MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - increasingdifficulty

Pages: 1 ... 48 49 50 51 52 [53] 54 55 56 57 58 ... 74
1301
General Stock Discussion / Re: Clips under 5 seconds?
« on: March 08, 2017, 03:59 »
There will sometimes be reasons you can only get a five second clip. Say it's some deer vomiting on a giant frog, and you only managed to get five seconds before he flies off into the distance, then that's fair enough. If it's a landscape with nobody about, then go for thirty seconds.

I aim for about 10-15 and where it makes sense, a bit longer.

Storage isn't much of a problem but 30 seconds of 4k (UHD) ProRes HQ is 2.7 GB, and uploaded to 5 sites that's 13.5 GB which takes quite a bit of time. It makes it hard to get just 4-5 clips up in a day even on a fast connection.

Hyperlapses usually end up closer to 6-8 seconds since they are so time consuming to make.

1302
I still see watermark. I also downloaded "comp image" and it has watermark.

They don't have watermarks until you do a mouse-over. It's very easy to just do a screen grab of the previews without the watermarks.

1303
Reply from Fotolia  >:(
Quote
Hi there,

The preview thumbnails contain no watermark because the resolution is not high enough for those images to be usable in full/definitive projects. Clients usually work with low res. copies of the file and purchase the high resolution copy when satisfied with the final result.

Kind Regards,

Fotolia Europe
+44 (0) 80 0917 0886 (English only)

Wow, that's pretty ignorant. I can think of about 1,000 common uses for images that size. Every single blog for example.

I use images smaller than that for promoting other things I sell.

1304
This e-mail only went out to top sellers. The real announcement for everyone will come later.

Are you sure? I received the email, but had just one sale this year so far!
Hope I am not a top seller, or the situation is tragic.

Also, they say "We have updated our Contributor Agreement to enable all our artists to take advantage of this new program."

Today it went out to everyone. Did you get it February 28th? The program was always for all contributors, it's just that top sellers get some information in advance.

1305
Payouts are pretty irrelevant if you don't consider expenses, at least in terms of particular expenses used in making the images.

Not when I hear numbers from other contributors and want to see how much a particular portfolio brings in. It's all just being curious, not deciding whether it's worth copying their pictures and figuring out the cost to do so...

Cost will always be very different. Many of the best images in the world are made using natural light and a free model, while other people feel they need $20,000 worth of studio gear.

1306
I realize you're talking about living well off of little money in many posts, but in general, when it comes to talking about income here it makes little sense to compare figures after tax since everyone lives in different countries.

When numbers are thrown around, it's what we get from the stock sites into our payment provider accounts. I don't care what you paid your mom's friend to model or what the tax rates in your particular country are. I care about how big the payouts are.

1307
What would be the purpose of lying about your income on an anonymous forum?

I think it's more likely that people who don't sell that much don't want to face the reality that other people are in fact doing much better in the same business. It's not as comforting as "oh well, everyone's having a hard time, so it's not my fault"...

1308
He makes $1 for every time you quote, double quote, and triple quote. So I guess he's a billionaire.

1309
and if you toss in the Microstock business no wonder photography went to hell... ;)

Yes, because the booming microstock industry was the main reason for millions of DSLRs and compact cameras sold throughout the years.

Very unlikely. Just imagine crowded place near the Eiffel tower or some air show. Just several people from thousands ones with cameras would contribute to microstock. The most would quietly bury those terabytes on their computers.

That post was SARCASM my friend.  ;)

1310
and if you toss in the Microstock business no wonder photography went to hell... ;)

Yes, because the booming microstock industry was the main reason for millions of DSLRs and compact cameras sold throughout the years.

1311
Shutterstock.com / Re: down the toilet
« on: March 06, 2017, 10:34 »
7 years of awful trash must be hard. Maybe time to do something else?

Every week, every month and every year some people will write on forums that they have their worst month ever and that the world is ending. Doesn't matter if it's about music, pictures, footage or something else...

1312
Oh my, I can't stand that guy's voice/accent.

Anyway, surprised? The number of cameras sold is much higher, it's just that they are now placed in smartphones.

1313
This e-mail only went out to top sellers. The real announcement for everyone will come later.

1314
The biggest issue is how long video takes to render and just how big the files are....started using after effects to get 4k done. But its a time consuming affair

That is not an issue. It's a good thing that keeps 1 million photographers from competing. At least for now...

1315
PhotoDune / Re: What a "nice" surprise
« on: February 28, 2017, 12:13 »
Yes, of course there will be overlap. That is inevitable. Also know that the P5 license is not the same as VH's.

I sold 2 years without VH so I can see my personal data before and after. All I can say is that my bank account is happier and $/clip/month is higher.

About 30% are 4k sales. For me, that's about 3-5% on other sites. That tells me $199 for 4k is too high and even the bigger buyers settle for HD.

1316
PhotoDune / Re: What a "nice" surprise
« on: February 28, 2017, 11:34 »
If he doesn't want to make the content himself, well then he can put on his big boy pants and earn the money to pay me what my time and effort is worth.

What if there are one million Billys?

I think I must say it again... Since you don't understand. You are selling digital products with unlimited stock. An infinite number of purchases is possible.

If you reach a market that is 10,000 times bigger with a price that is 1/10th you earn more. Then your time and effort is worth more.

Surely that's quite simple to understand.

Of course there are prices that are too low. All I can see is that $79 is too high to maximize revenue for common subjects. $8 might be too low and I think the ideal price today sits around $15-25 or so in order to maximize revenue, IF you sell where the YouTubers go.

Other buyers are happy to pay $100 per clip and I am happy to sell to them to on P5.

1317
PhotoDune / Re: What a "nice" surprise
« on: February 28, 2017, 11:26 »
Saying "Fair (market) price" is just a made up number like anything else, shows a pure lack of understanding of basic economics.

If I see that I get $3 per clip per month at a certain price point, but $1 at another, higher price point, which one is more fair?

To me, it is more fair to see a higher number in my bank account for the time spent. If a lower price (say, 1/10) reaches an audience that is a thousand times bigger, it results in a bigger payment. I sell clips for $199, but I can't sell 5-10% of my portfolio for that price every day...

You are selling digital goods that have zero cost for you after upload and can be sold an infinite number of times. This is not milk where each unit sold has a production cost.

The only thing that determines fair or not is what you see in your bank account versus clips in your portfolio. Not price per clip.

I think I should repeat again: The market is not the same as even 5 years ago. It is MUCH, MUCH, MUCH bigger with a whole new world of buyers.

1318
PhotoDune / Re: What a "nice" surprise
« on: February 28, 2017, 11:06 »
If seller 'A' sells for a fair market price or more, then they literally hold value in their work. If seller 'B' can only make an equal amount by selling well below market price, undercutting seller 'A' in the process, then seller 'B' is demonstrating that they do not value their own work. Sure, I'm pointing that out, but you are the one doing it. The normal market price for HD video at this time, set by the leaders of the industry, not me or you, is $50+. $8 is substantially lower than market value. And since no one put a gun to your head, that you choose to sell for that price, you are valuing your work low all by yourself. Plain but apparently no-so-simple for some of you.

Since this is all about undercutting, your comparison of stock video to iTunes is irrelevant, because the normalized market price of a digital download is now $0.99, so you, me or the Beatles selling tracks at $0.99 is not undercutting. The two markets are not logically comparable. As sad as that may be, it's how it is. Why would you want to push the video market that way anyways?

Why is it that the only option for adaptation in some of your minds, is dropping price?

And then, the irony of using John Lennon as an example, is pretty solid. That man embodied ethics, philosophy, principles, having some respect for yourself and those around you, the greater good, I mean like, you know, essentially a perfect example of what I've been suggesting more of us should emulate.

You don't seem to understand what markets there are, or know that you are in fact selling digital goods that never run out, not physical stock.

Do you know about YouTube? Do you know how creators work there? Do you know that many upload 1, maybe 3 videos EVERY single day.

"Fair price" is just a made up number like anything else. It depends on how many buyers you can expect to have for a clip. 20 years ago you could not expect many buyers for a clip, just maybe a single production. Today you can expect hundreds or thousands of smaller buyers for a single clip. THE MARKET HAS CHANGED.

If I get $5,000 selling my work for $10, instead of $1,000 selling it for $500. Is that not more fair to me since I'm selling digital goods and after upload there is no additional work?

It's perfectly fine if you don't want to sell to the YouTube market, which is in fact the biggest market there is, and growing each day. But others want to capitalize on this opportunity, and will do so.

1319
Shutterstock.com / Re: down the toilet
« on: February 27, 2017, 06:32 »
My post was 100% SARCASM my friend.

1320
Shutterstock.com / Re: down the toilet
« on: February 27, 2017, 04:16 »
True!  but the overwhelming majority are in countries like Russia, ukraine Rumania and Poland.

Also very strange that the tiny little country of Russia with billions of well-paying jobs has a lot of people searching for ways to make a living online...

1321
Shutterstock.com / Re: down the toilet
« on: February 27, 2017, 03:58 »
If that were the case why not other countries like Vietnam, Cambodia, Burma, India, China, Peru, Chile and so on.

To have so many stuffed in to a single small country is beyond odd.

"Single small country"... Thailand has 67+ million people (2013). That's more than the UK, France, Italy, Spain etc.

Thailand isn't dirt poor and there are enough people who own DSLRs compared to the average wage. Culture also comes to play. It may have just the right balance between being developed and cheap living.

Another important thing to consider is that Thailand (Chiang Mai more specifically) is the digital nomad center of the world, meaning people come from all over the world to live there and work online. I wouldn't be surprised if a big percentage of them do stock photography to some extent.

1322
If you look one year in the future and see yourself doing more and more video I really suggest starting with the real software right away.

My recommendation for ultimate control would be After Effects for single clips. There is a learning curve but sooner or later you will have to learn the advanced stuff if you see yourself uploading quality footage.

If you strive for perfection (or will in the future) stabilization, masks (exposure correction of a sky for example) and control over blurring (trademarks, people) is essential.

1323
VideoBlocks / Re: VideoBlocks Launches Enterprise Service
« on: February 24, 2017, 17:19 »
If Germany has a tax treaty with a 0% tax rate, and you're still getting taxed 30%, you should complete the tax form on VB. No sense in getting double-taxed, right.

He checked it and fixed it after his first sale...

1324
Could result in some extra $$$, yes.

But I really don't like how they use the term "copyright-free" in their marketing: http://enterprise.videoblocks.com

It's like they don't understand the fundamental basics of the assets they're licensing... That's a bit scary. I know they most likely do, and it's just an enticing marketing term, but that doesn't make it right.

1325
General Stock Discussion / Re: Sales stopped at Videoblocks?
« on: February 23, 2017, 05:11 »
a handful of 4K ones would be nice! Only had one there so far

Me too, but at the other site I sell 4k almost every day... That tells you something about pricing all 4k at $199... even if it's a static clip of grass.

Pages: 1 ... 48 49 50 51 52 [53] 54 55 56 57 58 ... 74

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors