12 mp sensor requirement from Jupiter

Out of curiosity, I looked into Jupiter this weekend. Our local uses them for stock, and I wondered what they were about.

I just received my requirements letter, which was standard fare, until I go to the part where they indicated that, under equipment, they require a workproduct from a sensor 12 mp or better?

Huh?

If I read that right, my G9 is an acceptable piece of equipment, but my 40D is not. Don't bother upgrading to the 1D Mk III, either. A 5D or 1Ds only? Or, on the Noink side, a D3, D2, or D300?

Is there a practical reason for this, or is this an artificial speedbump thrown in the road to limit the amount of submissions they receive?

I vote the latter, but I would like to hear otherwise.

and does that mean you can't crop much if you are using a 5D?

Very often their guidelines are not updated as quickly as new cameras are released.

They are most likely applying this as a filter to reduce submissions. Other services, I've read, go so far as effectively restricting to 1Ds 2 (or Nikon equiv) or Medium format digital (up to 39Mpixels single shot, but could be more for large format, shot with same sensor)

Quantity does not equal quality. Really just their easiest way of cutting down on cr@p! (No reflection of your photography!)

Hope this helps
Jon

jonstewart wrote in post #5555969
Very often their guidelines are not updated as quickly as new cameras are released.

They are most likely applying this as a filter to reduce submissions. Other services, I've read, go so far as effectively restricting to 1Ds 2 (or Nikon equiv) or Medium format digital (up to 39Mpixels single shot, but could be more for large format, shot with same sensor)

Quantity does not equal quality. Really just their easiest way of cutting down on cr@p! (No reflection of your photography!)

Hope this helps
Jon

I figured as much. Its less a reflection on photography then it is on my budget. I can imagine that everyone who sees some limited success on microstock wants to jump up to the big leagues. Now with the 5D getting so "cheap" -- I wonder if they will jump it to 14.

It is kinda funny to think though that all of those guys at SI with their MK IIIs aren't "good enough" for photos.com.

mattograph wrote in post #5556112
I figured as much. Its less a reflection on photography then it is on my budget. I can imagine that everyone who sees some limited success on microstock wants to jump up to the big leagues. Now with the 5D getting so "cheap" -- I wonder if they will jump it to 14.

It is kinda funny to think though that all of those guys at SIs with their MK IIIs aren't "good enough" for photos.com.

You're quite right about the reflection on budget, not photography. It wasn't too long ago that end clients were happy to live with 6-8 Mpixels, because that's all that was available. However, many end uses - especially when moving from a colour additive media to colour subtractive media (ie screen to print) - favour not just larger files, but also files with higher dynamic range (and therefore wider gamut), so we're also thinking a shift from min 12 to at least 14bit, or better, so that the quality can be maintained through the conversion process.

Probably the jump will be higher, like 16mpixels - so 1DsII and III and MF, but it could become more specific to camera make / model, or indeed bit depth, or other factors which could influence the included, acceptable, camera models in their terms.

It's their agency, and therefore their rules. One of the difficulties in making comparisons, btw, is that the low size, low resolution of the internet 'thumbnail' is a great leveler - you might see photos that they do accept, that don't *appear* to be as technically good as yours, but the full image may be a lot better. I shoot MF digital (Phase P45) and I know the difference, in real life (so to speak) between 35mm and MF, even if the thumbnails on the internet look much the same.

Hope this helps
Jon