Higher payments for extra-high resolution images?

I was just wondering why does the payment scheme ends at 8 Megapixels?

It's nice that pricing for downloads depends on image resolution. But why does the scheme end at 8 MP? My opinion is that this pricing scheme (up to 8 MP) was fine some time ago, when the best digital cameras had a maximum of 10 MP resolution (and mainly less). But now as many cameras has 12 MP, I think this scheme might be extended.

Also regardless of camera resolution... if I make let's say some panorama picture composed of several photos, which has for example 30 MP, why should I be paid same as for 8 MP image for full resolution download?

What' s your opinion?

Photo credits: Timehacker.

Your article must be written in English

Publish
March 04, 2008

Timehacker

I agree with Teresa that there should be some cap. Exactly the one additional price range might be a good idea.

March 03, 2008

Charlesoutcalt

I'm with you--one more price range would be useful. Every month--every week!--the default image size increases, or so it seems. In addition, as Timehacker said, some images are actually composites of many separate images, all of which required thought and work.

Just my two cents' worth. . .

March 03, 2008

Kenneystudios

I've often pondered that myself, but haven't made a decision yet on how I feel. On one hand it would be nice to be paid for more megapixels. On the other hand, if I were a buyer it would be nice to have a cap on price for maximum resolution, regardless of size. Maybe the addition of one more price range for larger images?

Related image searches
Higher related image searches