Doc Posted January 6, 2016 Share Posted January 6, 2016 Hi all, The new much larger thumbnails came in on 24.9.15. In general they have been well received, but I noted that the "portrait" orientation images were disadvantaged as a result, look relatively smaller, and can be overlooked in searches, or so it seemed to me. I looked at my statistics to see what if any difference this had made. Clearly its too soon to see from sales figures as they often lag by 3 months, but ZOOMS are fairly immediate. I looked at my zooms from 3 months prior to the change (Jul-Sept, 646 zooms), and compared them with the 3 months after the change (Oct-Dec, 717 zooms) to see if there was a significant difference in landscape and portrait images selected. I also, for interest, looked at my overall proportion of landscape to portrait oriented images Results: July-Sept inclusive, 646 zooms; 499 landscape (77.3%); 135 portrait (20.9%), 12 pan/square (1.8%) Oct-Dec Inclusive 717 zooms 576 landscape (80%); 128 portrait (17.7%), 13 pan/square (1.9%) From these figures I would say that there has been no significant difference from before to after. I dont think I have enough numbers to say there has been a slight reduction in zooms for portrait oriented images. My collection of images consists of the following: Total Images on sale: 18,902 Landscape: 13,046 (69%) Portrait: 5,335 (28.2%) Pan/Square: 422 (2.2%) Overall the number of portrait images in my collection amounts to ~28%, but the numbers zoomed appear to be between 17 and 20% One of the reasons I was interested to look at this was because I thought I had a greater than average % of portrait images and hoped I would not be disadvantaged by the new thumbnails. Doesn't look I am! Interested to hear what others think and what proportions your collections consist of! Happy New Year Kumar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiskerke Posted January 6, 2016 Share Posted January 6, 2016 If anything, I would expect an increase of zooms for verticals, exactly because they are smaller. wim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Rooney Posted January 6, 2016 Share Posted January 6, 2016 In the days of film and print, verticals were more important than they are in the digital age. Horizontal is boss now. Too often I forget to cover myself by shooting a vertical. Edo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allan Bell Posted January 6, 2016 Share Posted January 6, 2016 Well...er....if....but... No! I am not going to hijack this thread as well. Allan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted January 6, 2016 Share Posted January 6, 2016 40% of my 2015 sales were verticals/portrait (typical for me). They were spread fairly evenly throughout the year -- i.e. I don't see any obvious changes since the larger thumbs were introduced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Rooney Posted January 6, 2016 Share Posted January 6, 2016 Hmm. Just 10% of my 2015 sales were verticals. Maybe I should try to cover myself better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted January 6, 2016 Share Posted January 6, 2016 Hmm. Just 10% of my 2015 sales were verticals. Maybe I should try to cover myself better. Yes, it might be time to get a new fig leaf. A fair number of my higher priced book sales are verticals. I too have to remind myself to take verticals these days. Whereas in the "old days" before LCD screens, I almost always took one of each -- i.e. a horizontal and a vertical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin P Wilson Posted January 6, 2016 Share Posted January 6, 2016 My few 2015 sales we split 46-54% portrait-landscape; Like John I too used to try to shoot one of each. So my belief, like Edo, that horizontal was now king might well be flawed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecadet Posted January 6, 2016 Share Posted January 6, 2016 Interesting. Never thought about it before. Exactly 60:/40 land:portrait images, sales 74/26 this year, pretty consistent year to year. Looks like you sell what you shoot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Yates Posted January 6, 2016 Share Posted January 6, 2016 60/40 ratio landscape to portrait for me as well. I think we need to rename Kumar as Data Doc. Regards Craig Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Richmond Posted January 6, 2016 Share Posted January 6, 2016 54/46 landscape to portrait ratio for me. Don't know how many were cropped for publication, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
losdemas Posted January 6, 2016 Share Posted January 6, 2016 Interesting...I think I was vertical for most of my shots last year. Not sure how this year is going to pan out though - already halfway through a bottle of cheap red. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inchiquin Posted January 7, 2016 Share Posted January 7, 2016 My portfolio: 62% horizontal. Last year's sales: 73% horizontal. Alan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted January 7, 2016 Author Share Posted January 7, 2016 For me 2015 Sales: Landscape: 87% Portrait: 12.3% Square: 0.7% in Collection: Landscape: 69% Portrait: 28.2% Pan/Square: 2.2% Kumar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marianne Posted January 7, 2016 Share Posted January 7, 2016 For 2015: 75% Landscape 16% Portrait 8% Square Most of my portrait sales are to books and magazines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Kuta Posted January 12, 2016 Share Posted January 12, 2016 Hmmm... My collection: 62% landscape 38% portrait All my Alamy sales: 69% landscape 31% portrait My 2015 sales: 83% landscape 17% portrait So I wondered whether my more recent images are more landscape, but from a casual look the proportions seem to be in line with my collection as a whole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.