Are small sensor cameras useless for stock sales?

[Player]

I've been doing some research about stock photography, and it seems that the image requirements preclude the use of small sensor cameras like the GRD, Canon G9, and so forth.

Are these cameras just suitable for artsy photos and memory snaps, or are there potential pro applications, besides niche book publishing?

Thanks.

 

[helenhill]

How interesting is that !!
Really the requirements are so Strici.....Boring
the Rules must be Changed

H

 

[Will]

It isn't that long ago when they wouldn't take digital camera files of any sort. I'm sure things will progress.

I get frustrated when journalists insist on huge file sizes being sent to them when they are only going to print the images about 5cm square! I do understand stock photography having to be a minimum size though insisting on which sensor size shouldn't matter so much.

 

[TRSmith]

I confess to being unaware of the exact requirements as set forth by the stock houses. However, I regularly buy stock photos for publication in the documents I design for clients. I can say that from a purchaser's perspective, I assume that whichever photo I choose, regardless of the resolution I select (they typically offer the same image for a variety of uses at different price points), will just plain work.

I don't know if the smaller sensor cameras have proven to be unsatisfactory in certain situations, but if eliminating them from the pool of options insures that I won't be stuck with a photo that can work in situation A but not in situation B (whatever that might be), then I am a happy buyer. I definitely don't want to end up in a situation where I have to explain to the client that the photo we selected will work in the booklet but not as a poster.

Just a thought from the other side of the situation.

 

[johnastovall]

Stock is different form the journo side as to requirements. Remember in stock they may be going to turn it into a wallsize image. Editioral will take smaller than stock. In fact many papers to today just hand the writer a 10megpixel P/S set to JPEG and go on. The papers I shoot for want about a 10inch longest dimension 200ppi and JPEG compressions of 8. News is more concerned about fast than big. Fast as quick while it's still news.

 

[asabet]

I can only speak from a brief experience with iStock Photo. They declined one of three photos I submitted for being too noisy. If I recall correctly, it was an ISO 400 image from the Canon 5D, which means that it was less noisy than an ISO 100 GRD image and also cleaner than an ISO 80 Canon G9 image. So yes, based on that experience, I think small sensor images are out for stock photography. The DP1 may be an exception. While that camera captures less overall detail than a G9, it yield a significantly cleaner image and can get as much detail as an 8-10MP DSLR.

 

[Player]

Thanks for the replies!

TR, you just plain make sense coming from a buyer's perspective. Thankyou.

Newspapers don't seem as if they should be a problem using smaller sensors.

Amin, thanks for relating your experience with iStock. The answer to my question seems clear. I'm grateful!

What I know at this point is changing my attitude towards small sensor cameras. So many different types of images could be candidates for stock sales, and yet you lose that option if you happen to be using a GRD, or its ilk. It's something to think about the next time I go out taking pictures. What I may gain in convenience and stealth is not necessarily without its consequences.

Thanks again!

 

[Terry]

Another thing to think about and I don't know the full rules but if you are doing street and then trying to sell it for stock I think you would need model releases. Someone else with more knowledge can chime in here.

 

[Player]

Another thing to think about and I don't know the full rules but if you are doing street and then trying to sell it for stock I think you would need model releases. Someone else with more knowledge can chime in here.

Yes yes yes! Absolutely! And property releases too, in some instances. It's okay to submit, for example, a daytime shot of the Eiffel Tower without a release, but at night, the lights are protected, and not public domain (if I'm saying this right). Thanks.

 

[charlesphoto]

I met a photo journalist recently who was heading to Myanmar with a GRDII. In his case it was for news reporting and as long as the shots are good I'm sure the papers and mags will be fine with it. In his case it's more about access which he felt the pocket camera might get him.

But for higher end yes they want a certain amount of quality so it can be repurposed for anything. If it's obviously grainy for a stylistic approach that might be fine, but it has to be very obvious.

 

[Player]

Charles, thanks for telling about that photojournalist. Just shows that there are always exceptions, and in some instances, only a pocket camera will do. And in a case as that, the pictures, if they're good enough, would probably transcend quality requirements. Thanks.

 

[smokysun]

this might answer some of your questions:
http://www.amazon.com/Microstock-Ph...bs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1214086666&sr=8-1

 

[Player]

this might answer some of your questions:
http://www.amazon.com/Microstock-Ph...bs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1214086666&sr=8-1

Thankyou sir!

 

[David Paul Carr]

You can, indeed, use small sensor cameras (at least the better ones) for (some) stock agencies.
I have placed photographs taken with an Olympus C7070, Ricoh GRD and GX100 and Sigma DP1 with Alamy at least.
All passed the quality control test.
That said, I'm not sure if Alamy's criteria are the same as, or similar to, other stock houses. Getty's requirements may be more stringent. I think there is information available on their website.
I shoot no stock and only think of it as a way of (perhaps) generating some revenue from otherwise dormant images.
You need to know your camera, how to get the best from it and how to prepare your files for submission.
If you think you have anything to propose, you could always start by sending some stuff to Alamy and see if it passes muster. Then you would have an answer to your question.

 

[Player]

Thanks David, I just know that most stock agencies are sticklers for noise. It seems they enlarge the images 100% and judge from there, and noise is the snafu of smaller sensors. Also, noise reduction editing isn't always welcome, either.

I'm surprised that your small sensor photos passed muster at Alamy, but that probably says a lot about your shooting technique and image prep. Congrats! BTW.

It's pretty much a moot point the more I think about it. I'm not going to use a GRD2 to shoot a tabletop product shot, and most of the other types of photography I might submit as stock, don't require stealth.

 

[David Paul Carr]

I think that if you want the most versatile tool for deliberately shooting stock, you aren't going to chose a small format camera.
On the other hand, it's reassuring to know that if you stumble across an unexpected great stock shot when you only have a little point and shoot (albeit the right one), you might well be ale to submit the image to some stock agencies.

 

[Player]

I think that if you want the most versatile tool for deliberately shooting stock, you aren't going to chose a small format camera.
On the other hand, it's reassuring to know that if you stumble across an unexpected great stock shot when you only have a little point and shoot (albeit the right one), you might well be ale to submit the image to some stock agencies.

Exactly! (about the unexpected great shot). That exact thought spurred me to post. Maybe the future will bring some sort of miracle raw converter.

 

[Player]

Just a heads up, I read where Getty has a list of cameras that need to be used before they will even look at your images, and it's all high-end pro/ semi-pro gear. I know that's not the norm, but it may become a trend.

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

Most microstock agencies are much stricter with regards to technical quality than traditional ones, and that's only natural. Just think about it: if you sell photos at a dollar a shot, you can't afford any complaints. The result is millions of technically perfect, but creatively boring images.

Still, with enough light and a perfect exposure, almost any agency except the likes of Getty and Corbis will accept photos from whatever p&s. One of my top sellers is taken with a 5MP Canon A95, handheld in the middle of the night.

 

[Player]

Most microstock agencies are much stricter with regards to technical quality than traditional ones, and that's only natural. Just think about it: if you sell photos at a dollar a shot, you can't afford any complaints. The result is millions of technically perfect, but creatively boring images.

Still, with enough light and a perfect exposure, almost any agency except the likes of Getty and Corbis will accept photos from whatever p&s. One of my top sellers is taken with a 5MP Canon A95, handheld in the middle of the night.

Thanks for the reply Jorgen.

It is ironic about the microstock agencies, but perfectly understandable as you explained.

I have learned more since I originally posted, and I've read of photographers, as yourself, selling images with small sensor cameras.

BTW, congrats on that handheld A95 shot. I have an A95 that I've always liked except for nasty CA, plus you really need a RAW file to correct it.

Thanks again!