|
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 - SuperPhoto
Pages: 1 ... 34 35 36 37 38 [39] 40 41 42 43 44 ... 47
951
« on: October 15, 2018, 23:42 »
I use a 3rd party conversion tool. You can do an online search to find your favorite (although one company has spammed the crap out of the search engines so it usually only shows their tool - I think its wondershare or something? not the greatest).
But there are several other tools that are pretty good...
Just export it from PP/AE, and then use one of those tools to convert to .mov/etc.
(Incidentally, I do find it a bit silly that videoblocks/storyblocks doesn't do backend conversion, and "requires" a ".mov" file for 1920x1080, but a 4K can "either" be mov or mp4...
Makes for a lot of extra work for me...
952
« on: October 15, 2018, 12:55 »
What are "ODD"s, "SOD"s, & subs? Also - I didn't know you could upload clip packs to ss? So... thinking of uploading to shutterstock...
Then took a look at a few numbers, did some math, and then noticed a few posts talking about 'spammy' portfolios (i.e., 1000 pictures of a pair of shoes, from 0-360 degrees in 0.3 degree increments, etc)...
If my math is correct, it seems on 'average' right now you'd need to have a portfolio size of about 10,000 images to 'make' about $600/year? Does that sound right? (Of course, I realize there would be outliers on both sides), but that seems to the case?
Any agreements/disagreements?
No.
I have less than 10,000 and even if I took a below average daily stats I would be well over that....in a month. Today, for example, I currently have $211.68. A mix of large clip packs, Enhanced, ODDs and SODs plus Subs.
I'd put good money on my earnings being no where near the top and certainly not an outlier.
953
« on: October 13, 2018, 21:55 »
True... but, don't people simply type something in the shutterstock search engine like "boat", and if 80,000 images of one profile boat pop's up - they are just going to go with it because they don't have the time to figure out that on page 123 (or whatever) that there are new pictures of boats? Okay, interesting.
Have you found the portfolios that 'spam' certain types of content (i.e., say 40,000+ images of a boat, or 15,000+ images of a piece of furniture) have affected discoverability of some of your items? Or somehow you still seem to perform well in spite of that?
tbh, those portfolios are hurting themselves even. Nobody in the middle of a project with a deadline wants to scan through thousands of incredibly similar images. I'm sure, like me, they search ... grab the one that will work, and proceed with their work.
954
« on: October 13, 2018, 13:03 »
I think it's a combination of things.
a) Trends.
b) Novelty.
c) Competition.
d) Other (newer) types of demands.
So. Maybe you had some new 'fresh' content, but now nobody cares. Or maybe it was trendy (i.e., say weddings in july) - but no one cares about that going into december. Or. Maybe you have a new competitor spamming 20,000 of what you have. Or. Maybe people want the 'newer' stuff (maybe yours is HD, and now 4K or VR is in demand).
955
« on: October 13, 2018, 08:30 »
Okay, interesting.
Have you found the portfolios that 'spam' certain types of content (i.e., say 40,000+ images of a boat, or 15,000+ images of a piece of furniture) have affected discoverability of some of your items? Or somehow you still seem to perform well in spite of that?
956
« on: October 12, 2018, 23:58 »
So... thinking of uploading to shutterstock...
Then took a look at a few numbers, did some math, and then noticed a few posts talking about 'spammy' portfolios (i.e., 1000 pictures of a pair of shoes, from 0-360 degrees in 0.3 degree increments, etc)...
If my math is correct, it seems on 'average' right now you'd need to have a portfolio size of about 10,000 images to 'make' about $600/year? Does that sound right? (Of course, I realize there would be outliers on both sides), but that seems to the case?
Any agreements/disagreements?
958
« on: September 21, 2018, 14:05 »
Just recently started on shutterstock, a couple questions:
a) Is there a way to easily view your 'video' portfolio? It seems they have something for images, but nothing for video.
b) Uploaded some videos last month, didn't get around to tagging/keywording them now - but noticed I can't find them. Does shutterstock have a timeframe that you need to keyword/tag/submit your videos/images/etc or they just automatically delete them?
Thanks!
959
« on: September 21, 2018, 08:25 »
they expect to earn with mediocre content and talent....i read that thread and browse some portfolio...that marbury has one of the useless portfolio in micro stock...2000 snapshot taken when taking out the dog to make pipi...and he complaints complaints...what . he expect is out of my mind...i would be surprised if he earns more than 30 dollar nowadays....then when somebody asked him why h not do commercial he said he want do only street and editorial...those are not street or editorial those are snapshot a teen of 5 years can take. those people want free lunch but free lunch in micro is finished long time ago.
lol! that is incredibly funny! do you have a portfolio link? I'm sure probably somewhere, someone in the world would "love" that content, so his problem is finding those 1-2 people that would pay for it 
960
« on: September 20, 2018, 21:34 »
Probably for maximum cellphone/mobile compatibility. You 'may' have a better phone, but chances are they want it to work on as many cellphones as possible, so going with the lower fps is good for them.
961
« on: September 20, 2018, 10:45 »
Aside from VB/SB taking 50% of commissions now (from as far as I can tell no additional marketing effort) - I have noticed they have gotten *extremely* picky on new content they are accepting. (And sometimes the reasons aren't really legitimate - i.e., you might have a shot where it makes sense to have it slightly defocused - i.e., artistic merit - but instead, it's like they are just going down a checklist, and if there is any blur, an automatic rejection).
While of course I make sure I have good video footage, just surprised at % of rejections now.
Has anyone else noticed the same thing? (Also, I haven't yet noticed any increase in sales, if anything, a slightly decrease. Not that I was getting that much from them to start with, just...)
962
« on: September 19, 2018, 23:27 »
What I don't get is... how did they get access to the "full" (non-watermarked) images in the first place?
963
« on: September 19, 2018, 10:14 »
Unless you are sitting on an untapped resource of excellent images I think anyone now to go from a standing start to becoming a full time "microstocker" would take enormous talent and effort. Better to label yourself a "professional" photographer and cast the net wider I think. From what I've seen if you have the personality for it teaching people to use their cameras is a far more lucrative activity.
Yes, I agree.
While I am relatively new to microstocking (i.e., only 1-2 years) - I have had to "work" really hard to get any kind of income started from it. It at times can kind of be a bit of a grind (keywording, titling, uploading, getting over rejections, taking new pics/videos/etc) - but - I think since it is 'fun' (at least the taking photos/videos/etc part) - keeps me going. There's also the quantity, quality, uniqueness, supply/demand/etc aspects of it which factor into your sales.
I think it would be fantastic to have more than a full-time income from this. But, it will take a bit of work, and I am having a bit of fun along the way.
Yes if you are enjoying it then fine. That's what I can't get about some of the more negative posters on here....a lesson I learnt maybe a bit late in life is if you are doing something that doesn't make you happy stop doing it ;-).
Lol. Yeah. I think I get where they are coming from though. Probably when they started they did hustle a bit, maybe it was easier then too, and they were making say $5-$10k/month - and got 'used' to the income... Now that there is so much more competition,etc rather than update their skills/adapt (which seems to be a necessity), they are upset about 'income lost'. (I totally get it, I think I've been like that before too. Had some nice income from other stuff, and when it decreased, wasn't too happy about that). But it seems basically - while you might be able to take a bit of a break and still make income (as opposed to a job where if you stop working, you don't get paid) - you still have to keep learning/adapting/creating/etc to help nuture your future income.
964
« on: September 19, 2018, 09:57 »
Unless you are sitting on an untapped resource of excellent images I think anyone now to go from a standing start to becoming a full time "microstocker" would take enormous talent and effort. Better to label yourself a "professional" photographer and cast the net wider I think. From what I've seen if you have the personality for it teaching people to use their cameras is a far more lucrative activity.
Yes, I agree. While I am relatively new to microstocking (i.e., only 1-2 years) - I have had to "work" really hard to get any kind of income started from it. It at times can kind of be a bit of a grind (keywording, titling, uploading, getting over rejections, taking new pics/videos/etc) - but - I think since it is 'fun' (at least the taking photos/videos/etc part) - keeps me going. There's also the quantity, quality, uniqueness, supply/demand/etc aspects of it which factor into your sales. I think it would be fantastic to have more than a full-time income from this. But, it will take a bit of work, and I am having a bit of fun along the way.
965
« on: September 19, 2018, 09:24 »
thats my question. If you make money selling photos and videos on microstock tell us your secret, can I spend my full time to upload all my stock? worth it to leave my current job? tell your secret!
Enviado desde mi BND-L21 mediante Tapatalk
The secret is a four letter word. Starts with "W". Ends with "K". And in between, contains the letters "OR".
966
« on: September 18, 2018, 17:18 »
PPS.
Also, think of it this way. If someone only "took a picture" of "your" picture on the t-shirt, (nothing else, except for your picture that was on the t-shirt), but it was "their" picture that they took - and they then decided to print t-shirts with a picture of "your" picture on it - would you be upset? Or would you be happy with it - because it was "their" picture they took of your picture?
967
« on: September 18, 2018, 16:53 »
I think it depends. If the subject matter appears to be of a particular company (lets say you got a coca cola truck where the entire image is the red coca cola truck with the logo very visible), then yes, I think you would have an issue. (It would seem like you were selling 'coca-cola' t-shirts). And if coca cola saw that, and happened to defend their trademark, then yes, you'd have an issue.
If, however you say have a landscape picture, and a coca-cola truck happens to be in the picture, albeit very small (i.e., maybe 1/20th of the image), and you have a whole bunch of other buildings, then that is an entire different thing, because the subject matter is of a 'landscape' photo.
968
« on: September 18, 2018, 08:37 »
I took one look at their upload interface and said nope.
inteface has changed (very easy), but now they've blocked 'new' people from uploading...
969
« on: September 18, 2018, 08:07 »
So...
People that are established on envato are probably pretty happy. Reduced competition with the new uploading process. But it seems envato has been doing that for the past year (from deleting 100's of items on the queue with their old cumbersome interface, to a 'six month' waiting time (which, of course would probably be extended seeing as how they do business).
Any comments on what to do if you've been blocked from uploading?
970
« on: September 10, 2018, 10:14 »
If it is a small fee *per sale*, sure, why not? (I am thinking you mean a small % of the sale?) If so, yes, I would go for that.
971
« on: September 07, 2018, 14:05 »
If you have lots of time, OR, believe it will generate sales, go for it. Otherwise, I'd move on, because it's pretty time consuming.
BTW, I admit I like the second one better. The deer is more the focus/subject of the picture.
972
« on: September 06, 2018, 22:30 »
I'm impresed. I have 0 sales @ alamy.
19 is good.
973
« on: September 02, 2018, 21:17 »
No sales as of yet from them. Large portfolio too (2500+ videos).
However, got several e-mails from them promoting their membership package.
974
« on: August 31, 2018, 22:21 »
Sent you a PM. Bottomline though - it really comes down to sales. If you can figure out how to make people *profitable sales* (and lots of them), then you'll have a winner. Very good considerations SuperPhoto.
There's definitely pros on cons about being self-hosted. And in terms of sales it will never be anywhere near as what you can achieve with the help of stock agencies. But I do see it as an interesting alternative to the stock agencies for people who have a certain size of portfolio. Some of the interesting aspects:
- 100% commissions
- Options to sell different licenses (exclusive licenses, TIFF files, RAW files, graded / ungraded video)
- More control to present your portfolio the way you want
- Get to know you customers
If you don't mind SuperPhoto it could be interesting chatting a bit more. Can I get your email?
Took a look at your survey.
I think I know what type of project you want to put together (if it's what I think it is, I was thinking of doing the same thing a while back).
Creating a site where you charge a fee to host files (photos/videos) is kind of a good idea - but I think you have a limited market.
The issue I think most photographers/videographers have is they don't know how to market themselves to generate sales - so unless you solve that problem, I don't think charging a subscription fee for photographers/videographers to host their own files will be that appealing. Simply because they don't know how to market it (even though you'll probably promote it that way). So what's the point of *paying* someone to host files for something they already get to do for *free* (portfolios on other sites). Yes, yes - you can say "no agency commission!" - but then the challenge is marketing and making SALES. And most don't really know how to do that on their own. They are photographers/videographers, not marketers.
So the thought process would be 'why should I PAY you money to host, with no sales if I have to do ALL the work in marketing TOO'? And they probably wouldn't buy.
BTW - re: income - do you generate $40,000 USD per month through photography? You had that in your survey question.
My educated guess is there is maybe 1% that do above $5k/month - but - they'd probably be happy with how they are doing things already (letting the agencies promote), so wouldn't really be interested in such a service. Then, maybe 10% that do $1-$2k/month - but again, too much work to promote themselves. And then probably 75% doing from $100-$500/month - but then your service would probably be too expensive (assuming you'd be charging between $30-$50/month) - AND - reaching those people and converting them I think would be a challenge. Unless you have some 'in' (relationship with an agency) - or - some way of reaching that vast majority of photographers/videographers - OR - figuring out how to make them SALES - I think you have a bit of a challenge before you.
975
« on: August 31, 2018, 21:03 »
Huh, interesting.
How did they get the images in the first place, wouldn't they have had to have 'purchased' them?
Pages: 1 ... 34 35 36 37 38 [39] 40 41 42 43 44 ... 47
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
