pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: What are your thoughts on downsizing?  (Read 14742 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

KB

« on: May 20, 2009, 11:27 »
0
I purchased a 5D Mark II recently, and now that I can create 21MP images, it has me wondering more seriously about downsizing.

On iStockphoto, a 21MP image sells for 28 credits, earning me approximately $5.50 (obviously that varies based on the cost of the credits).

The same size photo could be downloaded as a sub on DT, SS, or StockXpert, earning me $0.30 - $0.35.

So does it make sense to UL the max file size to all agencies? If not, what strategy would be best? Do buyers care when they are buying the largest size whether the image is just barely over that size boundary or do they prefer images that are 2x bigger? Does anyone really know?!  ;D

Let's look at it on an agency-by-agency basis:

123 - Max file size is "Mega High XL" > 10.1MP (10 credits). Sub sales are for files less than Mega High XL.
So a 21MP image would not be sold as a sub, but does it help to go beyond, say, 12MP?

BigStock - Max file size is XL, 11MP (6 credits). No sub sales (yea!).
But does it make sense to UL a 21MP image for 6 credits ($3 commission)?

DT - Max file size is "maximum" > 12MP (6 credits and up). Sub sales are for files of "maximum" size.
So a 21MP image would be sold as a sub here. Very disappointing. No reason to UL > 12.1MP here.

FT - Max file size is XXXL > 29.5MP (8 credits), then XXL = 15MP (7 credits).  Sub sales are for files of L size (3.8 MP).
I honestly didn't realize that FT's sub sales were such reasonably small-sized images. (Of course, $0.31 for an L is still highly unappealing compared with the 5 credits is would otherwise cost.) Still, no reason not to UL 21MP images here (or at least 15MPs).

IS - No need to discuss IS; sub-sales are size-based, and the max file size is just less than 21MP. Obviously a full-sized UL is best here.

SS - Max file size is Large > ~4.3MP ($2.48 commission at 2nd lowest tier). Sub sales are for largest size available.
In theory, no need to UL > 5MP. However, since they upsize images, I'm not at all comfortable with that. I really haven't a clue what's the best size to send, but 21MP is too large.

StockXpert - Max file size is XXL > 15MP (15 credits). Sub sales are for the maximum size available on StockXpert and JUI, but limited to XL (8.4MP) or less on photos.com (I think).
This is a real tough one, since there's a big spread between XL (10 credits, 8.4MP) and XXL (15 credits, > 15MP). If subs weren't in the picture, it would be easy. But with unlimited size sub sales really taking off there, I don't know if it makes sense to go for the XXL size or not. I'm tempted to downsize to 8.4MP here.

I know some of you probably feel I'm overthinking this, not to mention making a lot of extra work for myself. But I feel it's important not to devalue our work (or let the microsites do so with unlimited size sub sales).

What say you?


WarrenPrice

« Reply #1 on: May 20, 2009, 11:34 »
0
I say you put a lot of research into that.  Thanks for overthinking.  I gave you a green thingie.   8)

I don't know enough about this to offer an opinion, but you have certainly given me a lot to think about.

« Reply #2 on: May 20, 2009, 11:58 »
0

If you are non-ex at IS, at 20%, you would earn abou 8.4 dollars per xxxl dl, not around 5.5 as you say. One credit is not equal to one dollar.
« Last Edit: May 20, 2009, 11:59 by loop »

KB

« Reply #3 on: May 20, 2009, 12:06 »
0

If you are non-ex at IS, at 20%, you would earn abou 8.4 dollars per xxxl dl, not around 5.5 as you say. One credit is not equal to one dollar.
You're right that one credit is not equal to one dollar (as I wrote, "it varies based on the cost of the credits").

I used $1/credit as an easy approximation, as I don't know what the "average" credit is.

You used $1.50/credit, which is the most they cost. The least they cost is $0.95.

So the most accurate statement is that an XXXL DL would earn somewhere between $5.32 and $8.40.

Needless to say, I like your $8.40 the best.  ;D

« Reply #4 on: May 20, 2009, 12:15 »
0
Before I got 5Dmk2 I was sending 6MP everywhere. I think it's good enough size for most of them. Since IS is such a painful for uploading I might consider giving them separate batches anyway.

KB

« Reply #5 on: May 20, 2009, 12:25 »
0
Before I got 5Dmk2 I was sending 6MP everywhere. I think it's good enough size for most of them. Since IS is such a painful for uploading I might consider giving them separate batches anyway.
So does that mean you are currently downsizing your 5D2 images to 6MP everywhere?

I think that you'd lose out on some larger sales at some sites by doing that; it doesn't seem worthwhile.

There has to be a balance here, somewhere!

« Reply #6 on: May 20, 2009, 12:52 »
0
Yes but I haven't uploaded many pictures yet. I might consider going up to 8-10MP. It's just much easier to have one size for all. Most of sales comes from SS, DT, StockXpert and 123. Also I can upload to all my sites quite fast.

« Reply #7 on: May 20, 2009, 13:20 »
0
I purchased a 5D Mark II recently, and now that I can create 21MP images, it has me wondering more seriously about downsizing.

I have an 5d mk2 too, I was wondering the same but there are some things to consider:
- think in the future, not in the present. After several years, 21mpx will be nothing special so if today I downsize the images, after years the 10mpx will be as I have these days a 10mpx camera.
- don't think, you are giving more than paid if the resolution is far over the max size set by an agency. Tomorrow they raise the resolution bar so the downsized image's value will be lowered. Also giving more results in getting more. One must begin.
- consider the content. It's not the same value when you photograph tulips @21mpx versus a very detailed macro @21mpx.
- from 10mpx to 20mpx there isn't double information, only double data. 10mpx image doubled equals 40mpx. Give a try in photoshop, resize your image by 200%

« Reply #8 on: May 20, 2009, 13:31 »
0
Actually, if I needed let's say 5 or 6 xxxl image to make poster for an stand and all of them were available at xxxl I would buy a suscription and get these ones and a lot more for almost the same price. But if they weren't available for subscription I would have to pay per download at their size prize.

KB

« Reply #9 on: May 20, 2009, 13:49 »
0
Actually, if I needed let's say 5 or 6 xxxl image to make poster for an stand and all of them were available at xxxl I would buy a suscription and get these ones and a lot more for almost the same price. But if they weren't available for subscription I would have to pay per download at their size prize.
An excellent argument for why subscription sales absolutely should be limited by size.

So at least minor kudos to 123 and especially FT for limiting the sizes of sub sales.

Bigger kudos to IS for size-based subs, and biggest kudos to BigStock for no sub sales at all.

And a big thumbs down to DT and StockXpert for maximum size sub sales. Booooo!

(No comment on SS, as it's an entirely different animal.)

KB

« Reply #10 on: May 20, 2009, 13:51 »
0
- think in the future, not in the present. After several years, 21mpx will be nothing special so if today I downsize the images, after years the 10mpx will be as I have these days a 10mpx camera.
- don't think, you are giving more than paid if the resolution is far over the max size set by an agency. Tomorrow they raise the resolution bar so the downsized image's value will be lowered. Also giving more results in getting more. One must begin.
<snip>
All very good points.

I guess there is no "right" answer, just whatever we each find personally acceptable. I'm still trying to figure that out. But you've certainly given me even more to think about.

lisafx

« Reply #11 on: May 20, 2009, 14:11 »
0
There are definitely two schools of thought on this.  I can understand the argument for downsizing.  Subscription buyers are getting a great deal for their money and there is a good case to be made for wanting to limit that.

OTOH, as I see it the extra work involved in downsizing images and uploading separate versions of the same file to different sites is an added PITA that has no concrete benefit to it. 

A number of the sites will uprez anyway and the quality of file customers get will be lousy.  I believe that giving the customers the best quality image I can will provide incentive to download my work again in the future. 

Icefront makes a great point about size needs and demands changing in the future.

« Reply #12 on: May 20, 2009, 14:26 »
0
Interesting discussion. I think you may want to consider these additional things:

Since buyers can easily upsize with the newer software, does it make sense to invest in 5D2, faster computer and bigger storage requirements?

Does it take much longer to upload a bigger file?

Does it cost you more to upload a bigger file?

In the end, can you sell more XXL or bigger files on the basis of the actual size?




« Reply #13 on: May 20, 2009, 14:36 »
0
Interesting discussion. I think you may want to consider these additional things:

Since buyers can easily upsize with the newer software, does it make sense to invest in 5D2, faster computer and bigger storage requirements?

Does it take much longer to upload a bigger file?

Does it cost you more to upload a bigger file?

In the end, can you sell more XXL or bigger files on the basis of the actual size?

This are all good points. I do not believe in advantage of having XXL sizes. World is going towards subscriptions so eventually hundreds of subs will get more than one XXL. I got 21mpx camera cause I wanted to upload to agencies that actually require 16MP or more. It seems like my upgrade cycle is 4 years. My previous 8MP camera is not worse than many compacts. 4 years from now 21mpx will be joke either. All sales will be 15 cents subs anyway.

lisafx

« Reply #14 on: May 20, 2009, 14:54 »
0

This are all good points. I do not believe in advantage of having XXL sizes. World is going towards subscriptions so eventually hundreds of subs will get more than one XXL. I got 21mpx camera cause I wanted to upload to agencies that actually require 16MP or more. It seems like my upgrade cycle is 4 years. My previous 8MP camera is not worse than many compacts. 4 years from now 21mpx will be joke either. All sales will be 15 cents subs anyway.

I haven't seen much sales advantage in having XXL size either.  I got 5DII because it takes awesome images, regardless of size.  The bigger sizes are just icing on the cake.

Plus I like new toys :D

WarrenPrice

« Reply #15 on: May 20, 2009, 15:14 »
0
Since we are considering the future, will all this be moot when video takes over the micro market?

« Reply #16 on: May 20, 2009, 15:18 »
0
Since we are considering the future, will all this be moot when video takes over the micro market?

I think video is where photo was 5 years ago, we can all upload any crap we want :-) We should start now when entry point is low so early adopters will be market leaders of tomorrow ;-) I am learning what 5Dmk2 has to offer, hopefully soon I will have something to upload :-)


« Reply #17 on: May 20, 2009, 16:19 »
0
You can out from subs in StockXpert and only sell at credits. 

Other than that, I don't normally downsize images (sometimes I do in IS if that is in the same size range) and I stopped uploading to FT and 123RF.

« Reply #18 on: May 20, 2009, 16:36 »
0
There is one more thing favoring downsizing. When an image gets downsized, its quality gets better - the image gets sharper and has less noise -> easier to get past the stupid inspector/reviewer

KB

« Reply #19 on: May 20, 2009, 16:47 »
0
I believe that giving the customers the best quality image I can will provide incentive to download my work again in the future.

I strongly agree with this reasoning, and that's another reason that I'm so undecided here.

Let me clarify a point I was trying to make in my OP that was none too successful, and is one of my main concerns.

I realize that XXXL sales are extremely rare, but for the sake of argument, let's say a buyer on IS buys one of my XXXL images and pays 28 credits. For many large corporations such a purchase is practically pocket change. But even so, if they were to discover the same sized image is available on BigStock for 6 credits, wouldn't they feel cheated? Similarly a sub buyer on iStock would pay a substantial amount more for that XXXL image than they theoretically could on DT, SS, or StockXpert (assuming I UL'd the full-size image to all sites).

So, yes, I'm worried about giving away too much for too little.  But not only because it isn't fair to me, but also because it isn't fair to buyers of my images from sites that have the most contributor-friendly pricing (although one certainly would be right to question how contributor-friendly the pricing is at IS when you get just 20% of the price).

Good point, Madelaide, about opting out at StockXpert. Most of my sales, though, do seem to be subs nowadays. It seems to make more sense, then, to optimize for the sub sales just like at SS, and every now and then a PPD will sweeten the pot.

« Reply #20 on: May 20, 2009, 16:51 »
0
Some agencies have introduced different (bigger) sizes in the past. When I started with FT in early 2007 they had three sizes: S, M and L (if I remember correctly).
For them (and for us) that was a neat way to increase prices - just add more sizes and keep the price for the smallest size, automatically the bigger sizes were priced higher.

If they will do similar steps in the future you limit your earnings potential by not uploading your maximum size.

The exceptions for me would be:
- if you gain in quality by downsizing (sharper, less noise)
- for SS, if you're willing to have an additional step in your workflow. As they upsize anyway, you have no benefit in uploading bigger sizes (assuming they don't change their model in the future)

I personally would probably avoid any additional work to have different sized versions for different agencies and upload full resolution to all... (currently not an issue, as I shoot with an 8 MP 30D)

« Reply #21 on: May 20, 2009, 16:56 »
0
There is one more thing favoring downsizing. When an image gets downsized, its quality gets better - the image gets sharper and has less noise -> easier to get past the stupid inspector/reviewer

That's why I sometimes downsize for IS, if the image is going to fall in the same size range - I won't lose by not having the larger size available, although perhaps a buyer may prefer a 10MPix over 6MPix, both being XL.

« Reply #22 on: May 20, 2009, 16:57 »
0
Good point, Madelaide, about opting out at StockXpert. Most of my sales, though, do seem to be subs nowadays. It seems to make more sense, then, to optimize for the sub sales just like at SS, and every now and then a PPD will sweeten the pot.

With subs worth no little, I see no point in making them available to that type of buyer.  Let them have someone else's images. 

lisafx

« Reply #23 on: May 20, 2009, 17:28 »
0
There is one more thing favoring downsizing. When an image gets downsized, its quality gets better - the image gets sharper and has less noise -> easier to get past the stupid inspector/reviewer

Yes and no.  If the image is borderline quality then downsizing it can hide flaws like unsharpness or too much noise and get it accepted. 

But IMO if you have a properly exposed, low noise, sharp image to begin with you gain nothing by downsizing it.

« Reply #24 on: May 21, 2009, 00:18 »
0
Since we are considering the future, will all this be moot when video takes over the micro market?

I think video is where photo was 5 years ago, we can all upload any crap we want :-) We should start now when entry point is low so early adopters will be market leaders of tomorrow ;-) I am learning what 5Dmk2 has to offer, hopefully soon I will have something to upload :-)


well, video is where flash used to be. it's a novelty, and eventually people get tired of it.
the serious user would get sick of how flash and video slow the browser and like some people i know, are already getting add ons to block these ads that simply get in the way.
it's a total pain the rear end, and eventually, photographs will be back to where it should be.



« Reply #25 on: May 21, 2009, 04:21 »
0
For how long will Megapixel be the only thing controlling the pricing.  What about the most important thing. Good lenses?  and pixel quality.   Im sure I could get a picture approved with a 12Mp touristcamera.   Thats kind of unfair ???

« Reply #26 on: May 21, 2009, 06:54 »
0
There are definitely two schools of thought on this.  I can understand the argument for downsizing.  Subscription buyers are getting a great deal for their money and there is a good case to be made for wanting to limit that.

OTOH, as I see it the extra work involved in downsizing images and uploading separate versions of the same file to different sites is an added PITA that has no concrete benefit to it. 

A number of the sites will uprez anyway and the quality of file customers get will be lousy.  I believe that giving the customers the best quality image I can will provide incentive to download my work again in the future. 

Icefront makes a great point about size needs and demands changing in the future.

I agree with Lisa.


KB

« Reply #27 on: May 21, 2009, 11:52 »
0

123 - Max file size is "Mega High XL" > 10.1MP (10 credits). Sub sales are for files less than Mega High XL.
So a 21MP image would not be sold as a sub, but does it help to go beyond, say, 12MP?

I guess the fact that no one corrected my statement above means I'm not the only one who hasn't paid attention to this "issue" before now. The above is totally wrong.

I know now that the reason my spreadsheet had "Mega High XL" > 10.1MP was because my previous camera created 10.1MP images.  "Mega High" was set to the max size I UL'd, and "Mega High XL" was upsized about 50%.

I just sent a 5D2 test image there, and "Mega High" was set to the full-size 21.1MP image, and "Mega High XL" was again upsized by about 50%.

So, 123 actually is in the ranks of DT and StockXpert (and, of course, SS) which sells subs at the maximum size uploaded.

Milinz

« Reply #28 on: May 24, 2009, 05:36 »
0
6mpix (or something close to that) is what I now upload to microstock... Higher resolution is for more serious pricing.

lisafx

« Reply #29 on: May 24, 2009, 17:39 »
0

well, video is where flash used to be. it's a novelty, and eventually people get tired of it.
the serious user would get sick of how flash and video slow the browser and like some people i know, are already getting add ons to block these ads that simply get in the way.
it's a total pain the rear end, and eventually, photographs will be back to where it should be.


Hope you are right about this Perseus.  I just can't manage to find the time or interest to learn video, even though I see some folks are making a fortune at it. 

Totally OT, I would never dream of arguing with you now that you have your menacing new avatar!!   When I feel snakes coming out of my head (or just bitchy)  I am going to steer well clear of you ;D

« Reply #30 on: May 24, 2009, 17:58 »
0
One can always re-upload the bigger files when the future arrives.

There are definitely two schools of thought on this.  I can understand the argument for downsizing.  Subscription buyers are getting a great deal for their money and there is a good case to be made for wanting to limit that.

OTOH, as I see it the extra work involved in downsizing images and uploading separate versions of the same file to different sites is an added PITA that has no concrete benefit to it. 

A number of the sites will uprez anyway and the quality of file customers get will be lousy.  I believe that giving the customers the best quality image I can will provide incentive to download my work again in the future. 

Icefront makes a great point about size needs and demands changing in the future.

lisafx

« Reply #31 on: May 24, 2009, 18:23 »
0
One can always re-upload the bigger files when the future arrives.


How true.  And what fun reuploading 4 or 5k images ;)

Not to mention trying to get back customers that you lost because they downloaded uprezzed copies of your images and were unhappy with the quality.

« Reply #32 on: May 24, 2009, 20:03 »
0
Yep, apparently you are happy with 30 cents for any size. Not me.

One can always re-upload the bigger files when the future arrives.


How true.  And what fun reuploading 4 or 5k images ;)

Not to mention trying to get back customers that you lost because they downloaded uprezzed copies of your images and were unhappy with the quality.

« Reply #33 on: May 25, 2009, 09:40 »
0
My thoughts on the original question.

Upload the largest file size that you can. You will be giving your customers the best possible quality and when the micro sites decide to throw out the old unsold low res images that are cluttering all the micro sites .... yours will not be one of them.

-Larry

lisafx

« Reply #34 on: May 25, 2009, 10:54 »
0
Yep, apparently you are happy with 30 cents for any size. Not me.


Must be a guy thing to get so hung up on size ;)

Image size is one of the least considerations to me.  When I factor in my time, which has considerable monetary value to me,  spent having to make, store and upload multiple copies of every image, and add the likely investment of many hours in the future reuploading thousands of full sized images I just don't see how it's cost effective.   Particularly as the end result may actually be less satisfied customers and reduced sales. 

Probably because this is a business for me I tend to weigh the whole picture in terms of investment vs. returns.

Not trying to persuade you or anyone else though.  We are each doing this for our own reasons and have to make decisions we can live with.

KB

« Reply #35 on: May 25, 2009, 11:09 »
0
I've finally made my decision, and it matches that of Larry's & Lisa's posts. I have begun uploading my 5D2 images to all sites, and I am uploading only as full-sized.

The issue of fairness still weighs on me, but at least part of it has been resolved. I realize it is not my responsibility to worry about how a buyer might feel if they see the same XXXL image they bought on one site for a fraction of the cost on another. That is each site's problem, not mine.

As for $0.30 or $0.35 "any size" subs, that still bothers me, and I will continue to re-evaluate my participation in such plans.

Thanks for everyone's sharing of their opinions. It was quite helpful.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
1 Replies
3408 Views
Last post September 19, 2007, 10:21
by w7lwi
11 Replies
4777 Views
Last post June 07, 2011, 05:50
by Gannet77
1 Replies
2353 Views
Last post March 15, 2012, 13:08
by sgoodwin4813
173 Replies
36872 Views
Last post February 18, 2015, 07:34
by Shelma1
4 Replies
2222 Views
Last post July 06, 2014, 10:04
by Vic

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors