Because video is very hard work. I am trying to build a video portfolio and I can shoot many, many more photographs in the time that it takes to set up a video shoot. There is just no comparison.

That is why videos are so much more expensive - cost of production, including time - is much greater...

There is also a lot to learn - you don�t just put the cmaera on a tripod and press a button. With video you have - moving actors , moving lights, lights dimming or being switched on, the camera moves, the focus shifts during the shoot and has to be constantly  manually refocussed. You need to plan a storyboard, take and retake and again retake every scene etc...

If you think of photography as chess, then video is 3D chess - at least this is how it feels to me.

I will try to build a little video portfolio, but I have already decided that my main income will remain from photography, much easier to get sales.

But this is my personal experience...as a complete newbie...

I've seen a lot of people talk about venturing into video on these and other forums, and I have yet to see anyone return and talk about what t positive experience it has been.

I get the feeling it's a lot like if I were to try getting into stock photography. I know vectors and illustration, so I have some understanding of light, composition, etc. I use a Canon T2i to shoot reference material for vector images, so I can use a camera at least somewhat competently. I generally manage to keep it in Manual mode so I guess that's a good thing.

But really I probably know far less than I think I know about shooting stock photography, and if I tried it I'd probably find that my efforts are best directed where they're more refined. And for me that's in creating vector images.

In much the same way, I imagine going from photography to video is similar. It doesn't seem like a stretch, you might already have some of the skills and equipment required to do the job. But can you really do better with this thing that is really secondary to your main skill set? I think it's harder to do than it seems.

 Hi stepheng101,

 If you are seeing good sales on your videos and can do the math on how many clips can I shoot in a day and how many stills can I shoot multiplied by the numbers you mentioned it should give you a good idea of what your return will be. The only other advice I can offer is deversifacation is always safer than everything in one basket and more fun when you can switch back and forth when you tire of one or the other. Never underestimate the FUN faxtor I would love to hear your results as you press forward.

Best of luck,
Jonathan

Hi stepheng101,

  Never underestimate the FUN faxtor I would love to hear your results as you press forward.

Best of luck,
Jonathan

The fun factor is what is driving me towards video! Couldn�t agree more!

But if I am just counting the money than it would be best to just shoot...much more...I really don�t think I will ever reach a payout level anywhere near my photo portfolio.

Everyone uses photos, very few people need videos...on a daily basis. It will always be a much smaller market.

I like doing videos but haven't put much effort in to it yet.  It's more difficult to do clips that will sell.  I think timelapses are a good option for still photographers.  I'm improving but still a long way off what some people produce.  My referral link for Pon5 is in my signature, they sell more than the microstock sites for me and accept everything I upload.  Here's my timelapses media bin. http://www.pond5.com/video-sound-effects-music/1/clipbin:54654.html

I like doing videos but haven't put much effort in to it yet.  It's more difficult to do clips that will sell.  I think timelapses are a good option for still photographers.  I'm improving but still a long way off what some people produce.  My referral link for Pon5 is in my signature, they sell more than the microstock sites for me and accept everything I upload.  Here's my timelapses media bin. http://www.pond5.com/video-sound-effects-music/1/clipbin:54654.html

$29 is too low in my opinion.  Pond5 is competing against places like IS with $100+ per file.

Quote from: sharpshot on December 15, 2011, 03:56

I like doing videos but haven't put much effort in to it yet.  It's more difficult to do clips that will sell.  I think timelapses are a good option for still photographers.  I'm improving but still a long way off what some people produce.  My referral link for Pon5 is in my signature, they sell more than the microstock sites for me and accept everything I upload.  Here's my timelapses media bin. http://www.pond5.com/video-sound-effects-music/1/clipbin:54654.html

$29 is too low in my opinion.  Pond5 is competing against places like IS with $100+ per file.

I get 50% commission with Pond5, only 15% with istock.  Istock also have credits discounts that lower my earnings, so I can price much lower with Pond5 and make around the same commission.  Then there's the best match search advantage for exclusives that makes my clips harder to find and the fact that they have rejected clips that Pond5 have sold.  I don't think most of my clips are highly commercial, so I have priced them quite low to see if they will sell.  If they sell more, I can raise prices.  If I make some clips that I think are more commercial, I will price them higher.

^ The Pond5 curators will decide if it's suitable for editorial use only and put a message on it to that effect.

Quote from: sjlocke on December 14, 2011, 19:42

Quote from: stepheng101 on December 14, 2011, 16:24

why is there not a mass exodus of contributors from stills to video?

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

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

Just to clarify, I didn't mean "you" as in the OP of the question.  I meant "you" as in the royal you ( all of us ).  I think most micro photographers that are pretty good at what they do see the video button on their camera and think video is as easy as pushing record, but video is a whole 'nother thing, which includes finding models that can act, more hardware, different workflow, lighting, etc.  The guys who have entire crews, like simonkr, are awesome at video.  For the rest of us, I don't think the results end up as good as we had hoped they would.

With all that I have learnt in the last 12 months I believe I will need at least 3 YEARS to get myself to a moderate professional level in video. I�ll also have to take classes and workshops, work with many different people etc..

But I am really enjoying it, I just don�t know if the time I spend on it now will really pay off in the future. I do try to take pictures as well as video, but this is difficult because video needs much harsher light and I don�t always have the time to rebuild the set for the photos.

Maybe editorial video is easier? So many places and trades and cultures in the world not yet covered.

Wow fantastic work.  Could the problem be that they are only being sold on Getty?

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

Hi Jonathan, that is excellent work. Always a pleasure to see:) I couldn't shake the feeling though that your videos are your stills in motion. Those are very good videos, and very recognizable as your style, but "awesome" videos bring something that stills can't deliver. Telling a story with motion is different. And for that one has to have special skill and talent. That's the reason I didn't start shooting video when I considered it a few years ago. I knew what I would want from my videos and realized that the learning curve would be too steep. I don't think it's only about good lighting, locations, models, etc., it's about being able to tell a story in completely different way. I agree with Sean here - it's not that easy.

Quote from: stepheng101 on December 14, 2011, 16:24

why is there not a mass exodus of contributors from stills to video?

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

Ah yes, the infamous forum troll who stirs the pot for the sake of stirring the pot! It's alright, I know it's nothing personal, you're probably a douche to everyone.

As for the topic at hand, I appreciate everyones various perspectives on this. I definitely don't mean to come across as thinking video is the future and photos are the past, there a market for both. I just mean from the time/effort vs payout standpoint. I'm on with a few agencies, but Shutterstock as by far been the most active of them all for me and these are my numbers thus far: 44 stills and 39 videos in my portfolio since SS accepted me in October. $15.06 from 47 downloads for my images, $112.61 from 7 downloads for video. Yep, I have a small portfolio that hasn't been online for very long, so this is a small sampling. Just wondered if this was the case for most, and it sounds like it isn't. I shoot almost solely aerials, that might have something to do with it.

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.

There's definitely a learning curve, it took me a while to find a editing program I liked too, mostly sticking with Premiere Pro these days. I had an on and off relationship with FCP X for the past few months until I decided weren't meant to be. Sounds like a frame rate thing to me, and maybe just panning and zooming a bit fast. I had this issue too when I started filming overhead views from the plane. I was shooting at 1080p 30fps from 1500 feet going 110 mph - not going to look smooth! Now I've just given up on that and if I want that angle I switch to 720p 60fps and slow it down by 50%- seems to work alright.

Time-lapses sure seem popular. Looks like a good chunk of the most popular videos are time-lapses. I thought the adage was if at first you don't succeed, you're not Chuck Norris. Hmm..

Hi Traveller,

 Well they have the highest motion sales in the business and when you shoot video for Getty as with stills they only represent as content exclusive. Maybe pull them all and put them in Micro but if I am not shooting the correct content then maybe not. I would love any serious data on what is selling for more than $50 a clip per year I thought we did our research and we brought in an Emmy winning crew so they no how to block a shot properly and also were able to do all the editing so I don't know the answer better than I shared. I did the lighting and casting the rest we worked as a team to decide how to tell a story that was the reason for bringing in the professionals to learn from. I agree a story must be told in 3 seconds, that is the average length of time a clip is used on national television.

Best,
Jonathan

Thanks Sharpshoot.

Best,
J

Hi All,

 Just did a quick search on Istock video and found their sell through rate to be at bellow 50%, that means for every video they are accepting 50% are making one download or more in their life so far. Might want to check back on this formula in a few months to help gauge growth. I have seen some very good motion on Istock.

Best,
Jonathan

Yeah I was looking at a footage cart sale not a subscription. Haha. I have yet to have sold a non-HD clip, so the lowest payout I've recieved is $13.25. I'm not sure, but does SS price 720p at $49 and 1080p at $79? Haven't quite figured out why there are these two prices schemes.

I've noticed that too, I'm hoping not to get swamped by new uploads since I pretty much just shoot aerial video (I hard market to compete in unless your a pilot and you don't have to pay for the cost of the airplane like me!).

I don't know about the new sales prices, but the old sales prices for cart sales were $10 for low-res, $30 for SD, and $50 for HD. We get 30% commissions. Assuming the same commission level for subs, the sales prices were $9, $27, and $45 (so not too much of a discount from the cart price).

I didn't know you shoot mainly aerials. That being the case, if I were you, I'd concentrate on videos. That's a great niche to have available.
 

Quote from: stepheng101 on December 15, 2011, 14:30

Yeah I was looking at a footage cart sale not a subscription. Haha. I have yet to have sold a non-HD clip, so the lowest payout I've recieved is $13.25. I'm not sure, but does SS price 720p at $49 and 1080p at $79? Haven't quite figured out why there are these two prices schemes.

I've noticed that too, I'm hoping not to get swamped by new uploads since I pretty much just shoot aerial video (I hard market to compete in unless your a pilot and you don't have to pay for the cost of the airplane like me!).

I don't know about the new sales prices, but the old sales prices for cart sales were $10 for low-res, $30 for SD, and $50 for HD. We get 30% commissions. Assuming the same commission level for subs, the sales prices were $9, $27, and $45 (so not too much of a discount from the cart price).

I didn't know you shoot mainly aerials. That being the case, if I were you, I'd concentrate on videos. That's a great niche to have available.
 

I just double-checked and the new rates are $19, $49, $79 for web, SD and HD respectively. For footage cart sales it is a flat 30%, which is $23.70 for HD clips. Subscription sales are a little confusing to me, the SS FAQ says: "30% of sale price, with minimums of $2.50 for low-resolution downloads, $8.00 for SD downloads, and $13.25 for HD downloads." ...so is it 30% or $13.25? Because 30% is $23.70. Hmm..

Yep I'm a lucky guy! I fly with a traffic reporter for a radio station so I'm flying low to the ground all week so it is a great opportunity for some unique footage. Thanks for your input, much appreciated!

Wow fantastic work.  Could the problem be that they are only being sold on Getty?

Very pretty perfect people, etnic blend perfect, smiles perfect, silicone perfect, so sweet its making me sick. That's what Getty says would sell. Whats the selling point on these beyond we're all cleansed sterile and perfect? Blond in the pool looked appealing and chesty.

I just double-checked and the new rates are $19, $49, $79 for web, SD and HD respectively. For footage cart sales it is a flat 30%, which is $23.70 for HD clips. Subscription sales are a little confusing to me, the SS FAQ says: "30% of sale price, with minimums of $2.50 for low-resolution downloads, $8.00 for SD downloads, and $13.25 for HD downloads." ...so is it 30% or $13.25? Because 30% is $23.70. Hmm..

Thanks for that info. I've been too lazy busy to look it up myself.

I think when they say 30%, they mean 30% of the subscription sales price, which apparently will vary considerably based on the buyer. The minimum commissions they're using ($2.50, $8, $13.25) are the previous commissions we were getting for sub sales. So, IOW, sub commissions will be the same or higher -- good on them!

And big raises on cart sale prices. I hope that won't send buyers to other sites like Pond5, where sellers tend to mark down their work too low. I like having the "set your prices" feature, but I wish there were minimum price levels like $15, $30, $40. Oh, well.

Quote from: stepheng101 on December 14, 2011, 16:24

why is there not a mass exodus of contributors from stills to video?

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

Agree 100%. it is a different animal,More to learn.15 sec clips are a no Brainer as compared to doing editing,Transitions After effects,color correcting,motion and music,and something looking back I should have got into  years ago because of my 35 year History of writing Music for Film and TV.

I took The plunge 14 months ago. Went to a 4 week Finalcut Class. The learning curve is enormous, I thought being pretty good at Photoshop It was going to be a breeze. Guess what? Far ,FAR from it But the Creative rewards are through the roof,  I only Have 140 Videos Up and a Bunch Of sound effects and foley But,I can edit fairly well now and can "Speak" the language and for the first time in many years the creative juices have begun to flow again and Im able to do 6/8 Min short stories that Mean something to me and Im looking at transitioning into Commercials and whatever, Already done 3 Behind the scenes stories and a ton of Youtube tutorials and Workshop promotional Pieces. Cost of equipment is high,Big Computers and expensive software But the little port I have has Paid Back all my expenses twice. So I say do Both and if just 15 sec stock Clips is all you wanna do. The expense is very small and Finalcut and the like is way overkill but your gonna need some processing Muscle. A lot of fun.