How many mega Pixels is enough

rinderart · #1 (**permalink**) 12-06-2006, 05:23 AM

How many MP is enough for RF at the prices they pay us??? 3MP, 5MP?,8MP? 10MP? love to hear your responce. I shoot 12 MP and 39MP cameras I dont give anyone more than 5-7 Maximum. For what ? so some guy can make a fine art print of my work for 25 cents? Not on your life.

thesupe87 · #2 (**permalink**) 12-06-2006, 05:36 AM

HA! I know, right? Forget that.

The most you really have to submit to get the XXL sizes on certain sites like Fotolia and StockXpert is I think 5000 x 5000 pixels, at 300dpi -that's what I set my canvas to when creating backgrounds and photoshop graphics. Converting those figures to megapixels, I think it's it in the 8-10 range, someone can correct me if I'm wrong.

I only have a 5 megapixel point and shoot, so what stinks is that I can only get 2 credits at the most for a photo sold on fotolia, where if I had a little bit higher those same shots would pull in higher profit #'s when sold in larger formats.

thesupe87 · #3 (**permalink**) 12-06-2006, 05:39 AM

Also - you can get a pretty friggin decent 8 x 10" shot from a 3 megapixel camera. These photo sites and approvers worried about noise at 100%....it's not even noticeable in print, unless you don't know what you're doing when it comes to the technical side of things. I have professional stock photo cd collections from the 90s at work, and they have more noise than anything I've ever submitted to a micro site. We use them on magazine covers. They look mint.

sharpshot · #4 (**permalink**) 12-06-2006, 09:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thesupe87

HA! I know, right? Forget that.

The most you really have to submit to get the XXL sizes on certain sites like Fotolia and StockXpert is I think 5000 x 5000 pixels, at 300dpi -that's what I set my canvas to when creating backgrounds and photoshop graphics. Converting those figures to megapixels, I think it's it in the 8-10 range, someone can correct me if I'm wrong.

I might be wrong but Isn't that more like 25mp?

As cameras produce photos at 72dpi, if the file was converted to that size, there would be even more pixels. I would like a camera that can knock out files that size

jimiking · #5 (**permalink**) 12-06-2006, 09:59 AM

I'm a bit of a Sony fan. I had a 5MP (2592x1944) Cybershot which was a couple of years old, but seemed more than fine. But I got a load of stuff refused for noise.

A few months ago I bought the Sony DSC-H5 which is an absolutely great camera. Huge 3inch screen, 12X zoom and 7.2MP (3072x2304). It's pretty reasonably priced too. However still lots of time clearing up noise etc.

So I finally swallowed hard and invested in the new Sony a100 DSLR. 10MP (3872x2592). This is an outstanding camera. However it's not cheap (although apparently good value up against against DSLR's of a similar spec). Much less noise and some great gadgetry built in.

Boy do I need to sell some photo's!

ichiro17 · #6 (**permalink**) 12-06-2006, 02:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sharpshot

Quote:

Originally Posted by thesupe87

HA! I know, right? Forget that.

The most you really have to submit to get the XXL sizes on certain sites like Fotolia and StockXpert is I think 5000 x 5000 pixels, at 300dpi -that's what I set my canvas to when creating backgrounds and photoshop graphics. Converting those figures to megapixels, I think it's it in the 8-10 range, someone can correct me if I'm wrong.

I might be wrong but Isn't that more like 25mp?

As cameras produce photos at 72dpi, if the file was converted to that size, there would be even more pixels. I would like a camera that can knock out files that size

DPI has nothing to do with the megapixels. 5000 x 5000 is 25MP regardless of the DPI. DPI is only useful when printing, which is when you would use anywhere from 240 to 300, depending on the printer.

I use 8 MP - I'm not the greatest photographer in the world, but I've seen steady growth in my sales since I started in May and I've taken time off work/school this December to add more photos.

Another interesting thing is that you can make absolutely fantastic prints at 30 X 20 and 30 x 24 with 8 MP to start, then upsizing with CS2. I did one for a buddy of mine and it looked sharp, pixels were fabulous and everything was in order.

-gareri

Gracey · #7 (**permalink**) 12-06-2006, 04:06 PM

I upload the full size (usually) from the D70 (unless I have to crop a little) which is 6mp. Shots from the D200 (10mp) I usually downsize or crop to 6mp. I'd say that's more than enough for 25 cents a shot.

On FP I regularly sell $10 images (which I get $7.00 for) that are less than 6mp. I get $1.40 for images around 2 to 3 mp.

When I signed up with Crestock it was because they would sell the images at $10, giving us a good percentage of the sale. I stopped uploading there a long while back, but checked in the other day and found I had sold three images...but I received 25 cents commission, not the promised percentage. Actually, it is the promised percentage, but they too went from the $10 per image to subscription with multiple sizing, which I didn't know til the other day.

Anyway, I've had images from a 2.1mp camera used in magazines; in fact, one made a magazine cover. A lot of people don't understand that a printer who knows what he's doing can actually print a 2.1mp picture and make it look the way it should...one of my was a double page spread.

So, again I'd have to say "why"? Why do you (stock sites) want my best work (well, what you think is my best, not necessarily what I think is my best), want my biggest files, and then pay me 25cents?

I'm just waiting for the day they want the psd files with multiple layers for that price :shock:

I don't know how those vector people do it...vectors are way more computer work than most photographs...all those hours for a quarter, or the occasional $20 (which doesn't really make up for it unless you get one of those or two of those a day).

Karimala · #8 (**permalink**) 12-06-2006, 04:14 PM

Ever since you started this thread at SS, I've done a lot of thinking about image size, which sites should get the largest size and which should get the minimum, and which images should be downsized. My Nikon D70 is only capable of producing 6 MP photos, so I don't have a lot of wiggle room. Sites with a pricing structure based on size will always get my largest images. But sites like SS that have straight pricing for all sizes will more than likely start receiving the bare minimum on images that I can't easily reproduce. My first 125 photos on SS were all shot with a 3.2 MP P&S, and they all still receive regular sales, so I know image size doesn't mean much to their buyers.