Author Topic: The use of a square image (Read 16949 times)

Jonathan Ross · « **on:** August 20, 2009, 11:54 »

Hi All,

We have spoken in the past about using the square format to offer your buyer a vertical option or a horizontal option from the same image. Less work on your end, higher sell through rate, largest thumbnail on the site and lots of copy space. here is an example of one of my square images that I think covers all those needs. Hope this helps.

Best,
Jonathan

ichiro17 · « **Reply #1 on:** August 20, 2009, 12:43 »

Awesome thoughts, I've been contemplating how my cropping affects my sales and I've been trying to keep these things in mind

Elenathewise · « **Reply #2 on:** August 20, 2009, 13:34 »

Nice image Jonathan:) I hope you weren't lying on the pavement at night in front of a speeding car to get it:)
But I see what you mean - if you crop this image horizontally or vertically, depending of buyers' need, the composition would still be great. Nicely done.
I am thinking of getting a D3X with new set on lenses by the end of the year, would make cropping like that easier. Would have got it earlier but am made to pay taxes this year though installments, not in April like before - it sucks...

HughStoneIan · « **Reply #3 on:** August 20, 2009, 13:58 »

Quote from: Elenathewise on August 20, 2009, 13:34

Nice image Jonathan:) I hope you weren't lying on the pavement at night in front of a speeding car to get it:)
But I see what you mean - if you crop this image horizontally or vertically, depending of buyers' need, the composition would still be great. Nicely done.
I am thinking of getting a D3X with new set on lenses by the end of the year, would make cropping like that easier. Would have got it earlier but am made to pay taxes this year though installments, not in April like before - it sucks...

Sorry, totally off-topic, but very hard to resist saying:

I wonder if WildDingo is reading this. And if so, will he pick up on the fact that Elena is having to pay installments on her taxes. Let's see if he can put 2 and 2 together and get 4.

OK, back to square format....

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #4 on:** August 20, 2009, 14:11 »

Quote from: Jonathan Ross on August 20, 2009, 11:54

Hi All,

We have spoken in the past about using the square format to offer your buyer a vertical option or a horizontal option from the same image. Less work on your end, higher sell through rate, largest thumbnail on the site and lots of copy space. here is an example of one of my square images that I think covers all those needs. Hope this helps.

Best,
Jonathan

The only thing absolutely true about this is that you maximize thmbnail space. Frankly I give buyers credit for the intelligence I takes to be able to visualize the crop they need from whatever image they choose. Taking a horizontal and cropping it square just to be able to tell the buyer the can crop it horizontally seems a bit of a slight to me.

I'm also not sure how it is 'less work'. Maybe you could elaborate on that.

I don't really notice square images selling more. Perhaps you'd like to quote figures?

As for 'copyspace', that depends on the composition of the image and not really the fact that it is square.

Perhaps tagging your new example onto the end of your recent thread instead of starting a new one would help keep discussion in one place.

cardmaverick · « **Reply #5 on:** August 20, 2009, 14:57 »

I tend to shoot with square cropping in mind. 3 of my top 5 best selling shots are square format.

madelaide · « **Reply #6 on:** August 20, 2009, 16:13 »

I have two images that I created a second version cropped to square. One has more sales than it's rectangular original, the other doesn't. It isn't however a big enough statistical sample. I have several square illustrations that sell well, but I don't know if the format helped.

Jonathan Ross · « **Reply #7 on:** August 20, 2009, 16:52 »

Hi Madelaide,

Yes we have seen larger sales on our images that offer this option to buyers. Buyers are not absolutely sure how they are going to fit the copy and image together, so much of their work is very last minute and they are against the gun. They also might want to run it at separate locations or different medias and only have to buy the one image to do so, again helping your " sell through rate ". This gives them that freedom and appeals to more buyers.
Our numbers support this option but it doesn't work on all subjects, just another way to make a bit more cash in certain applications. I still shoot a large portion of my images either horizontal or Vertical when the shot calls for it.
Hey HughStoneIan, Yes I was laying on the road but it was broad daylight and I had a 300mm lens to give me lots of time to clear out. Part of the fun

Best,
Jonathan

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #8 on:** August 20, 2009, 16:56 »

Quote from: Jonathan Ross on August 20, 2009, 16:52

I still shoot a large portion of my images either horizontal or Vertical when the shot calls for it.

Really? You have a camera that shoots square? Let us know what it is...

Elenathewise · « **Reply #9 on:** August 20, 2009, 16:57 »

Quote from: HughStoneIan on August 20, 2009, 13:58

Quote from: Elenathewise on August 20, 2009, 13:34
Nice image Jonathan:) I hope you weren't lying on the pavement at night in front of a speeding car to get it:)
But I see what you mean - if you crop this image horizontally or vertically, depending of buyers' need, the composition would still be great. Nicely done.
I am thinking of getting a D3X with new set on lenses by the end of the year, would make cropping like that easier. Would have got it earlier but am made to pay taxes this year though installments, not in April like before - it sucks...

Sorry, totally off-topic, but very hard to resist saying:

I wonder if WildDingo is reading this. And if so, will he pick up on the fact that Elena is having to pay installments on her taxes. Let's see if he can put 2 and 2 together and get 4.

OK, back to square format....

Who is WildDingo - whould I be afraid?....

HughStoneIan · « **Reply #10 on:** August 20, 2009, 19:11 »

Quote from: Elenathewise on August 20, 2009, 16:57

Quote from: HughStoneIan on August 20, 2009, 13:58
Quote from: Elenathewise on August 20, 2009, 13:34
Nice image Jonathan:) I hope you weren't lying on the pavement at night in front of a speeding car to get it:)
But I see what you mean - if you crop this image horizontally or vertically, depending of buyers' need, the composition would still be great. Nicely done.
I am thinking of getting a D3X with new set on lenses by the end of the year, would make cropping like that easier. Would have got it earlier but am made to pay taxes this year though installments, not in April like before - it sucks...

Sorry, totally off-topic, but very hard to resist saying:

I wonder if WildDingo is reading this. And if so, will he pick up on the fact that Elena is having to pay installments on her taxes. Let's see if he can put 2 and 2 together and get 4.

OK, back to square format....

Who is WildDingo - whould I be afraid?....

He's a troll who's been arguing rather loudly and nastily in some of the other threads that microstock shooters can't possibly be making any profit that's worth speaking of. Nothing to be afraid of. Just don't feed him if he shows up!

Fran · « **Reply #11 on:** August 21, 2009, 07:48 »

I see the psychological reason behind this: a designer looks at an horizontal image and immediately things "no, it won't work for my vertical space", while a square image will give him more options but at the cost of resolution I guess.

What about the sell opportunities you lose by the part of the image that you have to crop out to make it square and _might_ be needed by another designer? Is it counted in your statement "it doesnt work for all images"?

astrocady · « **Reply #12 on:** August 21, 2009, 08:14 »

As a graphic artist, web designer and former newspaper person, I agree that a lot, if not most, images end up square, or nearly square in final use. However, I have always like the option of deciding how the picture should be cropped depending on its use and position. Sometime I want copyspace on the left, sometimes right, and sometimes not at all. This is why I leave my images the size they came out of the camera.

HOWEVER, objects or people isolated on a white background are another matter! I've used to leave them full frame as well, but after reading the discussion about square images for better thumbnails, I"ve started cropping them as near to square as possible.

So, thank you Jonathan for the tip!

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #13 on:** August 21, 2009, 08:19 »

Jonathan Ross · « **Reply #14 on:** August 21, 2009, 11:28 »

Hi Astrocady,

Thanks for the conformation. As a buyer and end user your opinion is a great help.

Best,
Jonathan

ouchie · « **Reply #15 on:** August 21, 2009, 12:40 »

Ok, so square kinda makes sense.

Worth a try.

BUT how do you do it? just crop it even, ie: 2800 x 2800 mp? or add white space, how?

The question was never answered what camera u are using to take a square image;)

gostwyck · « **Reply #16 on:** August 21, 2009, 12:58 »

I've been using 'the power of square' for some time, most commonly for food images. I think it does help sales but it is difficult to prove it. I tend to crop to the square format when it particularly suits the composition of the image rather than deliberately setting out to create it during the shoot itself. Some subjects, such as a plate of food shot from above for example, naturally lend themselves to the square format.

However, I was discussing it with a friend who buys his images at FT and it turns out he always clicks either the Horizontal or Vertical box when searching. Square images don't appear in either search option if those boxes are ticked so you may lose as many sales from that as you gain from the larger thumbnail view.

Jonathan Ross · « **Reply #17 on:** August 21, 2009, 13:29 »

Good observation in Micro Gostwyck,

I am basing my returns and info of square images through my Macro sales so you might have a very good point that I have overlooked in Micro. Thanks for the advice. I will start to track our Micro sales by proportion as well and see if it is the same result we have seen in our Macro sales. When I have some better Micro sales data I will be sure to offer it.

Best,
Jonathan

Lcjtripod · « **Reply #18 on:** August 22, 2009, 17:21 »

Quote from: sjlocke on August 20, 2009, 16:56

Quote from: Jonathan Ross on August 20, 2009, 16:52
I still shoot a large portion of my images either horizontal or Vertical when the shot calls for it.

Really? You have a camera that shoots square? Let us know what it is...

If you have been in photography very long, you would know the answer to your question. Hasselblad, Bronica, 120 Twin Lens Reflexes, Rollieflex, Rollie SL66, I could go on and list about a hundred more. They are all film cameras, someone asks ..... yeah, most, but now some of the above and more like Leaf have Digital Backs that blow away ALL the DSLR's on the market today. For only $18,000.00 to about $40,000.00 you can shoot square and do it better than the rest.

The film versions can be scanned with pro scanning equipment like Epson 700M Flatbed film scanner or drum scanned. Can you get them on the RF sites? someone asks. Yes, I do have them on my sites. And I cropped some of them to 2X3 proportions, just for fun. Yup, some are square also.

Who need that? Did you ever print on CD's, DVD's, or the covers. (They are kinda square.)

-Larry

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #19 on:** August 22, 2009, 17:39 »

Quote from: Lcjtripod on August 22, 2009, 17:21

Hasselblad, Bronica, 120 Twin Lens Reflexes, Rollieflex, Rollie SL66, I could go on and list about a hundred more. They are all film cameras, someone asks ..... yeah, most, but now some of the above and more like Leaf have Digital Backs that blow away ALL the DSLR's on the market today. For only $18,000.00 to about $40,000.00 you can shoot square and do it better than the rest.

Interesting. I wonder what it's like to compose in camera to a square view...

Lcjtripod · « **Reply #20 on:** August 22, 2009, 17:51 »

Quote from: sjlocke on August 22, 2009, 17:39

Quote from: Lcjtripod on August 22, 2009, 17:21
Hasselblad, Bronica, 120 Twin Lens Reflexes, Rollieflex, Rollie SL66, I could go on and list about a hundred more. They are all film cameras, someone asks ..... yeah, most, but now some of the above and more like Leaf have Digital Backs that blow away ALL the DSLR's on the market today. For only $18,000.00 to about $40,000.00 you can shoot square and do it better than the rest.

Interesting. I wonder what it's like to compose in camera to a square view...

Go to a camera store and check one out. You just might take a liking to them. I love 'em.

They are a little bigger than DSLR's!
This one with a 250mm lens.

-Larry

hoi ha · « **Reply #21 on:** August 22, 2009, 23:10 »

Quote from: Jonathan Ross on August 20, 2009, 11:54

Hi All,

We have spoken in the past about using the square format to offer your buyer a vertical option or a horizontal option from the same image. Less work on your end, higher sell through rate, largest thumbnail on the site and lots of copy space. here is an example of one of my square images that I think covers all those needs. Hope this helps.

Best,
Jonathan

As a buyer, if the option is vertical, horizontal or square, we would almost always buy square unless the specific execution required is otherwise - the image is easier to crop IMHO - second favourite is vertical and least favourite is horizontal - but we are in print media so that might make some difference.

Jonathan Ross · « **Reply #22 on:** August 22, 2009, 23:38 »

Hi Hoi Ha,

Yes, the difference between print wanting more of a vertical image and web leaning towards the horizontal image is another big part of why this option works well for todays image buyers. Thanks for the feedback. I am doing some basic stats on my square sales in comparison to my vertical and horizontal sales in Micro t the moment. I will post the results when I get something of value.

Best,
Jonathan

borg · « **Reply #23 on:** August 23, 2009, 06:23 »

Four third standard is a future...

4:3 format of photo is the closest to square format...

Olympus rules...

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #24 on:** August 23, 2009, 06:56 »

Quote from: hoi ha on August 22, 2009, 23:10

As a buyer, if the option is vertical, horizontal or square, we would almost always buy square unless the specific execution required is otherwise - the image is easier to crop IMHO - second favourite is vertical and least favourite is horizontal - but we are in print media so that might make some difference.

What do you mean "easier to crop"?

If everyone is making these square images from rectangular images, wouldn't you rather have all the information available to be able to make your own crop, or are you not able to visualize the end result you want?

gostwyck · « **Reply #25 on:** August 23, 2009, 07:20 »

Quote from: sjlocke on August 23, 2009, 06:56

If everyone is making these square images from rectangular images, wouldn't you rather have all the information available to be able to make your own crop, or are you not able to visualize the end result you want?

In a word __ no!

In my experience the vast majority of buyers are not 'visualizing' at all but simply plonking the image directly into their project. This is evident from when you see your own images 'in action'. I'll bet 90% of them are just placed in a box on the page, virtually untouched, rather than having been incorporated into a sophisticated design (although of course such uses tend to be harder to detect).

I've experimented a few times by offering 2 versions of an image, one of them cropped to give maximum impact at thumbnail size and the other at original size. The cropped version will almost invariably outsell the uncropped image by about 3x or more. Of course the higher-selling image will soon have a more favourable sort-order position too which will widen the differential yet further and also give the image a longer 'life expectancy'.

IMHO visual impact at thumbnail-size is by far the most important factor in an image's sales potential __ and that's why 'the power of square' can be very effective.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #26 on:** August 23, 2009, 07:25 »

Quote from: gostwyck on August 23, 2009, 07:20

In my experience the vast majority of buyers are not 'visualizing' at all but simply plonking the image directly into their project. This is evident from when you see your own images 'in action'. I'll bet 90% of them are just placed in a box on the page, virtually untouched, rather than having been incorporated into a sophisticated design (although of course such uses tend to be harder to detect).

I see this only on blogs, where the image goes straight into the article. The rest do seem to at least crop a slightly different aspect out of the image provided. Here's some "in actions" and alot of them are simple "drop in" type things, but the space used isn't necessarily the aspect of my image:
http://digitalplanetdesign.com/index.php?page=tearSheets

cardmaverick · « **Reply #27 on:** August 23, 2009, 08:16 »

Quote from: sjlocke on August 23, 2009, 06:56

Quote from: hoi ha on August 22, 2009, 23:10
As a buyer, if the option is vertical, horizontal or square, we would almost always buy square unless the specific execution required is otherwise - the image is easier to crop IMHO - second favourite is vertical and least favourite is horizontal - but we are in print media so that might make some difference.

What do you mean "easier to crop"?

If everyone is making these square images from rectangular images, wouldn't you rather have all the information available to be able to make your own crop, or are you not able to visualize the end result you want?

A square shot has more size as a thumbnail right off the bat, so it basically "pops out" more at you. Less thinking = better, this is the web, and attention span online can be horribly short. Thats one reason why I crop for it a lot of the time, but I'm also consciously shooting for this type of cropping, so I adjust accordingly on set.

gostwyck · « **Reply #28 on:** August 23, 2009, 11:26 »

Quote from: sjlocke on August 23, 2009, 07:25

I see this only on blogs, where the image goes straight into the article. The rest do seem to at least crop a slightly different aspect out of the image provided. Here's some "in actions" and alot of them are simple "drop in" type things, but the space used isn't necessarily the aspect of my image:
http://digitalplanetdesign.com/index.php?page=tearSheets

Hmm __ good examples. I think 'the power of square' may be more useful with some subjects more than others!

Jonathan Ross · « **Reply #29 on:** August 24, 2009, 14:25 »

I totally agree Gostwyk,

It has a great deal to do with the composition and the negative space supporting as well as the subject matter or location. This can't be used on every image but some images do offer this and especially if you are thinking of it when composing your shots.

Best,
Jonathan

Fran · « **Reply #30 on:** August 24, 2009, 15:19 »

Quote from: Jonathan Ross on August 24, 2009, 14:25

I totally agree Gostwyk,

It has a great deal to do with the composition and the negative space supporting as well as the subject matter or location. This can't be used on every image but some images do offer this and especially if you are thinking of it when composing your shots.

Best,
Jonathan

Jon, can you please explain me the concept of "negative space"?

Jonathan Ross · « **Reply #31 on:** August 24, 2009, 19:26 »

Hi Fran,

Negative space is the area left above, below or alongside the image, or it can be a bit of both. It is best for this area to stay reasonably either darker or brighter but in generally even tones so that buyers can drop their text over the entire image without obstructing the idea or concept of the image itself. If it is brighter they can drop dark text if it is darker negative space they can drop lighter type over the area. I have never been asked that before, it is an excellent question. I want some more time to ponder that explanation as it seems a bit vague. Let me know if that makes sense. I will put more thought into the explanation.

Best,
Jonathan

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #32 on:** August 24, 2009, 19:41 »

Quote from: Fran on August 24, 2009, 15:19

Jon, can you please explain me the concept of "negative space"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_space

In design and stock work, more likely referred to as copyspace. A place to put copy (text).

cardmaverick · « **Reply #33 on:** August 24, 2009, 22:48 »

A GREAT exercise is to actively try and use your photos in designs. You'll get a first hand feel for the usefulness of your work - and I guarantee you'll find issues somewhere with your work that you can improve on. One thing I discovered was the quality of copyspace for colored backgrounds - it doesn't always work very well for multi-color backgrounds, even if they are out of focus. It is true there are ways around it from a design perspective, but you'll find that just plain old bold black or white text do NOT always stand out very well. Again, its not an absolute, as they may be dropping in a multi colored logo with a bold drop shadow type border, and in that case, it wouldn't matter as much.

Fran · « **Reply #34 on:** August 25, 2009, 07:18 »

Ah, it's copy-space

I was already wandering in the realm of composition, balancing, and bla bla bla.
Thanks guys.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #35 on:** November 02, 2009, 20:30 »

Post from LookStat showing that square images are not all they're talked up to be:
http://blog.lookstat.com/2009/10/25/microstock-rpi-image-formats-and-why-its-not-as-cool-as-you-might-think-to-be-square/

lisafx · « **Reply #36 on:** November 02, 2009, 20:45 »

Quote from: sjlocke on November 02, 2009, 20:30

Post from LookStat showing that square images are not all they're talked up to be:
http://blog.lookstat.com/2009/10/25/microstock-rpi-image-formats-and-why-its-not-as-cool-as-you-might-think-to-be-square/

Informative article. Nice to see the stats involved.

I agree with his bottom line, that you should give the buyers a choice. Now the trick is to get more than one orientation of a shot accepted in spite of the "Similars" rejection.

eppic · « **Reply #37 on:** November 02, 2009, 21:49 »

My very first camera as a young lad was one of those old Hawkeye cube cameras that you held at your waist and those were composed square and gave 4x4" images. I had alot of fun with that old camera and still have the photos.

Noodles · « **Reply #38 on:** November 02, 2009, 22:36 »

Quote from: Jonathan Ross on August 20, 2009, 11:54

Hi All,

We have spoken in the past about using the square format to offer your buyer a vertical option or a horizontal option from the same image. Less work on your end, higher sell through rate, largest thumbnail on the site and lots of copy space. here is an example of one of my square images that I think covers all those needs. Hope this helps.

Best,
Jonathan

Nice work, Jonathan. Thanks for sharing.

Smiling Jack · « **Reply #39 on:** November 02, 2009, 23:17 »

Thanks Sjlocke and Lisafx for airing the blog from lookstat.com. Those are very useful statistics
Smiling Jack

gostwyck · « **Reply #40 on:** November 03, 2009, 07:33 »

Quote from: sjlocke on November 02, 2009, 20:30

Post from LookStat showing that square images are not all they're talked up to be:
http://blog.lookstat.com/2009/10/25/microstock-rpi-image-formats-and-why-its-not-as-cool-as-you-might-think-to-be-square/

I have to say I'm extremely sceptical about those statistics. I wonder what sample size they were based on?

Lookstat are claiming that vertical images earned double what horizontal and square images did in 2008 __ that's a huge difference and it should be evident in all of our portfolios. It should also be obvious from searches too as the supposedly much more popular vertical images should dominate the results __ which patently isn't the case. Such a dramatic difference, if it actually existed, would have been noticed by all of us from our own sales long ago.

Try some general wide searches on IS (search-order set to best match) like 'business team', 'sport' or 'food' as see what comes up. The results I get a hugely dominated by horizontal images with quite a few square and relatively few vertical formats. How can it be that vertical images earn double that of the other formats?

I've got several image series containing vertical/horizontal options and I can see no pattern whatsover that indicates that either format is naturally more popular or is sold at a higher average price. If anything my square images are far more likely to become my best-sellers than the vertical or horizontal versions.

Can anyone out there see any evidence from their own portfolios to back-up Lookstat's claims?

cathyslife · « **Reply #41 on:** November 03, 2009, 07:57 »

As a buyer, I personally like to do my own crops, but I realize that is just an anecdotal statement.

As a contributor, I always try to shoot both horizontal and verticals of my subject. I think that way, a designer can get a square from one of those formats if they choose.

I have a few squares in my portfolio. I'll check and see if I can get any kind of statistics from that.

nicemonkey · « **Reply #42 on:** November 03, 2009, 08:18 »

Looking through my own portfolio on shutterstock Square compositions seem to come top by quite a long way followed by Landscape but nearly all my images are illustrations...not sure if that makes a difference.

Lcjtripod · « **Reply #44 on:** November 03, 2009, 10:00 »

Quote from: Rahul Pathak on November 03, 2009, 08:53

Quote from: gostwyck on November 03, 2009, 07:33

Lookstat are claiming that vertical images earned double what horizontal and square images did in 2008

Hi there,

Sorry if the post was unclear, but we found that horizontal outsold both vertical and square, which does line up with the anecdotal searches you described. My guess is that there is more 'off-the-shelf' use than one might initially think and that more microstock images end up in electronic uses which are mainly horizontally oriented screens.

Rahul

You may very well be correct but I still like square!

Shot in the 60's with Haselblad Camera and Tri-X film then scanned with Epson V500 Photo Scanner.

-Larry

Rahul Pathak · « **Reply #45 on:** November 03, 2009, 10:04 »

Cool image! (I also am a closet aircraft geek so it really does work for me.)

Thanks for posting that.

lisafx · « **Reply #46 on:** November 03, 2009, 10:47 »

Quote from: Rahul Pathak on November 03, 2009, 08:53

Sorry if the post was unclear, but we found that horizontal outsold both vertical and square, which does line up with the anecdotal searches you described. My guess is that there is more 'off-the-shelf' use than one might initially think and that more microstock images end up in electronic uses which are mainly horizontally oriented screens.

(^^emphasis added by me) This makes a lot of sense, and seems to be supported (anecdotally) by my own sales.

Thanks Rahul for an interesting and informative article, and to Sean for finding it and posting it here

Rahul Pathak · « **Reply #47 on:** November 03, 2009, 12:09 »

Thanks for the kind words, Lisa and for sharing your experience.

Jonathan Ross · « **Reply #48 on:** November 03, 2009, 13:14 »

Hi All,

I have to agree with Rahul on our own numbers. Verticals I believe have always been the number one sellers due to there size relationship to publishing. I think as the internet starts to take more sales we will see a trend toward horizontal images being the number one choice. The idea of the square image in this conversation is not that it is square but that it can be used to deliver the same message cropped as either a horizontal or a vertical. Being a square that doesn't crop is probably the lowest selling image shape in the market. It has to be able to be cropped to deliver the same message in either format, that is the key.

Hope that helps,
Jonathan

lisafx · « **Reply #49 on:** November 03, 2009, 16:43 »

Quote from: Jonathan Ross on November 03, 2009, 13:14

Hi All,

I have to agree with Rahul on our own numbers. Verticals I believe have always been the number one sellers due to there size relationship to publishing.

If I read correctly Rahul is saying it is horizontal images, not vertical ones that are outselling the other orientations two to one.

gostwyck · « **Reply #50 on:** November 03, 2009, 16:46 »

I think they changed it on their graph didn't they? Originally it was vertical outselling everything by 2x.

Jonathan Ross · « **Reply #52 on:** November 03, 2009, 19:31 »

Hi Lisa,

You are right I misread and I can see that as being very possible in Micro sales as they are dealing with the shape of the computer screen as apposed to a magazine. I am not at all surprised. used to be the other way forever, it really shows the impact of the internet on buying images. Maybe even a better reason to shoot an image that can be cropped in both direction more than ever.

Best,
Jonathan

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: The use of a square image (Read 16949 times)

lisafx

Noodles

lisafx

lisafx

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors