Jump to content
Bryan

Image size and its influence on income

Recommended Posts

I have been happy to move from FF Canon to crop frame NEX as I don't have to carry a housebrick sized camera around my neck.

 

However I have lost pixels in the deal, and wonder how much commercial impact that will have?

 

Further to that, I have taken to cropping photos, sometimes quite severely,  for maximum customer appeal; reckoning that selling a smaller image is preferable to no sale. Of course I  always stay within the size limit.

 

Alamy's  calculator relates price to image size.

 

Does Alamy upres photos, or are they always sold within the size limits of the file? In the bad old days of 20D all of my images had to be upressed to get through QA, they sold/sell and no returns as yet.

 

Is there an argument for upressing now - I know that we are told that it is unnecessary and that it could result in an QA failure, so I don't do it.

 

I was wondering if anyone had ever done any analysis or had thoughts on the effect of image size on income?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Bryan,

 

This is a good point. I was actually also some times thinking about this. However i can not give you any experience since i am not that long on Alamy but anyway i wanted to reply that i also like you never upsize images. I always want to have the highest quality and this is by keeping it like it is. I think sharper images goes above the size. As a client i would prefer to pay less for sharper smaller images than higher price for bigger less sharp image. My opinion is just keep on uploading with the original size.

 

Mirco

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a Canon 40D (10.1MP)

 

My only ever QC failure was a upsizing test in which I upsized two images - one failed for SoLD and so I have never upsized since. I have only failed the once in 198 submissions.

Edited by losdemas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The calculator price range does only apply to RF. RM buyers get the full size image anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Bryan - I think that you have answered your own question. You say that you often crop and this will inevitably soften the image. Its a trade off - weight and convenience versus quality flexibility and tolerence.

 

dov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting point. My first submissions were from a Nikon D40 just before the file size changed to the present one. Which meant I had to up size from 17mb up to 24, anyway. Can't rmember if I have any at the 50 odd mb size uploaded from the camera, will have to check back.

 

I then switched to a Nikon D90 and submitted whatever file size cropping and tidying up the image left it at. (Always above the minimum).

 

Now, I size every image at the minimum required. (Still keep the original RAW/NEF in case a buyer requires one full size). Personally, I think it is the 'standard' size for Alamy submissions, and if downsizing an image 'improves' it to a client's eyes, then that's a bonus. Would be interested on other member's views on this. Thanks for raising the subject, Bryan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting point. My first submissions were from a Nikon D40 just before the file size changed to the present one. Which meant I had to up size from 17mb up to 24, anyway. Can't rmember if I have any at the 50 odd mb size uploaded from the camera, will have to check back.

 

I then switched to a Nikon D90 and submitted whatever file size cropping and tidying up the image left it at. (Always above the minimum).

 

Now, I size every image at the minimum required. (Still keep the original RAW/NEF in case a buyer requires one full size). Personally, I think it is the 'standard' size for Alamy submissions, and if downsizing an image 'improves' it to a client's eyes, then that's a bonus. Would be interested on other member's views on this. Thanks for raising the subject, Bryan.

Krisken,

 

When the camera makes standard for example 45 mb files i would just leave it like that. When it is at 100 percent view sharp then i really dont think that you will gain for making it smaller. You will loose time and quality will not be better. I only use it when the image is slightly not 100 percent sharp. Then i downsize it to let the unsharpness "fade away". But downsizing a 100 percent sharp image will only bring disadvantage i think.

 

Mirco

Edited by Mirco Vacca

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think that size matters that much for RM editorial photos since most usages are small. Also, given Alamy's unpredictable pricing, there isn't much evidence (IME, anyway)  that larger files end up generating more income. I often downsize to 4000 or 3600 pixels on the long side to increase sharpness without worrying about possible lost sales. I guess larger RF files might bring higher prices, but there doesn't seem to be a lot of evidence to support that theory either. Or is there?

Edited by John Mitchell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think that size matters that much for RM editorial photos since most usages are small. Also, given Alamy's unpredictable pricing, there isn't much evidence (IME, anyway)  that larger files end up generating more income. I often downsize to 4000 or 3600 pixels on the long side to increase sharpness without worrying about possible lost sales. I guess larger RF files might bring higher prices, but there doesn't seem to be a lot of evidence to support that theory either. Or is there?

Yes there is. My RF sales have always attracted fees somewhat in proportion to the file size, although the fee for a given size has varied by a factor of 25 depending on whether it was scheme or non- scheme. My largest ever fee was a full-size RF.

None of them would have justified upsizing, but I certainly wouldn't downsize (from 14MP).

Edited by spacecadet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I don't think that size matters that much for RM editorial photos since most usages are small. Also, given Alamy's unpredictable pricing, there isn't much evidence (IME, anyway)  that larger files end up generating more income. I often downsize to 4000 or 3600 pixels on the long side to increase sharpness without worrying about possible lost sales. I guess larger RF files might bring higher prices, but there doesn't seem to be a lot of evidence to support that theory either. Or is there?

Yes there is. My RF sales have always attracted fees somewhat in proportion to the file size, although the fee for a given size has varied by a factor of 25 depending on whether it was scheme or non- scheme. My largest ever fee was a full-size RF.

None of them would have justified upsizing, but I certainly wouldn't downsize (from 14MP).

Well, yes, according to the price calculator larger RF prices fetch higher prices. But I have a feeling that the reality might be quite another story. I downsize images taken with my 14 MP NEX-3 if I think it will increase the likelihood of pleasing QC. But then I'm paranoid because I've had a couple of failures this year. I also don't have many RF photos.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the responses. Thinking about it I suspect that for certain types of subject larger files might be beneficial, but for anything likely to see use in a Newspaper website, it makes not a jot of difference.

 

Dov's right in that I traded weight and large files for a lighter and smaller camera producing smaller images. There has to be a downside, but I think that it isn't over critical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a lot of photos on Alamy taken with a 10 MP camera (28 MB files). Some have leased for double-paged spreads. In fact, one sold last year for billboard use ($500). Not sure how that worked out, but I got paid. Perhaps it was a very small billboard. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a lot of photos on Alamy taken with a 10 MP camera (28 MB files). Some have leased for double-paged spreads. In fact, one sold last year for billboard use ($500). Not sure how that worked out, but I got paid. Perhaps it was a very small billboard. 

Useful to know John, thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

300 DPI @ 3000 px long edge = 10" print

300 DPI @ 4000 px long edge = 13.3" print

300 DPI @ 4600 px long edge = 15.3" print

 
How many papers print at 300 DPI.. magazines do of course... so you can see what your images can be used for without up-sizing.
 
I have also sold an approx. 4000 lg edge image for billboard use (4 figure sale)... (12MP body)
 
1:1 image sizing is quite easy to work out if you know what DPI they typical use is (i,e, for 150DPi, double these sizes).
 
 
 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.