|
MicrostockGroup Sponsors
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 - JoeClemson
76
« on: February 09, 2016, 10:56 »
Also i think that you could make much more money by spreading your editorial through SS, IS, DP, 123rf and DT. Editorial on micros are much easier to approach and saves costumers lots of time. I think RM used to be for editorial but times are changing.
Mirco
But why would you want to licence an editorial image as RF (which can be used over and again) when a RM licence would require further purchase and probably greater income in the long run? I have had repeat uses of RM licenced images by the same buyer, giving me greater income. I'm sure I'm not alone. I think maybe times are a changing, but that doesn't mean the contributors should just go with the flow on change which is against their interest.
77
« on: February 09, 2016, 08:44 »
I went indie from IS last September. Since then most of my energy has gone into video, but I have uploaded some 100 RF stills to SS, FT, P5 and DT to see what transpires (half of which is new, half stuff I already have on IS).
P5 and DT have produced nothing at all. FT has made a few small sales. SS brings in regular small sales. All in all, for still images, I am no better, no worse off than when I was exclusive with IS. The downside is the additional time involved in uploading to multiple agencies. However, since the RF still image market is saturated I will not be putting a great deal more effort into this side of things anyway.
Alamy needs time and many more images to produce sales (I would say a year or more and at least 1000 different images). You can do yourself and existing Alamy contributors a favour by not simply duplicating what you have on the microstock sites. Alamy provides good internal research tools on what sells there so make use of it and shoot with them in mind. They are an international agency, but strongest in UK leaning material. Worth persevering with but don't expect quick returns.
All in all you seem to be postulating the right approach, but I personally would not go back to IS exclusivity, partially because of the level of rewards they offer and the decline in their sales, but mostly because I have no trust in them.
78
« on: February 07, 2016, 14:20 »
If its quick and simple you need then MPEG Streamclip might be worth a look, especially as it's free. It has the ability to trim clips and adjust export quality settings. There are also basis brightness, contrast and saturation controls under 'Adjustments' in the export dialog box. The only trouble with basic brightness & contrast controls is you so often want to adjust different parts of the image in different ways, (darken highlights, lift shadows etc) and simple controls don't cut it for this.
Premiere Elements and PowerDirector are better equipped for entry level colour processing, but I found that the quality of the finished video could be quite poor (artefatcs etc) if going beyond minimal adjustments. Having said that, I have used each of them for several years before finding Davinci Resolve. For the beginner, though, they may be a good bet especially if the full version of Premiere/After Effects/Final Cut etc is a leap too far financially.
79
« on: February 07, 2016, 05:04 »
Davinci Resolve is available as a free application in a 'Lite' version, but this version has everything you are likely to need, including excellent stabilization but not noise reduction. It is however, a professional program used by colourists on movies and TV programmes and is very powerful - the manual is over 1000 pages long. It takes some getting used to even if you have some video editing experience, and may be more than some can get to grips with if relatively new to video work. I have used Premiere Elements and PowerDirector in the past and these are much more user friendly, being aimed at consumer level use. Some tutorials can be found on YouTube, though be aware that the current version (12) has new features and a slightly different interface to previous versions.
DaVinci Resolve is demanding on computer equipment - 8gb memory minimum and a decent graphics card are advised. It also works in a slightly different way to Adobe, using Nodes to work with effects such as transparency and mattes rather than layers and this takes a little bit of getting used to. I've been using it for a few weeks now and am trying to do all my work on it. The one downside for me is I can't import my old Canon HV20 footage (.m2t) without converting it to ProRes first. Also, I can't export in my favoured MOV/P-JPEG. I have to export in H.264 and convert in MPEG Streamclip.
All in all though, well worth a look.
80
« on: August 17, 2015, 07:01 »
I first saw Christmas related promotional material appear in my inbox in June. I'm quite sure planning for Christmas advertising campaigns for many companies (espeically the larger ones) will already be well advanced. Stock Christmas images may well be downloaded in the weeks running up to Christmas, but there is going to be demand for it much earlier in the year. It is certainly not to too soon to upload.
81
« on: August 07, 2015, 12:14 »
The 2.04 CTR figure will be just for August. it is not unusual to get a single month's figure jumping around if you have a little flurry of zooms while views remain fairly constant. in most cases you will see the monthly CTR decrease and go back to something around your usual average as you get more views each day and the zooms average themselves out
Of course it is also possible that something has changed in the search results pattern which benefits you in particular for some reason. This has happened to me once or twice and my CTR has improved significantly for a few weeks, but it rarely last for more than a week or two and things even themselves out again.
82
« on: July 30, 2015, 05:27 »
Correct white balance is very important as it dictates whether colours will look correct in your images. For example a shot taken indoors under tungsten lighting but using an outdoor white balance setting in the camera will look like it has an orange cast on all colours. White surfaces in particular will look very off-colour.
A customer buying one of your images as a jpeg cannot easily adjust white balance without affecting the quality of the image. You can correct white balance most easily if you have shot and processed in RAW format, but it will still be better done before you submit even if you shoot and process in jpeg.
It is likely most shots you take will be OK on white balance, especially if taken outdoors. Automatic white balance usually gets it pretty close but ideally you will choose the appropriate camera setting for the prevailing light conditions. Indoor shots are always the most tricky and you need to pay particualar attention to white balance in those situations. Tons of tutorials are available in books and on the web.
83
« on: July 29, 2015, 14:46 »
I've not previously come across the notion that Alamy's search engine penalises duplicate search words- I don't recall it ever being mentioned on Alamy's own forums, who are usually quick to highlight that kind of thing. I'm checking through my keywords to delete the occasional duplicate which has slipped in. However, I'm hoping though that there is no penalty for repeat use of the same word in a phrase within quotes (e.g. "coloured glass", "colourful glass", "red glass" "stained glass" etc etc).
84
« on: July 29, 2015, 10:48 »
4 months is no time at all, give it a year and you should be seeing regular sales.
Thanks, lets see that stats for an year  waiting.
With a portfolio of 8k and online since 4 month.
I had no success with it.
0 sales, make me feel strange.
How did alamy goes for you?
Is it your micro port?
They have officially said that generally successful micro pics don't do well there.
But otherwise, yes, four months isn't a long time.
Well done on suffering managing your 8k images there in such a short time. I can easily be all day doing half a dozen (I don't mean it takes me that long, I just mean I do a couple, have a long distraction break, do another one, another longer break and so on.)
Yes, its a micro vectors portfolio, Its good success in other agencies, being a RM website, I thought they'll go great. But alas!
I'm really not sure if vectors sell well there. There don't seem to be (m)any vector artists posting on their forum, and I don't see many posts here either.
You're not supposed to set RM there if you have the same or similar files as RF elsewhere.
Actually that may not be true. I've often read it, with the encouragement to 'read your Alamy contributor contract', but all I can see in the contract is:
"You cannot submit identical or similar images to Alamy as both Royalty-Free and Rights Managed. The licence type on Alamy for an image must be the same as the licence type for that image and similar images which you have on other agency websites. "
If anyone has official word, rather than peer opinion, about this, can they post the link, please.
To my mind the wording in the contract seems clear enough (I've highlighted the relevant clause in green) The licence type on Alamy for an image must be the same...similar images which you have on other agency websites.
85
« on: July 24, 2015, 02:51 »
500px is an art site which has dipped its toes in photo stock sales. The images on 500px have a different feel than the majority of microstock and that is attractive to buyers for some purposes.
I think that if 500px were to meet the oft-stated desire on MSG for proper watermarks, it would simply open the floodgates for a lot of contributors to dump large portfolios of images they already have on other microstock sites, in the hope of being lucky enough getting a good priced sale or two. The ingestion of such a body of imagery would change the nature and feel of 500px and it would, eventually, become just another microstock site competing in the same market. The alternative would be for 500px to ruthlessly curate the incoming imagery to maintain the look and feel of the collection.
On the whole - and I haven't as yet decided whether to sell my own images on 500px Prime - I would prefer things at 500px to stay as they are and for contributors to make their own minds up about whether it is an appropriate seller for their images. We don't really need yet another microstock agency.
86
« on: July 21, 2015, 02:08 »
Got it....
shots with people need to go to editorial/RM and have to be exclusive to Alamy.
...
Not quite. Shots which are RM at Alamy cannot be submitted as RF anywhere else. You are free to submit the same RM shots to other agencies, as long as it is under a RM licence there too. Also be aware that RM does not necessarily equate to editorial material. RM can be equally applied to commercial, non-editorial shots which are typical of microstock, but if you do, you can't sell the same (or similar) shot elsewhere as RF.
87
« on: July 18, 2015, 04:07 »
I'm pretty sure Alamy would say they do not regard themselves as a microstock site and would not encourage contributors to upload identical images to their site and microstock sites.
Having said that, they do nothing to prevent it and it is down to the individual contributor what they submit. Indeed, since they now have a policy of encouraging pretty well anybody with a half-decent camera (or iphone) to submit, it could be argued they are opening up the contributor market even more than some microstock sites. Their QC policy of only inspecting a small sample of of submitted images tends to reinforce this, given that it was originally designed to cater for submissions from experienced professional photographers, rather than people who are still low on the learning curve.
Alamy's £15 minimum nominal price per image would tend to suggest that identical images which are also available on microstock would never sell on Alamy. This is not totally the case, but it would be surprising if many clued-up purchasers bought from Alamy when they could easily and cheaply go elsewhere for the same image.
Alamy's strength is in RM soft editorial, UK especially but worldwide shots too. I try to play to the strengths of the different agencies and submit to Alamy only editorial - those images which it does well with. They may not sell in quantity but just occasionally they provide a very good sale, which makes microstock prices look silly. I don't think it is my interest, or indeed in the interest of new contributors, that Alamy goes down the line of becoming just another microstock, so my stance is to resist the temptation to put on Alamy all the stuff you have submitted elsewhere.
88
« on: June 22, 2015, 08:25 »
I've done some brief research as to the situation re stock footage from drones here in the UK to see if its viable for me personally.
To use a drone for producing commercial footage in the UK (which will included submitting to stock agencies) the operator must have Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) permission. Permission is granted on an annual basis at a cost of up to £226 depending on the weight of the drone + equipment being used. Permission is only given to pilots who have undergone their approved training courses, which cost £1000 and upwards.
There have been a number of recently reported near misses between drones and commercial aircraft in the UK and also serious flouting of CAA regulations by unknown operators, including one drone flown near a full football stadium. I suspect that the CAA may well start to come down heavily on those who flout the regulations and I personally would not take the risk of operating without the legal requirements being sorted. You can also bet than any insurance an operator has taken out would be declared invalid by the insurer if the drone was operated illegally.
I like the idea of shooting stock from on high, but I'm not convinced the costs involved will be easily recouped just by royalties at microstock rates, so I have abandoned the idea as far as my own work is concerned.
89
« on: March 20, 2015, 01:59 »
Just in case anybody is in any doubt about the wisdom of starting out with iStock for video uploads, I've just hit rock bottom with a $3.42 royalty for a HD video. Dreadful.
90
« on: March 02, 2015, 03:51 »
Hello Zach.
Will videoblocks be the seller?
I am asking because I am worried about who is going to pay VAT for EU-non-business-buyers.
Has this question been answered anywhere? It is now an important question for contributors in the EU as since January 2015 we have to register and account for VAT sales to all individual customers if we are effectively selling direct to the customer. Most stock agencies don't reveal the buyer's name to the contributor, the agency is effectively the seller and the agency deals with VAT accounting. Is this the case with Videoblocks? If Videoblocks does not deal with the VAT, it kills the possibility of me signing up as a contributor.
91
« on: February 24, 2015, 11:44 »
Your sale may relate to a usage months ago as there is often a long period between the use and the payment with Alamy. I can see on the Alamy forum someone has found a usage of one of your images DMM1FY in UK Travel Which? magazine back in July 2014. It may or may not be that one.
92
« on: January 14, 2015, 05:44 »
I price around the $50 mark for commercial and $30-40 for editorial, aiming to be cheaper than IS and about a par with SS. I don't use models or expensive shoots and everything I do can quite easily be replicated by others. If I was doing more high quality clips I would pitch them at around $100. Even $100 is cheap compared to traditional agencies
I sell far fewer videos at P5 than SS, even though my two portfolios are close to identical. My theory is that P5 buyers are spoilt by some videographers selling too cheaply, making mine look expensive. I wish sellers wouldn't pitch low as it will eventually drag down the microstock market for everybody.
93
« on: December 24, 2014, 06:02 »
I can see the reviewers point to a certain extent. There is no person in the image so anything to do with tourist or vendor is not relevant. Also, it is not obvious that the picture is taken at night. The other keywords seem acceptable to my mind.
I too dislike the controlled vocabulary as it is simply not flexible enough to allow accurate keywording
I tend to think that a reviewer who spots one or two keywords mistakenly included then looks harder and with less sympathy at the others and may be more inclined to chuck out borderline keywords. It's an encouragement to the submitter to be accurate with keywording the first time round. I've seen some stuff ingested into IS in the last year or so where the keywords where laughably inappropriate, so I do find it encouraging to learn that they are actually inspecting the keywords being used.
94
« on: November 14, 2014, 04:15 »
Last night I received an email from Shutterstock saying a prospective buyer wanted to licence for commercial use a video which I had marked as editorial only. The customer would be aware that they had to obtain any necessary releases and I, as the contributor, could give this permission 'at no risk to you'. The email had a link to an online form for me to complete.
I enquired further about the background to this. The clip concerned was of a Virgin Trains Pendolino leaving a station in NW England, with no visible people. I could have possibly have considered agreeing to the purchaser being given permission to seek out the necessary clearances to use this particular clip as the releases needed were fairly clear (Virgin for the train, Network Rail for the station).
However, the on-line form didn't relate to just this clip, but gave Shutterstock permission to sell for commercial use ANY of my editorial stock to ANY customer without further reference to me, providing the customer was clear that they had to obtain any necessary releases first. This seemed to me to open a great big can of worms. Not least is the question of whether Shutterstock's assurance that there would be 'no risk to you' in giving such permission would stand up. I've come across stories of photographers being sued for their image wrongly being used commercially, even when the photog had no control over that usage.
I declined Shutterstock's request, being more concerned about my long term peace-of-mind than making a $50 clip sale.
Has anybody else come across this kind of request from Shutterstock and am I being unduly cautious?
95
« on: November 13, 2014, 05:49 »
I was exclusive for video at iStock but dropped that just over two years ago as the mismanagement of the place became increasingly evident. I'm now in the process of deactivating my IS portfolio because of the derisory royalty payments for non-exclusives. I cannot recommend working with iStock on a non-exclusive basis because the rewards for work done is so poor.
Being exclusive to iStock does pay reasonably well and there is the added bonus of getting clips on Getty. The question is, does one gamble on an agency which has shown scant regard for its contributors in the past and seems to have alienated many of its customers? It may be that iStock/Getty are playing a long game which will see them prosper in the future, but I myself don't feel able to stake my video income on that at the moment.
Over the last two years I have uploaded similar content to both P5 and SS. My SS portfoilo has outsold my P5 collection by about 4 to 1 over these two years. The income I have received from these two agencies has not yet reached the heights of my best years with iStock, but SS in particular is heading in the right direction.
I refuse to play the game of dropping prices to rock bottom at P5, but set them at about the cost a purchaser would have to pay for a single clip at SS, in some cases higher. It is interesting that most of the sales which I have had at P5 have been the clips which I set a higher price for, usually 50% above the cost of the same clip at SS. This suggests that some buyers at least are more interested in the right image for the job in hand than the price and that they do not necessarily shop around for the cheapest deal on a clip they find.
Because I am UK based, I would consider Alamy video if they made submissions available online and in small batches. This is something they have said they are unlikely to do in the foreseeable future because of the costs involves, but I do still occasionally lobby them for it.
I have not tried any other agency as the comments I have seen on this forum tends to suggest they do not produce a good return on time invested and/or drag down the overall market for video prices.
I am a UK based contributor with a total SS/P5 portfolio of about 500, a mixture of run-of-the-mill creative and editorial clips, including a few 2D and 3D animations.
96
« on: November 05, 2014, 08:55 »
I too have stopped uploading there, even though I am exclusive on RF stills. I'm deactivating my non-exclusive video, except for a few old ones which I don't have on P5 or SS. I don't trust them, I think their management has sailed up a certain creek and sales of all kinds have pretty well ground to a halt. I see no reason to invest any time producing new content for iStock.
97
« on: October 30, 2014, 07:51 »
I use Lightroom to track my finished video files, but that's mostly because I already use it for still image processing and submission tracking. Lightroom doesn't have much in the way of facilities for managing video specifically and it can't handle the native M2T files from my Canon HV20. If I was starting from scratch and managing video only I would not necessarily use Lightroom, but I don't have any experience of alternatives.
98
« on: September 10, 2014, 17:55 »
I too would like to see this.
99
« on: April 16, 2014, 03:39 »
The same thing happened to me a day or two ago. I had changed my IS password and logged in successfully. After a few hours I used Deep Meta, forgetting to change it to the new password. The program informed me that the login info was incorrect and the account was temporarily locked. I was then unable to login to IS using the web either.
I tried the password reset facility and it simply took me to the IS front page, not to a reset password screen as promised. At this point I raised a support ticket and went to bed.
The next day I was able to log into IS normally using me new password. However using Deep Meta (possibly with the old password again, I'm not sure) provoked the same account lockout message.
I left things a few hours and was able to login normally again later that day (yesterday). I also go Deep Meta to work, being careful to make sure it used the new password this time.
IS support eventually sent me an email with another link to the password reset screen, which would have worked had I chosen to use it.
Extrapolating from the above posts and my own experience, without any hard evidence of where the problem lies, the most I can say is:
a) The problem is not just limited to any one contributor
b) Changing passwords may be part of the problem (though that may just be a red herring)
c) Using Deep Meta with an incorrect password may be causing a temporary account lockout.
Hope this helps to shed some light.
100
« on: March 05, 2014, 12:02 »
I am puzzled about the monthly figures of the graph. For example, the graph shows, as I write, Shutterstock Feb-14 as 65.97. I'm fairly certain that the graph updated to show that February figure as soon as February ended. How is it possible that figures for February were available so quickly when people who contribute their sales figures to the poll don't do so until several days or more into the next month. The chart doesn't seem to change from one month end to the next, so what does that example of figure of 65.97 for Shutterstock in February actually represent and how is it obtained so soon after the month end?
Bump - can anybody shed light on this question for me?
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
