MicrostockGroup

Microstock Footage Forum => General - Stock Video => Topic started by: leaf on February 10, 2010, 07:16

Title: Is stock video the next big thing or just a fad?
Post by: leaf on February 10, 2010, 07:16
After reading this topic here (http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/do-you-count-on-having-microstock-income-in-5-years-10-20/) 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  (http://www.pond5.com/index.php?ref=leaf)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.
Title: Re: Is stock video the next big thing or just a fad?
Post by: Sean Locke Photography 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. 
Title: Re: Is stock video the next big thing or just a fad?
Post by: PowerDroid 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).
Title: Re: Is stock video the next big thing or just a fad?
Post by: Sean Locke Photography 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.
Title: Re: Is stock video the next big thing or just a fad?
Post by: 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.
Title: Re: Is stock video the next big thing or just a fad?
Post by: ason 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
Title: Re: Is stock video the next big thing or just a fad?
Post by: Danicek on February 10, 2010, 08:26
- 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.
Title: Re: Is stock video the next big thing or just a fad?
Post by: FD on February 10, 2010, 08:35
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.
Title: Re: Is stock video the next big thing or just a fad?
Post by: Perry 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.
Title: Re: Is stock video the next big thing or just a fad?
Post by: Sean Locke Photography 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.
Title: Re: Is stock video the next big thing or just a fad?
Post by: RT 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.
Title: Re: Is stock video the next big thing or just a fad?
Post by: GeoPappas on February 10, 2010, 11:25
And what about 3D video???
Title: Re: Is stock video the next big thing or just a fad?
Post by: WarrenPrice 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? :'(
Title: Re: Is stock video the next big thing or just a fad?
Post by: sharpshot 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.
Title: Re: Is stock video the next big thing or just a fad?
Post by: melastmohican 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.
Title: Re: Is stock video the next big thing or just a fad?
Post by: 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. 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.
Title: Re: Is stock video the next big thing or just a fad?
Post by: helix7 on February 10, 2010, 23:48
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.

Title: Re: Is stock video the next big thing or just a fad?
Post by: sharpshot 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.
Title: Re: Is stock video the next big thing or just a fad?
Post by: microstockphoto.co.uk 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
Title: Re: Is stock video the next big thing or just a fad?
Post by: WarrenPrice 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.   :P

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.   8)
Title: Re: Is stock video the next big thing or just a fad?
Post by: click_click on February 12, 2010, 09:40
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.
Title: Re: Is stock video the next big thing or just a fad?
Post by: Sean Locke Photography on February 12, 2010, 10:27
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.
Title: Re: Is stock video the next big thing or just a fad?
Post by: click_click on February 12, 2010, 10:43
...
 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.
Title: Re: Is stock video the next big thing or just a fad?
Post by: Elenathewise on February 12, 2010, 13:39
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.
Title: Re: Is stock video the next big thing or just a fad?
Post by: leaf on February 12, 2010, 13:55
...
 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.  :)
Title: Re: Is stock video the next big thing or just a fad?
Post by: click_click on February 12, 2010, 14:10
...Maybe Sean was playing the opposite game with you, like he often likes to do.  :)

Maybe, maybe not.

I believe footage is not over-hyped.

It works, it pays considerably well and it does have a good future, the same way it worked with photos and illustrations in the past when Microstock first popped up.
Title: Re: Is stock video the next big thing or just a fad?
Post by: Sean Locke Photography on February 12, 2010, 14:17
It works, it pays considerably well and it does have a good future, the same way it worked with photos and illustrations in the past when Microstock first popped up.

I don't disagree.  There will be need in the future.  What I am commenting on is everyone running around yelling "shoot video, stills are dying, it's the only way to feed your family! buy a Red One, now!"  That's the overhype.
Title: Re: Is stock video the next big thing or just a fad?
Post by: Elenathewise on February 12, 2010, 14:41
It works, it pays considerably well and it does have a good future, the same way it worked with photos and illustrations in the past when Microstock first popped up.

I don't disagree.  There will be need in the future.  What I am commenting on is everyone running around yelling "shoot video, stills are dying, it's the only way to feed your family! buy a Red One, now!"  That's the overhype.

Yup.
Title: Re: Is stock video the next big thing or just a fad?
Post by: click_click on February 12, 2010, 14:50
Who said to shoot video because stills are dying?

If some newbie with 20 clips in their port and no photos in their gallery because they can't meet the acceptance criteria, I'd be hesitant to take that "advice".

However, if long standing big shots of film making would make such a statement, it would make me reconsider whether to move more towards motion rather than stills.
Title: Re: Is stock video the next big thing or just a fad?
Post by: ap on February 13, 2010, 21:49
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.

even when puruising editorial stuff, i really avoid video stories. you can watch something for 20 seconds or more, and still not get what the point was. a good photo establishes that for you in a blink of an eye. as for commercial videos, don't we channel surf just to avoid them?
Title: Re: Is stock video the next big thing or just a fad?
Post by: stockastic on February 13, 2010, 22:05
Technology changes, society changes, but the human perceptual system stays the same.  And video next to text doesn't work. 

Remember when every web page had a madly blinking ad banner at the top? Remember when Detroit found out we didn't want talking cars?   






Title: Re: Is stock video the next big thing or just a fad?
Post by: Albert Martin on February 13, 2010, 22:12
Yup... Next will be 3D video - 3D TVs available from about $2000... So hurry up and buy your new 3D HD cameras!

[ADDED:] http://www2.panasonic.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/prModelDetail?storeId=11301&catalogId=13251&itemId=342750 (http://www2.panasonic.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/prModelDetail?storeId=11301&catalogId=13251&itemId=342750)
Title: Re: Is stock video the next big thing or just a fad?
Post by: Sean Locke Photography on February 13, 2010, 23:35
Remember when Detroit found out we didn't want talking cars?   


Speak for yourself!
(http://www.freewebs.com/hullywoodentertainment/knight-rider-for-web.jpg)
Title: Re: Is stock video the next big thing or just a fad?
Post by: gbalex on February 14, 2010, 13:43
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.

I predict that a few will see that there is substantial money to be made by offering books and workshops to the volumes of people buying vid capable Dslr's with no vid experience.  The learning curve is dropping because many are willing to share info between each other and that info is easy to gather on the net to incorporate into money making endeavors.
Title: Re: Is stock video the next big thing or just a fad?
Post by: adijr on February 20, 2010, 23:58
A little about short-sightedness: an article in newsweek from 1995 (http://www.newsweek.com/id/106554)

Not to claim that if you don't agree with video as the future you're wrong, but when you're wrong, you can be very wrong...
Title: Re: Is stock video the next big thing or just a fad?
Post by: Suljo on February 21, 2010, 00:53
We gat that bRole  ;D
Title: H.264
Post by: Michael Lancaster on May 05, 2010, 07:53
How about selling stock footage that was recorded using the H.264 codec?
There is an intresting article to read about

http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-20000101-264.html (http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-20000101-264.html)

A lot of the new DSLR cameras has the H.264 codec that required a license for using commercial.
Title: Re: Is stock video the next big thing or just a fad?
Post by: cathyslife on May 05, 2010, 08:52
I think there will be a need...and some people on the ground floor like sjlocke will do well, especially when they are already successful stock photographers and know what and how to shoot for stock.

Generally, I think it will become just like microstock stills soon...everybody and their brother submitting a bunch of useless stuff just to earn a few bucks because it's being hyped and they think they will become millionaires.
Title: Re: H.264
Post by: dnavarrojr on May 06, 2010, 16:06
How about selling stock footage that was recorded using the H.264 codec?
There is an intresting article to read about

[url]http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-20000101-264.html[/url] ([url]http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-20000101-264.html[/url])

A lot of the new DSLR cameras has the H.264 codec that required a license for using commercial.


Sigh... People are still bringing this old article up...

The owners of the H.264 patent have already put out a press release after this article came out that they have no intention of going after camera owners for selling their footage.  Canon, Nikon, etc.. have ALREADY PAID the licensing fee for use of the H.264 codec and they are fully aware that if they were to go after individuals, they'd cause the whole industry to switch to a new standard which would cost them millions of dollars.
Title: Re: Is stock video the next big thing or just a fad?
Post by: Sean Locke Photography on May 06, 2010, 16:23
Would you like to post a link?  I've not seen anything like that.
Title: Re: Is stock video the next big thing or just a fad?
Post by: hqimages on May 06, 2010, 16:54
Since flyers and whatnot don't actually play video, I would say the still image is still needed  ::)

But yeah, why not shoot video? Technology now allows it on ur dslr, and since you have the studio/model set up anyway, what's the biggie to shoot some video as part of a usual shoot, it's just diversifying ur portfolio, and getting another customer in there that needs video, or offering video to your existing clients that dabble in some web work..

I welcome the opportunity to learn more about how this video thing works, now that technology is allowing me.. :) As for it being a fad, I think a lot of web designers will use it, especially with html 5..
Title: Re: Is stock video the next big thing or just a fad?
Post by: Sean Locke Photography on May 06, 2010, 17:13
what's the biggie to shoot some video as part of a usual shoot

Because the lighting for photo with strobes is 100% different from video lighting.  Also, there is the question as to whether still models can perform for video, and also if the contributor can direct video as well.  It isn't just "hey, I'll push the video button on my camera".
Title: Re: Is stock video the next big thing or just a fad?
Post by: VB inc on May 06, 2010, 17:19
what's the biggie to shoot some video as part of a usual shoot

Because the lighting for photo with strobes is 100% different from video lighting.  Also, there is the question as to whether still models can perform for video, and also if the contributor can direct video as well.  It isn't just "hey, I'll push the video button on my camera".

Thats the reason ur successful, but microstock is filled with people that just pushes buttons.
Title: Re: Is stock video the next big thing or just a fad?
Post by: hqimages on May 06, 2010, 17:26
what's the biggie to shoot some video as part of a usual shoot


Because the lighting for photo with strobes is 100% different from video lighting.  Also, there is the question as to whether still models can perform for video, and also if the contributor can direct video as well.  It isn't just "hey, I'll push the video button on my camera".


Ever the ray of positive sunshine and joy I see :)

I like this article for anyone making the first steps from commercial stills to combined commercial stills and video in one shoot: http://www.pdnonline.com/pdn/content_display/features/pdn-online/e3i38514fc7c3e49c476a2e817a0aa249a4 (http://www.pdnonline.com/pdn/content_display/features/pdn-online/e3i38514fc7c3e49c476a2e817a0aa249a4)

“We planned for a really long day, and alternated back and forth between still camera/strobes to video/hot lights,”
Title: Re: Is stock video the next big thing or just a fad?
Post by: Sean Locke Photography on May 06, 2010, 17:42
“We planned for a really long day, and alternated back and forth between still camera/strobes to video/hot lights,”

Well, that wouldn't be "shooting some video as part of a usual shoot", would it?  That would be a concentrated effort to have multiple lighting scenarios, as well as talent that is proficient in acting, as well as a director who is skilled in motion.

Or you could just push the button.
Title: Re: Is stock video the next big thing or just a fad?
Post by: hqimages on May 06, 2010, 17:44
“We planned for a really long day, and alternated back and forth between still camera/strobes to video/hot lights,”

Well, that wouldn't be "shooting some video as part of a usual shoot", would it?  That would be a concentrated effort to have multiple lighting scenarios, as well as talent that is proficient in acting, as well as a director who is skilled in motion.

Or you could just push the button.

It is shooting some video, as part of a still shoot (as in, they shot BOTH still images and video with the same model, on the same day), as a photographer that is not used to doing video.. that's what it is.. why you feel the need to dig/poke/antagonise people that are sharing information.. well, you must have a very fragile ego that needs constant reassurance.

Yes you're right Sean, well done.. now let's get back to sharing information and ideas in a positive way.
Title: Re: Is stock video the next big thing or just a fad?
Post by: lisafx on May 06, 2010, 17:46
Because the lighting for photo with strobes is 100% different from video lighting.  Also, there is the question as to whether still models can perform for video, and also if the contributor can direct video as well.  It isn't just "hey, I'll push the video button on my camera".

^^ This is the reason I haven't strayed into video yet.  My photo shoots already last an average of 5 hours, with many going over 6.  No time in there to completely change lighting setups and add video.  

Maybe some people are managing to do it, but for my work flow I would need to do separate shoots for video, not to mention the time it would take to learn a whole new skill set.  
Title: Re: Is stock video the next big thing or just a fad?
Post by: hqimages on May 06, 2010, 17:57
Because the lighting for photo with strobes is 100% different from video lighting.  Also, there is the question as to whether still models can perform for video, and also if the contributor can direct video as well.  It isn't just "hey, I'll push the video button on my camera".

^^ This is the reason I haven't strayed into video yet.  My photo shoots already last an average of 5 hours, with many going over 6.  No time in there to completely change lighting setups and add video.  

Maybe some people are managing to do it, but for my work flow I would need to do separate shoots for video, not to mention the time it would take to learn a whole new skill set.  

Wouldn't you be tempted to do still shots after going to all the trouble of model/styling/make-up etc for a video shoot?
Title: Re: Is stock video the next big thing or just a fad?
Post by: Sean Locke Photography on May 06, 2010, 20:44
Wouldn't you be tempted to do still shots after going to all the trouble of model/styling/make-up etc for a video shoot?

I'm still not sure why you think it is so simple.

I'll elaborate, once again.  You said "a usual shoot".  A usual shoot involves strobe lights, and, for most, shooting handheld, going solo.  A video shoot involves hot lights, numerous pieces of hardware, like a tripod and a glider or a boom, plus, possibly people to do follow focus and audio.  As well as talent who can not only smile and look good for 1/125, but can successfully act to convey a message.  And other things.  

So, you said "since you have the studio/model set up anyway, what's the biggie to shoot some video as part of a usual shoot".  There, I told you "the biggie".  I'm sharing information.  That should make you happy, right?
Title: Re: Is stock video the next big thing or just a fad?
Post by: dnavarrojr on May 06, 2010, 21:52
Would you like to post a link?  I've not seen anything like that.

I'd have to find it again... I thought this was laid to rest over a month ago.
Title: Re: Is stock video the next big thing or just a fad?
Post by: dnavarrojr on May 06, 2010, 21:57
Wouldn't you be tempted to do still shots after going to all the trouble of model/styling/make-up etc for a video shoot?

I do video shoots, I don't do photo shoots.  That is... I don't have strobes or most of the other equipment that dedicated "photographers" have for photography.  I bought my Canon T2i specifically to shoot video.  However, I still shoot a lot of stills.

One feature I like about the T2i is that while in Video mode I can still shoot stills.  So "between takes" I'll pop off a few stills when doing my video shoots.  Occasionally, something will actually be useful for stock photography, but I don't worry about it.  I'm sure if I actually cared more about the still side of the business, I'd invest in the proper equipment and probably a second camera that I could keep set up for stills and use both on my shoots.

I agree completely that they are too totally different animals and if you want to be successful at BOTH on the same shoot, you have to work a LOT harder to make sure both are up to quality.
Title: Re: Is stock video the next big thing or just a fad?
Post by: WarrenPrice on May 06, 2010, 22:24
Would you like to post a link?  I've not seen anything like that.

I'd have to find it again... I thought this was laid to rest over a month ago.

Might be best not to share with SJ .... he's competition. ;D
Title: Re: Is stock video the next big thing or just a fad?
Post by: hqimages on May 07, 2010, 01:11
Wouldn't you be tempted to do still shots after going to all the trouble of model/styling/make-up etc for a video shoot?

I'm still not sure why you think it is so simple.

I'll elaborate, once again.  You said "a usual shoot".  A usual shoot involves strobe lights, and, for most, shooting handheld, going solo.  A video shoot involves hot lights, numerous pieces of hardware, like a tripod and a glider or a boom, plus, possibly people to do follow focus and audio.  As well as talent who can not only smile and look good for 1/125, but can successfully act to convey a message.  And other things.  

So, you said "since you have the studio/model set up anyway, what's the biggie to shoot some video as part of a usual shoot".  There, I told you "the biggie".  I'm sharing information.  That should make you happy, right?

 I'd rather you didn't speak to me, permanently.
Title: Re: Is stock video the next big thing or just a fad?
Post by: hqimages on May 07, 2010, 01:22
Wouldn't you be tempted to do still shots after going to all the trouble of model/styling/make-up etc for a video shoot?

I do video shoots, I don't do photo shoots.  That is... I don't have strobes or most of the other equipment that dedicated "photographers" have for photography.  I bought my Canon T2i specifically to shoot video.  However, I still shoot a lot of stills.

One feature I like about the T2i is that while in Video mode I can still shoot stills.  So "between takes" I'll pop off a few stills when doing my video shoots.  Occasionally, something will actually be useful for stock photography, but I don't worry about it.  I'm sure if I actually cared more about the still side of the business, I'd invest in the proper equipment and probably a second camera that I could keep set up for stills and use both on my shoots.

I agree completely that they are too totally different animals and if you want to be successful at BOTH on the same shoot, you have to work a LOT harder to make sure both are up to quality.

That's cool! And yes, no-body ever said photography is easy, and video is even harder.. however as a photographer I feel like moving to video, although a massive learning curve, I at least have an understanding of how to set up studios, how lighting works, I have some experience with final cut pro etc.. so I'm looking forward to doing some video :) I personally while I'm learning video, will shoot stills too on the same day.. changing a lighting set-up etc isn't a big deal to me, and I feel at least if I've made a mess of the video, I'll have something to show for the day at least, so that's what I want to do at the beginning and see how it works out..

I can't wait to try it anyway!!
Title: Re: H.264
Post by: Michael Lancaster on May 07, 2010, 05:57
Sigh... People are still bringing this old article up...

The owners of the H.264 patent have already put out a press release after this article came out that they have no intention of going after camera owners for selling their footage.  Canon, Nikon, etc.. have ALREADY PAID the licensing fee for use of the H.264 codec and they are fully aware that if they were to go after individuals, they'd cause the whole industry to switch to a new standard which would cost them millions of dollars.


I'm not sure, did you refer to this communicate?
http://videomaker.com/community/videonews/2010/02/6721-mpeg-la-extends-h-264-codec-royalty-free-licensing/ (http://videomaker.com/community/videonews/2010/02/6721-mpeg-la-extends-h-264-codec-royalty-free-licensing/)

They are saying in that one:
" MPEG LA announced its AVC Patent Portfolio License, which the H.264 codec belongs to “will continue not to charge royalties for Internet Video that is free to end users (known as Internet Broadcast AVC Video) during the next License term from January 1, 2011 to December 31, 2015.”"
It's sound to me that they are talking about youtube and other sites where it is free of charge for viewing encoded footage.
Title: Re: Is stock video the next big thing or just a fad?
Post by: Michael Lancaster on May 07, 2010, 06:07
""Products and services other than Internet Broadcast AVC Video," reads MPEG LA's statement to Betanews, "continue to be royalty-bearing, and royalties to apply during the next term will be announced before the end of 2010." Internet Broadcast AVC Video is the name of the patent portfolio to which H.264 belongs, when used in the context of streaming."

"The implied danger here is that a producer of video who did not use a licensed codec (whether or not he owed anything for it) could be exposing the viewer of that video to liability. Or as Mozilla contributor Robert O'Callahan described it in a blog post last Friday, "In other words, if you're an end user in a country where software patents (or method patents) are enforceable, and you're using software that encodes or decodes H.264 and the vendor is not on the list of licensees, the MPEG LA reserves the right to sue you, the end user, as well as the software vendor or distributor.""

http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/20100203/h-264-licensing-body-wont-charge-royalties-for-html5-other-web-streams.htm (http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/20100203/h-264-licensing-body-wont-charge-royalties-for-html5-other-web-streams.htm)
Title: Re: Is stock video the next big thing or just a fad?
Post by: Sean Locke Photography on May 07, 2010, 07:01
I'd rather you didn't speak to me, permanently.

You can permanently choose to not read what I post, but I'll feel free to take part in any forum conversation I like.  Thx.
Title: Re: Is stock video the next big thing or just a fad?
Post by: lisafx on May 07, 2010, 10:28


That's cool! And yes, no-body ever said photography is easy, and video is even harder.. however as a photographer I feel like moving to video, although a massive learning curve, I at least have an understanding of how to set up studios, how lighting works, I have some experience with final cut pro etc.. so I'm looking forward to doing some video :) I personally while I'm learning video, will shoot stills too on the same day.. changing a lighting set-up etc isn't a big deal to me, and I feel at least if I've made a mess of the video, I'll have something to show for the day at least, so that's what I want to do at the beginning and see how it works out..

I can't wait to try it anyway!!

Looking forward to hearing your results.  Hope it goes well for you.

Personally, I will still have to stick to one at a time for now.  As I mentioned - my average shoot lasts 5 hours or more and involves 3-4 different concepts (each of which requires its own setup and tear down). 

If I were to change setups to shoot still and video in one session that would eat up all my time and I would probably only be able to fit in one concept.  For now I think my time is better spent fitting multiple concepts into a shooting day than multiple media.

If it works out for others then that's great.  We all have to budget our time how we feel it will yield the best results.
Title: Re: Is stock video the next big thing or just a fad?
Post by: hqimages on May 07, 2010, 12:54


That's cool! And yes, no-body ever said photography is easy, and video is even harder.. however as a photographer I feel like moving to video, although a massive learning curve, I at least have an understanding of how to set up studios, how lighting works, I have some experience with final cut pro etc.. so I'm looking forward to doing some video :) I personally while I'm learning video, will shoot stills too on the same day.. changing a lighting set-up etc isn't a big deal to me, and I feel at least if I've made a mess of the video, I'll have something to show for the day at least, so that's what I want to do at the beginning and see how it works out..

I can't wait to try it anyway!!

Looking forward to hearing your results.  Hope it goes well for you.

Personally, I will still have to stick to one at a time for now.  As I mentioned - my average shoot lasts 5 hours or more and involves 3-4 different concepts (each of which requires its own setup and tear down). 

If I were to change setups to shoot still and video in one session that would eat up all my time and I would probably only be able to fit in one concept.  For now I think my time is better spent fitting multiple concepts into a shooting day than multiple media.

If it works out for others then that's great.  We all have to budget our time how we feel it will yield the best results.

Yeah understandably for you Lisa, I'm much more cavalier really  :) I'll see how it goes, may well decide it was a terrible idea and just keep them separate!
Title: Re: Is stock video the next big thing or just a fad?
Post by: cascoly on May 07, 2010, 13:27
even ignoring the lighting issues , as major as they are, there's still the logistics of shooting two different ways of thinking.  i did manage a successful 2 for 1 at a civil war re-enactment - luckily the event featured 2 battles so i spent the down time in between assessing what i did on  the first battle and finding better places to set up. that still meant having the video runnng by itself on a tripod while i took the stills.   and inevitably there were many missed shots, poor framing, etc.
  http://cascoly.com/civilwar.asp (http://cascoly.com/civilwar.asp)

if you're shooting in the 'wild' it's much harder to find places where you can do both - you really need to do either one format or the other in most cases.

steve
Title: Re: Is stock video the next big thing or just a fad?
Post by: dnavarrojr on May 08, 2010, 06:06
if you're shooting in the 'wild' it's much harder to find places where you can do both - you really need to do either one format or the other in most cases.

If your primary focus is still photography, shooting video at the same time is very difficult.  If you're recording video then you'll often miss shots that would be great stills.  So if you're a still photographer, I would recommend that you ignore video on most off-site shoots, unless you have a second person with you to handle the video.  However, if you are a video shooter, there's "no harm/no foul" in popping off some still shots "between takes".  Especially if you're shooting with a vDSLR.  I do it all the time, and I've had many of those still shots accepted as stock.  But I don't lose site of my primary purpose, which is shooting video.

Let me also say that in my little make-shift studio at home I have discovered that lighting for video and lighting for "good" still shots are two totally different animals.  Although it could have more to do with my camera than my lighting setup, but I doubt it.  From what I've read here and from talking with some really good studio photographers, the goals are often different.  Especially since most of my in-studio stuff at home is chroma-key.

As I mentioned previously, I do shoot stills between takes while doing video shoots.  But most of what I shoot is not good enough for stock.  Occasionally I get lucky and something does work.  And since I pay my models pretty well, I'm not gonna waste my time on relighting for stills.  I have much better luck when shooting outdoor and have had most of my accepted stills from my outdoor video shooting sessions.
Title: Re: Is stock video the next big thing or just a fad?
Post by: Digital66 on May 09, 2010, 01:50
Wouldn't you be tempted to do still shots after going to all the trouble of model/styling/make-up etc for a video shoot?

I'm still not sure why you think it is so simple.

I'll elaborate, once again.  You said "a usual shoot".  A usual shoot involves strobe lights, and, for most, shooting handheld, going solo.  A video shoot involves hot lights, numerous pieces of hardware, like a tripod and a glider or a boom, plus, possibly people to do follow focus and audio.  As well as talent who can not only smile and look good for 1/125, but can successfully act to convey a message.  And other things.  

So, you said "since you have the studio/model set up anyway, what's the biggie to shoot some video as part of a usual shoot".  There, I told you "the biggie".  I'm sharing information.  That should make you happy, right?

Sean is right. 

If you are really professional, if you are really serious about what you do, it's not just a matter of pushing a different button.  It's not that simple.

Photography and video are completely different.  Different equipment, different skills and talents.
Title: Re: Is stock video the next big thing or just a fad?
Post by: dnavarrojr on May 09, 2010, 03:56
Sean is right. 

If you are really professional, if you are really serious about what you do, it's not just a matter of pushing a different button.  It's not that simple.

Photography and video are completely different.  Different equipment, different skills and talents.

I agree completely about them being different and such, but I disagree about your 'definition' of professional.  I don't think you can define 'professional photographer' or 'professional videographer' in just one way.  Many people approach the 'profession' differently.
Title: Re: Is stock video the next big thing or just a fad?
Post by: theorhythm on May 09, 2010, 05:10
To watch a video, I have to *want* to see it. To see a still - I just have to have my eyes open.

Isn't this actually a point in video's favor?  Your audience is already interested enough to proactively watch the video, whereas a still ad requires no interactive engagement.  Ad dollars are going more and more toward targeted channels.  Research is showing that people don't mind ads when they feel like they are well-targeted, well-crafted and engaging--video has plenty of room to grow here, discounting it is folly.

Denying the growth and power of video is a bit naive folks.  Bandwidth is going nowhere but up, storage is going nowhere but up (look up "memristors"), editing software is getting nothing but easier and more usable (have you guys seen/played with CS5?!), hardware prices and affordable video equipment is going down down down.  And like many have mentioned, quality issues are different when it comes to video.  It's only a matter of time.

This is a sea change, it's not happening overnight, it's been ongoing (4+ years?) and may take another decade to peak, but I doubt it.  Don't make the mistakes of the past-embrace the new tech and new creative models.
Title: Re: Is stock video the next big thing or just a fad?
Post by: michealo on May 09, 2010, 05:20
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.

I don't buy that - one can excellent results with a consumer level camcorder & iMovie, or one can rent equipment. The real problem with video is the time required to edit - an old rule of thumb is 8 hours editing per finished 3 minutes
Title: Re: Is stock video the next big thing or just a fad?
Post by: hqimages on May 09, 2010, 06:06
Wouldn't you be tempted to do still shots after going to all the trouble of model/styling/make-up etc for a video shoot?

I'm still not sure why you think it is so simple.

I'll elaborate, once again.  You said "a usual shoot".  A usual shoot involves strobe lights, and, for most, shooting handheld, going solo.  A video shoot involves hot lights, numerous pieces of hardware, like a tripod and a glider or a boom, plus, possibly people to do follow focus and audio.  As well as talent who can not only smile and look good for 1/125, but can successfully act to convey a message.  And other things.  

So, you said "since you have the studio/model set up anyway, what's the biggie to shoot some video as part of a usual shoot".  There, I told you "the biggie".  I'm sharing information.  That should make you happy, right?

Sean is right. 

If you are really professional, if you are really serious about what you do, it's not just a matter of pushing a different button.  It's not that simple.

Photography and video are completely different.  Different equipment, different skills and talents.

No-one ever said it was simple actually, literally, no-one has said that.. It's very hard of course, but that won't stop me from trying.. who cares if I'm not professional at video when I start. Were you producing professional quality work the first time you used an slr camera?

The answer is no. Sean got it totally wrong what I was saying, and you have picked up on his incorrect assumptions.. but yes, I will be shooting 'unprofessional' quality video for quite a while until I learn how to get it right.. same as I did for photography..
Title: Re: Is stock video the next big thing or just a fad?
Post by: Sean Locke Photography on May 09, 2010, 07:23
Sean is right.  

If you are really professional, if you are really serious about what you do, it's not just a matter of pushing a different button.  It's not that simple.

Photography and video are completely different.  Different equipment, different skills and talents.

Uh-oh.  Don't agree with me, even if we're right.  You'll get on her bad side  ;).  Just for giggles, go back to page to and read my totally sensible answer to her question:
"But yeah, why not shoot video? Technology now allows it on ur dslr, and since you have the studio/model set up anyway, what's the biggie to shoot some video as part of a usual shoot, it's just diversifying ur portfolio, and getting another customer in there that needs video, or offering video to your existing clients that dabble in some web work.."
and immediately, she's on the offensive.
Title: Re: Is stock video the next big thing or just a fad?
Post by: Sean Locke Photography on May 09, 2010, 07:26
To watch a video, I have to *want* to see it. To see a still - I just have to have my eyes open.

Isn't this actually a point in video's favor?  Your audience is already interested enough to proactively watch the video, whereas a still ad requires no interactive engagement.  Ad dollars are going more and more toward targeted channels.  Research is showing that people don't mind ads when they feel like they are well-targeted, well-crafted and engaging--video has plenty of room to grow here, discounting it is folly.

I agree totally with Elena.  I hate internet video.  95% of any video is a waste of time, and you waste more time trying to find the information you were looking for.  The only thing I've watched all the way through lately, is the "B-Roll" youtube video.  Cnn news videos, anything else, loses my interest after about 5 seconds.  I'm certainly not going to waste my time watching ads.  I dvr through tv ads too.
Title: Re: Is stock video the next big thing or just a fad?
Post by: hqimages on May 09, 2010, 08:25
Sean is right.  

If you are really professional, if you are really serious about what you do, it's not just a matter of pushing a different button.  It's not that simple.

Photography and video are completely different.  Different equipment, different skills and talents.

Uh-oh.  Don't agree with me, even if we're right.  You'll get on her bad side  ;).  Just for giggles, go back to page to and read my totally sensible answer to her question:
"But yeah, why not shoot video? Technology now allows it on ur dslr, and since you have the studio/model set up anyway, what's the biggie to shoot some video as part of a usual shoot, it's just diversifying ur portfolio, and getting another customer in there that needs video, or offering video to your existing clients that dabble in some web work.."
and immediately, she's on the offensive.

With anything you say directed to me, keep in mind I know exactly what you are, so don't be surprised if it's not received well, ever. This is why I said I'd prefer you to not even direct any post directly to me.. post away to other people, just not to me directly.. I find you the most negative person on this forum, the most offensive, and the person most likely to put other people off making any kind of effort as a beginner by letting them know how 'hard' everything is, and how all of their ideas are terrible, even if you twist their words completely. I think it's a shame you're here to be honest, being such a downer on almost everything that's posted, I think your presence on the forum makes it less friendly, and less useful than it could be. There are many people that agree with me, that won't even post their agreement because they lurk rather than even bother posting anything and get the typical negative backlash, and it's not just you responsible for this, there are others in this forum that are just nasty. Someone who says 'sure, let other people give away their images for free as long as it benefits ME' is not someone who's opinion I want on my words, which you constantly misconstrue.

So let's just try not even posting on each others comments and that will suit me and everyone else I'm sure just fine.
Title: Re: Is stock video the next big thing or just a fad?
Post by: Sean Locke Photography on May 09, 2010, 09:26
So let's just try not even posting on each others comments and that will suit me and everyone else I'm sure just fine.

Sorry, I already posted on that subject.  I wouldn't want to duplicate my efforts and annoy everyone!

"the person most likely to put other people off making any kind of effort as a beginner by letting them know how 'hard' everything is"  Um, things are hard and take a lot of work.  If you want to spread inaccurate views and lollipops, then don't expect everyone to agree with you.

'sure, let other people give away their images for free as long as it benefits ME' - Oh, is this what started this?  I don't believe in giving away my work for free.  If you want to do it, and I gain benefit from what I think is your poor business sense, I should be jailed?  Whatever.
Title: Re: Is stock video the next big thing or just a fad?
Post by: lisafx on May 09, 2010, 09:33


With anything you say directed to me, keep in mind I know exactly what you are, so don't be surprised if it's not received well, ever. This is why I said I'd prefer you to not even direct any post directly to me.. post away to other people, just not to me directly.. I find you the most negative person on this forum, the most offensive, and the person most likely to put other people off making any kind of effort as a beginner by letting them know how 'hard' everything is, and how all of their ideas are terrible, even if you twist their words completely. I think it's a shame you're here to be honest, being such a downer on almost everything that's posted, I think your presence on the forum makes it less friendly, and less useful than it could be. There are many people that agree with me, that won't even post their agreement because they lurk rather than even bother posting anything and get the typical negative backlash, and it's not just you responsible for this, there are others in this forum that are just nasty. Someone who says 'sure, let other people give away their images for free as long as it benefits ME' is not someone who's opinion I want on my words, which you constantly misconstrue.

So let's just try not even posting on each others comments and that will suit me and everyone else I'm sure just fine.

May I suggest you put Sean on Ignore?  That way you won't have to read his comments.  It's pointless to tell someone not to post, especially when Leaf has provided us with such a useful feature as the Ignore button.

FWIW, not that he needs or wants my opinion, but I find that if you look past his acerbic style, Sean has a lot of useful input.
Title: Re: Is stock video the next big thing or just a fad?
Post by: danhowl on May 09, 2010, 11:30
I agree totally with Elena.  I hate internet video.  95% of any video is a waste of time, and you waste more time trying to find the information you were looking for.  The only thing I've watched all the way through lately, is the "B-Roll" youtube video.  Cnn news videos, anything else, loses my interest after about 5 seconds.  I'm certainly not going to waste my time watching ads.  I dvr through tv ads too.

Umm...who really cares what your personal taste or interest is?  You are not a buyer/consumer of clips are you?  The OP seemed to be asking business and market for video clips on microstock sites.  I didn't see where he was asking for your taste or approval.

I am curious about what professional buyers of clips think about microstock sites for flash splash pages, banner ads and the emerging e-magazine market.
Title: Re: Is stock video the next big thing or just a fad?
Post by: Sean Locke Photography on May 09, 2010, 12:57
Umm...who really cares what your personal taste or interest is?  You are not a buyer/consumer of clips are you?  The OP seemed to be asking business and market for video clips on microstock sites.  I didn't see where he was asking for your taste or approval.

I am curious about what professional buyers of clips think about microstock sites for flash splash pages, banner ads and the emerging e-magazine market.

A: I was responding to Elena's post.
B: I'm one of the 5 billion consumers on the planet who advertising and magazines are aimed at.  You know, the stuff done by people who buy stock clips?  BTW, here's Leaf's clip from the OP:
"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."

My post directly addresses that as well.  I greatly avoid video, especially anything in a digital magazine, or on websites as they waste my time.  Sorry, you weren't able to apply what I said to the topic.
Title: Re: Is stock video the next big thing or just a fad?
Post by: hqimages on May 09, 2010, 14:27


With anything you say directed to me, keep in mind I know exactly what you are, so don't be surprised if it's not received well, ever. This is why I said I'd prefer you to not even direct any post directly to me.. post away to other people, just not to me directly.. I find you the most negative person on this forum, the most offensive, and the person most likely to put other people off making any kind of effort as a beginner by letting them know how 'hard' everything is, and how all of their ideas are terrible, even if you twist their words completely. I think it's a shame you're here to be honest, being such a downer on almost everything that's posted, I think your presence on the forum makes it less friendly, and less useful than it could be. There are many people that agree with me, that won't even post their agreement because they lurk rather than even bother posting anything and get the typical negative backlash, and it's not just you responsible for this, there are others in this forum that are just nasty. Someone who says 'sure, let other people give away their images for free as long as it benefits ME' is not someone who's opinion I want on my words, which you constantly misconstrue.

So let's just try not even posting on each others comments and that will suit me and everyone else I'm sure just fine.

May I suggest you put Sean on Ignore?  That way you won't have to read his comments.  It's pointless to tell someone not to post, especially when Leaf has provided us with such a useful feature as the Ignore button.

FWIW, not that he needs or wants my opinion, but I find that if you look past his acerbic style, Sean has a lot of useful input.

Well he could take a leaf out of yourself and Jonathans book (who I'm sad to see doesn't post much anymore) on how to be a courteous and helpful professional, there's just no need to treat people with that level of 'acerbic' nastiness.. we're all here because we love the same thing..

On a sidenote I just had a pm from a forum member (that will remain anonymous), including this statement: "Sometimes I feel like I may have something to add, but if he is involved, I am less likely to say anything for fear of being smashed." I guarantee you no-one is saying that about you Lisa, i have found you a pleasure, and also I have learned from your opinions on things.. I feel it's just gone too far now with Sean, and I also fear the people I have really enjoyed reading and learning from in this forum, post less because of the horrible atmosphere when he decides to unleash on various people..

For example right now he's saying he doesn't watch video, there's no value in it, he's the demographic companies market to etc etc, thereby putting people off shooting video, or at least saying there's no point, yet he has started shooting video himself and is selling it.. so whatever he says and does, it's for self-gain.. and for a community forum, it goes against the whole thing..

But I will stop digressing now and try the ignore thing again, it can get confusing though if he replies to someone, or they reply to him but eh.. I'll try again!!
Title: Re: Is stock video the next big thing or just a fad?
Post by: lisafx on May 09, 2010, 15:29
I guarantee you no-one is saying that about you Lisa, i have found you a pleasure, and also I have learned from your opinions on things..

Thanks a lot for the kind words Hilary :) 
I am on several people's ignore lists though, so I've managed to tick some people off.  I guess most of us who express opinions manage to get on somebody's bad side...

Back on topic, if you do a shoot incorporating both I hope you will post how it goes so that others of us who haven't tried video yet can get an idea what we're in for. 
Title: Re: Is stock video the next big thing or just a fad?
Post by: hqimages on May 09, 2010, 15:35
I guarantee you no-one is saying that about you Lisa, i have found you a pleasure, and also I have learned from your opinions on things..

Thanks a lot for the kind words Hilary :) 
I am on several people's ignore lists though, so I've managed to tick some people off.  I guess most of us who express opinions manage to get on somebody's bad side...

Back on topic, if you do a shoot incorporating both I hope you will post how it goes so that others of us who haven't tried video yet can get an idea what we're in for. 

I will, even if it's a disaster.. as much as it will pain me to make 'you know who' right ;) :P It'll be good to let other people know, plus I can do a full-length blog post on it with all the details on lighting, pre-shoot planning/set-up etc.. so I'll post the link here when I give it a go!
Title: Re: Is stock video the next big thing or just a fad?
Post by: Sean Locke Photography on May 09, 2010, 17:10
For example right now he's saying he doesn't watch video, there's no value in it, he's the demographic companies market to etc etc, thereby putting people off shooting video, or at least saying there's no point, yet he has started shooting video himself and is selling it.. so whatever he says and does, it's for self-gain.. and for a community forum, it goes against the whole thing..

Sigh.  You are quite hopeless when it comes to opinions that disagree with yours, and quite frankly, I thought my response to your initial post in this thread was a pretty good answer to your question.   I, personally, find most video (news stories, ads, etc) a waste of my time to skip through to find the information.  That doesn't mean I am not allowed to test the market, see what might sell, etc. or even to comment on whether stock video is the "next big thing" or "just a fad".

"we're all here because we love the same thing".   I'm not sure how you know why everyone is here posting.  I would think that it because we all participate to one extent or another in the business venture known as "microstock", not necessarily because we all "love" whatever you think we do.

I would suggest starting a forum where your secret PM friends can join you for topics of discussion you find wholesome and agreeable.  Otherwise, welcome to the world where everyone is free to state their views.
Title: Re: Is stock video the next big thing or just a fad?
Post by: hqimages on May 09, 2010, 17:30
For example right now he's saying he doesn't watch video, there's no value in it, he's the demographic companies market to etc etc, thereby putting people off shooting video, or at least saying there's no point, yet he has started shooting video himself and is selling it.. so whatever he says and does, it's for self-gain.. and for a community forum, it goes against the whole thing..

Sigh.  You are quite hopeless when it comes to opinions that disagree with yours, and quite frankly, I thought my response to your initial post in this thread was a pretty good answer to your question.   I, personally, find most video (news stories, ads, etc) a waste of my time to skip through to find the information.  That doesn't mean I am not allowed to test the market, see what might sell, etc. or even to comment on whether stock video is the "next big thing" or "just a fad".

"we're all here because we love the same thing".   I'm not sure how you know why everyone is here posting.  I would think that it because we all participate to one extent or another in the business venture known as "microstock", not necessarily because we all "love" whatever you think we do.

I would suggest starting a forum where your secret PM friends can join you for topics of discussion you find wholesome and agreeable.  Otherwise, welcome to the world where everyone is free to state their views.

where everyone is free to state their views. in a respectful and polite way.. which is the code most other people follow except you.. what did happen to Jonathan? Did you have a disagreement with him? How many people have you argued with on these boards, and how many people ignore you? I'm just telling you to your face, why I can't stand most of what you say, not because you don't know what you're talking about, quite the opposite, you do know what you're talking about, the content is possibly good, but I can't tell because of the way you say it, in a nasty aggressive manner. Pardon me for saying what many people are thinking but won't post.. in fact they would rather not post at all than come out with it. Up to you whether you want to take it on board or not.
Title: Re: Is stock video the next big thing or just a fad?
Post by: Digital66 on May 10, 2010, 02:35
Hilary, your angry posts are not contributing to the topic of this thread (which is very interesting by the way).
-Is stock video the next big thing or just a fad?-

Back to topic:
No, I don't think video is the next big thing.
We'll certainly see more video everyday, but never as much as we see stills. 
Title: Re: Is stock video the next big thing or just a fad?
Post by: cardmaverick on May 10, 2010, 02:47
Why does everyone assume you have to shoot still photos with strobes? I've worked for years as both a DP and photographer, and I specifically invested in hot lights because I knew I could shoot both stills and video with them. If your lights are bright enough for a film shoot, odds are pretty good they are just fine for still photos.
Title: Re: Is stock video the next big thing or just a fad?
Post by: elvinstar on May 10, 2010, 09:06
^^ Great point!

When I started shooting stills, I used hot-lights and still have some of them around. I've been playing with video and those old CFL's are working out just fine.
Title: Re: Is stock video the next big thing or just a fad?
Post by: click_click on May 10, 2010, 09:38
If you want to try video - do it and don't listen to anybody else.

Too many people think they can give you advice without knowing who you are, your circumstances, location, resources etc. so just ignore them.

Also many of these people might fear the competition despite participating on a forum to "help each other".

I started with a $400 SD Panasonic camcorder, recording straight to HD using a terrible codec with very high compression. The footage looks terrible and yet got approved (wouldn't dare uploading it to IS of course but still). It sold many times and never had one refund on the clips from that camera.

Those were outdoor shots nothing fancy. Now, with the video feature on DSLRs you're way ahead in terms of quality, compared to my Panasonic handycam.

I feel video is a very exciting and great thing to try out. Just give it a shot.

And yeah, you can spend $3000 on a full HD Canon or $50.000 on a RED rig but in the end it's still not the quality of a Panavision camera with a $250.000 master prime lens on it either. So quality is ALWAYS relative. Just make the best out of it with what you have. As long as it's fun (and make still some $$$ off your pics).

Good luck!
Title: Re: Is stock video the next big thing or just a fad?
Post by: gostwyck on May 10, 2010, 10:08
I'd have to agree with Sean and others on this __ stills and video are totally different beasts and, when I briefly tried to do both, quickly gave up the idea.

I bought a videocam to take with me on travel trips but found more than anything else that they required totally different ways of thinking. I found I couldn't concentrate on both at the same time any more than I can ride a bike and swim simultaneously. With stills you are generally trying to freeze whatever movement there might be (if there is any at all) whereas with video unless there is movement it will probably be a very dull film. Then there was the excessive and time-consuming workflow, which I barely began to understand, with editing video. Trying to combine with video just got in the way of me shooting stills effectively.
Title: Re: Is stock video the next big thing or just a fad?
Post by: Sean Locke Photography on May 10, 2010, 10:42
If you want to try video - do it and don't listen to anybody else.

Too many people think they can give you advice without knowing who you are, your circumstances, location, resources etc. so just ignore them.

I don't recall anyone giving anyone advice on what to do.  Questions were asked, answers and opinions given.  People are free to go do what they like.

Agree with cardmaverick too.  The question had been about "usual shoot", which for me involves strobes 90% of the time, but if you are in the park or something shooting with sunlight, and the talent is good, and you brought a tripod as well, you could probably direct some video.
Title: Re: Is stock video the next big thing or just a fad?
Post by: WarrenPrice on May 10, 2010, 11:18
As much as dislike his demeanor, sjlocke did just answer a question, Hillary.  And, unfortunately, his answer made sense.  Dang it.   :P


ed:  but, I do think that video is a big thing.  Maybe not a replacement for stills but certainly is worth pursuing.  IMHO
Title: Re: Is stock video the next big thing or just a fad?
Post by: dnavarrojr on May 10, 2010, 13:18
Why does everyone assume you have to shoot still photos with strobes? I've worked for years as both a DP and photographer, and I specifically invested in hot lights because I knew I could shoot both stills and video with them. If your lights are bright enough for a film shoot, odds are pretty good they are just fine for still photos.

I would agree with that... However, your lighting setup for stills versus video is often different.  For video I shoot mostly chroma key and my lights are set up to mimic sunlight in terms of position and shadows so that my subject(s) can easily be composited into outdoor shots.  However I find that most stills are shot brighter with less shadow on the subject for use in magazines.

The stills I've had accepted that were lit for video compositing have never sold, but the stills I've submitted with a 'studio lighting setup' have sold.  Although since we're talking *very small* sample in my case, my results may not be typical.
Title: Re: Is stock video the next big thing or just a fad?
Post by: lisafx on May 10, 2010, 14:28

When I started shooting stills, I used hot-lights and still have some of them around. I've been playing with video and those old CFL's are working out just fine.

I started with hot lights too, and still have them around.  For static objects they were just fine if you have a steady hand or are willing to use a tripod, but for people they were pretty cumbersome. 

First off, people get hot under "hot" lights - particularly here in Florida.  Secondly, and more important, you just can't get the shutter speeds to stop action and camera shake as well as with strobes.  You either have to shoot at higher ISO and deal with noise, or you have to be tethered to a tripod and pray your models don't move a muscle.   

I used to have to take dozens more shots of each pose when I was using hot lights, just to make sure I had enough usable sharp ones.  This equaled hundreds more images to sort through from each day of shooting. Time wasted on both ends - shooting and processing. 

I can't see ever going back to shooting model stills with hot lights.  Shudder...
Title: Re: Is stock video the next big thing or just a fad?
Post by: Digital66 on May 10, 2010, 15:28

When I started shooting stills, I used hot-lights and still have some of them around. I've been playing with video and those old CFL's are working out just fine.

I started with hot lights too, and still have them around.  For static objects they were just fine if you have a steady hand or are willing to use a tripod, but for people they were pretty cumbersome.  

First off, people get hot under "hot" lights - particularly here in Florida.  Secondly, and more important, you just can't get the shutter speeds to stop action and camera shake as well as with strobes.  You either have to shoot at higher ISO and deal with noise, or you have to be tethered to a tripod and pray your models don't move a muscle.  

I used to have to take dozens more shots of each pose when I was using hot lights, just to make sure I had enough usable sharp ones.  This equaled hundreds more images to sort through from each day of shooting. Time wasted on both ends - shooting and processing.  

I can't see ever going back to shooting model stills with hot lights.  Shudder...

Same experience.  And I would never use hot lights to shot people. It's a waste of time, money, and energy.  

So, since I use strobes for my photo shots, shooting some video as part of the session would require a lot of changes in lighting equipment and lighting setup.
Title: Re: Is stock video the next big thing or just a fad?
Post by: cardmaverick on May 12, 2010, 13:13

When I started shooting stills, I used hot-lights and still have some of them around. I've been playing with video and those old CFL's are working out just fine.

I started with hot lights too, and still have them around.  For static objects they were just fine if you have a steady hand or are willing to use a tripod, but for people they were pretty cumbersome.  

First off, people get hot under "hot" lights - particularly here in Florida.  Secondly, and more important, you just can't get the shutter speeds to stop action and camera shake as well as with strobes.  You either have to shoot at higher ISO and deal with noise, or you have to be tethered to a tripod and pray your models don't move a muscle.  

I used to have to take dozens more shots of each pose when I was using hot lights, just to make sure I had enough usable sharp ones.  This equaled hundreds more images to sort through from each day of shooting. Time wasted on both ends - shooting and processing.  

I can't see ever going back to shooting model stills with hot lights.  Shudder...

Same experience.  And I would never use hot lights to shot people. It's a waste of time, money, and energy.  

So, since I use strobes for my photo shots, shooting some video as part of the session would require a lot of changes in lighting equipment and lighting setup.

Depends on what kind of film lights your using. I would say most photographers go for the cheaper solutions which tend to be the lower output options.
Title: Re: Is stock video the next big thing or just a fad?
Post by: lisafx on May 12, 2010, 13:33

Depends on what kind of film lights your using. I would say most photographers go for the cheaper solutions which tend to be the lower output options.

My hot lights are 1000 watt halogens.  Do they make brighter ones than that?
Title: Re: Is stock video the next big thing or just a fad?
Post by: elvinstar on May 12, 2010, 13:38
I agree about shooting people with hot-lights. In the beginning of my stock "career", I only shot objects and used a tripod all of the time. I was just saying that the 500 watt equivalent compact fluorescent bulbs seem to work well enough for video. They also have the advantage of being MUCH cooler than halogens!
Title: Re: Is stock video the next big thing or just a fad?
Post by: danhowl on May 12, 2010, 17:30

Depends on what kind of film lights your using. I would say most photographers go for the cheaper solutions which tend to be the lower output options.

My hot lights are 1000 watt halogens.  Do they make brighter ones than that?

You have heard of HMI's right? 

Despite the nay-sayers alleged expertise, the fashion and editorial world is buzzing about video capture, at least here in NYC.  Digital techs are becoming more video savvy and a couple are even renting out their RED One kits on fashion and advertising shoots.  Esquire did a cover shoot this past year with the RED One and A/X has done the past two seasons of print/web advertising shot on RED grabbing frames for their print campaign and using the video on the web.  More than a few fashion photographers here are anxiously watching the progress of the RED Scarlet and dozens (if not hundreds) of editorial and advertising still photographers are adding video to their capabilities.  Stock video plays right into that.
Title: Re: Is stock video the next big thing or just a fad?
Post by: lisafx on May 12, 2010, 18:12

My hot lights are 1000 watt halogens.  Do they make brighter ones than that?


You have heard of HMI's right?  


Actually no.  That's why I asked.  Thanks for the response.  :)

As I mentioned before in this thread, I don't shoot video, so I'm completely ignorant on what's required.

For other still photographers who also don't know what HMIs are:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrargyrum_medium-arc_iodide_lamp (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrargyrum_medium-arc_iodide_lamp)

With an average price of $3-5k per light it looks like they are quite a bit more expensive than hot lights.  Affordable for professional video studios but completely out of reach for me, and most likely quite a few other microstock submitters too:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=&Ntt=hmi%20lights&Q=&N=0&A=endecaSearch (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=&Ntt=hmi%20lights&Q=&N=0&A=endecaSearch)
Title: Re: Is stock video the next big thing or just a fad?
Post by: danhowl on May 13, 2010, 06:05

Actually no.  That's why I asked.  Thanks for the response.  :)

As I mentioned before in this thread, I don't shoot video, so I'm completely ignorant on what's required.

For other still photographers who also don't know what HMIs are:
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrargyrum_medium-arc_iodide_lamp[/url] ([url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrargyrum_medium-arc_iodide_lamp[/url])

With an average price of $3-5k per light it looks like they are quite a bit more expensive than hot lights.  Affordable for professional video studios but completely out of reach for me, and most likely quite a few other microstock submitters too:
[url]http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=&Ntt=hmi%20lights&Q=&N=0&A=endecaSearch[/url] ([url]http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=&Ntt=hmi%20lights&Q=&N=0&A=endecaSearch[/url])


Indeed HMI's are expensive.  Their advantage is the relative balance to daylight color temperature.  They were quite the fad in fashion photography about a decade or so ago.  They are easily rentable at photo rental houses and also from grip rental across the country.  Another fad since then is Kino-flo constant lighting systems.

I don't use them myself. I picked up a Profoto tungsten head that uses most of the same light modifiers as my Profoto strobe system which is my primary lighting system.
Title: Re: Is stock video the next big thing or just a fad?
Post by: lisafx on May 13, 2010, 14:02

 I picked up a Profoto tungsten head that uses most of the same light modifiers as my Profoto strobe system which is my primary lighting system.

That sounds like a good compromise.  Nice that it fits with your strobe system. 

How are you finding the transition between still and video?  Are you able to fit both in the same shoot, or finding it better to do one media at a time? 
Title: Re: Is stock video the next big thing or just a fad?
Post by: elvinstar on May 13, 2010, 14:20
I've got a mixed shoot coming up this weekend and I'll let you know how it works out.
Title: Re: Is stock video the next big thing or just a fad?
Post by: lisafx on May 13, 2010, 14:23
^^ Thanks!  That would be much appreciated.  Best of luck with it :)
Title: Re: Is stock video the next big thing or just a fad?
Post by: danhowl on May 13, 2010, 16:32


How are you finding the transition between still and video?  Are you able to fit both in the same shoot, or finding it better to do one media at a time? 

I'm still on the outside looking in.  I am starting to get requests for it but on a personality/celebrity or fashion shoot, there is generally not enough time to do both without sacrificing the stills.  I haven't clicked into a good workflow for it yet which will encourage (I hope) more motion capture.
Title: Re: Is stock video the next big thing or just a fad?
Post by: cardmaverick on May 14, 2010, 22:31
Been out and busy for a while, but yes, HMI's are wonderful given their lower heat and higher lumens per watt. Keep in mind that any tungsten lights (BTW quartz halogen's are actually tungsten lights, the glass is quartz to withstand the heat, and they are pressurized with halogen gas, and the filament is tungsten) are the WORST performing lights lumens per watt wise, in fact, about 80% of the energy they require is converted into HEAT. HMI's are roughly the direct opposite! Tungsten is dirt cheap however...and trust me, not going to disappear anytime soon.

HMI's do, like all things, have their drawbacks. You'd wanna do some home work on flicker before shooting stills or video with these suckers. Another caveat is that their color temperature actually shift over time, so they will not always be "XXXX" Kelvin forever. There are noisy ballasts, and quite ballasts (electronic and magnetic are the two options, electronic being the more expensive, smaller, more desired option for most people). You have more cables to deal with (feeder cables going from ballast to light fixture, and then regular power cables from power source to ballast). If you go cheap and get magnetic ballasts, get ready for heavy lifting!

Film production, good film production, has *never* been very lightweight in the lighting and grip departments. If you light the set with the right tools, you can certainly shoot both stills and video at the same time. Professional films have done this for years. All of the still frame grabs you see from movies over the years (think advertising, DVD box cover shots, etc...) were shot with blimped still cameras on set, from the same vantage point as the film camera.
Title: Re: Is stock video the next big thing or just a fad?
Post by: cardmaverick on May 14, 2010, 22:34
How are you finding the transition between still and video?  Are you able to fit both in the same shoot, or finding it better to do one media at a time? 

Big tip.

Master setting up a film set, *thats bright enough for stills*, and then you'll be better off trying to do both video and stills. I think a lot of photographers are saying it can't be done because they simply have never lit a real film set before. Its new territory, thats all.

Another tip, film lighting can require more time due to heavier gear, etc...
Title: Re: Is stock video the next big thing or just a fad?
Post by: elvinstar on May 15, 2010, 14:06
Not that anyone probably cares, but my plan tomorrow is to run both CFL hot-lights and strobes at the same time. I'll set my white balance for having both on when I shoot stills and recalibrate for video. We'll see...

PS Thanks for the good luck wishes Lisa!