Author Topic: What are your thoughts on downsizing? (Read 16579 times)

Magnum · « **Reply #25 on:** May 21, 2009, 04:21 »

For how long will Megapixel be the only thing controlling the pricing. What about the most important thing. Good lenses? and pixel quality. Im sure I could get a picture approved with a 12Mp touristcamera. That´s kind of unfair

Dreamframer · « **Reply #26 on:** May 21, 2009, 06:54 »

Quote from: lisafx on May 20, 2009, 14:11

There are definitely two schools of thought on this. I can understand the argument for downsizing. Subscription buyers are getting a great deal for their money and there is a good case to be made for wanting to limit that.

OTOH, as I see it the extra work involved in downsizing images and uploading separate versions of the same file to different sites is an added PITA that has no concrete benefit to it.

A number of the sites will uprez anyway and the quality of file customers get will be lousy. I believe that giving the customers the best quality image I can will provide incentive to download my work again in the future.

Icefront makes a great point about size needs and demands changing in the future.

I agree with Lisa.

KB · « **Reply #27 on:** May 21, 2009, 11:52 »

Quote from: KB on May 20, 2009, 11:27

123 - Max file size is "Mega High XL" > 10.1MP (10 credits). Sub sales are for files less than Mega High XL.
So a 21MP image would not be sold as a sub, but does it help to go beyond, say, 12MP?

I guess the fact that no one corrected my statement above means I'm not the only one who hasn't paid attention to this "issue" before now. The above is totally wrong.

I know now that the reason my spreadsheet had "Mega High XL" > 10.1MP was because my previous camera created 10.1MP images. "Mega High" was set to the max size I UL'd, and "Mega High XL" was upsized about 50%.

I just sent a 5D2 test image there, and "Mega High" was set to the full-size 21.1MP image, and "Mega High XL" was again upsized by about 50%.

So, 123 actually is in the ranks of DT and StockXpert (and, of course, SS) which sells subs at the maximum size uploaded.

Milinz · « **Reply #28 on:** May 24, 2009, 05:36 »

6mpix (or something close to that) is what I now upload to microstock... Higher resolution is for more serious pricing.

lisafx · « **Reply #29 on:** May 24, 2009, 17:39 »

Quote from: Perseus on May 21, 2009, 00:18

well, video is where flash used to be. it's a novelty, and eventually people get tired of it.
the serious user would get sick of how flash and video slow the browser and like some people i know, are already getting add ons to block these ads that simply get in the way.
it's a total pain the rear end, and eventually, photographs will be back to where it should be.

Hope you are right about this Perseus. I just can't manage to find the time or interest to learn video, even though I see some folks are making a fortune at it.

Totally OT, I would never dream of arguing with you now that you have your menacing new avatar!! When I feel snakes coming out of my head (or just bitchy) I am going to steer well clear of you

Freedom · « **Reply #30 on:** May 24, 2009, 17:58 »

One can always re-upload the bigger files when the future arrives.

Quote from: lisafx on May 20, 2009, 14:11

There are definitely two schools of thought on this. I can understand the argument for downsizing. Subscription buyers are getting a great deal for their money and there is a good case to be made for wanting to limit that.

OTOH, as I see it the extra work involved in downsizing images and uploading separate versions of the same file to different sites is an added PITA that has no concrete benefit to it.

A number of the sites will uprez anyway and the quality of file customers get will be lousy. I believe that giving the customers the best quality image I can will provide incentive to download my work again in the future.

Icefront makes a great point about size needs and demands changing in the future.

lisafx · « **Reply #31 on:** May 24, 2009, 18:23 »

Quote from: Freedom on May 24, 2009, 17:58

One can always re-upload the bigger files when the future arrives.

How true. And what fun reuploading 4 or 5k images

Not to mention trying to get back customers that you lost because they downloaded uprezzed copies of your images and were unhappy with the quality.

Freedom · « **Reply #32 on:** May 24, 2009, 20:03 »

Yep, apparently you are happy with 30 cents for any size. Not me.

Quote from: lisafx on May 24, 2009, 18:23

Quote from: Freedom on May 24, 2009, 17:58
One can always re-upload the bigger files when the future arrives.

How true. And what fun reuploading 4 or 5k images

Not to mention trying to get back customers that you lost because they downloaded uprezzed copies of your images and were unhappy with the quality.

Lcjtripod · « **Reply #33 on:** May 25, 2009, 09:40 »

My thoughts on the original question.

Upload the largest file size that you can. You will be giving your customers the best possible quality and when the micro sites decide to throw out the old unsold low res images that are cluttering all the micro sites .... yours will not be one of them.

-Larry

lisafx · « **Reply #34 on:** May 25, 2009, 10:54 »

Quote from: Freedom on May 24, 2009, 20:03

Yep, apparently you are happy with 30 cents for any size. Not me.

Must be a guy thing to get so hung up on size

Image size is one of the least considerations to me. When I factor in my time, which has considerable monetary value to me, spent having to make, store and upload multiple copies of every image, and add the likely investment of many hours in the future reuploading thousands of full sized images I just don't see how it's cost effective. Particularly as the end result may actually be less satisfied customers and reduced sales.

Probably because this is a business for me I tend to weigh the whole picture in terms of investment vs. returns.

Not trying to persuade you or anyone else though. We are each doing this for our own reasons and have to make decisions we can live with.

KB · « **Reply #35 on:** May 25, 2009, 11:09 »

I've finally made my decision, and it matches that of Larry's & Lisa's posts. I have begun uploading my 5D2 images to all sites, and I am uploading only as full-sized.

The issue of fairness still weighs on me, but at least part of it has been resolved. I realize it is not my responsibility to worry about how a buyer might feel if they see the same XXXL image they bought on one site for a fraction of the cost on another. That is each site's problem, not mine.

As for $0.30 or $0.35 "any size" subs, that still bothers me, and I will continue to re-evaluate my participation in such plans.

Thanks for everyone's sharing of their opinions. It was quite helpful.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: What are your thoughts on downsizing? (Read 16579 times)

Magnum

Dreamframer

KB

Milinz

lisafx

Freedom

lisafx

Freedom

Lcjtripod

lisafx

KB

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors