Author Topic: The use of a square image (Read 18056 times)

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.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: The use of a square image (Read 18056 times)

gostwyck

Sean Locke Photography

cardmaverick

gostwyck

Jonathan Ross

Fran

Jonathan Ross

Sean Locke Photography

cardmaverick

Fran

Sean Locke Photography

lisafx

eppic

Noodles

Smiling Jack

gostwyck

cathyslife

nicemonkey

Rahul Pathak

Lcjtripod

Rahul Pathak

lisafx

Rahul Pathak

Jonathan Ross

lisafx

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors