 18" @ 300dpi

Gannet77 · « **Reply #11 on:** June 07, 2011, 05:50 »

There's also an excellent downsizing script for PhotoShop on Sean's website, see http://www.digitalplanetdesign.com/index.php?page=istocktools.

Only intended for iStock sizes of course, but anyone with a little scripting knowledge could modify it for other sites if wanted.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Downsizing pics? (Read 5288 times)

fercalgm2

luissantos84

cathyslife

Karimala

luissantos84

microstockphoto.co.uk

steheap

lthn

ShadySue

raclro

luissantos84

Gannet77

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors