I have to say, Ive never seen a 4 times upsample.


Edit: I guess the person voting me down knows what I have and have not seen at Shutterstock. With skills like that you shouldnt be in microstock, but operating a psychic booth on a Carnaval

Take a look at this file then http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=186782621
It's one that was rejected as focus not where we like it at 20MP so I downsized it to 6MP and now you can see it is on sale up to 6MP and with a "supersize" 24MP option.  Obviously, the acceptable supersize version must be significantly lower in quality than the unacceptable original 20MP version. Go figure.

The nice thing about photography, we all have the capacity to choose how we make our images. If Steve wants to use a filter to create the photograph he wants that is his choice. I happen to agree with him. I rather make my image in camera rather than in post production.  Do not critique or criticize his method but his photos.

Well, he's talking about a method, Dave, the photos (very nice, too) are an illustration of that method.

I'd be the last one to criticise anybody for choosing to make photos any way they want - in fact I've just come back from taking some shots with my Leica R4s from 1978. Last year I installed a darkroom in my house so I can develop and print in the traditional way.

However, when you blog about the results given by a particular and very expensive filter it may encourage people to buy a filter that isn't the best option for them - it may even be a deliberate advert for a filter, designed to get commission - so I think people who might not be familiar with the pros and cons are entitled to hear different views about photo techniques. In no way is that a criticism of the blog or the quality of the review.

for me it was shooting a story for a major travel magazine on the subject of  afternoon tea and tea in general. i had access to one of the top high society places for afternoon tea, but the access was limited to no more than 10 minutes so as to not disturb the guests, and i shot like there was no tomorrow, tons of great stuff. in my moment of glory, i at one point sort of figured out it was one hell of a long roll of film, never ending...
once i figured out i totally screwed up big time and was shooting away with no film, i did actually get a moment to put a roll of film in and managed to cover my ass in the shoot - barely as the good stuff got away, but oh boy did i feel dumb!!!

A photographer on a newspaper I ran came in from a job one day, went into the darkroom and came out red-faced to admit he had forgotten to load the camera.
He was a damned good photographer anyway (totally out of my class) and went on to become a major TV film cameraman and director (most people here have probable seen some of his work).  Making a mistake doesn't mean you are stupid.

They may prefer large sizes as a company policy but I am far from convinced that the inspectors take into account the effect of size.
By that I mean that a 20MP image may get the "not where we like it" focus rejection whereas downsized to 6MP it will not run into this problem. That is despite the fact that it is going to be offered supersized at 24MP..... so where is the sense in that?  The difference is what the inspector is seeing on screen, not what the final version seen by the end-user will be.
Also, why prefer a full-size 20MP image that you won't upsize instead of a 12MP image that you will resize to 48MP? How is that persuading the user that they are getting a greater choice? And if they upsize 12MP to 48MP, why not upsize 20MP to 80MP?
It all makes very little sense to me.

I guess if they didn't offer a "supersized" version they wouldn't need to be so iffy about "focus is not where we like it" etc.  I see one of my latest uploads is being offered as a 47MP version, from an original which is about 12MP in size, so if you upload a 6MP file they will resize it to 24MP.  In effect, that means that what you and I see at 72MP  has to be pristine if resized to 300MP.
Now I've got to go and resize a batch of landscape shots they just rejected for "focus is not where we like it".

Quote from: Shelma1 on April 09, 2014, 12:44

Facebook is reconfiguring its "sidebar" ads to be twice the size, and with larger size will probably come higher prices...no doubt folding in the cost of using Shutterstock images.

"No doubt"? What do you mean? Facebook will pay higher prices for the images they offer their clients for free to use in the ads? I doubt that.

I think she means that Facebook will charge advertisers more as a way of recouping the cost of images, not that the image price will rise.

Sounds like a watertight case to me, assuming her lawyer can produce the literature concerned and prove it is her in it.

Quote from: DonLand on April 09, 2014, 10:20

To SS you must upload in sRGB. They appear to ignore the color space when converting the images so if you upload in AdobeRGB your images will all look flat and  undersaturated. Most other agencies are the same with IS being the exception.

I upload to SS in aRGB and when looking at my images on their site they look fine....both on my calibrated desktop and on my laptop.  I guess I have no idea what someone else may be seeing.

I'll have to experiment with my next batch to SS and give sRGB a try.

Could it be that you are using a monitor capable of seeing the full gamut for Adobe RGB?

My screen can only see about 75% of the colour palette for Adobe RGB, the brighter parts of the range are missing, so a correctly edited ARGB image will not display on my equipment.
It would obviously also be impossible for me to edit in ARGB because I would think the image was brighter than it was was and it would come out under-exposed (I think I was doing that at some point many years back, without knowing what was going on, to keep Alamy happy).
It may well be that SS is converting from ARGB to sRGB correctly, but people who upload in ARGB have used non-compatible equipment to edit the image, so their work will end up lacking bright colours.

This section in the terms is a bit odd
" If a Creator wants to remove a Creator Image from their portfolio after a Publisher has paid to use that Creator Image, the Creator must contact Imgembed [email protected] with the request. Imgembed will then contact the Publisher, who will be offered both (y) a refund of all payments made to use the Creator Image that the Creator wishes to remove, and (z) the use of a comparable Creator Image to replace the removed Creator Image. Imgembed will arrange for the refund of payments via PayPal. In addition, Publishers who have paid to use Creator Images may do so without attribution to the Creator."

(I've no idea why "y" and "z" are floating in there).

It says the terms are governed by the laws of California but the company is based in Singapore. I don't know whose laws the company is working under, but if it is the US I don't think it can make overseas providers responsible for paying withholding tax that would presumably be applicable for US earnings.

Sorry to ask this, because I don't know, but if someone can paint a Campbell's Soup can or box of Brillo Pads and call it art, (Pop Art) then what's to prevent someone from drawing a Coke can? If they are actually drawing or painting it? I find less conflict with this than selling personal likenesses, or copying them from photos and posters and making modifications.

There have been major changes to copyright and probably trademark laws in the US since Warhol was doing soup tins in the 1960s. I don't know if it was legal then or would be legal now but many FAA artists (whether they know it or not) rely on the fact that major companies have no interest in chasing infringers selling a print or two to go on someone's wall. If the logo turned up in a way that was detrimental to the company's image it might be different.

So it's not only banks that can print money. It must be a nice feeling!

Something is very wrong for me.  I have not had a sale at DT for over a week. Do you think they are going out of business or getting ready to throw in the towel?

No. I've had average to better-than-average sales in the last seven days.