MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => Shutterstock.com => Topic started by: bobkeenan on November 04, 2012, 18:42
-
I had posted about a blog that I wrote about http://www.bobkeenanphoto.com/my-microstock-sales/ (http://www.bobkeenanphoto.com/my-microstock-sales/). I posted that I wrote this on a bunch of forums and have been getting some interesting responses.
One guy says he gets really good results downsizing the images to no more than 4mb. He says that eliminates a lot of the noise issues still keeps the the details sharp. He says he gets a good acceptance rate with that.
Anybody else experience this? I always thought that customers would want the largest file they can get. But maybe most customers can use the 4mb images and maybe that does cutdown on noise. I may have to try this and see what happens.
-
I don´t know about buyers but everytime I feel that I have a noisy picture or less sharp I downsize it, not to 4MP but to 8.4MP (Alamy) or 6MP (123RF), it does work because it really cleans it, in terms of approval I believe you should try to send the full version first, then you can downsize etc...
-
He doesn't downsize to 4mb!
He downsizes to 4MP.
There's a difference!
I had posted about a blog that I wrote about [url]http://www.bobkeenanphoto.com/my-microstock-sales/[/url] ([url]http://www.bobkeenanphoto.com/my-microstock-sales/[/url]). I posted that I wrote this on a bunch of forums and have been getting some interesting responses.
One guy says he gets really good results downsizing the images to no more than 4mb. He says that eliminates a lot of the noise issues still keeps the the details sharp. He says he gets a good acceptance rate with that.
Anybody else experience this? I always thought that customers would want the largest file they can get. But maybe most customers can use the 4mb images and maybe that does cutdown on noise. I may have to try this and see what happens.
-
I take a middle ground. My native images are 23MB and I always resize the output JPEG down to a long side of about 4600 pixels (perhaps 15 - 20% down). That is the basic image I upload to Lightburner and it goes from there to all the main sites at full resolution. Lightburner lets you selectively downsize images on a site by site basis, and so I downsize my ones going to SS to 6M as the majority of sales there are subscriptions.
Seems to work for me.
Steve
-
I believe you should try to send the full version first, then you can downsize etc...
That's what I've been doing. Occasionally I will downsize first for SS and BS if I think it has focus issues, but most of the time I submit the same size everywhere then downsize and resubmit any that are rejected for focus or noise. Haven't noticed any difference in sales between full size and downsized images. The smallest I go is 6 Mpx - 2000 px on the smallest side is easy to remember and 4 just seems too small.
-
I don't usually downsize.
But unfortunately, Shutterstock hates shadows and since I do mainly travel/architectural photography and can't control lighting, I need to apply a lot of fill light during editing, which adds a lot of noise: in this case, I downsize to 8.4 MP (as required by Alamy), or 6 MP (123RF and other sites).
I only resize to 4 MP for resubmission.
-
I downsize everything to 6.1 mp (because of 123) and anything that goes to Alamy is set at 8.7mp
Only when an image is soft I downsize to 4.1 mp
-
Started an experiment. Have never done this before. Most of my images are on the order of 5760 × 3840 pixels unless I crop. So with a batch of 12 images I downsized them to a maximum of 3500 on a side. So it will be interesting to see if that has any impact on my acceptance rate
-
Started an experiment. Have never done this before. Most of my images are on the order of 5760 × 3840 pixels unless I crop. So with a batch of 12 images I downsized them to a maximum of 3500 on a side. So it will be interesting to see if that has any impact on my acceptance rate
you are using good equipment, 5d ii and nice 2.8 lenses, it should be perfect in terms of noise and focus, are you exposing well pictures or have a faulty lens or body?
-
[quote faulty lens or body?
[/quote]
+1
or underexposed pics :(
-
I had posted about a blog that I wrote about [url]http://www.bobkeenanphoto.com/my-microstock-sales/[/url] ([url]http://www.bobkeenanphoto.com/my-microstock-sales/[/url]). I posted that I wrote this on a bunch of forums and have been getting some interesting responses.
One guy says he gets really good results downsizing the images to no more than 4mb. He says that eliminates a lot of the noise issues still keeps the the details sharp. He says he gets a good acceptance rate with that.
Anybody else experience this? I always thought that customers would want the largest file they can get. But maybe most customers can use the 4mb images and maybe that does cutdown on noise. I may have to try this and see what happens.
And the results are.... 2 our of 13 submitted were accepted from the batch of downsized image. Mostly for noise and focus. So that experiment failed. Back to full images and Topas denoise when needed.
-
If you have a 5DII and 2.8 lenses you would expect you to be at a level to be past focus and noise rejections. Even I with entry level kit stuff dont get noise and focus rejections.
-
I had posted about a blog that I wrote about [url]http://www.bobkeenanphoto.com/my-microstock-sales/[/url] ([url]http://www.bobkeenanphoto.com/my-microstock-sales/[/url]). I posted that I wrote this on a bunch of forums and have been getting some interesting responses.
One guy says he gets really good results downsizing the images to no more than 4mb. He says that eliminates a lot of the noise issues still keeps the the details sharp. He says he gets a good acceptance rate with that.
Anybody else experience this? I always thought that customers would want the largest file they can get. But maybe most customers can use the 4mb images and maybe that does cutdown on noise. I may have to try this and see what happens.
And the results are.... 2 our of 13 submitted were accepted from the batch of downsized image. Mostly for noise and focus. So that experiment failed. Back to full images and Topas denoise when needed.
we all have different experiences, I downsize everytime I feel the need like I have said, if I have a picture being rejected for focus I downsize too and most times it does work!
-
I used to "de-noise" all my images for SS when I was shooting with the old canon 300d. Once I upgraded to the 5dmark II in 2008, I stopped using noise reduction software and have never received a rejection for noise. I don't downsize anything. I haven't submitted in close to a year, however. Maybe something has changed?
-
Maybe something has changed?
I think it's a couple of rogue reviewers. Either that or they have dramatically tightened down on acceptance rates. I've been averaging 80-100% acceptance on most batches there for the past several months, then for the last two batches, 17/20 rejected, most for focus. The same images were accepted 80-100% on all other agencies and are similar in quality to those that received high acceptance previously. Will downsize and resubmit most of them to see what happens - in the past that has worked fine but not so confident now.
-
Maybe something has changed?
I think it's a couple of rogue reviewers. Either that or they have dramatically tightened down on acceptance rates. I've been averaging 80-100% acceptance on most batches there for the past several months, then for the last two batches, 17/20 rejected, most for focus. The same images were accepted 80-100% on all other agencies and are similar in quality to those that received high acceptance previously. Will downsize and resubmit most of them to see what happens - in the past that has worked fine but not so confident now.
+!10
There is no rhyme nor reason to many rejections
I can handle a certain amount not passing scrutiny, but I have been rejected for nosie -when there was none - even at 200%
so, yes reviewers dont always get it right - frankly I think if they find a couple with nosie or oof then they will nail almost the entire batch
SS please teach your reviewers properly, and not to have a 'god' complex