Author Topic: The use of a square image (Read 16940 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?

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: The use of a square image (Read 16940 times)

Jonathan Ross

ichiro17

Elenathewise

HughStoneIan

Sean Locke Photography

cardmaverick

madelaide

Jonathan Ross

Sean Locke Photography

Elenathewise

HughStoneIan

Fran

astrocady

Sean Locke Photography

Jonathan Ross

ouchie

gostwyck

Jonathan Ross

Lcjtripod

Sean Locke Photography

Lcjtripod

hoi ha

Jonathan Ross

borg

Sean Locke Photography

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors