MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => Sites that no longer exist => LuckyOliver.com => Topic started by: grp_photo on August 31, 2006, 04:17
-
As i'm already satisfied with my sales at LO so far i'm wondering why all my pictures downsampled to about 1800x2500 pixels. My files are mostly much much larger and noisefree. Anyone else noticed this? Maybe Bryan can jump in and explain this.
-
Are they resizing to standard sizes rather than what ever weird dimensions you provide - ie. to the dimensions that correspond to their pricing plan??
-
Lucky Olivers size chart is available @ http://www.luckyoliver.com/guide/buying_images
I just checked one of my images (@ http://www.luckyoliver.com/photo/91556/Good+To+The+Last+Drop), and it was also downsized. It was downsized from 3072 * 2048 (or 6,291,456 pixels) to 2715 * 1810 (or 4,914,150 pixels), which is close to one of their standard image sizes (of Large at 1920 * 2560 or 4,915,200 pixels). I'm not sure why they don't offer the original size for this image, since downsizing can degrade the image.
Another of my images (http://www.luckyoliver.com/photo/173438/That%27s+The+Ticket+%28Blue%29) was downsized from 4725 * 2543 (or 12,015,675 pixels) to 3022 * 1626 (or 4,913,772 pixels). A MUCH bigger difference. Once again, the downsize is close to one of of their standard sizes (of Large at 1920 * 2560 or 4,915,200 pixels). But I'm not sure why it isn't available at XLarge (which is 2800 * 4200 or 11,760,000 pixels) and why it was basically downsized from 12 MP to 5 MP, which is quite a substantial drop.
I agree that someone at LO needs to address this.
-
Downsampled to the next standard size??
In my case most of my files are 10,12 or even 16MP. Downsample a 16Mp file to less than 5MP to fit in standard sizes that would be crazy!
-
Have you emailed/contacted the Olivers? I am sure they have some wacky name for it.
-
As i'm already satisfied with my sales at LO so far i'm wondering why all my pictures downsampled to about 1800x2500 pixels. My files are mostly much much larger and noisefree. Anyone else noticed this? Maybe Bryan can jump in and explain this.
I'd like to get back to the 'satisfied with my sales' part. You have had sales?
-
Yes the last three days i had lots of sales before nearly nothing and now suddenly better performance than Dreamstime i hope they can keep it that way.
-
hope many images you got up there?
I have 2 sales.. :S
-
I had four sales.
At the beginning the 1600x1200 images were not made available at the original size, although this was exactly the size of one of their standards. I emailed them and corrected this problem a few days after.
Regards,
Adelaide
-
I've been looking at my portfolio, and all my "large" photos are also significantly smaller than what I uploaded. I'm not sure how I feel about it. On the one hand, I worked hard to create these (pitiful) images to be clean at 6.3 megapixels. On the other hand, do designers need an image that large?
Any designers want to answer for us?
-
Howdy guys-
1. We haven’t included the XL and XXL file sizes. We modified our architecture a bit to improve performance…but we haven’t put the large sizes up yet. Coming very soon.
2. Sizing is now based on area…so the dimensions in our guide are a rough approximation of the pixel area. We will be updating the documentation on this.
Also, glad to see Carnies are getting some sales. We still haven't begun any marketing activities, so we'll keep you posted. We're still working on a few core pieces for designers. Lots to do.
Thanks,
Bryan
-
I've been looking at my portfolio, and all my "large" photos are also significantly smaller than what I uploaded. I'm not sure how I feel about it. On the one hand, I worked hard to create these (pitiful) images to be clean at 6.3 megapixels. On the other hand, do designers need an image that large?
Any designers want to answer for us?
I always prefer the biggest image I can get unless I know it's for web-only or if there are budget concerns. Mainly it's about flexibility. You can always downsize an image without loss of quality, but never upsample. I'm glad to hear that LO will be including XL and XXL files up in the future.
-
I can see this is still an issue. I have contacted LO a while back but thought it would get better with my new 10 mp camera. I was wrong. My 10mp original has been reduced quite drastically. I don't see how this benefits the end user. It does not offer any flexibility for the designer and is probably not good for sales (especially when the same image is available on other sites at the original size). The XL, XXL sizing will not make a difference. The down sizing is too extreme. They need to offer the original size and then down size from there (like other sites do). Here is a breakdown:
Original 4mp - 2272x1704 = 7.57x5.68 (inches @300dpi)
Downsampled to - 1600x1200 = 5.33x4 (inches @300dpi)
Original 10mp - 3872x2592 = 12.9x8.64 (inches @300dpi)
Downsampled - 2709x1813 = 9x6 (inches @300dpi)
I really like the LO site and the reviews are very helpfull. I want them to succeed but this should really be addressed. Anyone else feel the same?
Lora
-
Lora-
It's a good idea. We're in the midst of rolling out some buyer features- it's on the list. We're thinking about putting the remaining resolution in the highest available size. It's not a huge programming issue...we just need to rerender all the images in the database. I'd expect this to roll out soon. Thanks!
-
good to hear