MicrostockGroup

Hey All,

So I'm relatively new to this stock thing, I have about 100 files on DT and SS respectively, maybe 400 total among all agencies. Maybe $.30 here for a subscription purchase, the occasional $2.00 for a larger image credit purchase, etc. Then I submitted some videos to SS and a few sold which.. quadrupled my earnings.

So here's what I'm wondering: if I make as much in one subscription video sale as I make in 60 subscription image sales... why is there not a mass exodus of contributors from stills to video?

I own a Canon 60D so it's a decent tool for both stills and video, seems to me that my time is best invested in video. I'm wondering if you all feel the same or, if not, why stick with photography and not shoot stock video?

60 x $0.30 = $18. How come you make so much more on a SS subscription video sale than I do?    (Under the old pricing, the maximum I received was $13.25 for an HD sub sale. I don't know what it is or will be under the new pricing.)

Just like with photos, video sales come in various prices. I've made as low as $2.40, and as high as $25 (not including ELs). My average video sale is roughly 4x my average photo sale.  But I sell 10x to 15x as many photos as videos. So that's why I continue to concentrate on the photo side.

Also, while some here correctly point out that video is "newer" and therefore there are lots of areas that are poorly covered, supply vs demand has taken a huge turn for the worse in the course of the last year. "Everyone" seems to have a dSLR that's video capable these days, and many of them are UL'ing like crazy. Supply in many areas (particularly, as usual, nature / scenic / travel) is exploding far beyond the demand (which is rising, but very slowly compared to supply). One site that I contribute to recently admitted that their collection almost doubled in size this year, and so many contributors saw their sales fall (since they were not able to increase demand to keep pace).

Because: a.  video is overrated and 2: you aren't as good at video as you think you are...

   Ouch! and snap!

1 & 2 for me and I might add, it's like stills. When the market opened there was a greater opportunity and better sales. As more video comes in, more professionals and better competition, the sales will slow down.

I suppose if someone is serious and knows video, this would be the time to jump on it and get your video in action, before the rest catch up.

For myself, I'm pretty sure I don't have a clue about shooting good stock video.

lol Did you wake up on the wrong side of the bed Sean?

Don't hold back Sean!

I notice you've got material that would be classed as editorial on iStock - what's the deal with unreleased logos, people, landmarks and that kind of thing on Pond5?

Sean's right no doubt...  except in that I know I'm no good at video!

However, it seems to me that for purposes of stock you can indeed do as cobalt mentioned, that is, stick the camera on a tripod and press a button (OK, there's a bit more to it when it comes to post processing, but basically a lot of the stuff on Pond5 is literally just that - except many of them don't even bother with the tripod).  For the real stuff you may well need actors, focus pull, panning etc., but you can play around with simple shots first.  Everyone has to start somewhere.

You probably won't sell many of course, but as Jonathan said, don't forget the fun factor...

    I've often spoken of my feeling that video is the future of stock, but I agree with sjlock that for most microstock photographers, they are better off sticking to what they know. I'm sure he speaks from first hand knowledge.  For those photographers who world has been mostly shaped by microstock, a workflow dependent on post  processing to fix errors in lighting or composition will find it impossible to work with video, where it has to be right in the camera. Microstock photographers are also up against a new generation of videographers who are comfortable and knowledgable about the video workflow. They are the wave of the future, not still photographers trying to transition to moving images. It's like a painter trying to learn dance- it is an art, just not the same art. Having said all that, it can be done, it's just going to take years, not months, and the competition won't wait for you.

Hi All,

 I did an R&D test on motion and spent a good deal of money and time with a very professional camera team using the Red system. We shot lifestyle the most popular selling motion we followed everything that we could as far as making content that should sell from our analysis but alas after 600 clips shot for Getty they return less per clip than my stills. Here is a short clip showing some of the stuff we shot. It isn't the best reel but it shows the lighting locations and level of talent we were shooting and on the best camera at the time.
 Always good to do research but for me I am sitting on the fence until I see motion sales start to at least double still sales, there is that much more work and money involved. Here is a link to our reel, like I said it isn't edited very well but it gives you an idea of the quality. http://www.andersenross.com/demoreel.mov
Best,
Jonathan

Thanks for posting the link. The look of that clip is very clean, high-end stocky (nice looking but real, vs. hollywood). Unless Getty doesn't do well in video (and someone else is the hot video distributor) I'd think that if video were the hot ticket, that sort of work would be selling.

I don't have much of an emotional connection to video in the way I do to stills. The only thing I saw recently that really tempted me was some of the gorgeous time lapse work posted in this thread (the dolly manufacturer link has some great videos on their site). No idea if that would sell as stock, but if I had the time, that's what I'd want to get good at.

I spent a couple of days trying to work out how to edit a video and got absolutely nowhere. I don't even have a clue what a few of the crucial terms mean, let alone how to use a video editing program. When I try to pan everything comes out jerky, when I try to zoom the same happens. I concluded that even if I got the editing right the only things I could shoot would be time-lapse or something where an object moves across the view of a fixed camera. So I followed that old adage that if at first you don't succeed, give up.