10 Mega Pixel Requirements for Stock Agencies

VJM · Sep 25, 2007

Hi everyone ... I'm new here, just found this forum and it seems like a place I could get some intelligent replies. I posted this at two other forums and it gets read , but not one reply which surprised me.

I'm interested in how others are dealing with it should you be in the same boat as I am. I'll be brief as I can .....

i've reached a bad spot in my photography and I'm surprised I haven't read about anyone else bring it up. I see plenty of complaints of the micro agencies popping up all over the place but nothing about this problem.

I've supplied two agencies besides alot of magazines photos for the last 15 + years. I had a hard time switching over to digital as I went to digital equipment right from manual focus so that meant new lenses also, not just an over priced camera body. My old computer was too slow and couldn't do the job, files weren't opening for photo editors and agencies, etc. which even their techs couldn't figure out ... etc etc etc. Finally a few thousand dollors more into a new computer and programs , the cost getting set up for digital added up to more then I spent on my manual equipment in 20 years - and still having one camera body.

So, the second time I was ready to send in a few CD's to one of the agencies they informed me that images from my model camera were no longer being accepted ... that I now need to shoot at 10 mega pixels or higher !!

So the situation is a basically brand new camera that cost me a lot 18 months ago is now useless for what I bought it for. To shoot 10 mega pixels - and do so with a decent camera - I'm looking at another $2700-$3200 for a body. (Who would have ever thought you'd see prices like this for ONE camera body ?!)

The thing is , you dump that kind of money into it and in another year the requirements will be over 10 MP and you'll again be in the same situation .... your 'new' $3,000 camera is now useless. You can't sell it for anywhere close to what you paid because anyone who would consider spending that kind of money for a camera body is also doing this at the pro level also and will need something that will meet current mega pixel requirements.

I don't know about the rest of you but this leaves me out of digital submissions to my agencies. My solution is to go back to film which the agencies still accept. The one agency in England wants me to make the investment in a 10 MP camera , the one in the US isn't aren't offering any suggestion other than to send them film images. My England agencies claims they don't see the requirements going over 10 MP but I think they're full of it .... it'll be 12 , 16 or higher in no time. A couple years ago everyone said digital wouldn't be good enough to replace film and look at it now.

So a question I have for you guys who also submit to agencies is what is your approach to this dilema ? I can't be the only one who can't afford to throw $3,000. cameras away every year because of the ever changing pixel requirements make them 'unacceptable' models to use.

Am I just one of the few who sees this situation as a BIG problem ? I'm seriously think about switching back to film but can't even find a Cradoc Caption Writer program for sale to caption slides if that's what I decide to do. I also got a note in one of my current 'Want Lists' from a magazine saying they just replaced another light table with another computer station ... though still encouraged slide submissions.

I'd love to hear how some of you are dealing with it .

xfloggingkylex · Sep 25, 2007

for 3200 you could buy 3 "decent" cameras that would be prefectly capable of taking nice 10 MP pictures. In fact, any camera under the pro level would work.

Yeah the limit is silly especially since lots of stock photos are used for online (a 1.3mp camera can take nice web-use shots), but I guess the idea is so whoever buys the picture can crop it and still get a nice print.

What are you using now if you dont mine me asking?

skieur · Sep 25, 2007

Consider the Sony Alpha A700 arriving in November at 12.2 megapixels and a price tag for body only at $1300 to $1500 depending on where you order it from. That would keep you ahead of the cut off for a while.

skieur

Garbz · Sep 25, 2007

Try and fool them by upsampling the images. You'd be surprised how often they just take a quick look at numbers without actually zooming in to see how sharp an image is.

VJM · Sep 25, 2007

I have a Canon D10 right now .... my one agency said they'd accept images from it for magazine use but nothing more - but not to submit anything with it until they ask, LOL. That's the kicker, books and magazines are what my stuff gets used in anyway. The biggest use would be full page or two page spread and have had four pages in a big magazine with this 10D where the pics were 2/3 page or more already. But they claim that they want to be covered in case a client wants to use it for something else and 10 MP is the minimum ... so I understand wanting to be covered in case that is a request. But at the same time , it's like me buying $3,000. worth of insurance each year that covers me in case I get hit by a bolt that falis off an airliner. My stuff goes into books and magazines , not bill board advertising . Only thing bigger than a two page spread my images have been used for were calendars.

I don't plan on investing anoter $3200.00 in any digital equipment anytime soon but the Canon 10 mega pixel I priced was $2700 used. I don't know models #'s , etc because I wasn't serious about making the plunge any deeper.

I saw there was cheaper models like you mention biut didn't look at them too seriously because when I bought the 10D I was shocked at the crap lens that came with it ( previous owner ) . It was a Canon lens but now see they have higher and lower priced stuff with their digital. They didn't have that with the old manual focus lenses - you were just buying a great lens.

This lens was a piece of junk and was surprised Canon would even put their name on it. This was the reason I didn't even consider the cheaper camera models - I figured they were models similar to the cheaper lens since they now seem to have two different grades of equipment.

Anyway, thanks for the input , I appreciate your response.

xfloggingkylex · Sep 25, 2007

the kid lens is cheap because if it wasn't, it would make camera kits cost more, and well that drives down sales. Instead you get a not so sharp-when-open wide angle-short tele lens for 100 bucks. Hard to beat the price for what you are getting, and at f/8 or f/11 it takes fine pictures. Of course most lenses are going to be an upgrade, but again you are getting a wide angle zoom for 100 bucks.

Take a look at the 40D from canon. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised at how much less it costs than the camera you priced out, which was no doubt a pro level camera to be that price used. Heck even a rebel XTi with the glass you already have will take 10MP images very nicely. If you are ok with used, you'll find plenty of XTi's used that are sure to fit your budget.

Alex_B · Sep 25, 2007

xfloggingkylex said:
kid lens

:lmao: ... good one!

Jeff Canes · Sep 25, 2007

Use a good lens and shoot in RAW them upsize the images, should works fine as long you do not crop a lot

xfloggingkylex · Sep 25, 2007

Alex_B said:
:lmao: ... good one!

totally a typo, but I'll still take credit. Feel free to quote me in your sigs as if I had done this on purpose :lol:

Garbz · Sep 25, 2007

hmmm kit lens on a 6mpx camera will be the same sharpness as a kit lens on a 10mpx. I don't like how even some professional do not understand how sharpness is supposed to work. Are they saying that 3 years ago their clients could not print anything larger than a magazine?

VJM · Sep 25, 2007

I don't know ... my US agency didn't even want to discuss it , just said , " ... then shoot film." Case closed . The UK based one I talked about said that the 6.3 MP is fine for magazines and books , etc. but they still want all submissions either fim or 10 MP digital or higher. Like I said, that 6.3 is fine for magazines was evident when I got four images used at 2/3 - 3/4 page in a popular children's magazine I've delt with for years. The photo editor there didn't ask what camera I used. It was even MORE evident when checking out Nature's Best magazine, as alot of great pics being used at 1/2 to 3/4 page were done with 'Point and Shoot' digital camera's !!

I checked out the Canon 40D and it's almost half the price of the one I looked at, thanks for pointing tht one out. But once the requirements are raised again that too will be useless for submitting. So the qustion really is what the ceiling will be on the MP requirements ... or will the madness continue and for what reason ... the magazines aren't getting bigger in size.

I also wonder what the differences can be between a camera that cost over $3000.00 and one at half the price when they shoot at the same 10 MP ?
In my 'career', I went from a Canon AE-1 to the F-1 . I stuck with those for many years until I tried a friends T-90's and I was sold on those - best camera ever made. :thumbup:

From that I went to the digital 10D and into this black hole i haven't found my way out of yet. What a change ... for around $3000, I'd be set with two camera bodies, 2 macros, a 24, a 24-85 and flash ... and it would all last over ten years. Now that gets you a pro body that might not be 'acceptable' in 18 months.

And nobody asked before you sent pics out " ... wait a minute ... what kind of camera did you use ? Oh, we're sorry ... that camera is no longer on our 'Acceptable Camera List' ... " :lol:

Well, pardon me , LOL :hail:

JIP · Sep 25, 2007

So they way I see it you either go back to film, be realistic about what you need to be a pro nowadays or, find a new career. I don't mean to be a jerk but I am sure there are millions of guys out there right now that have all the right gear, extremely powerful computers and, the knowledge of how to use them. What do they say "adapt or die".

Mike_E · Sep 25, 2007

I'll bet that the problem is that they have Thousands of unsolicited images to sort through and are weeding out the applicants. Everyone knows someone who bought a rebel/d40/anything else and said hey-ho I'm a Pro. You can scan your negs and send in those files or as stated upsample. A 25meg Tiff file should be sufficient for anybody.

If you can wait till the end of the year there should be a number of Nikon D2x on the used market. 12 mp and a pro body that should last well into the next decade for most applications. If you want new then the new D300 will be under $2k (and quiet to boot).

Iron Flatline · Sep 25, 2007

Yeah, my sympathies, I'm sorry you have to deal with this. What's worse, most of these micro-stock agencies will be gone in a few years - the industry is ripe for consolidation. A few years ago Corbis and Getty only controlled 17% ofthe market combined... that will change.

In the mean time, the bad news really is: adapt or stay with film. Either get a serious new digital camera, or shoot film and scan high-res files.