MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: SS Will Be Offering TIFFs For Sale Under the Enhanced License  (Read 4852 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: May 24, 2006, 18:00 »
0
Basically they will be converting all of the JPGs that they have to TIFFs and then selling them under the Enhanced License (meaning more $$$).  Submitters will be able to start to upload true TIFFs (if they want), but the current stock (of over 700,000 images) will be converted.

I'm not sure what their thoughts are behind this, but this just doesn't seem right (to buyers that is).  At least if I was a buyer, I would be offended (since you can't really properly convert a JPG to a TIFF in the first place).  Why are you going to charge more for a TIFF, when it is really a JPG in disguise?

What do you guys think?


« Reply #1 on: May 24, 2006, 18:53 »
0
Actually, I don't think converting a jpg to tiff is all that big of deal. Simply converting it from one format to another doesn't seem to degrade the image quality much, and I have done this in the past with a few Alamy submissions. I think the problem arises when you do a bunch of saves in jpeg it degrades the jpeg quality, which is why some people recommend to convert a jpeg to a tiff file, do all the changes, then convert it back to a jpeg after that. Ironically, Alamy is now insisting on submitting nothing but jpeg files now.Ii admit I am no expert on this, just repeating what I have heard and what seems to work for me.

« Reply #2 on: May 24, 2006, 19:22 »
0
Alamy does it just to control the jpg algorithm. They sell jpgs to their customers. What they didn't do in the past was trust that its photographers would not use a bad jpg algorithm or use high compression. They are now realizing that uploading is the wave of the future and are forced to accept jpgs and hope its photographers take care when converting their images to jpgs.

I agree that SS offering TIFFs from jpgs is silly non-sense.

Mark

« Reply #3 on: May 25, 2006, 02:59 »
0
Doesn't make sence as the designer could convert the jpg to tiff.  I understand if it was uploaded as a TIFF (which from the sounds of it they are starting).

The only advantage of a TIff is that there is no loss but if it has already been a jpeg this has already happened - is this the only adantage??

« Reply #4 on: May 25, 2006, 04:32 »
0
it seems pretty silly to me. 

an image saved once as a jpg has very minimal loss.  It is quicker for the user to upload, and for the buyer to download a jpg image.  Why they would convert jpg's to tiff is beyond me, other than it would FEEL like the buyer is getting a very high quality file if they download a tiff. 

or one more thought however, shutterstock upsizes all their images.  By upsizing and saving at a new size, the jpg image gets one more save added to it's degredation.. so perhaps they are just sort of trying to encourage us to upload as tiffs so that it can be tiff all the way through, including the upsizing.. hmm.. i dunno.

« Reply #5 on: May 25, 2006, 04:59 »
0
or one more thought however, shutterstock upsizes all their images. By upsizing and saving at a new size, the jpg image gets one more save added to it's degredation.. so perhaps they are just sort of trying to encourage us to upload as tiffs so that it can be tiff all the way through, including the upsizing.. hmm.. i dunno.
Why do SS they upsize?  And when, obvioulsy not for all - is it just if the buyer buys te largest size.

« Reply #6 on: May 25, 2006, 06:22 »
0
or one more thought however, shutterstock upsizes all their images. By upsizing and saving at a new size, the jpg image gets one more save added to it's degredation.. so perhaps they are just sort of trying to encourage us to upload as tiffs so that it can be tiff all the way through, including the upsizing.. hmm.. i dunno.
Why do SS they upsize? And when, obvioulsy not for all - is it just if the buyer buys te largest size.

I have noticed that SS resizes files as follows:

Small is 500 on the long side
Medium is 1000 on the long side
Large is the original size
Super is 2x the original size

For example, if the original is 1740 x 1476, then:

Small is 500 x 424
Medium is 1000 x 848
Large is 1740 x 1476
Super is 3480 x 2952

I can't imagine that super looks any good, since it is upsized another 100%.

It also seems that the new TIFFs are available only at the Large and Super sizes.

« Reply #7 on: May 25, 2006, 06:29 »
0
Interesting - so if I submit with a 2.5mp camera, large is 2.5mp but if I sumbit with a 8mp, it is 8mp.  SOunds confusing.

Have read the shutterstock thread.  It is a case of give the buying public what they ask for.  i think they just need to be careful that buyers dont think the TIFF is an original TIFF and not a conversion from JPEG - still we get 100% (25c to $20) more for no work so hopefully it is what designers want.

« Reply #8 on: May 25, 2006, 06:42 »
0
...still we get 100% (25c to $20) more for no work so hopefully it is what designers want.

Actually, we get around 8000% more...


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
1 Replies
4269 Views
Last post July 06, 2007, 09:02
by GeoPappas
10 Replies
4429 Views
Last post May 07, 2008, 12:17
by strikerx98
11 Replies
3274 Views
Last post August 14, 2008, 17:43
by Dreamframer
3 Replies
1318 Views
Last post February 07, 2013, 11:34
by Noedelhap
5 Replies
1334 Views
Last post March 13, 2015, 13:44
by Jo Ann Snover

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results