I dont. Why? I have a theory that if a byer notice that all my images are full size he will bookmark my portfolio and keep tracking what is new, and buy more of my images, rather thatn from someone who do downsize images. That is my theory. I never downsize. The 0.3$ per image is maybe a low price, but I want to sell as much as posible, to make it up in quanity.

What is your opinion about downsizing? Right thing, or wrong?

I do it sometimes, when my images get rejections because they are not totally sharp in full size. Then I resize them close to minimum (4,2-4,5 mpix) and they usually get accepted after it.

Yes, same for DT, 123. It makes me feel better.

yeah, but when they uspize, there is loss of quality. i guess.

yeah, but when they uspize, there is loss of quality. i guess.

Correct me if Im missing something here but its my impression they upsize your image regardless of orginal size.

Quote from: Secretariat on April 06, 2008, 09:14

Quote from: Chode on April 05, 2008, 11:47

yeah, but when they uspize, there is loss of quality. i guess.

Correct me if Im missing something here but its my impression they upsize your image regardless of orginal size.

That is true for the most part, but they don't upsize images that are above a certain megapixel size.  I'm not sure exactly what that limit is , but I believe that it is somewhere around 16 MP.

Ok, thanks, it makes sense. But I am a little shocked to see a 9.1 MP image of mine get supersized to 36 MP! It makes me wonder whats best, to submit a 16MP image (provided your camera outputs that, I dont mean homegrown upsizing) and thereby missing out on the 36 MP option or the other way around.

I don't mean to sound negative, but I can't screw around with having mutliple sizes for different agencies.  I should, but I don't because it's just an extra step - more time consuming.  Maybe this is why it's been about 2 months that I've already been accepted to Alamy, and yet I still haven't gotten around to upsizing all of my images for upload. 

So are we supposed to have 3 versions of every image?  One saved for Alamy sizes, one for SS, and the other for the rest of the micros where larger sizes yield larger payouts?  That's just too much work, to me.

Action -> batch process -> save result in SS folder and another in Alamy folder and thats it.

In fact I probably wouldnt bother myself with downsizing in case I have super quality camera but now it helps me to avoid any potential noise/artifacts trouble. And unless they change their subscription to various prices for various sizes I dont see any reason to put bigger images there.

An important question to consider however, is if you are potentially losing sales because customers are looking for a large size image to download.  While I wish Shutterstock charged (and paid) more for larger images, I accept that their model works remarkably well for contributors.  Perhaps if I had a Hassy, I would feel more inclined to downsize than I do with my 30D, lol.

You might lose 1 or 2% sales but you'll make 20 or 30% more sales with pictures that would not have been accepted if not sized down to remove defects such as noise etc...

I have quite a few underwater pics at ISO 1600 downsized at 2.5MP that sell pretty well...

Ever since I started downsizing to 4MP (from 10) for SS no more rejections for noise/artifacts! Now if they only got their act together about the lighting/composition crap...

I have very few rejections for noise artifacts at SS (and when I had them they were obvious).
In the other hand, my problem is IS where I have a lot of rejections for that reason. Im thinking in downsize for IS but dont know if it is a good idea because of different prices for diferent sizes...

You can still downsize to 6mpx and have the L size. But then it's good to have a 10mpx or more camera