Author Topic: Is stock video the next big thing or just a fad? (Read 13930 times)

leaf · « **on:** February 10, 2010, 07:16 »

After reading this topic here I decided to start a topic which discusses the future of video.

Last year at UGCX Kelly and Bruce (The big wigs at iStock (past tense for Bruce)) gave one piece of advice for future contributors, and that was Canon 5D mark II - ie shooting video.

Like PowerDroid said in the other thread, I think we are going to see more and more video in digital magazines and websites with the onslaught of tablet style computing. This will increase the need for digital stock.

I also happened to see a National Geographic show the other day which when listing it's credits at the end, showed Pond5 as one of them.

But then again ... things come and go and the 'media form' of the day doesn't always last. Is video over hyped?

I am pretty interested in shooting more video myself - and it isn't that much work if I am already setting up for a still shoot. Editing takes time however so I still want it to be worth the time it takes.

sjlocke · « **Reply #1 on:** February 10, 2010, 07:23 »

I think it's overhyped. I don't ever see the market being as big as stills. There is need, but not as much as everyone keeps yelling about, imo.

PowerDroid · « **Reply #2 on:** February 10, 2010, 07:27 »

It's human nature....

Many of us have become too comfortable with still images. We have our processes down pat and want to just keep doing what we know for the foreseeable future. There's a fear of the unknown when it comes to video, which leads to a dismissing of video as something that won't (we hope) catch on.

But the writing is on the wall. In the tech community, the big buzz around the iPad is that it will usher in a new world of opportunities for content creators. Tomorrow's media devices and formats will explode today's notions of how we consume information and entertainment. It's common sense that there will always be a need for still images, but that's not where the growth will be. The smartest of us have seen this revolution coming and stuck our toes into the video pool already (though I'm not in that group... yet).

sjlocke · « **Reply #3 on:** February 10, 2010, 07:44 »

Nope, I don't buy it. I see video on iPads or whatever, as either mostly editorial, which would make sense, or product or business specific. Yes, I imagine increasing usage, but the market for stills is exponentially bigger and still has plenty of growth in it. I also think it is too expensive to produce and too expensive to buy, keeping the market down.

Xalanx · « **Reply #4 on:** February 10, 2010, 08:00 »

- you can't print video on newspapers / magazines / books / banners / etc
- video is much larger in size (web usage wise)
- it doesn't cover all the things that photography does.
- video is much harder to produce, as already mentioned.
- ...and perhaps some other disadvantages.

So no, it's not the next big thing.

ason · « **Reply #5 on:** February 10, 2010, 08:19 »

Hi
I don't think video is a hype.
About 15 years ago many was saying that internet was a hype but internet have change our life's our way to communicate etc.
I think video is going to be big, really big just because we are in internet 2.0 (or is it 3.0 ?

)

The biz can explore/make so many new things when the internet is expanding in technology possibilities etc.
I think we are just in the beginning of something that is changing every day/month/year -like microstocks.

Huuh I wish you all could read Swedish this is so hard to explain in English, but been there done that I was working as a photog when the "computer image" came, wow such discussions it were then and here we are today
- the pictures is to start moving....

just my thoughts
/lena

Danicek · « **Reply #6 on:** February 10, 2010, 08:26 »

Quote from: Xalanx on February 10, 2010, 08:00

- you can't print video on newspapers / magazines / books / banners / etc
- video is much larger in size (web usage wise)
- it doesn't cover all the things that photography does.
- video is much harder to produce, as already mentioned.
- ...and perhaps some other disadvantages.

So no, it's not the next big thing.

+ Much more difficult editing. Where designer takes 5 photos and makes a product in 2 hours, it would be almost impossible with Video. Aside from very small modifications, this still needs huge software development.

FD · « **Reply #7 on:** February 10, 2010, 08:35 »

Quote from: leaf on February 10, 2010, 07:16

I think we are going to see more and more video in digital magazines and websites with the onslaught of tablet style computing.

What onslaught of tablet style computing? Who needs it? Who needs any i-thing? No keyboard, no DVD player, a battery that goes for 1 hr after 1,5 years of use. A paper book or mag is lighter and needs no power to read. You can even throw it away and you don't need an expensive mobile connection to get your content.

Video on the web is fine if it has a story: movies, music, news, tutorials and manuals. Is the girl with headphones suddenly going to talk now? Even on my desktop, I have a flash and ad blocker to avoid my (paying) bandwidth to spiral out of control.

Perry · « **Reply #8 on:** February 10, 2010, 08:40 »

I think video is a big thing, but still I don't want every image to blink and move.

Still images are somehow more "economical" than video. A Great photo can sometimes tell a story in just two seconds, a video wastes much more viewer's time.

I think there is room for both still and video imagery.

sjlocke · « **Reply #9 on:** February 10, 2010, 09:27 »

I'll also mention, and this is just me, of course, but when looking at CNN, or most any other site on the net, I will eschew video for the written word every time. I don't have the time to sit and wait for the meat of the story or piece. I'd rather use my judgement to skim through and find what I feel is important. And I most certainly ignore any moving ads in the sidebars. I also hate artists' video portfolio pieces. Takes too long to get through. Give me a slideshow with a button. Video does nothing to attract my attention.

RT · « **Reply #10 on:** February 10, 2010, 09:51 »

It's an alternative media, I don't think it will ever replace stills because of the reasons already stated but I do think we will see more and more of it.

One thing for sure is that right now you'd be mental to invest too much money to produce video for stock, Hollywood and major ad companies are using Canon (and probably Nikon) dslr cameras to shoot video so the quality is high enough for any marketplace and therefore nearly everybody with a modern dslr has the basic equipment and could provide some simple stock footage.

Of course if you don't know what you're doing you could hire a production team to shoot and edit it for you, but that would be a huge waste of money if video does take off because the market will suddenly get swamped and you'd probably never get a return for your investment. After what has happened to the stills side of stock by microstock it's inevitable the same will happen for video.

GeoPappas · « **Reply #11 on:** February 10, 2010, 11:25 »

And what about 3D video???

WarrenPrice · « **Reply #12 on:** February 10, 2010, 11:48 »

When I started in sports photography, I was shooting on TriX -- Black and White for those who don't remember. Color was too expensive for most media outlets to print. Most of what I do is released on internet news media. And, even they are pushing for more video.
Now, Black and White is "nostalgic." :-)

I'm wondering how much longer print media will survive? Progress marches on. Isn't it sad?

sharpshot · « **Reply #13 on:** February 10, 2010, 12:10 »

All I do at the moment is take a few short video clips when I am out doing some landscape photography. My small portfolio has done OK so far. It doesn't take me much longer to do a 20 second video clip than it does to take and edit a few stills. I have no idea how big video will be but it is already making me money and if more and more print is moving to the internet, it looks like there will be a nice market for video clips. I think it has already been around too long to be a fad.

melastmohican · « **Reply #14 on:** February 10, 2010, 12:43 »

It may be next big thing in Microstock world. It's new and you can establish yourself in this category like some people did in photos 5 years ago when it was in infancy. But it harder to enter then stills: expensive hardware and software, learning new skills. Again if pros did not notice this chance now they some fast learning amateurs will dominate this market.

Randy McKown · « **Reply #15 on:** February 10, 2010, 23:22 »

I think the fad is actually the video features being built into DSLRs and not stock video itself. Cinematography is a completely different ballgame. People interested in getting into it don't just run to the mall and buy a video camera. One popular and cheap video setup for beginners is a Canon XL2 (about $3,000 body only) .. the cheapest lens they make for that model is like $1000 ... that's a lot of money for a cheap starter setup with only 1 lens. It's also worth pointing out that this $4,000 setup is a dirt cheap video setup .. in photography economics it would be kinda like running to walmart and buying a kodak easyshare off the shelf and thinking you now had the gear to compete on a professional level.

Actually if anyone is interested in seriously shooting video for income you need to be looking at either adding it to your wedding services or teaming up with another wedding photographer. "Save the Date" video is extremely popular and highly profitable (not including craigslist photographers) .. at least it is in the US.

helix7 · « **Reply #16 on:** February 10, 2010, 23:48 »

Quote from: Randy McKown on February 10, 2010, 23:22

I think the fad is actually the video features being built into DSLRs and not stock video itself. Cinematography is a completely different ballgame. People interested in getting into it don't just run to the mall and buy a video camera...

Agreed. Stock video seems like anything else stock-related. If you think you're just going to pick up a video camera and start producing stuff that sells, you're in for a big surprise. The fad really does seem to be this idea that a stock photographer can purchase a camera with video capability and easily become a stock videographer. It's similar to me picking up a still camera and thinking that I could easily produce stock-worthy photos. I can't, and I know it, so I stick to illustration. Much like I think anyone without video experience and skills would be wise to either stick to what they know or to really invest the time it takes to learn any new craft and become a professional stock artist in that field.

sharpshot · « **Reply #17 on:** February 11, 2010, 06:24 »

Cameras like the 5DMKII are capable of producing great footage clips. Have a look on the footage forums, there are pro's using them. The new Canon Rebel looks like it produces high quality HD video as well, at a budget price. Footage doesn't need to be as high a quality as stills. A 2mp image can look good when projected but might look low quality when printed.

The microstock sites sell simple video clips that should be cheap to produce, I know mine are, not high production high cost cinematography. If I can do it, it can't be that difficult

I doubt this market will be as big as stills but there seems to be a good buyer/contributor balance. As we can see from this thread, a lot of contributors wont be selling video clips, so hopefully the market will stay good for those of us that get in to it.

microstockphoto.co.uk · « **Reply #18 on:** February 11, 2010, 07:39 »

I'm not afraid of video: demand will continue to (slightly) grow for a while, but not at the expense of still images which will always find a use, both in print and online

video may be profitable now in microstock since the offer is still low, but it requires considerably larger resouces than photos (editing time, bandwidth) to produce

WarrenPrice · « **Reply #19 on:** February 11, 2010, 16:43 »

Interesting discussion. I wonder if this is the way the Stock vs Microstock discussion started? I hope I get to hang around long enough to see it play out.

I plan to expand into video. Using it to supplement the style of microstock that I produce (travel, nature, outdoor) seems very logical ... to me.
I have little to lose. Just a few thousand bucks to expand my simple pleasures ... travel and photography.

click_click · « **Reply #20 on:** February 12, 2010, 09:40 »

Quote from: sjlocke on February 10, 2010, 07:23

I think it's overhyped. I don't ever see the market being as big as stills. There is need, but not as much as everyone keeps yelling about, imo.

I must be understanding you wrong as you already have 434 video clips on iStock.

That's quite a bunch and since stills are your main bread and butter I dare to assume that your clips still generate a significant amount of income.

If you believe it's over-hyped, how come you you're doing rather well in terms of download numbers (not to mention exclusive videographers with THOUSANDS of downloads per clip!!!)?

That just on the side.

Stock footage IMO became "big" a couple of years ago. Despite the fact that the market is still growing I had my best returns two years ago, when there was less competition around the block.

The royalties margin is bigger/better and therefore quite attractive for me and it does contribute to a big chunk of my overall royalty income.

sjlocke · « **Reply #21 on:** February 12, 2010, 10:27 »

Quote from: click_click on February 12, 2010, 09:40

I must be understanding you wrong as you already have 434 video clips on iStock.

Why would you be understanding me wrong? I said there was a need, but that the huge wave of need coming is overhyped. That doesn't preclude me from shooting some video and putting it in my portfolio.

click_click · « **Reply #22 on:** February 12, 2010, 10:43 »

Quote from: sjlocke on February 12, 2010, 10:27

...
That doesn't preclude me from shooting some video and putting it in my portfolio.

Absolutely not!

With your download numbers you'd be insane to stop shooting.

Therefore it sounded to me contradictory when you said that you believe it's overhyped yet it's obvious that the "real hype" is already putting a significant amount of money in your pocket. You wouldn't be doing this if it didn't generate any money either...

Video is an integral part of our media world today. It's not going to disappear nor decrease in its daily usage. It will grow and the need for video will be bigger. With the invention of new technologies that allow video to be placed virtually anywhere, the advertising world will feel the shift towards moving images.

Still images are not going to take a big dive but with the ADD these days that more and more people develop, it's inevitable to ignore the "benefits"/effects of video.

Elenathewise · « **Reply #23 on:** February 12, 2010, 13:39 »

Quote from: sjlocke on February 10, 2010, 09:27

I don't have the time to sit and wait for the meat of the story or piece. I'd rather use my judgement to skim through and find what I feel is important. And I most certainly ignore any moving ads in the sidebars. I also hate artists' video portfolio pieces. Takes too long to get through.

Exactly. I agree - there is a need for video, and there is a hype now, but it's not the "next big thing". Just because humans - who are the targets of all our stock work - can grasp a still with a message in a fraction of a second. But videos take at least few seconds to tell the story. There are videos on billboards now - how much will I see zooming by on a highway? Will I hit my brakes to see what's going on on that board? Will I wait a few seconds for advertising to play once I loaded a webpage? Most people will skip video advertising if they can help it (unless you're sitting in a movie theater and are trapped in there). But with stills.... the moment you glanced in it's direction, the message is delivered. It's done. Even if you close a pop-up window with the still, you already seen it. It's much more effective way of advertising or delivering any other message to us humans.
To watch a video, I have to *want* to see it. To see a still - I just have to have my eyes open.

leaf · « **Reply #24 on:** February 12, 2010, 13:55 »

Quote from: click_click on February 12, 2010, 10:43

Quote from: sjlocke on February 12, 2010, 10:27
...
That doesn't preclude me from shooting some video and putting it in my portfolio.

Absolutely not!

With your download numbers you'd be insane to stop shooting.

Therefore it sounded to me contradictory when you said that you believe it's overhyped yet it's obvious that the "real hype" is already putting a significant amount of money in your pocket. You wouldn't be doing this if it didn't generate any money either...

Maybe Sean was playing the opposite game with you, like he often likes to do.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors - 4 spots

Author Topic: Is stock video the next big thing or just a fad? (Read 13930 times)

leaf

sjlocke

PowerDroid

sjlocke

Xalanx

ason

Danicek

FD

Perry

sjlocke

RT

GeoPappas

WarrenPrice

sharpshot

melastmohican

Randy McKown

helix7

sharpshot

microstockphoto.co.uk

WarrenPrice

click_click

sjlocke

click_click

Elenathewise

leaf

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors