Author Topic: Why are files still being downsized at LO? (Read 6568 times)

Greg Boiarsky · « **on:** February 17, 2007, 12:57 »

I have just uploaded my first files in months. They are 8.2 megapixel images, yet the "large" option is downsized to less than 5 megapixels. And, these images are not being offered at the larger sizes because they aren't "big" enough. Maybe it's just me, but it seems quite a leap in sizing to go from 5 MP to 12 MP, which is what is listed as the XLarge size on LO.

Bryan, why do you resize the images? Doesn't that affect image quality? I know we've heard this issue here before, but I haven't seen a satisfactory answer yet.

Lizard · « **Reply #1 on:** February 17, 2007, 13:56 »

I also dont get it , if I send a image of about 2500x1700 the largest size available on LO is "medium" of about 1500x1200.

Ok maybe the reason would be that my image doesn't qualify for their demands for being large , but there is big difference between 2500x1700 that was original and 1500x1200 the highest resolution that they offer.

bryan_luckyoliver · « **Reply #2 on:** February 18, 2007, 20:58 »

http://www.luckyoliver.com/bank/purchase

Here is our size chart- we cut it off if it falls below a certain dimension. We've talked about lumping the rest of the remaining pixels into the largest size available, but with our extended license rollout it got put lower down the priority list. If you offer a buyout or extended license the full size image is available.

The jump between 5mp (most cameras now) and 12 mp is quite large. There is a large pricing gap between large and both x-large for that reason.

Greg Boiarsky · « **Reply #3 on:** February 18, 2007, 22:18 »

I think you might reconsider the sizing. I don't know how others feel, but the pricing feels a bit arbitrary to me.

Frankly, you are throwing away resolution at the large size. I suggest that you narrow the gap between large and X-large by increasing the resolution of the large images. You can increase the price if you think that would be justified. You should also reconsider the pricing difference between the X-large and the XX-large: a mere 4 megapixel difference doesn't justify a doubling in price, particularly for images at these sizes. There is very little practical difference between 12 and 16 megapixels.

Let's face it--the typical resolution of most DSLRs is around 8 megapixels. You have set the "average" resolution (I would consider the large size to be an average image size, with today's cameras) at less than 5 megapixels, and your pricing relative to that average doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

Are you selling many X-large and XX-large images?

Quote from: bryan_luckyoliver on February 18, 2007, 20:58

http://www.luckyoliver.com/bank/purchase

Here is our size chart- we cut it off if it falls below a certain dimension. We've talked about lumping the rest of the remaining pixels into the largest size available, but with our extended license rollout it got put lower down the priority list. If you offer a buyout or extended license the full size image is available.

The jump between 5mp (most cameras now) and 12 mp is quite large. There is a large pricing gap between large and both x-large for that reason.

Greg Boiarsky · « **Reply #4 on:** February 19, 2007, 00:13 »

While I'm at it, I might as well be constructive rather than merely critical. Here's my suggestion: Base your pricing differences on an approximate doubling of megapixels. Most pros will tell you that it isn't worth upgrading a camera unless the resolution doubles (or the features improve substantially, which is more infrequent), so this is a reasonable pricing strategy. I suggest you set your base price at the "large" size. Using my suggested pricing strategy, here are the new prices:

blog: 1 token for a 1 megapixel image
small: 2 tokens for a 2 megapixel image
medium: 4 tokens for a 4 megapixel image
large: 8 tokens for a 6 to 8 megapixel image
X-large: 16 tokens for a 12-16 megapixel image
XX-large: 32 tokens for a 22 megapixel or larger image (if someone is mad enough to use medium format for microstock, this would give a decent jump for them and the client)

As for trying to fit images into the size categories, I suggest you stop resizing the images. Instead, you round down to the next lowest size. So, a 5 megapixel image would be priced as a medium; a 10 megapixel image would be large; etc.

Daneel · « **Reply #5 on:** February 19, 2007, 03:54 »

Quote from: Professorgb on February 17, 2007, 12:57

Bryan, why do you resize the images? Doesn't that affect image quality? I know we've heard this issue here before, but I haven't seen a satisfactory answer yet.

Why don't you write him an e-mail and ask him? He just answered my latest question (http://www.microstockgroup.com/index.php?topic=1240.0) within 5 minutes.

If you do, please let us know what he replies...

All the best,
Michael

leaf · « **Reply #6 on:** February 19, 2007, 03:56 »

He allready replied on this thread about 4 posts ago.

he is user bryan_luckyoliver

Daneel · « **Reply #7 on:** February 19, 2007, 03:57 »

"Ooops" ;-)

bryan_luckyoliver · « **Reply #8 on:** February 19, 2007, 04:00 »

Ha! I'll reply again. Professorgb, I like your thinking. It's worth looking at in the future.

I'll have to be honest with you though, we're in the midst of working on many new features for buyers- as well as marketing, so this might take awhile before we circle back around to the idea. I understand the desire to increase royalties per image- right now we're focused on getting more downloads.

CJPhoto · « **Reply #9 on:** February 19, 2007, 06:18 »

Quote from: bryan_luckyoliver on February 19, 2007, 04:00

right now we're focused on getting more downloads.

yay - about time.

GeoPappas · « **Reply #10 on:** February 19, 2007, 07:19 »

Bryan:

I would also agree that downsizing a file at its largest size does not make much sense. If a file is 8 or 10 MP, it just doesn't seem right to downsize it to 5 MP. I believe that you are the only stock site that does this. I would recommend leaving the image at its maximum size. This would also save your servers from processing the image, and increase performance.

GeoPappas

CJPhoto · « **Reply #11 on:** February 19, 2007, 08:12 »

On the other hand - if we are only getting paid for a 5mp image, why give them 8mp?

Yours truely

CJ
Devils Advocate
Microstockgroup

Greg Boiarsky · « **Reply #12 on:** February 19, 2007, 09:38 »

I agree.

Quote from: CJPhoto on February 19, 2007, 08:12

On the other hand - if we are only getting paid for a 5mp image, why give them 8mp?

Yours truely

CJ
Devils Advocate
Microstockgroup

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Why are files still being downsized at LO? (Read 6568 times)

Greg Boiarsky

Lizard

bryan_luckyoliver

Greg Boiarsky

Greg Boiarsky

Daneel

leaf

Daneel

bryan_luckyoliver

CJPhoto

GeoPappas

CJPhoto

Greg Boiarsky

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors