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?! 

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

- 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.

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.

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

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 :-)

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

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)

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. 

Quote from: WarrenPrice on May 20, 2009, 15:14

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.