MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Do higher resolution images sell better?  (Read 3805 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: April 26, 2018, 04:12 »
0
I'm considering getting a 42MP FF camera, instead of the 24MP APS-C camera I have been using till now.

With a 42MP FF camera I should be able to get sharper photos with higher resolution compared to what my 24MP APS-C can deliver. I already have a couple of sharp FF lenses.

But do higher resolution images sell better? Is it something that buyers look a lot at?


« Reply #1 on: April 26, 2018, 04:36 »
+3
But do higher resolution images sell better? Is it something that buyers look a lot at?

Not really, but it's much more flexible to work with.

Most buyers use very small resolutions, and people have been printing large posters with great success from 8mp images for years.

« Reply #2 on: April 26, 2018, 04:36 »
0
A year ago or so I asked the same, general answer was that everyone mostly sell web resolutions anyway.
It's probably good to have them available at high res if occasionally someone buys them for something other than website. Buyer might skip the image just because it's not available in high res, that's my logic.
Some agencies have upper limit, not sure if they even take advantage of 42mpx.
42mpx are handy for cropping and downsizing not so perfect photos.

« Reply #3 on: April 26, 2018, 06:08 »
0
Does anyone feel the ability to have lower noise levels at high asa is an advantage....I'm desperately trying to rationalise a new toy but to be honest I'm not sure the marginal improvement in IQ is worth the s anymore.

« Reply #4 on: April 26, 2018, 06:59 »
0
I tried a few months ago to put for sale higher resolutions (cca 50% higher resolution than previously)

Conclusion:
-no significantly higher sales
-much longer upload time
-more space use on my disks

I'm not saying it does not work at all (maybe for a few commercial extended licenses, it could be a good strategy), however, it's a big lottery with a very unsure return on investment...

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #5 on: April 26, 2018, 07:34 »
0
I tried a few months ago to put for sale higher resolutions (cca 50% higher resolution than previously)

Conclusion:
-no significantly higher sales
-much longer upload time
-more space use on my disks

I'm not saying it does not work at all (maybe for a few commercial extended licenses, it could be a good strategy), however, it's a big lottery with a very unsure return on investment...

Yes I think that's the same as answering this same question over the years, no one knows for sure, but everything costs more and takes longer.

But do higher resolution images sell better? Is it something that buyers look a lot at?

Not really, but it's much more flexible to work with.

Most buyers use very small resolutions, and people have been printing large posters with great success from 8mp images for years.

Also true, it does depend on what, who's buying or what they are using the images for. But you hit about the best reason I can think of for a larger sensor (assuming it's the same Mfg. and one can use their already existing lenses!) More Flexible to work with. Someone can take a photo and crop it into different views. You have room to work and recompose.

Does anyone feel the ability to have lower noise levels at high asa is an advantage....I'm desperately trying to rationalise a new toy but to be honest I'm not sure the marginal improvement in IQ is worth the s anymore.

Also a yes if noise is a problem and shooting at high ISO is important. I don't find that necessary over what I have now, for myself. Others might?

My part of the addition consideration would be, how long does it take to make up the cost of the new equipment in a struggling market. That's if one cares about Microstock or Stock as a source of income. Expenses vs income vs cost to produce the products for that market? How important is a new bigger sensor, with much of everything else remaining the same.

I still downsize most of the time for Microstock. But in my case the content is more important than the size. Others may find a different situation. I don't downsize for news agencies and Alamy for example. I make almost everything for SSTK and FT/AS down in the 6MP range, unless it's something that I feel lends itself to a larger size, like a stitched panorama.

I guess everyone needs to decide on their own what their market is and if they need bigger, maybe better, images. New equipment means new debt to pay off. You don't make money until the equipment is paid for...  ;D

« Reply #6 on: April 26, 2018, 08:04 »
+1
Does anyone feel the ability to have lower noise levels at high asa is an advantage....I'm desperately trying to rationalise a new toy but to be honest I'm not sure the marginal improvement in IQ is worth the s anymore.

I assume you meant ISO?

Better ISO performance is a huge advantage in my opinion. But I'm out and about filming, relying on natural light pretty much all the time. The most exciting things usually happen when light is weak.

A high megapixel count usually means worse ISO performance, however, as the size of the pixels is smaller. The bigger the pixels, the better the ISO performance. So it's always a trade-off, like with most things.

« Reply #7 on: April 26, 2018, 10:31 »
0
Does anyone feel the ability to have lower noise levels at high asa is an advantage....I'm desperately trying to rationalise a new toy but to be honest I'm not sure the marginal improvement in IQ is worth the s anymore.

I assume you meant ISO?

Better ISO performance is a huge advantage in my opinion. But I'm out and about filming, relying on natural light pretty much all the time. The most exciting things usually happen when light is weak.

A high megapixel count usually means worse ISO performance, however, as the size of the pixels is smaller. The bigger the pixels, the better the ISO performance. So it's always a trade-off, like with most things.
I agree, being able to shoot at higher iso is a big advantage, you can simply work faster not having to lug tripod all the time and still have keepers usable for stock.

Sent from my SM-J510FN using Tapatalk


« Reply #8 on: April 26, 2018, 10:39 »
+3
42MP shot is still worth 38 cents on SS and 2 cents on IS.  I'm too bitter/jaded/resentful to give them big beautiful files.

« Reply #9 on: April 26, 2018, 11:03 »
0
No and I checked where my sold images were used and all the time they were used at very small sizes, smaller than those large preview images on agencies' sites.

« Reply #10 on: April 26, 2018, 11:18 »
0
Thanks for the answers and thoughts about it. I had tried a search before asking, but probably didn't use the right words  :)

Conclusion must be that there is no measureable increase in income with bigger files, but in theory a buyer might skip the file, if the resolution isn't high enough.

Sharpness increases, and noise reduces due to the bigger sensor. Also because there is no aa filter on the 42MP sensor. And the pixel density will still be smaller than on my 24MP APS-C.

The FF camera will be more flexible and a different tool, but also more expensive and bigger. And I will be able to use the full capacity of my FF lenses.

I don't do stock for a living. Photography is a hobby, where I back in 2010 discovered that some of my images were sellable. So the cost of the 42PM camera will probably never be returned by increased income. But it would have been a good excuse if there was a significant increase  :D

Pricing on SS used to depend on size, but I can see that it is changed. I haven't uploaded to IS since some time in 2016, where I also deactivated my best selling images there, while I still could. So they won't get any high resolution images from me.

« Reply #11 on: April 26, 2018, 11:29 »
0
Does anyone feel the ability to have lower noise levels at high asa is an advantage....I'm desperately trying to rationalise a new toy but to be honest I'm not sure the marginal improvement in IQ is worth the s anymore.

I assume you meant ISO?

Better ISO performance is a huge advantage in my opinion. But I'm out and about filming, relying on natural light pretty much all the time. The most exciting things usually happen when light is weak.

A high megapixel count usually means worse ISO performance, however, as the size of the pixels is smaller. The bigger the pixels, the better the ISO performance. So it's always a trade-off, like with most things.
Yes meant ISO ;-). Thanks so maybe worth getting a more up to date sensor ;-).

« Reply #12 on: April 26, 2018, 12:38 »
0
Most buyers are buying photos to use on websites, blogs, social media and news outlets. If the photo is at 1200x800, theyre happy. For websites heroes, anything that can be cropped to about 2400 width, its usable.

« Last Edit: April 26, 2018, 12:40 by Minsc »

« Reply #13 on: April 26, 2018, 12:47 »
0
Most buyers are buying photos to use on websites, blogs, social media and news outlets. If the photo is at 1200x800, theyre happy. For websites heroes, anything that can be cropped to about 2400 width, its usable.
Do you think though the increasingly rare ones that go for "premium" rates are at higher resolutions? Personally I doubt it.

« Reply #14 on: April 26, 2018, 23:58 »
+1
Honestly I think the only reason that they would sell a whole lot better would be if the sites pushed them in the search. As far as I know none of the sites do that. There are other reasons that a new camera might get more saleable pics - not the least is if it motivates you to go out to get new pics. Also you can probably downsize the new camera images a whole lot if there is too much noise or the image is a little blurry.   I did notice switching to FF that some of my lenses are definitely better in the cropped area.

« Reply #15 on: April 27, 2018, 03:45 »
0
ss blows up any image under 15mp by 100%, so your 15mp image will offered at 30mp a 20mp image will just be a 20mp image

so if you submit a 10mp image, it will be available at 20mp.

not sure what software they use but doubling the resolution of a file which is sharp at 100% will be very soft at 200% ]

t

« Reply #16 on: April 27, 2018, 03:46 »
0
right thats me off too bed, too tired to tyoe


Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #17 on: April 27, 2018, 07:59 »
+3
Does anyone feel the ability to have lower noise levels at high asa is an advantage....I'm desperately trying to rationalise a new toy but to be honest I'm not sure the marginal improvement in IQ is worth the s anymore.

I assume you meant ISO?

Better ISO performance is a huge advantage in my opinion. But I'm out and about filming, relying on natural light pretty much all the time. The most exciting things usually happen when light is weak.

A high megapixel count usually means worse ISO performance, however, as the size of the pixels is smaller. The bigger the pixels, the better the ISO performance. So it's always a trade-off, like with most things.

Before ISO became the International standard we used ASA or DIN number to measure film speed. It's outdated but once was the standard, American Standards Association. In Europe (and maybe other places?) film was rated by a DIN number. Sometime in the late 80s ISO became the standard that is most accepted and most used. But ASA is not obsolete, just barely used anymore.



 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
27 Replies
10300 Views
Last post June 21, 2007, 05:28
by rene
2 Replies
4225 Views
Last post February 19, 2013, 14:51
by palagarde
3 Replies
3609 Views
Last post September 09, 2018, 09:51
by dragonblade
4 Replies
2695 Views
Last post September 09, 2018, 12:06
by Uncle Pete
1 Replies
1139 Views
Last post July 27, 2021, 13:31
by Asthebelltolls

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle