Author Topic: Maximum reasonable stock image resolution (Read 5945 times)

hafssol1 · « **on:** August 09, 2011, 04:25 »

Hi,

my girflriend just joined six agencies: SS, FT, DT, 123RF, BS and CS. Like me, she's doing 3D renders and she wants to know, basically, how large she should make her images to cover all bases on all agencies without going over the top. Myself, as IS exclusive, I always render out at 4700x4700 pixels (square) and adjust accordingly for landscape and portrait orientations. So, my images always are XXXL size on IS. As I have no experience with the six agencies listed above, I wonder, could you share your experience, what largest pixel dimensions are needed for these agencies without going over the top?

I know that this information should be available somewhere in agencies' FAQs but some of them are really hard to navigate so your input would be highly appreciated.

Thanks!

microstockphoto.co.uk · « **Reply #1 on:** August 09, 2011, 04:38 »

Here's the information I found. Note that some limits are in MP, some in MB.
Your choice (4700x4700 or equivalent) seems a good option to me.

Shutterstock:
"There is no maximum size limit for photos, but illustrations cannot exceed 25MP"
http://submit.shutterstock.com/faq.mhtml

Fotolia:
"File size must be less than 30 MB"
http://en.fotolia.com/Info/Contributors

Dreamstime:
"a maximum of 70 MP"
http://www.dreamstime.com/faq13-what-requirements-do-you-have-

123RF:
"JPEG Images must NOT be bigger than 20MB"
http://submit.123rf.com/image_submit.php

BigStock
"Do not upload files larger than 25 megabytes"
http://www.bigstockphoto.com/faq.html#WAYSFI

Canstock
I coudn't find this info.

hafssol1 · « **Reply #2 on:** August 09, 2011, 04:59 »

thank you!

heywoody · « **Reply #3 on:** August 09, 2011, 05:05 »

I keep mine to 2000 pixels on the short side in a 3x4 format usually - sometimes even smaller where there are close views of volumetric materials or complex light and could be looking at render times in days. I don't see much financial benefit to me in making them bigger and, as well as much longer render times, any slight technical flaws are multiplied.

TheSmilingAssassin · « **Reply #4 on:** August 09, 2011, 05:17 »

hafssol1 · « **Reply #5 on:** August 09, 2011, 05:54 »

Quote from: pseudonymous on August 09, 2011, 05:17

Good on microstockgroup for replying and giving you those links but I don't think he really answered your question. You want the maximum resolution you can supply to get the maximum benefits without going too big because renders take so bloody long to render sometimes, correct?

Yes, that's correct. I did not have a good look on my tiny phone screen, now when I'm back home I see that wasn't quite what I was asking for. Anyway, thanks microstockphoto.co.uk.

Quote

If a 3D image is going to take a long time to render, she should create an image closer to (but larger than 20MP), otherwise if she can go bigger, create one that's closer to (but less than 30MP).

All right, thank you, pseudonymous. One question though, why closer to 30MP and not 20+MP (like 22MP or so?) On which particular agencies that is beneficial?

TheSmilingAssassin · « **Reply #6 on:** August 09, 2011, 06:11 »

cascoly · « **Reply #7 on:** August 09, 2011, 16:52 »

you might also want to check 3d studios [my link's below], especially if you're actually doing 3d stuff.

they take regular stock too - they're small but pay well - from $3 to $20 per sale with a 70% royalty rate

steve