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] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 72
Pond5 / Re: Pricing multi agency appearing clips
« on: Yesterday at 10:50 »
there is a limit at $150 in P5 frontpage due to the price slider.
Changed prices and left some days for cache to refresh or whatever and no 4L clip was shown...
So, guess, $149 is the top limit currently in order for videos to be seen...

P5 blog suggest even lower price range. pffff...


The limit is $150+, not $150. :)

So, infinity. Not saying infinity is the right price, but clips priced over $150 are very much shown.

Pond5 / Re: Hyperstock
« on: February 19, 2020, 05:43 »
And of course they also havent announced how much every download will earn....

Since you cannot know how many downloads there will be, or how many subscribers there will be, in any given month, quite naturally, you cannot say how much one download will earn.

An educated GUESS is that it will be from $0.01-0.50, likely closer to $0.01 than $0.50. It could also be less than $0.01.

If you need $ per download numbers to be high, an unlimited subscription site is not for you.

They are selling my 4k clips more than 20% lower than the price I set.  what are they doing?

Pond5 is actually SELLING?

I actually had my best payout ever (for footage since 2015) this month, just beating Dec 2019. Admittedly, P5 has never been in the top for me, but getting closer to a $1/per clip/per month average.

Of course P5 is selling, or they would have closed down a long time ago. And of course many individuals are experiencing a steep drop due to increased competition etc.

My other media is also selling well this month, although not close to the all-time high. Definitely better than the fall months, though.

No doubt that the company as a whole has been struggling this last year, and the changes are a reaction to that, not the cause. We will see.

Pond5 / Re: Poll: Pond5 exclusive (dropped excl. option added)
« on: February 18, 2020, 07:34 »
I understand what you are saying all I am stating is the it is not dollar  for dollar 50% more as I have the sales to prove it.

No, your sales prove that creating a new account with mostly a different portfolio with new clips with 0 sales (= bad search placement), with a large part consisting of animated still images didn't produce the sales you had expected.

If you had had a non-ex deal on that same account with those same clips, uploaded at the same time with the same prices, you would only have earned 67% of what you actually earned.

When you make business decisions you base them off of actual math, not what you know happened in the future...


Since I make several hundred percent to 1,000%+ more from the other sites (and always have), a 50% bigger cut was not enough for me. Of course going ex COULD have resulted in amazing promotion and customers flocking to $1,000 clips and I would have been wrong. In this case, I wasn't, but I didn't base my decision on that.

Pond5 / Re: Poll: Pond5 exclusive (dropped excl. option added)
« on: February 18, 2020, 07:05 »
Only doing the % math not the earnings, I have sold a lot of exclusive files and it is not 50%  earnings difference, I can post that.

A 60% cut is 50% more than a 40% cut.

"% math" and "earnings math" follow each other 100%.

This is extremely important.

Pond5 / Re: Poll: Pond5 exclusive (dropped excl. option added)
« on: February 18, 2020, 06:47 »
Sorry Non-Exclusive =40%   Exclusive +60% that is a 20% difference.

No, it is not.

That is a 50% difference.

Price: $100
Ex: You get $60.
Non-ex: You get $40.

$60 is 50% more than $40.


If you get $2,000 as non-ex, you get $3,000 as ex for the same sales. 50% more.


It is very important to get the math right when making business decisions.

Pond5 / Re: Poll: Pond5 exclusive (dropped excl. option added)
« on: February 18, 2020, 06:19 »


You make 50% more on an exclusive sale at the same price as a non-exclusive sale.

Not really a drone question, but what is your take on the shutter speed for video? I know about the rule to use 2 x the frame rate and I have been trying to do that using ND filters. However, when the drone is out in the sky, and I want to take a still photo, I am limited to the same "slow" shutter speed unless I up the ISO, which I don't want to do. So getting a clear sharp photo seems to clash with the desire to have smooth video. A friend suggested that unless there was a lot of motion in the clip, then not using the ND filter would be fine for video even if the shutter was considerably faster than the norm - ie about 1/320th second


In my opinion, this isn't much of a problem anymore since the Mavic 2 Pro has an adjustable aperture. It was more of an issue with the older drones that had a fixed aperture.

Where are you filming? Unless it's VERY bright, I seldom need more than an ND4 filter, and you can stop down when filming, and open up when taking pictures.

Furthermore, since the drone has a gimbal, a 1/50 shutter will most often produce very good results. I feel that most of the motion comes from the drone, so while taking pictures, keep it still.

In my opinion, using a 1/50 shutter looks much more professional, and if things aren't moving when you're out filming with your drone, I'd say you might not be filming very interesting stuff. ;)

Even if you had to use a 1/50 shutter for photos, do you really find that to be too slow for a wideangle lens on a gimbal that is usually far away from the subject?

Of course, there is no perfect answer. Personally, I've always had more problems with too little motion blur for video, than too much for photos. :)

Shutterstock.com / Re: Is this January especially low for you?
« on: January 29, 2020, 08:34 »
That is good to hear. Then it would be interesting if they would allow all artist to opt in content of their choice to the pond5 subs plan.

Well, I see artists reporting lower membership revenue than before the change, so I don't know if it's necessarily "good". :)

Anyway, you're a bit late to the party, since next month all membership content will automatically go to the new, this time unlimited, subscription site.

I don't know if they will keep the current membership plan as is, or if the new site will simply replace it. Time will tell.

Shutterstock.com / Re: Is this January especially low for you?
« on: January 28, 2020, 14:27 »
Perhaps that has changed, I dont know. But at least when it came out it was a we rent it for a low fixed price thing.

Yes, this has indeed changed. But you are right, it used to be a low guaranteed return. Not anymore.

See my post above for current numbers, and download number estimates.

Shutterstock.com / Re: Is this January especially low for you?
« on: January 27, 2020, 07:27 »
And pond5 also has a subs program with over 400 000 files, but unlike Getty, artists never know the sales volume or for how low they sell.


$19.90 per clip if you have a monthly membership. Contributor gets 40-60% of that.

$8.32 per clip if you have an annual membership.

But, as you say, we have no way of knowing what the custom deals are.

But an estimated guess would be an average buyer price of $10-15 per download (let's say $12.50), so if you make $100, you probably had around 20 downloads if you're non-exclusive.

General - Stock Video / Re: Should I submit or not?
« on: January 22, 2020, 09:22 »
No it was like a rendering glitch I had in CS6. It would just glitch out a random frame every now and then. A lot of my stock work from around 2011 must have a random frame sometimes in the clip as it was a good half year before I realized  ::)

I see, but at least since CC 2015 those problems have been fixed. Never had a frame issue like this in After Effects.

On the other hand, Final Cut Pro X does have a bug similar to the one you're describing. It happens if you drop 25p footage on a 24p/23.976p timeline, and choose to retime automatically, which should make it play back at 96% of the speed. It says it does, but you will find duplicate frames.

Interestingly, if you DON'T retime the 25p footage in the 24p timeline, it plays back just fine without duplicate frames!

Any other combination seems to work fine (30 to 24, 25, or 24 to 30 etc.).

General - Stock Video / Re: Should I submit or not?
« on: January 22, 2020, 09:17 »
Any solutions? Should I delete the software and reinstall it?

Yes, but don't reinstall it. It's clear that it doesn't work the way you need it to, and my advice is once again to use REAL professional software if you want professional results. :)

Download a trial of After Effects and see if that works.

General - Stock Video / Re: Should I submit or not?
« on: January 20, 2020, 11:55 »
Mate I've been exporting frame rates for years.
make sure you are keeping the original frame rate or you will get frame blending

So was that another bug then? Just curious, as frame blending usually doesn't magically appear unless you're pressing the wrong buttons (or the right buttons if you WANT frame blending of course). :) Could be interlaced video issues, but that hasn't been relevant in 10 years...

Anyway, today, in After Effects 2020, frames aren't duplicated or blended unless you want them to.

3rd party software meaning video convertors and not editing software like Premiere or FCPX etc.

Well, that's not what 3rd party software means...

General - Stock Video / Re: Should I submit or not?
« on: January 20, 2020, 09:10 »
Though the frame rate was 23.something fps (can't recall exactly) and I converted that to 24fps. The reason I did that is because the camera's frame rate is not in the list of SS' accepted frame rates.


That is accepted by all agencies, and used in many professional productions. You might have seen "23.98" in that list, which is just a lazy way of writing 23.976. :) You don't have to convert anything.

General - Stock Video / Re: Should I submit or not?
« on: January 20, 2020, 08:57 »
If the clip runs smoothly on your computer then it should be OK. Years ago any renders I did using After Effects I would get a glitchy one frame duplication that made the clip twitch. You could go through the clip and make sure each frame is OK?
I would just say be careful when down converting from 4Kto HD using 3rd party software. There are different sizes in 4K so you may get letterboxing on the HD clip (black bars on the top and bottom). Also make sure you are keeping the original frame rate or you will get frame blending or it could look choppy when playing back.

Are you on a PC or MAC?

None of these issues are, well, issues, if you know what you're doing. All software is "3rd party software" unless you use the camera manufacturer's own, which no one does (well, Blackmagic users might). ;)

If you want to change the frame rate in After Effects, just choose "Interpret Footage" and set it to whatever you want. If you don't want to change it, just create a new comp from the clip and the original settings are kept.

You don't get frame blending unless you tell AE to blend frames. And you don't get duplicate frames unless you drop a clip with a different frame rate into an already created comp with another frame rate. Or if you change the speed.

To the OP:

Your old computer can render 4k footage just fine - it just takes longer! Work with proxies if you're having playback problems.

My opinion is that you should use good commercial software if you want to get consistent results. That means After Effects, Premiere, Final Cut, or DaVinci Resolve.

My opinion only. :)

what are they doing?

They are selling your 4k clips more than 20% lower than the price you set.

Like I said, it's worth more to have lots of free advertising being produced than going after the licenses of the advertisers.

The reason behind verifying would of course be that they thought that a significant part of the users did not have a license. Enforcing it would then force part of that theoretically large number of producers to focus on something else. More likely would be offering free licenses to content producers, something they are already doing!

Of course, they COULD enforce it, especially at places like Pond5, where sellers must upload official identification. Evidently, they do not think it's worth it.

It would be highly beneficial

...and 1,000 times more beneficial to have hundreds of thousands of templates produced to keep the ecosystem dominant.

So, no, they won't do it.

Shutterstock.com / Re: Shutterstock Footage Rejections
« on: January 10, 2020, 08:40 »
What am I missing?   :)

Well, I think the obvious thing is that you're not using a real camera to film with... ;)

But if you must use your phone, find an app (like Filmic Pro) that lets you change the bitrate first of all. The standard bitrates are set to conserve space for personal videos, not for professional quality.

And due to the tiny sensor, noise will be an issue in anything but perfect conditions. You might also get rejections for the "strobe" effect, which will occur in bright conditions with lots of movement due to the fast shutter speed (that should ideally always be 1/48-1/60 unless you're doing slow motion). Since you can't change the aperture, this will be a problem.

General - Stock Video / Re: How to make videos?
« on: December 22, 2019, 10:14 »
No worries!

By the way, I now see that the D800 is not a 4k camera, which unfortunately complicates things a bit regarding choice...

I don't have experience with any of your cameras, so it's hard to tell if the iPhone 11 might actually look better than the D800 regarding video, but it's not impossible. I don't know, you will have to test them side by side and judge for yourself. As far as I know, you cannot change the aperture on the iPhone, which means you will HAVE to use shutter speeds that don't look professional (same with the GoPro actually). It might still work.

The bitrate becomes very important, and the default settings on phones are generally too low for real use. There are, however, apps that will let you choose a higher bitrate (such as Filmic Pro, and others) on the iPhone, to retain more quality.

The GoPro 7 might be a good choice for shots with movement, even if the bitrate is on the low side on that camera too, which will result in ugly blocking in complicated scenes.

No crystal clear answer here I'm afraid... If the D800 had 4k it would be, but not now. For timelapses, the D800 is an excellent choice.

General - Stock Video / Re: How to make videos?
« on: December 22, 2019, 05:07 »
Oh my, that's a big question!

Here's my take on it.

Let's start with YouTube and vlogging: "The money is infinitely better on YouTube" is only true for very, very few people. For most, I would say it's much worse.

Filming stock footage (B-roll) and a (successful) vlog (A-roll + B-roll) are two VERY, VERY different things. With a vlog, you're selling yourself, your personality, along with a big story. With stock footage, you're selling a very small story, or no story at all, to be used by someone else in their big story as a small component.

A successful vlog likely means working 24/7 for a year before seeing any meaningful income, and that's only if you're very good and a bit lucky. You have to constantly produce good content, AT LEAST weekly. That's making a mini movie every week. It's not easy.

Vlogging, however, can mean less focus on the technical details, since a perfectly successul vlog can be made with a shaky cellphone, IF the story is good, and your personality is interesting to people.

When you film stock footage, your goal is to film something that the buyer (which could be a vlogger) can't film themselves, usually meaning higher technical quality and interesting locations.


There is no shortage of things to film in Australia and New Zealand. It's endless. Cityscapes, deserts, people, ANYTHING can be interesting and commercially successful. Maybe the aftermath of the recent fires? A timelapse of the Sydney skyline? A koala resting in a tree? Roadkill (plenty of that in Australia)? Business people walking to work in the CBD?



If you're ONLY going to vlog, simple cameras will be enough, but if you want to seriously sell stock footage, I would try to get the highest quality possible (tripod + D800 will do that).

Simple guidelines for (stock) video that are a bit different from still photography:

Everything manual - white balance, shutter speed, aperture, ISO.
Pick a frame rate! It does not matter that much, but MY preference is 23,976 fps (or 24p) since it's universal. Your shutter speed should then ideally be set to 1/50 (or 1/48 if possible, which it usually isn't).

That means that the shutter speed, ideally, will be fixed, and exposure is controlled by aperture and ISO. You will quickly notice that this makes it impossible to film during bright days, and if you don't have an ND filter, you will HAVE to use a faster shutter. It's not the end of the world, but it looks less professional.

If you're filming for a vlog only, on the other hand, you can worry less about the settings and more about the story. If the story is interesting, not many will care that your camera was set to AUTO everything with fast shutter speeds and changing exposure.

Again, filming for stock and a vlog can be two VERY different things.


Anyway, as for subject matter to search for, see any of the above! "Cinematic settings for my D800 for example" will give you a bunch of people telling you about shutter speeds, low contrast settings, etc.

The best thing is to start filming a lot before you go, to make many of the mistakes you will make before it really matters.

General - Stock Video / Re: Wildlife stock footage opportunity
« on: November 30, 2019, 13:56 »
mmm So thats $4-5K per month? That would be assuming that you resell your 1000 clips every month, but I feel Im assuming wrong. Can you clarify this for me?

Well, I said LESS than 1,000 clips so not quite that much. :)

But the average $4-5 per clip per month is just that - the average, which means some clips may earn $0, and others $100.

To me, this is the most useful metric when comparing, and whatever costs you may have is up to you to add. For someone living in NYC, a clip worth $10k might cost a short walk, while it would be a lot more expensive for someone living in Zadar.

You should know that the $4-5/clip/month is a HIGH number, and most people don't make nearly that much. And you probably won't either the first 1-2 years.

That is because I:

Don't upload a thousand similars, only 1-3 of the best clips of a subject/location.
Spend A LOT of time on the metadata - which should be different for each site. You HAVE to know and use each search engine to your advantage.
Have some unique clips that generally can't be filmed - they are "Photoshopped" (but in After Effects).
Have CONTROL over my clips - do not go exclusive or use services like BlackBox if you want to maximize earnings.

Most people are very lazy when it comes to the "boring" side of stock, which is the metadata, SEO, editing, adapting to new markets, etc., anything except for actually filming. That means they probably lose thousands of dollars.

Some people just upload directly from their memory cards, write a few lazy descriptions (often very bad) that they copy/paste to 30 clips, upload 50 slightly different variations of the same clip and then complain when they have 5 sales from 20,000 clips...


Also, if you really want to sell a lot of clips, you need subjects that are likely to sell over and over, and over, and over again. If you only have very specific clips, of an animal few normal people even know exists, you will probably only see 1-2 lifetime sales. On the other hand, a roaring lion is universally known and needed all the time.

This is also connected to tagging. If you have a clip of an alpaca that people only find if they specifically search for "alpaca", you might see a few sales. But if people also find that clip when they search for "travel in South America", you will sell a lot more.

General - Stock Video / Re: Wildlife stock footage opportunity
« on: November 29, 2019, 14:54 »
So what I would like to ask you then is how many clips you have on your portfolio? And how many downloads you had the last month, lets say, for not only wildlife footage? I dont want to be annoying though, so feel free to skip this if you prefer.

Without going into too much detail, I have less than 1,000 clips, quite a bit less on most of the sites where I never uploaded my "beginner" shots that weren't too great.

I get around $4-5 per clip, per month, from that portfolio from all income sources combined. A bit more than 50% of my clips are related to nature (wildlife, landscapes, nature close-ups etc.). The sales coming from nature footage are also around that number (40-60%). I have pretty much no people footage.

I make a good living from stock (in any country), but most of my income comes from other assets, and my stock footage income alone wouldn't be enough to live comfortably where I live right now, although it would certainly be more than enough in cheap countries. Some months of the year I dedicate to travel/filming/uploading footage, and some months to other stuff like 3D animation and music.

If I were to focus 100% of my time on stock footage only, I'm certain I would be able to live well from that.


You seem to know what you're doing, and I'm sure you'll end up with better clips than I have. Most of my wildlife shots are quite easy shots, as I've never spent weeks in hides or anything like that. I wish I had more cool scenes, but that takes a lot of time and dedication of course. And I don't have any RED cameras, C100s or Arri Alexas in my hiking backpack. As you say, to sell to BBC, you would probably have to have certain equipment, but I agree that even they buy stock footage for their films, at least of the surroundings (like aerials with certain weather conditions the film teams weren't lucky to get).


Make the most of your time. I assume that 90%+ will be waiting time, so capture time lapses, close-ups of insects, leaves, aerials of the surroundings, etc.


I would really love to be able to film harpy eagles! That is really, really cool!

General - Stock Video / Re: Wildlife stock footage opportunity
« on: November 28, 2019, 14:17 »
Its a pristine undisturbed place to see a loooot of wildlife

This truly sounds great!

Of course, what you're asking is the classic impossible-to-answer "how many clips do I need to make this?" question... It's fun to discuss, but in the end, numbers from other people will mean absolutely nothing. Someone with a 1,000 wildlife clips might sell 0 per month, and another with 50 good ones (as in USABLE) might sell 50.

Anyway, because I love wildlife, and it sounds like a great opportunity, I think you should do it, but I'm not making any promises regarding $$$...

Here are some of my recent stats, just for fun:

Pond5 Oct sales: 18.
Wildlife: 7.
Percentage of sales that were of wildlife: 39%.
Percentage of wildlife clips in my portfolio: around 25%.

Same stats for November: only 1 out of 18 sales was related to animals.


At another site, 4 out of 24 sales in November were wildlife sales (16.7%), with a portfolio consisting of less than 15% wildlife.


If you add in nature and landscapes, the numbers go WAY up of course, so I encourage you to not only use your telephoto lenses.


Also keep in mind that a clip of a great white shark will probably sell 1,000+ times more than a viscacha...

Try to capture interesting behaviour, like hunting, fighting and mating, and the chances of selling go up 10-100 times.


For the people wondering where wildlife shots are used outside of documentaries - lots of places! Anything related to the environment (or rather, the destruction of) always use wildlife shots, and there are a lot of those projects being produced every week.

Also, standard business/corporate videos use videos of powerful animals.


This turned into a long post, so this is the end. :)

I wish you the best of luck!

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 72


Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results


3100 Posing Cards Bundle