Steve Teare

Thanks Marianne for such a detailed exposition on the subject - and from first hand experience. It answers lots of questions I had and, as you say, gives me lots to think about.

Thanks for your comprehensive reply Harry. I agree with you that number of pixels makes much more sense as a filter rather than file weight in megabytes. I imagine this would make more sense to buyers too.

I can absolutely see the legitimacy of that argument, but personally I tend to the other extreme, because I want the image to have maximum impact (especially in thumbnail) so buyers are more likely to pick it. I tend to regard the raw photo just as the input material from which the image is created in post, even for documentary type images. Sorry - that sounds pretentious. I just mean different people do things differently.

Thanks for the decisiveness and clarity of your answer Phil!

Hi. I'm currently shooting with a 24mp camera, which personally I find to be a sweet spot in terms of resolution. In terms of shooting for stock though, I wonder if a higher resolution might be advantageous, in terms of 1. giving you competitive advantage if the client is actually wanting a higher res image than others have available 2. flexibility to crop in (pseudo telephoto) and still have a high(ish) resolution image 3. get paid more, since higher res images command higher prices Does Alamy actually welcome high resolution (greater than 40 megapixel) images? Does anyone actually have experience of switching to a high res camera and seeing their earnings rise as a result? Any pertinent comments welcome (especially from Alamy). I am, as might be guessed from this query, a relative newbie here. I do know however, all that stuff about concentrate more on what you shoot and the quality of the images you deliver... I just want to know if, all other things being equal, delivering higher res images is going to make you more money? Thanks...