Wawa Posted September 9, 2016 Share Posted September 9, 2016 A lot of new people have asked about certain cameras having a minimum required amount of megapixels to be acceptable for stock (including me). And most people here in the forum with experience will basically say "if the image is good enough it will sell." Makes perfect sense. But going in the opposite direction of minimum megapixels, if the image is good enough does it matter how many megs it has beyond a certain acceptable amount? In other words, why bother getting a higher res camera than yesterday's model if good photos will sell because they're good and not because they're hi-res shots. What's the advantage of more MP's as far as stock is concerned? Obviously there is a minimum MP required for a camera to get a quality image but once you're in the ballpark of a reasonable amount, let's say a 10 to 15 MP full frame sensor camera, for stock purposes is there an advantage to keep going after the latest hi-res camera that keeps coming out? Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wawa Posted September 9, 2016 Author Share Posted September 9, 2016 A lot of new people have asked about certain cameras having a minimum required amount of megapixels to be acceptable for stock (including me). And most people here in the forum with experience will basically say "if the image is good enough it will sell." Makes perfect sense. But going in the opposite direction of minimum megapixels, if the image is good enough does it matter how many megs it has beyond a certain acceptable amount? In other words, why bother getting a higher res camera than yesterday's model if good photos will sell because they're good and not because they're hi-res shots. What's the advantage of more MP's as far as stock is concerned? Obviously there is a minimum MP required for a camera to get a quality image but once you're in the ballpark of a reasonable amount, let's say a 10 to 15 MP full frame sensor camera, for stock purposes is there an advantage to keep going after the latest hi-res camera that keeps coming out? Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wawa Posted September 9, 2016 Author Share Posted September 9, 2016 Ooops!! Sorry about the dupe!... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin P Wilson Posted September 9, 2016 Share Posted September 9, 2016 The answer I would suggest the answer is NO, beyond sufficient there is no need for more megapixels for editorial licences which form the bulk (apparently) of Alamy sales. However there could be a need for more pixels for commercial use and large prints (say for exhibitions or business display purposes), and those sales do tend to be rather higher value. But they are much rarer so whether they justify higher specified, more expensive equipment depends on an individual's sales profile and subject matter. I suspect for most of us it wouldn't! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Posted September 9, 2016 Share Posted September 9, 2016 There is a customer search option to specify the minimum image size, and I do see some, but relatively few, occurrences. Probably not worth shelling out for a new camera on this basis, or indeed on any basis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dov makabaw Posted September 9, 2016 Share Posted September 9, 2016 Alamy will require pics of a certain quality as a minimum prerequisite. That is the first hurdle to cross. Should your pic need cropping this will reduce the res so you will need to allow for a certain latitude. Do you need the latest glass, no. There are many famous images which are out of focus i.e. Vietnam, the young girl running away from the napalm bomb attack. dov Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiskerke Posted September 9, 2016 Share Posted September 9, 2016 A lot of new people have asked about certain cameras having a minimum required amount of megapixels to be acceptable for stock (including me). And most people here in the forum with experience will basically say "if the image is good enough it will sell." Makes perfect sense. But going in the opposite direction of minimum megapixels, if the image is good enough does it matter how many megs it has beyond a certain acceptable amount? In other words, why bother getting a higher res camera than yesterday's model if good photos will sell because they're good and not because they're hi-res shots. What's the advantage of more MP's as far as stock is concerned? Obviously there is a minimum MP required for a camera to get a quality image but once you're in the ballpark of a reasonable amount, let's say a 10 to 15 MP full frame sensor camera, for stock purposes is there an advantage to keep going after the latest hi-res camera that keeps coming out? Thanks. Yes. wim edit: maybe not the latest and biggest, but if you search the forum a bit, you will find a rough amount of searches and sales with the [FS] file size filter. And only once has someone remarked the client could have been looking for a smaller size. Needless to say the bigger sizes are not for the cheapest (newspaper) clients. If you have no bigger files, you will never see the [FS] filter in use. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Chapman Posted September 9, 2016 Share Posted September 9, 2016 I've received one request via Alamy for a higher resolution version of an image. Luckily it was an image I'd downsized to 24MB, and I still had the original full resolution RAW. So I duly converted it to full-res jpg and supplied, and got paid for a sale (nothing special price wise though). I would say there was virtually no extra detail in the full-res version, but it's what the customer wanted, so who am I to argue? I also suspect the full-res version might have struggled to pass Alamy QC, which is why I down-sized in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NYCat Posted September 9, 2016 Share Posted September 9, 2016 For wildlife it is useful to be able to crop. Paulette Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Richmond Posted September 9, 2016 Share Posted September 9, 2016 It's also about the client being able to crop. I've had a plant image used recently for internet advertising where the client has used two different crops of the same image for their marketing. Each one was a pretty small crop of the original but of high enough resolution to produce a good quality image. With a smaller file size it would have been difficult. And, yes, the price reflected the usage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Nacke Posted September 9, 2016 Share Posted September 9, 2016 I now use only 36MP DSLR's, but my most licensed image on Alamy was shot with an old 2.1MP DSLR. What is important is the image. With that in mind I also am now doing a lot of commissioned work and Ioften have a client or AD ask about cropping out a section of an image or wanting to make a horizontal into a vertical. With a 7360 by image I can do that without a problem. I also do most often downsize original files from 7360 for submission to Alamy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Betty LaRue Posted September 9, 2016 Share Posted September 9, 2016 I've had two recent zooms with file size marked. So yes, it can matter. I went from a 36mp Nikon that I could crop a lot, like Chuck, to a 16mp X-T1. My 24mp X-T2 will be here Tuesday. I think it will be the perfect mp size. I'm champing at the bit. I've enjoyed the RX100s 20mp a lot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marianne Posted September 9, 2016 Share Posted September 9, 2016 I have several photos from my old D70 that are still selling - though most were uploaded in 2008-2009 when I had to uprez to 48MB, it looks like more than a third of my sales in the past three years have been from those old images. I'm wondering if it is ironically the large uprezed size vs. the actual MP of the camera (6MP). I do see lots of [FS] searches. I rarely downsize my 12MP and 16MP images. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pearl Posted September 9, 2016 Share Posted September 9, 2016 I've had two recent zooms with file size marked. So yes, it can matter. I went from a 36mp Nikon that I could crop a lot, like Chuck, to a 16mp X-T1. My 24mp X-T2 will be here Tuesday. I think it will be the perfect mp size. I'm champing at the bit. I've enjoyed the RX100s 20mp a lot. Got mine yesterday Betty. Have got it set up now but the weather has been rubbish so looking forward to a better weekend. I agree that it should be the perfect compromise for stock stuff. Pearl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wawa Posted September 9, 2016 Author Share Posted September 9, 2016 I should add that what got me started on this topic was watching a series of videos on stock photography (actually microstock), and they mentioned that you should shoot with as hi-res a camera as possible to "future proof" your images. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin P Wilson Posted September 10, 2016 Share Posted September 10, 2016 I've had two recent zooms with file size marked. So yes, it can matter. I went from a 36mp Nikon that I could crop a lot, like Chuck, to a 16mp X-T1. My 24mp X-T2 will be here Tuesday. I think it will be the perfect mp size. I'm champing at the bit. I've enjoyed the RX100s 20mp a lot. Got mine yesterday Betty. Have got it set up now but the weather has been rubbish so looking forward to a better weekend. I agree that it should be the perfect compromise for stock stuff. Pearl Picked my X-T2 up Thursday morning, off to France to try it out properly! But i Bought it for the improved speed rather than the extra resolution, as welcome as it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Robinson Posted September 10, 2016 Share Posted September 10, 2016 Like Paulette and Chuck above, I find being able to crop a vertical image to a horizontal or vice versa is useful, but pretty much any newish DSLR will provide enough dots to do that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Brooks Posted September 10, 2016 Share Posted September 10, 2016 I agree with the future proofing idea as long as the hi Rez technical requirements do not interfere with the your type of photography. I use a 50 megapixel 5DS. To get the full benefit of 50 megapixels I have to use prime lenses. No zoom lenses. I still use a 70-200 Canon F4, but it only resolves about 28 megapixels. So I downsize those images to 28 megapixels. I usually shoot outdoors, in ideal studio like working conditions, on a tripod. If that is not your style then upgrade to a lower rez camera that has other good qualities more important to you. If I use a zoom, or very high ISO, or under poor shooting conditions then I downsize. There is no real need to use hi rez for news, sports; wildlife, street photography. However if you are into landscapes then 50 megapixels can future proof your image collection. For a while that is. Check out my images. If you shoot similiar subject matter, then 50 megapixels along with all the other technical stuff, would help future proof your collection. Check out hi rez shooter Ed Burtynsky here: http://www.edwardburtynsky.com/site_contents/Photographs/introPhotographs.html Burtynsky started out shooting landscapes of quarries on film with an 8X10 view camera. He now uses an 80 megapixel Hasselblad. I attended a show of Burtysky’s large prints side by side with Ansel Adam’s prints. Ansel’s work looked technically inferior in comparison. IE soft and lacking definition. http://www.mcmichael.com/adams-burtynsky/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Betty LaRue Posted September 10, 2016 Share Posted September 10, 2016 Martin, Pearl, a big raspberry to you. I'm jealous, dang it! Let me know your first impressions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.