Jump to content
Ed Rooney

Do Larger Size Images Sell Better Than Smaller One?

Recommended Posts

Yes, I mean the file size. 

 

I've gotten into the habit of downsizing lately, but don't remember why I started. 

 

Edo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, Brian.

 

But I notice that your files are pretty big. At least on your page one. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most editorial uses are small. I haven't noticed that large files sell better, but then mine aren't very big to begin with. I'd say that I downsize about 20% of the images that I upload.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

John, I think it was you who gave me the downsizing virus. :unsure:

 

My sales were off a bit in August, but I don't blame my image size for that. This year and last I've been doing okay. I'll have to go back and see just when I began downsizing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Ed Rooney said:

John, I think it was you who gave me the downsizing virus. :unsure:

 

My sales were off a bit in August, but I don't blame my image size for that. This year and last I've been doing okay. I'll have to go back and see just when I began downsizing. 

 

I got it from our old friend David K. Remember him?

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember David very well and miss his advise. I did not know that he recommended reducing the file size. I hope his UK magazine is doing well. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ed Rooney said:

I remember David very well and miss his advise. I did not know that he recommended reducing the file size. I hope his UK magazine is doing well. 

 

Yes, I hadn't considered downsizing until DK said that, as part of his workflow, he evaluated each image individually to see if it would benefit from downsizing for Alamy. At the time, he recommended reducing to 3600 pixels on the long side (24 MB) if necessary, which was Alamy's minimum file size at the time. I don't know how often he actually used downsizing, though.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sure he was recommending downsizing as a means of sharpening images at a time when Alamy guidance said no sharpening. He also used to suggest using a litle Clarity of the LR kind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

About size, is there a max size for image width ? I have some pano with more than 8000 px width that I would like to upload. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Southmind said:

About size, is there a max size for image width ? I have some pano with more than 8000 px width that I would like to upload. 

There used to be a 200MB (pixel dimensions or uncompressed file size in Alamy speak) overall limit but I don't know if there is any upper limit now. Just try it - you won't fail QC if it is too big - it will just automaticallyt reject the image on upload. An 8000 pixel pan would be well under 200MB anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can count the number of searches I've had with the [FS] filter on the fingers of one hand.

I usually use a preset for 4500, this being about the size of my first SLR, and 3250 for high ISO or marginals. My native size now is 5496.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, MDM said:

There used to be a 200MB (pixel dimensions or uncompressed file size in Alamy speak) overall limit but I don't know if there is any upper limit now. Just try it - you won't fail QC if it is too big - it will just automaticallyt reject the image on upload. An 8000 pixel pan would be well under 200MB anyway.

 

Thanks MDM. I use FTP to upload my files  and sometimes the files sent are never added to my Image Manager. I don't know if there is a problem with the server or if the files are rejected "as is" . I will try to send pano with the WEB uploader to understand if they are rejected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't we do a count for [FS] last time this question came up?

I have the impression my searches for [FS] have gone down.

While one would expect them to go up with 4K everywhere now.

 

wim

 

edit: my searches (you only see [FS] on your own searches.

Edited by wiskerke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I use a D800 (36mp) and I always send full size. A large size will never hurt IMO and it appeals to those that need a large print. I don't think anyone would NOT license an image because it's "too big".

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've recently seen buyers willing to spend a fair penny on larger images (RF). Personally, only thing leading to a reduced size would be cropping and downsizing for sharpness - otherwise as big as possible. I don't get the feeling that there would make any financial sense to buy camera purely to upload greater sizes than let's say what a 20-24mp can do - no hard facts though.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Ed Rooney said:

Thanks, Brian.

 

But I notice that your files are pretty big. At least on your page one. 

That's only because my file sizes have gotten larger over the years because of upgrading. 

As I write this, my biggest regret is over-upgrading. I'd be fine with the gear I had seven or eight years ago.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't done anything with file size ever since the days when we had to upsize to 48mb (and submit tif files on CD/DVD, as someone just reminisced on another thread). I just submit the native size of 16//20/24 megapixels, depending on camera, minus crop/straightening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Brian Yarvin said:

That's only because my file sizes have gotten larger over the years because of upgrading. 

As I write this, my biggest regret is over-upgrading. I'd be fine with the gear I had seven or eight years ago.

 

I can surely identify with your upgrading problem, Brian.

 

I had a major case of GAS when I was downsized from my retirement job in 2008, I bought too much stuff I didn't really need.

 

I've settled into three mirrorless Sony systems now: NEX, RX10, and RX100/3. No more upgrading. I'm about to sell off a lot of gear through a newiish outfit here in NYC. I won't name them now, but if it works out well I'll post in the forum about my transaction (selling). 

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, MDM said:

I'm pretty sure he was recommending downsizing as a means of sharpening images at a time when Alamy guidance said no sharpening. He also used to suggest using a litle Clarity of the LR kind.

 

Yes, that's correct, but Alamy still says, "Don't sharpen, leave it to the customer." in the reasons for QC failure PDF.

 

That said, Alamy doesn't seem as stringent about no-sharpening as they used to. However, I still prefer to downsize if I feel that it improves the overall "look" of a particular image. Alamy has never asked me for a larger file. My current cameras are only 14MP and 16MP. Images taken with with the 10MP DSLR that I used up until five years ago still license frequently.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not for me. My top sale within the last years , 800 gross in 2016, usage inside as  bar/restaurant decoration,

was not shot with a D800 I owned for 2 years, not with my 16 mp Olympus - a D300 with 12 mp made it.

 

A scan of a 35 mm slide,  more than 15 year old picture, used for ads, 400 gross.

Only one sale as wallpaper where I could expect it was selected due to size (D800).

 

At least for me, travel photographie, the rare occasions where size mattes do not justify cost/weigth/handling of any mp monster(-lenses). But as I suffer from GAS as well, I upgraded to Olympus Pro lenses and the top body - but thats more for fun and 'having the options' .

 

Downsize to sharpen - I do it rarely if original size looks soft after explicit sharpening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Depends on the use. For website use almost any size will do

It could be that if an art director has a choice of a large image or a small image he will buy the larger image. And art directors do have choices today.

As Wim says 4K everywhere.

Southmind I just uploaded a 29,075 X 5792 pano a few weeks ago and Alamy took it with no problem.

RF image calculator $365 for the large, $190 for medium file

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks so much, people, for the information and the opinions. I think I'm clear now as to what I was considering. 

 

This is a pretty damn good forum. Oh, I'm not supposed to say "damn"? Ah the hell with it. ops! I'm gonna have my siesta now. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Best finish that big glass of Chardonnay after your nap, Ed.-_-

Edited by spacecadet
  • Upvote 1

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.