ok, we're in symbiostock forum... sorry 

if you check at certain agencies to sell the rights, for exemple http://www.dreamstime.com/elterms.php#sr-el and someone buy this kind of license, it's the end of selling that picture (could be for ever or for years)

You're right, Mantis, sorry.

Quote from: jsnover on February 27, 2011, 07:36
Perhaps it's a silly question, but why not just sell through Alamy directly? Although you have one more agency to upload to, you then get to keep all the royalty Alamy pays (60% is what I get - I think that's standard).

+1

Take care with partnerships. Sometimes if you accept one, you will not be able to contribute directly with the partner agency never. Read all the agreement before accepting it.

Quote from: Mantis on February 26, 2011, 15:08
I would not downsize.  Remember that they have on-demand as well as subscription.  On demand is size related.  I make an extra 50-60 a month with OD's.  And if a designer purchases a sub plan and is looking for high res content, you're hosed.  And finally......Futurama Bender thinking here.....IF Shutterstock changes their model for whatever reason to be more like IS or Fotolia and less of SUB site, OR if they get purchased by another site that uses a different model that sells imagery by scalable factors (i.e. files sizes) you would be extremely limited in your RPD.  If you have all high resolution images, they would theoretically be transferred to that new site and you're good to go.

Just some food for thought.

James Bond.

Mantis, we're not talking about downsize as a rule, but in very specific circumstances, in which the alternative is downsize or nothing. The post talks about how to downsize in those cases and if it is possible to save quality or information in the process.

Quote from: RacePhoto on February 26, 2011, 04:46
Others may be of a different opinion, but the last step I do is the downsizing from the TIF but save the full size TIF for future use. I'd hate to work on the smaller image, when the big one is easier to see, and I'd hate to save it small and find out, I wanted to fix something later. So I do everything full size, save the TIF, then reduce the size and save as a jpg.

+1

Quote from: Colette on February 24, 2011, 21:03
When downsizing you do this kind of thing 'virtual'. A smaller image looks sharper. (And you are loosing info.)
But reviewers look at images at 100 percent or more and then the same problems pop up. Perhaps they let them pass, not for the image is really better, but the usability for buyers is (seems) better?

Even if reviewers look them at 100% they don't see the same after downsizing. Test it yourself. They see a bigger percentage of the image, and things in the pic, smaller. The same problems don't  pop up unleast the image were excessively unsharpness or or had too much noise and it still is visible.

Quote from: Colette on February 24, 2011, 21:03
You can have more pixels in an inch (dpi), but how can you have smaller pixels?

Of course you haven't smaller pixels, and neither you have more pixels in an inch. You have the same pixels in an inch and they (every one) sizes the same. When you downsize the image, you loose pixels, you delete them. If your image is 12Mp in the original and you downsize it to 4Mp, you loose 8Mp! 66% of the information. If you view the image 100% before and after, the second time you view all 66% smaller (at 100%, yes, for seeing the same size than before, you have to view it 300% this time, in this case) and you view in your screen 66% more of the image than before.

There is no way to preserve information, you are deleting it! You have to choose. Anyway, for downsizing, Photoshop recommends to use the Bicubic sharper option in the case 'Resample Image'.

But you should downsize only in a few cases. The result is not so bad: 2464*1632 as RacePhoto suggest, is an image at 300ppi resulting in 8.213*5.44 inches. 300ppi is for industrial prints. For a best quality printing in a home printer you have 220ppi , 11.2*7.418 inches, or a good / medium quality printing 150ppi , 16.427*10.88 inches. For the web, which uses 72ppi, you have 34.222*22.667 inches!. I think web usage is the more common one (I guess).

Only in a very very few cases one client will need an extra-large file for a perfect print at a great size. For all the others, a 4Mp file works. And a downsized 12Mp to 4Mp file is not worse than an original 4Mp image.

Quote from: Perry on February 23, 2011, 20:36

Quote from: fxegs on February 23, 2011, 19:56
I downsize to the minimum accepted, so I put directly the number of pixels of the largest side. 2400*1600 is the minimum, so only if putting 2400 the other side has less than 1600 I put a higher value. You can induce if the total is 4Mb multiplying (approx, because the system is not decimal, but binaric, and 1MB is not 1000*1000 but 1024*1024).

The bits and bytes doesn't have anything to do with megpixels.

Yes, you're right, I know, sorry about writing fast without taking care.

Quote from: RacePhoto on February 24, 2011, 08:00

Yes, it's going to look worse if you view it Full Screen, which is not the same as Actual Size, because now you are enlarging it. You will get a worse looking image. I suspect you aren't viewing them both at 100%?

If viewed at 100% the original will be larger than the new file, but the new smaller file should look just as good or possibly better, because you have smaller pixels. That is unless someone changed the compression when downsizing or something else is modified?

By the way, even though it was off the question you asked, the size for 4MP image that I use is 2460 x 1640 which comes out to... 4,034,400  Some sites list 4MP as 2464x1632 = 4,021,248

If your question is how do you make something smaller and lose no data, that's like saying pour a 1 liter bottle of water into a 750ML jar and still have 1 liter? The fact that you downsize equals less data, you can't have it both ways.

+1
You're loosing information, in fact you're cutting out a great lot of pixels. But for the same reason you loose noise, and unsharpness sensation. Anyway, you should do this only with previously refused files. Do you prefer a minor information file (and for the web and small prints works fine) or nothing?
I know that you only are trying to preserve the maximum quality and information, another way is not to downsize and try to reduze the noise or sharpen the image, but this doesn't work sometimes. But... try, refusals in shutterstock don't matter, you can reupload the files several times.

After accepted, I submit the images without downsizing them, and the cases I get a refusal caused by noise or sharpness, I resubmit that ones downsized. This way I get accepted about 70% of refused files.

I downsize to the minimum accepted, so I put directly the number of pixels of the largest side. 2400*1600 is the minimum, so only if putting 2400 the other side has less than 1600 I put a higher value. You can induce if the total is 4Mb multiplying (approx, because the system is not decimal, but binaric, and 1MB is not 1000*1000 but 1024*1024).

If you use Photoshop I guess you have also Bridge. There, Tools/Photoshop/Image processor (or similar, I neither use English version) lets you to resize a batch (and apply actions if you want).

Quote from: redwater on February 07, 2011, 19:27
If you can install a facility within your website where contributors can request for payout rather than sending you an invoice, would be a good feature to have.

+1

I have sales from november to january, each month more than the precedent one... What I don't know is if the total in the last month is the addition of all the months or only the volume of that one. Beacuse I can't find otherwise the total. I don't know either when we get paid...
In December it appears a quantity for my uploaded images in the promo period.

Thanks, Race, that's exactly what I will do

and at the sixth time... approved!

After reading your suggestions and waiting for a new chance, this time I became approved as a submitter. The different thing I have done this time has been resizing the images to the minimum one required.

So good luck to the ones that are still looking for the approval.

Ok, that's the point. Now I see the real difference between PU-Photoshelter and RF-micro: advertising, promotion... So the first should be cheaper than RF-micro, and RF-Photoshelter should be more expensive than RF+Extended in micro. And I can use all of them.

Thank you Sean, Madelaide (obrigado para ti) and Cascoly.

Thank you, Sean, your blog have been very useful to me. So, I have to study what offers every kind of license in every agency/platform and put prices in consequence. But after reading your posts, I'm still thinking that, in general, RF-without extended license in micro is similar (with differences) to the PU in PS, at least in terms the user can not do commerce with the image. If you add an extended license, as you compare IS with Getty, it depends on restrictions such as quantity of uses for IS, while Getty has not restrictions (as PShelter). So I can, with a margin of error, equal micro RF without extended license (and price)  with PU in PS, and RF with extended license with RF in PS, thinking that this last is absolutely non-restricted and perhaps more expensive.

Elsewhere, the point that interest me the more, is that I can (ethically, in fact I know I can) sell the same image in micro for a buck, and in PS or Getty or macro in general, for a hundred, while it depends on the rights the license allows (no matter if we speak on PU, RF or RM, it depends on the real content of the license).

Am I right... at least?

Madrid - Spain
Currency Euro

Min wage - 640€

Pint of beer - 3€
Cinema ticket - 7€
Expresso - 1.30€
Cigarettes - 3.5€
Rent 2 room apartment - 600/800 €
Doctor - Free for all, but if you want you take a private insurance 60/70€ monthly and 3€ specialist visit

Royalty-Free images are delivered electronically through the PhotoShelter website. The sale and fulfillment process is totally automated by PhotoShelter. Unlike Rights-Managed images, royalty-free images have relatively loose restrictions on their usage. The licensing agreements for these images are found here.

Electronic Personal Use licenses are appropriate for images you'd like to sell to individual consumers for their personal use, which may include, but is not limited to, using the image for at-home printing, screensaver slideshows, wedding announcements, online personal profiles, etc. A Personal Use license prohibits the buyer from using the image for anything but strictly personal or limited educational use (e.g. school projects or single-classroom education).

So, is RF in micro a step between PU and RF in PS? I'm a bit confused...

I recently have opened an acount in Photoshelter; until now I have only worked with microstock agencies, and studying how to use PS, I have founded some information that makes me doubt respect some things I used to have clear in my mind. I hope I could expose them orderly, and you could help me:

1- I know the difference between RF and RM licenses, and we ethically should not sell the same images as RF very cheap and as RM many many times more expensive. And I also think this way.

2- PS have three kind of licenses: Personal use (PU from now), RF and RM. PU is, of course, only for personal and never for commercial use. RM, as we know, determines the different uses and has different prices depending on them. RF is royalty free at all, licensee could do practically anything he/she wants with the file.

3- My conclusion is that in microstock RF is not a true but a false RF, and corresponds with PU in PS, because in micro lincensees can't commerce with the image unleast they purchase an Extended License, so in the beginning the sale is only for personal use (and the extended one is more expensive).

4- If I'm right until now, I'm ethically allowed to sell an image in microstock as RF for a few bucks (for me a few cents) and the same file in PS as RF for $100, for example (and as PU for the same price as in micro).

Am I right? Am I confused?

I have about 300 images, half of them before nov 15th, and no royalties of any kind, neither from the number of files uploaded

Thanks to all of you 

I needed to have some impressions. I always submit at maximum size and quality (yes, if I don't crop for other reasons as composition or pixel quality), but yesterday I was doubting about. Your arguments are very reasonables.

One question, RacePhoto, I'm thinking in going through Alamy... how much is 'big enough'?

Recently, in other topic, some people have been discussing about downsizing their files when uploading to those agencies who works with subscription plans. I confess I have never thought about it, and I'm interested, because is frustating when you have many subscribtion sales in wich you gain $0.20-0.40 depending on the site, for files at maximum size.

Subscription sites I contribute to are:
Fotolia - min 4Mp (2400*1600)
Dreamstime - min 3Mp (2000*1500)
Canstockphotos - don't know minimum
Depositphotos - min 4Mp (2400*1600)
123RF - min 6Mp (2900*2175 aprox)
Panthermedia - doesn't matter since you have the chance to disable subscription sales.
Crestock - don't know minimum
Pixmac - min 3Mp (3000*1500)

I'm temptated to only upload files to those sites at the minimum size, but...
For example, in Dremstime, I have had 42 sales until now, many of them subscripted, others no. Of those 42, 6 (one of seven) I have sold no-subscripted and at a size large or maximum. That kind of sales produces a satisfaction, is when I see my little gains grown. And I would have lose part of this money if I have uploaded the files at the minimum size required. I even think that many of the subscription-frustrating sales could not be existed if I haven't had the maximum size of the file, and buyer could have chosen another photographer's file (and little by little, they are a strong percentage of gains).

I would like to know what do you think about this question. Someone in the other post says he upload in subscription sites at a size of 5Mp, when his camera has 17 or 18, don't remenber, and argues that downsizing also increases quality of files (in many cases it's truth that the file is better this way).

What do you do? What do you think about?

Well, in fact, different agencies understand 'editorial images' differently. For example, Dreamstime accepts almost all, whilst Bigstock reject the ones that don't represent news or recent events. At least for me.

RacePhoto, you have nothing to lose with your own site, since you will still working with other agencies, and is a new market for your rejected pics. I think it is a good idea. You only have to announce it wisely. In forums, social media, etc. Do you use Linked In? There are some groups about buying and selling images, and a lot of suggestions to promote your work. I wish you good luck.

Exactly, it's for automatical translations. In Spanish 'sal' is 'salt' in English. Plural 'sales' makes 'saltz'. Another example (and there is many many like this), I write in English the keyword 'bench' in an urban pic, in Spanish is 'banco', but this word in Spanish also means 'bank'. So first translates 'bench' into 'banco' and then retranslates to English, but this time as 'bank'. But my picture has a bench, not a bank!! And my iptc data is in English, the final language!!

Very poor professionalism, because even they don't hear what contributors have to say them.

I wish them improvements as well...

I have seen your portfolio, and I really don't know what's happen. I only know this site is full or errors.
I'm spanish, like them, but I want to use the site and to keyword in English. Every time the words are translated into Spanish and then into English, automatically, so the results are changed words than don't representate the pic, or strong gramatical error in description or title... why don't they leave my iptc data as I submit it? So every time I have to correct the documentation, because another automatical software detect the errors... the errors they have created!! Another kind of error is... there are words in English. Of course there are words in English!
My files don't go online until I have correct them three or four times. It's a waste of time, I have written them several times without response.
The email address I receive in my copy of the message is pabloblane​[email protected]
This guy is one of the contributors, but also the owner or director of Photaki, I think. He appears as well in LinkedIn.

I don't know the answer to your question, perhaps your file has a small size?

I have a lot of problems with them, anyway. I have written several times to they but without response. I'm thinking in deleting all my pictures from there.