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 - Perry

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 57
1
So, opting out from distributor sales is the thing now? :( Is there any agency that understand it's the contributors who makes the images?

2
However there are lots of people that already have invested in the equipment for other reasons than stock (for example shooting videos for clients or some narrative projects etc.). It doesn't cost them even a bit to grab their Red or Ursa mini etc. since they already have it.

I think you already can figure it out why 99% of stock suppliers don't shoot on Arri or Red. Those mentioned subscription sites pay a video a dime, so contributors go for 1-3k equipment, not camera plus lenses that costs 20k+ Same with aerial footage. Drones shots are done with a mavic pro 2 at best. You rarely find footage shoot on Inspire 2 or above. It does exists but it is really a minority as income would not cover expenses.

I shoot with Blackmagic 4k as it gives nice quality with good Dynamic Range and excellent codecs but again it is a 1300$ camera. I would not dare at the present times to plunge heavy on camera equipment when clips are paid in single or two digits now, or even less when you are talking about subs.

Of course it means. You don't get the same look from a gopro as from an Alexa. (And my main point was still about shooting skills)
There are some DSLRs that are "okay", and many more mirrorless ones, but he didn't mention those.

I have downloaded some stock videos that have been just too bad quality, luckily they were on a subscription based site so no financial damage was done.

Pro level video and cinema cameras mean nothing nowadays. Today cameras are good enough for stock footage by a large margin. It is the right subject and style what matters the most and not if you shoot with an Arri Alexa or a Panasonic Gh5.

I'm not trying to put you down, but learn how to shoot high quality video first. It's not about "Gopro or DSLR", even tho the competition you are facing are using pro level video and cinema cameras.

3
IF the clip would be selling at the same speed, It would take you 15 years to sell the clip for $3000.
In real life it won't be selling for 15 years.

I'd grab the money and run! :)

4
Of course it means. You don't get the same look from a gopro as from an Alexa. (And my main point was still about shooting skills)
There are some DSLRs that are "okay", and many more mirrorless ones, but he didn't mention those.

I have downloaded some stock videos that have been just too bad quality, luckily they were on a subscription based site so no financial damage was done.

Pro level video and cinema cameras mean nothing nowadays. Today cameras are good enough for stock footage by a large margin. It is the right subject and style what matters the most and not if you shoot with an Arri Alexa or a Panasonic Gh5.

I'm not trying to put you down, but learn how to shoot high quality video first. It's not about "Gopro or DSLR", even tho the competition you are facing are using pro level video and cinema cameras.

5
I'm not trying to put you down, but learn how to shoot high quality video first. It's not about "Gopro or DSLR", even tho the competition you are facing are using pro level video and cinema cameras.

6
Alamy.com / Re: Anyone still getting big sales on Alamy?
« on: November 26, 2020, 06:28 »
Define a "big sale"?

I got a couple of $150 RF sales a couple of weeks ago, but that's an exception.

7
Shutterstock.com / Why are my images still selling?
« on: June 19, 2020, 04:00 »
I deactivated my portfolio in the end of May, but I noticed a couple of my images had been sold 19/06/2020 ($7.80). Why? What?

8
If the thumbnails are still showing on shutterstock's site, wonder if we should make DMCA Takedowns for each image? :D

9
Shutterstock.com / Re: Database total :did you notice ?
« on: June 05, 2020, 08:52 »
It was close to 326,5 millons a week a go. Despite thousands of images added every day, whole archive is around 2,5 millions less now. I guess around 3 million assets disabled in one week on image side.

I'm dreaming about this to continue for 2 years at the same pace. What a lovely dream :)

10
Shutterstock.com / Re: Database total :did you notice ?
« on: June 05, 2020, 08:38 »
They could easily be manipulating numbers to keep the contributors calm(-er). It would not surprise me a bit if they did it.

11
Shutterstock.com / Re: June so far
« on: June 01, 2020, 09:33 »
People here waiting for the new scheme to take effect... why? Why haven't you disabled your portfolio alredy, nothing good will follow of this.

Maybe because at this point in time, some people simply cant afford to lose hundreds or thousands of dollars just to make a point...

I do hear and understand that. It was a tough decision, I have earned about $100,000 Shutterstock (which have probably earned THEM half a million). But the line has to be drawn somewhere, and now they went too far, I had to stand behind my principles.

12
Shutterstock.com / Re: June so far
« on: June 01, 2020, 08:37 »
People here waiting for the new scheme to take effect... why? Why haven't you disabled your portfolio alredy, nothing good will follow of this.

13
I just clicked the box (I have only photos) hoping I'm out June 1.

4000 images, about $100,000 of lifetime earnings in 12 or 13 years. Makes me sad, but this is for the better. I did like Shuttertock, but now the feeling is gone... breaks my heart. I really hope a lot of contributors will do this, it would send SS and other agencies a signal. And if the buyers move somewhere like Adobe Stock or Alamy I wouldn't mind a bit.

Lately I have made only about $250 to $300 per month there (at best I used to make over $1,000 per month), after the new royalties I would most likely make just a $100 per month, so it's not that big of a deal to give that up.

I do leave the back door open, if people report the same earnings (or more! not likely!) I will return.

14
Remember, if you are making $100 month on SS, by disabling your portfolio won't make your earnings go down by $100, but more likely $30 since you won't be earning nowhere close to $100 after June 1.

15
Shutterstock.com / Re: Shutterstock just became iStock 2.0
« on: May 27, 2020, 16:22 »
Has anyone tried to untick the image licensing box? And later reticking it? Does the images get back on sale, with the same placement in searches etc.?

Just thinking about unticking the box June 1, but leaving the back door open...

16
Shutterstock.com / Re: Shutterstock just became iStock 2.0
« on: May 27, 2020, 06:35 »
Before you blow up the whole shutterstock, please consider that they have changed the whole pricing structures for customers, so now you can not say anything about how your income will look like after the changes they want to introduce.
Subscription plan is divided now into 4 new categories, and nobody of us knows a crap how those categories work.
And the same with 'on demand' section. Not mention other.
Check this out:

https://www.shutterstock.com/pricing


One thing is for sure: contributors with little portfolios of hundreds of pictures who have been earning just a little will be getting still less because of the new system.

It's not that hard. The largest one (750 images per month) is 0,21 per image, everyone is going to earn $0,10 per download. If someone downloads only 200 images a certain month, they will pay photographers $20 and put $130+ in their own pocket.

17
Shutterstock.com / Re: Shutterstock just became iStock 2.0
« on: May 27, 2020, 06:32 »
What we need to do is campaign in this fashion: Every customer of SS should download all their monthly quota of images in the last day(s) of every month -> more money for contributors, less for SS.

18
Yaymicro / Re: open file for a complaint against Yay micro
« on: November 28, 2019, 09:09 »
So.... but if the images are on sale on alamy, and they sell... where does the money go? Yayimages.com? (I seem to not have an account there...)

19
New Sites - General / Re: EyeEM Earnings
« on: August 19, 2019, 06:59 »
I'll hijack this old thread to ask a question:

My earnings page says:
I have $321.50 of earnings, "Ready for payout"

Underneath it says:
Total Earnings: $ 6.27 + $ 321.50

What is that $6.27?

20
Microstock Audio / Re: No mono?
« on: November 25, 2018, 17:57 »
Record in mono, then publish a stereo file (L/R)

Thanks, I'll propably try that.

21
Microstock Audio / No mono?
« on: November 23, 2018, 08:21 »
I have never submitted sound effects to any of the sites. I read the file requirements to Pond5 and AudioJungle, but both said they do not accept mono files. That is really odd, because foley artists etc. many times record everything in mono.

So, do I really have to record sound effects in stereo, or should I just fake it by converting to stereo (with a possible effect that makes the channels a bit different)?

22
Newbie Discussion / Re: Anyone Use Blackbox?
« on: August 15, 2018, 07:18 »
When I heard about BB and what it offers I was 100% against it. Why? Simple. Pay the staff you hired and if things go well, you'll hire them again. Splitting income is a bad longterm idea. You invest a lot of own resources, time, equipment, post-processing and time to get profitable results. If you cut all incomes with all the actors and other stuff, you'll never return your own investment. Never.

I think it's much more risk to pay someone without knowing if the clips will sell at all... it all depends how you look at it.

23
General - Stock Video / Re: h264 vs Photo JPEG
« on: August 31, 2017, 02:51 »
This depends also on the source format.

24
Very interesting... I have seen my sales sink this year... it doesn't make this less painful, but it all makes sense now.

25
General Stock Discussion / Re: Wood grain
« on: February 15, 2017, 02:23 »
Paper grain is also not digital noise, some reviewers doesn't know that either.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 57

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle