MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Envato Elements

Author Topic: Min. Image Size Upgrade  (Read 11450 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #25 on: November 24, 2010, 17:43 »
0
I guess this just means I'll have one less site to worry about uploading to.  I regularly downsize to 6 MP, too, plus my backup body is an old 6 MP D70, and no way am I changing my workflow just to please my second lowest earning site.


« Reply #26 on: November 24, 2010, 21:17 »
0
You should accept at least 6mp...

Hi All,

Thanks for your feedback, we've lowered the requirement to 6 MP for the foreseeable future, although the pages on the site still says 8 mp. All files that were previously accepted or is currently in the review queue will remain as they were.

Thank you very much.

Alex
for 123RF.com
« Last Edit: November 24, 2010, 21:20 by alex123rf »

« Reply #27 on: November 24, 2010, 21:38 »
0
Please lower the requirements to a minimum of 4 mpix just like before. And I'm sure it will be ok for everyone.

« Reply #28 on: November 25, 2010, 00:35 »
0
we've lowered the requirement to 6 MP for the foreseeable future
Bingo for my crystal ball.  :P
Thanks Alex.

« Reply #29 on: November 25, 2010, 00:40 »
0
Please lower the requirements to a minimum of 4 mpix just like before. And I'm sure it will be ok for everyone.
123RF has a tradition of large sizes. They had 4MP already back in 2005 when other sites still accepted 2MP. An update after 5 years is reasonable in that perspective, but 4 > 8MP was a bit steep. 6MP is fine, for a while.

« Reply #30 on: November 25, 2010, 01:33 »
0
What does the size of the camera sensor have to do with being or not a weekendsnapper?  

"Have you heard of Dr. Freud, Mr Ismay Lagereek? His studies on the male preoccupations with size might be of interest to you." - Rose (Titanic Film).  ;)


May I suggest they make it 12 MPs instead, getting rid of all the riff-raff :P

Nice provocation... but most new cameras are 12 MP+ nowadays, so that won't cut out the competition: it would only cut any headroom for adjustments. Is it better a slightly lower resolution but perfectly sharp and aligned picture, or a 12 MP full of noise, tilted horizons, bad cropping and soft?
[/quote

Oh alright then, make it 20 MP, just as long as we get rid of the weekendsnappers.
« Last Edit: November 25, 2010, 01:40 by Digital66 »

lagereek

« Reply #31 on: November 25, 2010, 01:58 »
0
Yap!  Dr Freud was a big lad himself, armed with a MII  and a 1000 mil, f2.8.  No weekend-snapping there but serious intellectual snapping.

« Reply #32 on: November 25, 2010, 02:00 »
0
You should accept at least 6mp...

Hi All,

Thanks for your feedback, we've lowered the requirement to 6 MP for the foreseeable future, although the pages on the site still says 8 mp. All files that were previously accepted or is currently in the review queue will remain as they were.

Thank you very much.

Alex
for 123RF.com


Thanks, sounds like a good compromise. :) :) :)

« Reply #33 on: November 25, 2010, 09:49 »
0
Perfect news on a cold Thanksgiving morning.  Thanks Alex!!!   ;D

« Reply #34 on: November 25, 2010, 10:01 »
0
That's bad. I shoot 18mpix, but quite frequently downsize to 4-5mpix. Sometimes it's necessary, to keep the good quality. For example in landmark interiors it's often not allowed to used tripods. I shoot ISO 800 with IS then, but image needs to be downsized to look good.

Please note that industry leader iStock, requires only 2mpix and Shutterstock requires 4mpix in general, but 2.5mpix for veterans.

« Reply #35 on: November 25, 2010, 11:11 »
0
I'm pleased they changed this quickly, 4mp would be better but I can live with 6mp.  Still don't see why mp requirement is increasing when print is on its way out and 2mp is enough for most web use.  What about all these small screen tablets and smart phones?  Seems a shame to lose lots of images that would be suitable for a big market.

microstockphoto.co.uk

« Reply #36 on: November 25, 2010, 11:29 »
0
Thanks for listening to feedback. Although I would have kept 4 Megapixels, 6 is fine.

lagereek

« Reply #37 on: November 26, 2010, 02:28 »
0
On a serious note. I dont mind any size upgrade, I already work with HD3, D3X and MII, so I can easlily supply shots from a 50MP digital back, no problem.

Before I do that, well,  with all PP, work, etc,  the agency in question will have to provide me with a hell of a lot more proof of selling power then what 123 have done so far.
Its no good pretending getting in among the big boys, not showing equal results.

« Reply #38 on: November 27, 2010, 20:11 »
0
I guess this just means I'll have one less site to worry about uploading to.  I regularly downsize to 6 MP, too, plus my backup body is an old 6 MP D70, and no way am I changing my workflow just to please my second lowest earning site.

Having the same backup, and giving allowance to crop - my downsize is 5.1M.
Thanks for helping making my decision!
Will wait for next payout - and out. They will not probably miss me, but fro sure - I will not miss them.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
6 Replies
2623 Views
Last post June 09, 2008, 03:17
by chellyar
12 Replies
4755 Views
Last post July 31, 2010, 22:18
by mollypix
7 Replies
2170 Views
Last post January 06, 2011, 10:56
by ShadySue
3 Replies
3219 Views
Last post July 25, 2011, 23:08
by RacePhoto
7 Replies
1496 Views
Last post May 09, 2012, 14:20
by JPSDK

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results