pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Resizing for Microstock  (Read 4817 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: February 11, 2006, 06:09 »
0
I am wondering if people resize their pictures smaller before they submit.  I have heard of people who submit to places with only one price scheme (like shutterstock), resize their images down to 4 mp or so.

Do you think there is a point in this?


« Reply #1 on: February 13, 2006, 04:40 »
0
I usually don't resize at all.  one reason i think is because perhaps one day the site MIGHT have size regulated prices, then I don't want to re-upload all the images again.

rinderart

« Reply #2 on: December 21, 2007, 01:23 »
0
I usually don't resize at all.  one reason i think is because perhaps one day the site MIGHT have size regulated prices, then I don't want to re-upload all the images again.

I resize from 12 MP to 8/10 thats plenty big for 30 cents.

grp_photo

« Reply #3 on: December 21, 2007, 01:32 »
0
I resize all the time. Despite it's my policy for several reason it has a nice side-effect because it's the best noise-reduction you can get. So though you maybe loosing sales because of the small size your approval rate is much higher.

« Reply #4 on: December 21, 2007, 03:14 »
0
I always downsize my images to 4MP for SS - they automatically scale things up by 400%, so I can't see it hurting my sales there.

When I started shooting stock I made it a habit to downsize everything, but have since realized how this significantly impacted my earnings. I now downsize only if it's necessary to get an image accepted. When I downsize, I do so according to each agency's pricing scheme. If I can get away with it, I'll upsize to get a cropped image into the next price bracket.
« Last Edit: December 21, 2007, 11:58 by sharply_done »

« Reply #5 on: December 21, 2007, 07:20 »
0
I downsize sometimes, but only for SS.

« Reply #6 on: December 21, 2007, 08:45 »
0
I always downsize for SS because a) they don't want my original file sizes (up to 54 MP) and b) they do s resize by themselves, but only if the original file was <~12 MP. Why should I place myself behind the competition with an 16 MP original data file when every 8 MP digicam shot is blown up to 32 MP? SS's customers don't seem to know the difference otherwise SS wouldn't offer pictures blown up to 400% ...

« Reply #7 on: December 21, 2007, 09:44 »
0
I always downsize my images to 4MP for 123rf, SS and LO (LO before I stop to upload there...)

« Reply #8 on: December 21, 2007, 10:46 »
0
I don't resize.  This is partly because I'm simply too lazy to add that extra step into my post processing work flow.   ;D Plus, one day sites may raise their minimum resolution requirements and I'm not about to re-upload all my images.  I guess I can understand why other people do resize but it's just not for me.

« Reply #9 on: December 21, 2007, 10:54 »
0
I always downsize my images to 4MP for 123rf, SS and LO (LO before I stop to upload there...)

I understand why most people downsize for SS (because they are a subscription only site), but why for 123RF and LO?

« Reply #10 on: December 21, 2007, 11:36 »
0
I always downsize my images to 4MP for 123rf, SS and LO (LO before I stop to upload there...)

I understand why most people downsize for SS (because they are a subscription only site), but why for 123RF and LO?

123rf - for max price (3 credits - Ultra High Size ;-) 4MP is enough
LO - they downsize all photos. My 10MP images were downsized to 5MP (1920x2560) by LO!
So I can do it by myself, images are smaller, ulpoad is faster and no rejections any more for noise and artefacts.
Small price - small size  ;D

« Reply #11 on: December 21, 2007, 11:42 »
0
I don't resize.  This is partly because I'm simply too lazy to add that extra step into my post processing work flow.   ;D Plus, one day sites may raise their minimum resolution requirements and I'm not about to re-upload all my images.  I guess I can understand why other people do resize but it's just not for me.
It's very easy and fast to do. I use xnview (freeware).
If one day sites raise their minimum resolution do you think that they will delete all smaller images ? Imagine ads: yesterday we had 2000000 images, today only a half of them...

« Reply #12 on: December 21, 2007, 12:12 »
0
If one day sites raise their minimum resolution do you think that they will delete all smaller images ? Imagine ads: yesterday we had 2000000 images, today only a half of them...

OK, you've got a good point here... (I should have caught that.  :D )   ...but as Leaf pointed out, sites could one day switch to size regulated pricing, which could certainly have an impact for any downsized images.  Regardless, I won't be doing it.  To each his own, right?   ;D
« Last Edit: December 21, 2007, 14:11 by pixelbrat »

« Reply #13 on: December 21, 2007, 12:45 »
0
I can't really see an industry-wide image price/size restructuring happening. Image resolution is directly tied to printed size and therefore end use - a 4MP image can be printed full page (6"x9" for 300 DPI hi res, 12"x18" for 150 DPI std res). There's no reason for printing resolution to change, and therefore no reason to charge less for an image that meets printing requirements: 4 or 5MP images aren't going to be devalued, eliminated, or deemed unacceptable.

What's more likely to happen is that agencies will become pickier about noise, artifacts and sharpness because they know everyone has higher resolution cameras and can downsize images to meet higher quality standards.

I can see agencies introducing an open-ended maximum size category - maybe something called "OS" or "Oversize" for images greater than 22MP.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
7 Replies
2739 Views
Last post August 13, 2006, 10:15
by madelaide
2 Replies
2123 Views
Last post August 27, 2007, 16:50
by johngriffin
8 Replies
3321 Views
Last post September 08, 2007, 18:41
by pattie
1 Replies
1915 Views
Last post January 03, 2014, 07:58
by Beppe Grillo
1 Replies
1992 Views
Last post September 10, 2014, 17:55
by JoeClemson

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results