I'm no photographer and I don't do that much videography, but here's my opinions anyway...

Don't shoot handheld unless you're doing some kind of GoPro style action shot, or you're moving and have a very good stabilizer/gimbal. If you're attempting to keep the camera still then you should be using a tripod.

If you do use a tripod, turn off image stabilization.

Make sure your horizons are level.

Saturation seems a bit strong on some shots.

Framing isn't very good on some shots. Try and make sure there's movement within your shots or within your camera. Try and frame your shots with something in the foreground to add a bit of interest. Your skyline with the seagulls is probably the worst for framing and angle. Take this shot which looks like it's a shot of pretty much exactly the same, but at a different angle...

https://stock.adobe.com/uk/stock-photo/fisherman-boats-in-a-coastal-town-morocco/117163900

The grading is far too intense, the vignette doesn't really serve any purpose, and it's not exactly an award-winning shot, but the framing is so much better. More content, stuff in the foreground, a lot more going on etc.

And overall, try to keep in mind the commercial value of your shots. Think about what people will search for and what they'll use your work for.     

Interacting with people in a work environment beats working alone.

That's what pubs are for! It's just like a dress down Friday with a more casual vibe... and late on Friday afternoon as well, so you don't need to do any work!

Quote from: Pauws99 on March 08, 2017, 04:20

Quote from: sharpshot on March 08, 2017, 04:12

The first deactivation day after istock cut below 20% was a milestone for me.  Until then, contributors had a few successful battles with the sites, changing things for the better.  A lot of us deactivated images on that day but most people just carried on uploading.  Some people were venting about the cuts in this forum while they were uploading new images.  That made it clear to me that the problem is us and not the sites.

I don't really think the problem is us or them its just inherent in the type of market it is...the cost of entry declines with the relative cost of cameras going down and more people in less affluent countries are more able to access. Was entirely predictable from the start. We see this across all web based industries so why should this be different?

Google pay 70% for paid for apps.  I think Apple are similar?  People make apps all over the world.  You don't have to buy expensive cameras and lenses to make apps.  People from less affluent countries can make apps.  Perhaps not as easy as using a camera but the difference between 70% and 15% seems too big.

But unless you're a jack of all trades, you're going to need to have a team in place, which complicates things slightly. Otherwise, you need to be good at conceptualising, coding, designing and marketing.

Shooting stock is extremely easy comparatively.

And how many apps would you need to sell to make it worthwhile? To make the same amount as my best selling clip, I'd have to sell a 99 cent app 278 times. That clip took me a few days, could I make an app that sells 278 times in three days? To meet my total revenue from stock, I'd need to have over 15 apps that sell 278 times a month... or one app that sells over 4000 times a month.

yes, it can and does happen. You might have a hit on your hands and make ten times that or more... but I don't think the little guys are making that much selling apps. I'd say there's more risk than selling stock, and you need a loads more skills and experience to earn the big bucks. I could be wrong though... I've never sold an app, so I'm just guessing! 

Yeah, most of mine are 10, with a few at 15, 20 or 30 seconds. I've never made anything under 10 seconds as far as I can remember.

Yeah, I wouldn't aim for five seconds or more, I'd aim for ten seconds, or twenty seconds. I appreciate that a lot of people edit clips down, and may only use two seconds from a 30 second clip... but I'm sure there are also people who keep duration in mind.

I.e. if you're making a 60 second video using stock, at $79 a go, then two 30 second clips is going to cost you $158. Twelve 5 second clips is going to cost you $948. Yes, a video with just two clips is going to be pretty c**p, but some people have the budget for multiple cuts, some people don't. It's probably not a massive consideration overall, but I don;t think you're doing yourself any favours shooting five second clips.

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.

Number 2 for me.

No need to be rude.

Ah right, yes.... that's what I was saying too! I got confused. I've been drinking.

Quote from: derek on March 07, 2017, 05:30

Quote from: Pauws99 on March 07, 2017, 03:13

"So are you in denial that SS sales have nosedived in the last month ? " if you had said "So are you in denial that MY SS sales have nosedived in the last month ? " fair enough but there is no evidence that SS sales have fallen. Thats the point

They have nosedived!! and badly so! I dont know about your sales?  considering you are quite busy in this thread I presume you are a full-time stock-photographer and yes then you would feel a reduction in sales even more may it be SS or any of the other agencies.

So where is the concrete evidence that Total SS sales have nosedived? https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/shares-shutterstock-dive-earnings-sales-154600446.html

 

You seem to have misinterpreted the information on that page, as it clearly says year on year sales are up. Share price may be down, which it explains is due to them not hitting their target when it comes to sales increases, but sales haven't nose dived. They haven't even dropped or stayed the same... they've increased.

Quote from: JimP on March 06, 2017, 08:07

Quote from: Herg on March 06, 2017, 05:59

Over a cliff big time. Absolutely trashed my sales. I fear this is the law of diminishing returns.

In 2010 you wrote this. Seems like nothing much has changed? Did you ever get much accepted at SS?

Quote from: Herg on December 02, 2010, 11:44

Terrible month. Photo sales have dropped every month this year so far. Dec up to now is even worse. Absolutely awful.

So are you in denial that SS sales have nosedived in the last month ? Have you read the forums ? Since they changed the site.

And for your interest I get almost every image accepted.

It's only denial if it's true, and a few threads in a forum with a very small percentage of total contributors saying that their sales have nosedived... isn't exactly conclusive evidence.

Depends on what it is I guess. If it's some businessmen shaking hands, then I don't think three seconds is going to cut it. If it's a eagle riding a wave of lava, shot from a drone, with a backdrop of mushroom clouds and fork lightning, as a barrage of warheads fly past the camera... you might get away with a two second clip.

As for sales, I get about 275 to 375 a month. Not noticed any slow down recently.

You've built a new nuclear power plant and now asking where on internet can you buy some affordable uranium, right?

Sounds more like he's built a nuclear power plant and he's now asking for an instruction manual on how to make nuclear power!

If you don't tell them what camera you have, then they won't know... then it'll get accepted or rejected on its merits, rather than some mystical list. Tell them you shot it on a Hassleblad or something.