MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Footage vs photo's ? which makes you the most $$$$$  (Read 4953 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: October 07, 2010, 18:33 »
0
hi all, I've been doing stock for 4 years now and have made some decent money from it. i really enjoy creating my illustrations, but over the past year i have found myself wondering off into footage land :) mainly animation really. all i want to know is what makes more cash? footage or images? i really enjoy doing both so its not a case of going were the money is - but I'm obviously going to choose the one with the bigger rewards. who wouldn't? thanks for any input.....


jbarber873

« Reply #1 on: October 07, 2010, 19:04 »
0
hi all, I've been doing stock for 4 years now and have made some decent money from it. i really enjoy creating my illustrations, but over the past year i have found myself wondering off into footage land :) mainly animation really. all i want to know is what makes more cash? footage or images? i really enjoy doing both so its not a case of going were the money is - but I'm obviously going to choose the one with the bigger rewards. who wouldn't? thanks for any input.....

   I hate to be the one to say it, but I think moving images are the best future oppourtunity. Here's why. Footage is where still images was 5 years ago. There is a far smaller collection to compete against , and a growing need for motion, now that the penetration of broadband is so huge. The technical skills needed to create in video or motion animation keep out a lot of competitors. Motion and moving images require a different way of communicating an idea- just shooting a still shot with a video camera won't sell. To a certain extent, story telling is more important. Just shooting an Icon won't cut it. lastly, everything is harder to do- it's almost like the analog days in stills, where you couldn't fix things in photoshop. You had to have the shot right in the camera, not in the computer. The reason i hate to be the one to say it is that i know there will be a tipping point, where suddenly everyone will be shooting video. The approvals will take longer, there will be pages and pages of results in a search, not just 15 clips to choose from. I'm only saying this here because i like all the people here, and if anyone should get a head start, it should be the microstock group crowd. And also, nobody really listens to what i say anyway, which is probably a good thing. So if you have the energy and the skills, go for it....

« Reply #2 on: October 07, 2010, 19:23 »
0
I'm only saying this here because i like all the people here, and if anyone should get a head start, it should be the microstock group crowd. And also, nobody really listens to what i say anyway, which is probably a good thing. So if you have the energy and the skills, go for it....

I know of several people that have already gone for it, by reading their experiences here and elsewhere, and they've found stock footage to be an expensive proposition that doesn't come close to paying for itself in a reasonable time.

We've discussed photos vs. video in another thread if you can find it.

« Reply #3 on: October 07, 2010, 23:07 »
0
I started footage a year ago in addition to still, in my best month footage took 20% of total earnings not so bad, $ per download of course much higher with an average of $20 per clip.
Uploading is a challenge especially now as Isyndica is closing down.....
You can read more stats on my blog: http://microstockexperiment.blogspot.com/

as well as this article:http://microstockexperiment.blogspot.com/2009/09/from-still-to-motion.html

L

grp_photo

« Reply #4 on: October 08, 2010, 01:47 »
0
In theory footage should be the future but in reality it never will be IMHO.

jbarber873

« Reply #5 on: October 08, 2010, 07:51 »
0
In theory footage should be the future but in reality it never will be IMHO.

The future has a way of sneaking up on you. In 1996 i bought a leaf camera to start shooting digital ( still) images. Almost all of my clients resisted shooting digitally. They said film will always be better quality, how do I show the printer what it should look like, etc. BY 1998, i was down to shooting film once or twice a week, and I haven't shot a piece of film in this century. I do 200 -300 photoshoots a year, and if it weren't for shooting digitally, it would take twice the time it takes now.
I really get the same vibes from video that i got from digital imaging all those years ago. But, that's just for me with my workflow and client base, and may not be the answer for everyone. As i said before, if it interests you, I think it will pay off well in the long run, but i could be wrong, and often am.

« Reply #6 on: October 08, 2010, 13:08 »
0
I find it hard to compare because my stills portfolio is more commercial than my footage portfolio but I am pleased with footage so far.  I do mostly landscapes and timelapses for footage and can combine it with stills to make money from both.

« Reply #7 on: October 09, 2010, 07:41 »
0
what about animations? can anyone comment about how well there animations do?

« Reply #8 on: October 09, 2010, 08:55 »
0
what about animations? can anyone comment about how well there animations do?

If you look on iStock you can see that some very good animations have 1000, 2000 or more downloads each.

It depends on your concept and the execution of your animation. There are plenty of animations that never sold so it's just up to your skills to see if it will work or not.

Filming with a real camera however, as Sean mentioned, is a different ball game.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
8 Replies
5105 Views
Last post October 08, 2006, 17:31
by suwanneeredhead
15 Replies
6983 Views
Last post May 27, 2009, 13:38
by Fotosearch_Support
61 Replies
12227 Views
Last post May 15, 2009, 16:57
by Pixart
1 Replies
2510 Views
Last post December 16, 2010, 15:25
by elvinstar
22 Replies
11059 Views
Last post December 09, 2011, 13:16
by RacePhoto

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results