Author Topic: Shutterstock - downsizing to 6mp - thoughts? (Read 43937 times)

michey · « **Reply #150 on:** May 10, 2014, 07:26 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on May 09, 2014, 13:01

Quote from: lisafx on May 09, 2014, 12:25
I bought a number of cheaper lenses starting out, including Sigmas. Some of them were quite good, like the Sigma 20mm 1.8 prime. However, their quality control is spotty. You can get a wide variation of quality and have to rely on luck to get a good copy. Also, Sigma customer service is famously bad. Since I started shooting L glass I have gotten consistently high quality lenses and tack sharp pictures. It's worth the extra price to me.

I guess it's worth mentioning that the L-class lenses I've got, which are my stock lenses, cost about 2% of my total stock earnings. If I hadn't been in as early as I was the figures probably wouldn't look so good, but in any professional photo business the difference between a $1,000 and a $1,500 lens is not really significant.

What's more, if I had been a bit more careful all those lenses would have been good for 20+ years, rather than the 10 that seems to be the point where I abuse them too much.

Microstock a lot of years ago was 6 mp cameras and crappy images. If we have to follow your tips, the next year everyone will have to buy a medium format camera and a 7.000$ lens to shoot for microstock and for 0.10$ each image.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #151 on:** May 10, 2014, 08:19 »

Quote from: michey on May 10, 2014, 07:26

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on May 09, 2014, 13:01
Quote from: lisafx on May 09, 2014, 12:25
I bought a number of cheaper lenses starting out, including Sigmas. Some of them were quite good, like the Sigma 20mm 1.8 prime. However, their quality control is spotty. You can get a wide variation of quality and have to rely on luck to get a good copy. Also, Sigma customer service is famously bad. Since I started shooting L glass I have gotten consistently high quality lenses and tack sharp pictures. It's worth the extra price to me.

I guess it's worth mentioning that the L-class lenses I've got, which are my stock lenses, cost about 2% of my total stock earnings. If I hadn't been in as early as I was the figures probably wouldn't look so good, but in any professional photo business the difference between a $1,000 and a $1,500 lens is not really significant.

What's more, if I had been a bit more careful all those lenses would have been good for 20+ years, rather than the 10 that seems to be the point where I abuse them too much.
Microstock a lot of years ago was 6 mp cameras and crappy images. If we have to follow your tips, the next year everyone will have to buy a medium format camera and a 7.000$ lens to shoot for microstock and for 0.10$ each image.

You don't have to do anything, but I don't understand why you appear to be so angry and negative about L glass.

If you want my advice about cheap glass I can recommend the 58mm f3.5 Micro-Nikkor from about 1970, which will set you back about $50, the 20mm f4 Zeiss Jena Flektogon and its 35mm f2.4 sister, though I think those are both a bit overpriced on the second-hand market now, the Pentacon 135 f2.8, the Zeiss Jena Sonnar 135 f3.5 and the Sonnar 300 f4. I've used all of those for stock at one time or another.

ShadySue · « **Reply #152 on:** May 10, 2014, 08:42 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on May 09, 2014, 13:01

What's more, if I had been a bit more careful all those lenses would have been good for 20+ years, rather than the 10 that seems to be the point where I abuse them too much.

Hmmmm.
My 100-400 (L) which I haven't had for many years, is in for repair (focussing problem) at the moment. The original fix I requested was c£300 and they have discovered another problem which may or may not matter to me (I'm taking it out with just the requested fix done whenever I get time to get up to Glasgow) which will, if I want it, cost >£200 more.
When I asked how the problems could have arisen, the repair man said it could be as simple as vibration in a car. Well, of course, I need to travel to take pics, whether by car, train or plane. I'm not even sure that lens can focus on the 'far' wall in my garden!

michey · « **Reply #153 on:** May 10, 2014, 09:57 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on May 10, 2014, 08:19

Quote from: michey on May 10, 2014, 07:26
Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on May 09, 2014, 13:01
Quote from: lisafx on May 09, 2014, 12:25
I bought a number of cheaper lenses starting out, including Sigmas. Some of them were quite good, like the Sigma 20mm 1.8 prime. However, their quality control is spotty. You can get a wide variation of quality and have to rely on luck to get a good copy. Also, Sigma customer service is famously bad. Since I started shooting L glass I have gotten consistently high quality lenses and tack sharp pictures. It's worth the extra price to me.

I guess it's worth mentioning that the L-class lenses I've got, which are my stock lenses, cost about 2% of my total stock earnings. If I hadn't been in as early as I was the figures probably wouldn't look so good, but in any professional photo business the difference between a $1,000 and a $1,500 lens is not really significant.

What's more, if I had been a bit more careful all those lenses would have been good for 20+ years, rather than the 10 that seems to be the point where I abuse them too much.
Microstock a lot of years ago was 6 mp cameras and crappy images. If we have to follow your tips, the next year everyone will have to buy a medium format camera and a 7.000$ lens to shoot for microstock and for 0.10$ each image.

You don't have to do anything, but I don't understand why you appear to be so angry and negative about L glass.

If you want my advice about cheap glass I can recommend the 58mm f3.5 Micro-Nikkor from about 1970, which will set you back about $50, the 20mm f4 Zeiss Jena Flektogon and its 35mm f2.4 sister, though I think those are both a bit overpriced on the second-hand market now, the Pentacon 135 f2.8, the Zeiss Jena Sonnar 135 f3.5 and the Sonnar 300 f4. I've used all of those for stock at one time or another.

I am not negative about L glasses. I was speaking about the quality(and investments) needed for microstock. I know people shooting with a 500d with 100 macro(non L) and on Fotolia is emerald.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #154 on:** May 10, 2014, 10:33 »

I gather the 100 macro non-L has the same optics as the L version so the extra price is in the weather-sealing. If I'd realised that before I got mine I would have gone for the non-L, too.
I think we sort of established earlier in this thread that the extra megapixels from top-end full-frame cameras don't help with your acceptances in stock, and it's actually helpful to have smaller files that are less likely to run into SS's focus rejections. I'm currently uploading some stuff shot with my 100mm macro and I won't be at all surprised if the shallow DOF gets the rejection, in which case I will probably downsize and reupload. Good glass and a cheaper body may be a better investment than cheap glass and an expensive body. You can also find a lot of old manual focus primes with an image quality that can take on modern top-end zooms if you are willing to mess about with manually set apertures and loss of AF. The sharpest shot I've ever taken was with a 20 or 30 year old 150mm APO Symmar on a large format film camera.

michey · « **Reply #155 on:** May 10, 2014, 10:47 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on May 10, 2014, 10:33

I gather the 100 macro non-L has the same optics as the L version so the extra price is in the weather-sealing. If I'd realised that before I got mine I would have gone for the non-L, too.
I think we sort of established earlier in this thread that the extra megapixels from top-end full-frame cameras don't help with your acceptances in stock, and it's actually helpful to have smaller files that are less likely to run into SS's focus rejections. I'm currently uploading some stuff shot with my 100mm macro and I won't be at all surprised if the shallow DOF gets the rejection, in which case I will probably downsize and reupload. Good glass and a cheaper body may be a better investment than cheap glass and an expensive body. You can also find a lot of old manual focus primes with an image quality that can take on modern top-end zooms if you are willing to mess about with manually set apertures and loss of AF. The sharpest shot I've ever taken was with a 20 or 30 year old 150mm APO Symmar on a large format film camera.

Recently for test On SS i uploaded almost every shoots of food at 1.4 with the sigma 35 1.4 and i had not any rejections.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #156 on:** May 10, 2014, 12:19 »

Quote from: michey on May 10, 2014, 10:47

Recently for test On SS i uploaded almost every shoots of food at 1.4 with the sigma 35 1.4 and i had not any rejections.

That's impressive. What size files did you upload?

michey · « **Reply #157 on:** May 10, 2014, 12:40 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on May 10, 2014, 12:19

Quote from: michey on May 10, 2014, 10:47

Recently for test On SS i uploaded almost every shoots of food at 1.4 with the sigma 35 1.4 and i had not any rejections.

That's impressive. What size files did you upload?

21 mega-pixel of the 5d mark ii, nothing impressive http://www.shutterstock.com/it/pic-188649884/stock-photo-cupcakes.html?src=9EfMUzNJ8JIDU84rIJxkVQ-1-15
but no agency created me any problems, considering it was daylight through a window

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #158 on:** May 10, 2014, 14:13 »

Quote from: michey on May 10, 2014, 12:40

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on May 10, 2014, 12:19
Quote from: michey on May 10, 2014, 10:47

Recently for test On SS i uploaded almost every shoots of food at 1.4 with the sigma 35 1.4 and i had not any rejections.

That's impressive. What size files did you upload?

21 mega-pixel of the 5d mark ii, nothing impressive http://www.shutterstock.com/it/pic-188649884/stock-photo-cupcakes.html?src=9EfMUzNJ8JIDU84rIJxkVQ-1-15
but no agency created me any problems, considering it was daylight through a window

OK, it really does surprise me that you got that through. Maybe the fact the OOF area is so "in your face" appealed to them. Who knows?
PS: We can start fighting now about whether daylight is better than flash, if you like

[But, on reflection, what mystifies me more than anything is how you got 301 keywords when the maximum allowed is 50 .... at least, in English]

ShadySue · « **Reply #159 on:** May 10, 2014, 15:11 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on May 10, 2014, 14:13

[But, on reflection, what mystifies me more than anything is how you got 301 keywords when the maximum allowed is 50 .... at least, in English]

Looks like it largely overlaps with my pitifully small Italian vocabulary, so I can see that a lot of them are marginal, irrelevant or worse.

Ron · « **Reply #160 on:** May 10, 2014, 15:46 »

LOcal sites have all possible synonyms of a keyword translated through some incredibly poor translator.

The obscenities in Dutch and other languages is truly shocking. And I mean shocking. Images of little kittens (*) with the keyword cunt (in dutch: kut, seriously rude language) etc. Dont bother telling SS they do nothing about it.

dirkr · « **Reply #161 on:** May 10, 2014, 17:57 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on May 10, 2014, 10:33

I gather the 100 macro non-L has the same optics as the L version so the extra price is in the weather-sealing.

I am not sure on the optics, but the L has got IS, which is suppossedly working great.

michey · « **Reply #162 on:** May 10, 2014, 19:50 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on May 10, 2014, 14:13

Quote from: michey on May 10, 2014, 12:40
Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on May 10, 2014, 12:19
Quote from: michey on May 10, 2014, 10:47

Recently for test On SS i uploaded almost every shoots of food at 1.4 with the sigma 35 1.4 and i had not any rejections.

That's impressive. What size files did you upload?

21 mega-pixel of the 5d mark ii, nothing impressive http://www.shutterstock.com/it/pic-188649884/stock-photo-cupcakes.html?src=9EfMUzNJ8JIDU84rIJxkVQ-1-15
but no agency created me any problems, considering it was daylight through a window

OK, it really does surprise me that you got that through. Maybe the fact the OOF area is so "in your face" appealed to them. Who knows?
PS: We can start fighting now about whether daylight is better than flash, if you like

[But, on reflection, what mystifies me more than anything is how you got 301 keywords when the maximum allowed is 50 .... at least, in English]

I have no idea why i got so many keywords in Italian, i insert 30 keywords max in English

ShadySue · « **Reply #163 on:** May 10, 2014, 20:15 »

Quote from: michey on May 10, 2014, 19:50

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on May 10, 2014, 14:13
Quote from: michey on May 10, 2014, 12:40
Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on May 10, 2014, 12:19
Quote from: michey on May 10, 2014, 10:47

Recently for test On SS i uploaded almost every shoots of food at 1.4 with the sigma 35 1.4 and i had not any rejections.

That's impressive. What size files did you upload?

21 mega-pixel of the 5d mark ii, nothing impressive http://www.shutterstock.com/it/pic-188649884/stock-photo-cupcakes.html?src=9EfMUzNJ8JIDU84rIJxkVQ-1-15
but no agency created me any problems, considering it was daylight through a window

OK, it really does surprise me that you got that through. Maybe the fact the OOF area is so "in your face" appealed to them. Who knows?
PS: We can start fighting now about whether daylight is better than flash, if you like

[But, on reflection, what mystifies me more than anything is how you got 301 keywords when the maximum allowed is 50 .... at least, in English]

I have no idea why i got so many keywords in Italian, i insert 30 keywords max in English

True - there are many fewer English keywords. I have no idea how their system works.

Ron · « **Reply #164 on:** May 11, 2014, 01:20 »

They translate every keyword with every possible synonym in the foreign language.

They actually call my dad Hansworst which is a ridicule name you call someone when they are being silly or stupid. And he is also Krols and Loops which is estrus, meaning when female animals are in the most fertile period of time in the female's reproductive cycle. Weel is surface water occurred by digging or a dyke collapse.

http://www.shutterstock.com/nl/pic.mhtml?id=114902584

Quote

grill, het roosteren, mensen, benzine, gas, achtertuin, 65 plusser, 65-plusser, aower, oudste, senior, mens, menselijk, knap, bbq, grillen, nederland, nederlands, gein, leuk, lol, lollig, plezant, plezier, plezierig, pret, bief, biefstuk, rundvlees, holland, hollandse, nederland, bron, de lente, lente, lentetijd, springen, springtij, veer, voorjaar, weel, weels, wel, bewerken, gereedschap, hulpmiddel, instrument, uitrusten, werktuig, blijdschap, blijheid, fortuin, geluk, vreugde, meerderjarige, volwassene, jongen, man, mannelijk, mannen, mannetje, mannetjes, mannetjesdier, mannetjesplant, masculien, actief, de zomer, zomer, buiten, buitenaf, buitenkant, oud, oude, chefkok, kaukasisch, kaukasische, kaukasiër, apparatuur, uitrusting, avondeten, avondmaal, avondmaaltijd, dinee, diner, eten, lunch, middageten, middagmaal, middagmaaltijd, warme maaltijd, het verouderen, levensstijl, lifestyle, pensioen, pensionering, burgers, vitaliteit, persoon, in openlucht, bakken, kok, koken, kokkin, algemêen nederlands, nederlander, nederlanders, nederlands, nederlandse, rijpen, vervallen, volwassen, erf, feest, feesten, partij, party, vieren, viering, broeds, heet, hitte, krols, loops, opwarmen, opwinden, pikantheid, tochtig, verhitten, verwarmen, warmte, eten, voedsel, hansworst, lulvent, substantie, vlees, vleessoort, vruchtvlees, bedreven, blij, gelukkig, goed geluimd, handig, kundig, tevreden, kooktoestel

You cant make stuff up like that.

Sorry for the off topic.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #165 on:** May 12, 2014, 01:02 »

LOL!
Auto-spam!

ultimagina · « **Reply #166 on:** May 13, 2014, 08:47 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on April 15, 2014, 02:19

I suspect that it is the "maybe someday I'll need it big so I might as well grab it" syndrome, rather than almost all the subs at DT being sold for use as posters two yards (metres) high.

What if it is not that.

What if the customers know that downsizing from the max size to the needed size gives a better quality?

The customer cannot know, upfront, if a 6Mpx downsized version is really downsized or just crop with inferior quality.

ultimagina · « **Reply #167 on:** May 13, 2014, 08:55 »

Quote from: Ron on April 20, 2014, 03:40

According to a lot of long time contributors their old work outsells their new work. Older work was shot with low res cams, SS requirement back then was 2MP. If 2-6mp work of the old days still sells like gang busters, then the competition of 36MP files hasnt eroded sales on the old files much if I have to believe the general comments on the SS forum.

If this might still be the case today, I believe that as time passes, the good quality high-res photos will slowly build an better history and reputation, climb-up the algorithm ranks and slowly begin out-sell the old and obsolete, low quality samples.

ShadySue · « **Reply #168 on:** May 13, 2014, 09:05 »

Quote from: ultimagaina on May 13, 2014, 08:55

Quote from: Ron on April 20, 2014, 03:40
According to a lot of long time contributors their old work outsells their new work. Older work was shot with low res cams, SS requirement back then was 2MP. If 2-6mp work of the old days still sells like gang busters, then the competition of 36MP files hasnt eroded sales on the old files much if I have to believe the general comments on the SS forum.

If this might still be the case today, I believe that as time passes, the good quality high-res photos will slowly build an better history and reputation, climb-up the algorithm ranks and slowly begin out-sell the old and obsolete, low quality samples.

Maybe, or maybe more and more buyers will only need lower res files as time goes on.
Just because something is old doesn't necessarily make it obsolete or low quality.

ultimagina · « **Reply #169 on:** May 13, 2014, 10:23 »

Quote from: ShadySue on May 13, 2014, 09:05

Maybe, or maybe more and more buyers will only need lower res files as time goes on.
Just because something is old doesn't necessarily make it obsolete or low quality.

Maybe, or maybe not, indeed.
My belief is that with all this marketing push for high res-smartphones, retina displays, 4k TV and so on, it is more likely to see an increase in the demand for high res material.
Additionally, as mentioned in another post, when you upload a low-res photo, customers might think that it is rather a crop instead of a downsized photo.
Crop means "digital zoom" in smartphone language and everybody knows that digital zoom gives more noise, artifacts etc.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #170 on:** May 14, 2014, 11:01 »

Quote from: ultimagaina on May 13, 2014, 08:47

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on April 15, 2014, 02:19
I suspect that it is the "maybe someday I'll need it big so I might as well grab it" syndrome, rather than almost all the subs at DT being sold for use as posters two yards (metres) high.

What if it is not that.

What if the customers know that downsizing from the max size to the needed size gives a better quality?

The customer cannot know, upfront, if a 6Mpx downsized version is really downsized or just crop with inferior quality.

What is needed, then, is a loupe that lets you see bits of it at 100%

Ron · « **Reply #171 on:** June 09, 2014, 11:19 »

Quote from: VincentJansen

Hi,

The Super format is created for images that are 15 MP or less, so if the version of the image you submitted to us is over 15 MP, a Super size is not necessary and will not be made available.

Best,

Vincent Jansen
Shutterstock

photostockad · « **Reply #172 on:** February 18, 2015, 06:37 »

I don't want to start another topic.
The inconsistency of reviews is annoying. Last week i had 100% accepted, this week 90% rejected. The same type of images, the same workflow and sharpness/noise reduction settings.

I try to keep all images at the highest size (i have a Nikon D600) but acceptance ratio is very inconsistent from a week to another. And the icing on the cake is that now (when they rejected almost everuthing) accepted one image previously rejected (rejected in a batch with 90% accepted).

I have to say that on all other agencies i have 100% accepted ratio.

Shelma1 · « **Reply #173 on:** February 18, 2015, 07:34 »

Yup, 100% of my recent batch of jpgs were rejected. One rejection was correct...it seems I had left the word "vector" in the title...but the rest were ridiculous rejections. And when all else fails, click "poor rasterization" as a rejection reason, which will be overturned 99.999% of the time as being a "mistake."

No doubt the vectors will be accepted as always, with the built-in option to buy the exact same jpg that was rejected. Because the jpg was fine, of course. Craziness.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Shutterstock - downsizing to 6mp - thoughts? (Read 43937 times)

michey

BaldricksTrousers

ShadySue

michey

BaldricksTrousers

michey

BaldricksTrousers

michey

BaldricksTrousers

ShadySue

Ron

dirkr

michey

ShadySue

Ron

BaldricksTrousers

ultimagina

ultimagina

ShadySue

ultimagina

BaldricksTrousers

Ron

photostockad

Shelma1

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors