Author Topic: Shutterstock - downsizing to 6mp - thoughts? (Read 43898 times)

luissantos84 · « **Reply #25 on:** April 13, 2014, 05:45 »

Quote from: fritz on April 12, 2014, 18:32

Quote from: Ron on April 12, 2014, 13:31
Quote from: ruxpriencdiam on April 12, 2014, 12:20
You should be able to get a noise free tack sharp image at full resolution, and if you are not you need to work on your technique.

Enlighten me Barry, how do you shoot noise free at a concert when flash is not allowed?

PS: CanStockPhoto has a zoom option, dont use it, because you might find out you want to downsize some images of yours.
Very easy! Set iso 100-200-400 use tripod,fast prime lens and wait for good light than press the button and camera will do the rest.

using a tripod on a gig?

lisafx · « **Reply #26 on:** April 13, 2014, 08:45 »

Quote from: robhainer on April 13, 2014, 00:15

When you're working for authenticity, things like tripods and total perfection get in the way. If I have to downsize from 36 mp to 18 or 12 or even 6, I'm going to do it. My current hottest seller that has sold more than 1,400 times on just Shutterstock in the past 10 months was downsized from 16 to 6 megapixels because getting a 5 year old kid and a dog in a perfect pose at the same time is really, really hard. Capturing the right moment is a higher priority. If I hadn't downsized it, it would have been rejected and I would have lost about $1,000 and counting.

Granted there are situations where going to a high iso is unavoidable, and your example is one of them. Unless I'm misreading the OP, though, their question was about routinely downsizing all their images to 6mp because supposedly that is the only way to get anything accepted. That is demonstrably untrue, and we even have a quoted post from a ss admin saying they not only accept high rez images, but prefer them.

It's perfectly reasonable to downsize occasionally when shooting a difficult subject or situation. But if ALL your images require drastic downsizing, as the OP seems to suggest, then it is time to explore ways to improve technique.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #27 on:** April 13, 2014, 09:15 »

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.

Ron · « **Reply #28 on:** April 13, 2014, 09:56 »

Quote from: lisafx on April 13, 2014, 08:45

Quote from: robhainer on April 13, 2014, 00:15
When you're working for authenticity, things like tripods and total perfection get in the way. If I have to downsize from 36 mp to 18 or 12 or even 6, I'm going to do it. My current hottest seller that has sold more than 1,400 times on just Shutterstock in the past 10 months was downsized from 16 to 6 megapixels because getting a 5 year old kid and a dog in a perfect pose at the same time is really, really hard. Capturing the right moment is a higher priority. If I hadn't downsized it, it would have been rejected and I would have lost about $1,000 and counting.

Granted there are situations where going to a high iso is unavoidable, and your example is one of them. Unless I'm misreading the OP, though, their question was about routinely downsizing all their images to 6mp because supposedly that is the only way to get anything accepted. That is demonstrably untrue, and we even have a quoted post from a ss admin saying they not only accept high rez images, but prefer them.

It's perfectly reasonable to downsize occasionally when shooting a difficult subject or situation. But if ALL your images require drastic downsizing, as the OP seems to suggest, then it is time to explore ways to improve technique.

I agree, just that blanket statements as from Ruxperiencediam dont fly.

Ron · « **Reply #29 on:** April 13, 2014, 09:57 »

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

Rage · « **Reply #30 on:** April 14, 2014, 02:51 »

Is the payment for differnt sizes same? Do i get 25 cents regardless of whether its a 16mp or a 6mp?

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 2

Ron · « **Reply #31 on:** April 14, 2014, 03:27 »

Quote from: izzikiorage on April 14, 2014, 02:51

Is the payment for differnt sizes same? Do i get 25 cents regardless of whether its a 16mp or a 6mp?

Yes

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #32 on:** April 14, 2014, 03:58 »

Quote from: Ron on April 13, 2014, 09:57

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.

Ron · « **Reply #33 on:** April 14, 2014, 05:23 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on April 14, 2014, 03:58

Quote from: Ron on April 13, 2014, 09:57
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.

Ok, my bad, I always noticed the doubling of the longest side, but that means the short side is also doubled, which means 4 times bigger. How can a file 4 times upsampled have any quality left. Yeah, I agree about that. Its something I always wondered about as well.

cobalt · « **Reply #34 on:** April 14, 2014, 09:52 »

That they upsample files is a reason that at least makes me understand why they have a problem with shallow DOF. What might look good in the native resolution uploaded, will probably look really bad at "supersize".

But their system seems to work for their customers, so who am I to change it?

I´ll just accept it and try to shoot files either with more DOF for them, or just downsample to meet their requirements.

Mantis · « **Reply #35 on:** April 14, 2014, 09:59 »

Scott Braut has stated a few times that image size is one criteria some buyers use when selecting images. I wonder, though, how much weight this criteria places on the buying decision? I would think not a lot. Buyers find one at 6mp and a similar one at 24 mp and would likely choose the one that fits their visual needs first over the larger size. Sure there are times a buyer needs size as a selection factor but not many I suspect.

tickstock · « **Reply #36 on:** April 14, 2014, 10:09 »

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #37 on:** April 14, 2014, 10:28 »

Quote from: tickstock on April 14, 2014, 10:09

Doesn't shutterstock upsize images, how would a buyer even know if the image is downsized before buying it?

I wonder that too. And since my formerly 20MP image is now a 24MP supersize, doesn't that make it even better?

Also, since they apparently don't upsize anything above 15MP surely they should review those between 16 and 24MP at one quarter of their actual size before accepting or rejecting, to equalise the maximum size that can be downloaded? But like Cobalt says, it's their site, their policy, if it is indeciperhable it doesn't matter. We just live with it.

scottbraut · « **Reply #38 on:** April 14, 2014, 11:04 »

Hello All,

This topic has come up in the past and I strongly recommend against downsizing and encouraging others to downsize.

First, it's not in your best interest as a contributor. While many of our images are licensed through the subscription model to both large and small businesses, many of you have seen sales through our enterprise products (where royalties can be up to $120 or more). Many of those enterprise clients are advertising agencies, Fortune 500 companies, etc., who are looking for images of good or high technical quality. If you're downsizing images, you're potentially losing out on some of your highest-potential sales in many markets around the world. With nearly 1 million customers now searching for images at Shutterstock, you want your portfolio to be of the highest quality to generate the highest amount of earnings across that broad and diverse customer base.

Best,

Scott
VP of Content
Shutterstock

melastmohican · « **Reply #39 on:** April 14, 2014, 11:23 »

Very simple rule of thumb if majority of you sales are subscriptions, downsize to lowest acceptable size. Of course it is in agency interest to get best possible product for lowest possible price. Give them what they are paying for. Unless something drastically different happen on this market I see it is going to be more subscriptions with few occasional sales of other types.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #40 on:** April 14, 2014, 11:58 »

Quote from: scottbraut on April 14, 2014, 11:04

This topic has come up in the past and I strongly recommend against downsizing and encouraging others to downsize.

Scott,

Leaving aside the folks who don't want to license a 21+MP for subscriptions, what about the issues of Shutterstock upsizing images that contributors have downsized to get around the frequent (and IMO often completely bogus) rejections for "focus not where we want it"?

I believe the customer would be best served with the image at its original size, not an upsized downsize - it just can't be getting better with the additional manipulation.

I just returned from Turks & Caicos where I was chuffed to see two of my images from a prior visit as big "wraps" in the airport - and I know they weren't licensed from Shutterstock because you rejected them for being out of focus. They aren't out of focus. I have a long list of in focus images, some of which as I mentioned in an earlier post were in flames at iStock when I was an exclusive, that were rejected by Shutterstock. CNN found another one of your rejects just fine too.

I'd happily give you more 21MP images, but your review process gets in the way. For some I might take the time to downsize to get around the bogus rejection, but mostly I just don't bother.

IMO what you need is some sort of formal appeals process, possibly limited to a certain number a month, or to contributors with a certain number of sales to prevent the process from being overwhelmed by things that really are junk. That sort of process would help you calibrate reviewers and improve the quality of reviews. In the long run that will benefit Shutterstock as much as it will contributors.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #41 on:** April 14, 2014, 12:08 »

Quote from: scottbraut on April 14, 2014, 11:04

Hello All,

This topic has come up in the past and I strongly recommend against downsizing and encouraging others to downsize.

First, it's not in your best interest as a contributor. While many of our images are licensed through the subscription model to both large and small businesses, many of you have seen sales through our enterprise products (where royalties can be up to $120 or more). Many of those enterprise clients are advertising agencies, Fortune 500 companies, etc., who are looking for images of good or high technical quality. If you're downsizing images, you're potentially losing out on some of your highest-potential sales in many markets around the world. With nearly 1 million customers now searching for images at Shutterstock, you want your portfolio to be of the highest quality to generate the highest amount of earnings across that broad and diverse customer base.

Best,

Scott
VP of Content
Shutterstock

Scott, you have completely dodged the questions. How can you say buyers want big images, then reject 20MP images for focus but accept the same image when downsized to 6MP after which you upsize to 24MP?

If you were trying to give buyers top quality you would accept the 20MP images and stop making us downsize them to 6MP so you can then upsize to 24MP.

The best thing would be to abolish "supersizing" and to set standards for inspectors that take account of image size.

(Past experience suggests that you will stand firmly by an illogical policy for about five years before coming round to my point of view :-) )

pancaketom · « **Reply #42 on:** April 14, 2014, 12:18 »

Quote from: scottbraut on April 14, 2014, 11:04

Hello All,

This topic has come up in the past and I strongly recommend against downsizing and encouraging others to downsize.

First, it's not in your best interest as a contributor. While many of our images are licensed through the subscription model to both large and small businesses, many of you have seen sales through our enterprise products (where royalties can be up to $120 or more). Many of those enterprise clients are advertising agencies, Fortune 500 companies, etc., who are looking for images of good or high technical quality. If you're downsizing images, you're potentially losing out on some of your highest-potential sales in many markets around the world. With nearly 1 million customers now searching for images at Shutterstock, you want your portfolio to be of the highest quality to generate the highest amount of earnings across that broad and diverse customer base.

Best,

Scott
VP of Content
Shutterstock

Until you allow image or model opt out of the "sensitive use" many of us will not have any of our images available for these higher value sales (which would benefit SS and the artists). Please make this an option.

Ron · « **Reply #43 on:** April 14, 2014, 12:25 »

But submitting small size images doesnt matter, because they get up-sampled 4 times.

In fact, if I submit 15mp (or whatever the threshold is) it will remain 15mp, but if I submit 6mp, it will be up-sampled to 24mp. So basically by submitting 6mp images I have more advantage over someone submitting 15mp.

Ron · « **Reply #44 on:** April 14, 2014, 12:41 »

Original 15MP not upsampled - http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-150523814/stock-photo-the-pleasure-pier-in-brighton-england.html

Original 6MP upsampled to 24MP - http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-109387709/stock-photo-white-water-lily-flower-with-yellow-stamens-nymphae-pygmaea-in-bloom-and-closed-up-surrounded-by.html

My 6MP waterlily is available in bigger size then my orignal 15MP Panorama of the Brighton Pier. So if a buyer needs a large waterlilly image of 24MP, better submit 6MP image, instead of a 18MP original image.

ruxpriencdiam · « **Reply #45 on:** April 14, 2014, 16:05 »

There is somewhere on SS where this was talked about once before but the search is broken as of recently so finding it is a joke, but even though you dont see SUPER listed as a size it is still available at a SUPER size.

Like I said this has been talked about on SS before and if the search ever gets fixed it will be easier to find the link to link to.

Quote from: Ron on April 14, 2014, 12:41

Original 15MP not upsampled - http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-150523814/stock-photo-the-pleasure-pier-in-brighton-england.html

Original 6MP upsampled to 24MP - http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-109387709/stock-photo-white-water-lily-flower-with-yellow-stamens-nymphae-pygmaea-in-bloom-and-closed-up-surrounded-by.html

My 6MP waterlily is available in bigger size then my orignal 15MP Panorama of the Brighton Pier. So if a buyer needs a large waterlilly image of 24MP, better submit 6MP image, instead of a 18MP original image.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #46 on:** April 14, 2014, 16:16 »

Quote from: Ron on April 14, 2014, 12:41

Original 15MP not upsampled - http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-150523814/stock-photo-the-pleasure-pier-in-brighton-england.html

Original 6MP upsampled to 24MP - http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-109387709/stock-photo-white-water-lily-flower-with-yellow-stamens-nymphae-pygmaea-in-bloom-and-closed-up-surrounded-by.html

My 6MP waterlily is available in bigger size then my orignal 15MP Panorama of the Brighton Pier. So if a buyer needs a large waterlilly image of 24MP, better submit 6MP image, instead of a 18MP original image.

for real guys, this is becoming absurd, getting 2 minus for stating facts that are relevant to our workflow etc? honestly I would ban this feature now

Ron · « **Reply #47 on:** April 14, 2014, 16:19 »

Quote from: luissantos84 on April 14, 2014, 16:16

Quote from: Ron on April 14, 2014, 12:41
Original 15MP not upsampled - http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-150523814/stock-photo-the-pleasure-pier-in-brighton-england.html

Original 6MP upsampled to 24MP - http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-109387709/stock-photo-white-water-lily-flower-with-yellow-stamens-nymphae-pygmaea-in-bloom-and-closed-up-surrounded-by.html

My 6MP waterlily is available in bigger size then my orignal 15MP Panorama of the Brighton Pier. So if a buyer needs a large waterlilly image of 24MP, better submit 6MP image, instead of a 18MP original image.

for real guys, this is becoming absurd, getting 2 minus for stating facts that are relevant to our workflow etc? honestly I would ban this feature now

I noticed, let them have their field day, the fact that they dont reply shows they only do it out of spite

Ron · « **Reply #48 on:** April 14, 2014, 16:19 »

Quote from: ruxpriencdiam on April 14, 2014, 16:05

There is somewhere on SS where this was talked about once before but the search is broken as of recently so finding it is a joke, but even though you dont see SUPER listed as a size it is still available at a SUPER size.

Like I said this has been talked about on SS before and if the search ever gets fixed it will be easier to find the link to link to.

Quote from: Ron on April 14, 2014, 12:41
Original 15MP not upsampled - http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-150523814/stock-photo-the-pleasure-pier-in-brighton-england.html

Original 6MP upsampled to 24MP - http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-109387709/stock-photo-white-water-lily-flower-with-yellow-stamens-nymphae-pygmaea-in-bloom-and-closed-up-surrounded-by.html

My 6MP waterlily is available in bigger size then my orignal 15MP Panorama of the Brighton Pier. So if a buyer needs a large waterlilly image of 24MP, better submit 6MP image, instead of a 18MP original image.

Well show me a screenshot then on how to get a super size of my 15MP image

Pilens · « **Reply #49 on:** April 14, 2014, 16:25 »

Quote from: Ron on April 14, 2014, 16:19

Quote from: luissantos84 on April 14, 2014, 16:16
Quote from: Ron on April 14, 2014, 12:41
Original 15MP not upsampled - http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-150523814/stock-photo-the-pleasure-pier-in-brighton-england.html

Original 6MP upsampled to 24MP - http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-109387709/stock-photo-white-water-lily-flower-with-yellow-stamens-nymphae-pygmaea-in-bloom-and-closed-up-surrounded-by.html

My 6MP waterlily is available in bigger size then my orignal 15MP Panorama of the Brighton Pier. So if a buyer needs a large waterlilly image of 24MP, better submit 6MP image, instead of a 18MP original image.

for real guys, this is becoming absurd, getting 2 minus for stating facts that are relevant to our workflow etc? honestly I would ban this feature now
I noticed, let them have their field day, the fact that they dont reply shows they only do it out of spite

+1 from me, Ron. You are perfectly right in your observation.

Does anyone know where the threshold for starting to supersize exactly is? It seems in our best interest to downsize all images just below this threshold even if it doesn't give buyers the best image quality possible.

I hope SS will fix this situation within reasonable time, though.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Shutterstock - downsizing to 6mp - thoughts? (Read 43898 times)

luissantos84

lisafx

BaldricksTrousers

Ron

Ron

Rage

Ron

BaldricksTrousers

Ron

cobalt

Mantis

tickstock

BaldricksTrousers

scottbraut

melastmohican

Jo Ann Snover

BaldricksTrousers

pancaketom

Ron

Ron

ruxpriencdiam

luissantos84

Ron

Ron

Pilens

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors