|
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 - Mormegil
1
« on: January 26, 2016, 12:58 »
What are the file sizes?
7680 x 2160 ?
If so, the files must be enormous.
According to the Kodak rep, the final size is also 4k. The software stitches it into a 2k x 2k spherical video. I'm tempted, but just got a new camera a few months ago, which I'm afraid I'll neglect if I get a new toy.
2
« on: January 24, 2016, 20:37 »
I was just at a Virtual Reality Expo and got a chance to look at a new 4k Kodak 360 rig. Basically like 2 wide angle GoPros back to back. With YouTube and smartphones supporting 360 videos, I wonder if this may be something worth getting into.
At the very least it looks fun. I may be a bit biased, as I've been dabling in Virtual Reality.
3
« on: January 06, 2016, 20:17 »
Is this site still active? Website doesn't seem to work for me. At least I got some royalties out of it.
4
« on: November 02, 2015, 00:03 »
Do you mean the Windows Movies & TV app? Doesn't work so well for me.
I've tried Power Director 14, Premiere Pro CS6 and the current Premiere Elements.
Power Director and Premiere Pro CS6 were still choppy. Premiere Elements wouldn't let me output at my full resolution of 4096 x 2160. Only went to 3840 x 2160.
So far only Premiere Pro CC lets me preview unmodified clips and edit them smoothly. I'd really rather stay away from subscription.
Any other suggestions?
5
« on: September 28, 2015, 23:08 »
Pond5 and Shutterstock work for me. Apparently Videoblocks may be good too, but I just joined them and don't have anything approved yet, so I can't say from personal experience.
6
« on: September 28, 2015, 08:07 »
Thanks for the info. Good point on the memory.
I do have the GPU hardware acceleration activated (had to edit a file to add in my GPU). I've tried it both with Hardware acceleration and Software. The Software starts lagging even faster.
If getting more memory helps, I'll report it here.
7
« on: September 28, 2015, 01:04 »
With over a hundred people viewing this thread and no real good answer so far, I'll go ahead and report what I've found. The new Premiere Pro Creative Cloud is like night and day compared to Premiere Pro 5.5. Totally smooth both in source and output.
Unfortunately, I usually work on stock videos in fits and spurts, so I don't think the annual subscription model is going to work out for me. I'm looking into PowerDirector since Premiere is clearly overkill for simply trimming and doing a few corrections for stock video. I'll just stay with Premiere 5.5 for my non stock related YouTube shenanigans.
Any opinions on PowerDirector?
8
« on: September 26, 2015, 17:28 »
I suppose I could just reduce the size and view it directly on my computer without bothering with uploading it to YouTube or Vimeo.
Let me add I'd like to know if newer versions of Premiere do a better job with 4k video. I'm curious about Elements, but there's no way to try it without buying it, and I'm not sure how much audio editing I can do (I often need to dehiss).
9
« on: September 26, 2015, 12:56 »
I thought I had a decent computer. It's an 6 core i7 3.3Ghz with 16GB memory. It is choppy reading these files off an SSD or RAID5. I'm trying to view them in Adobe Premiere Pro 5.5, QuickTime or even the built in Windows 10 viewer. It starts off choppy, but not too bad, then gets worse, leading me to think the disk read is the problem.
Any suggestions? Do people still use RAM drives? Better or newer software?
Thanks for any help
10
« on: September 24, 2015, 16:12 »
Thanks! I'll look into Videoblocks.
My average pricing on Pond5 is $50. I usually do a search to see what similar stuff is selling for, some for quite a bit over, but none below $20 (fairly common stuff). Maybe I should consider letting Pond5 set the price for me.
11
« on: September 23, 2015, 17:52 »
Simple question. I've only been uploading to these two for the last couple of years. None of the other Big 4 seem to be worth it to me.
12
« on: February 24, 2011, 13:18 »
I have some photos i want to upload as editorial but i'm wondering what the strategy should be on each site.
For example a picture like the one linked by Sue can be submitted on istock as editorial but can you submit the same image on Shutterstock? Or they reject anything not considered newsworthy?
Also Alamy - would they accept an image like this as RF with restrictions or should it be RM because of the people?
Any ideas? It would be nice to be able to submit an editorial image to all agencies accepting them but can it be done?
It's sort of hit or miss with ShutterStock. My guess is it would be rejected for not being newsworthy. I've uploaded some product editorial images (mostly cars in setup shots), and previously had them accepted, but now they're being rejected for not being newsworthy (must be in a car show or some other event). Same with people doing everyday things, like construction workers on a job site - accepted before, now not newsworthy.
13
« on: May 14, 2010, 18:38 »
Editorial stock is why going to Hawaii for me is a write-off. My travel stuff sells pretty well, and sports stuff. Almost every day somebody buys a photos of sumo wrestlers I got from a festival.
14
« on: July 07, 2009, 16:14 »
I've only shot 2 or 3 models (besides myself), and of those, I've paid only 1.
I started with a TFP shoot, as a test run. If they sell well (as they did with one model), I hired her back for $50 + CD for maybe 2 hours with 2 wardrobes. Got 30 usuable photos or so, and paid for itself in less than 2 months of royalties.
15
« on: June 19, 2009, 13:14 »
I've got about 200 images, with 2 sales so far totalling $82. At this rate, I should hit the payout in April...2012
No wonder I focus on the micros...
16
« on: June 15, 2009, 01:04 »
As far as I know, large format digital backs are still scanner backs. So each image takes a couple of seconds to capture - not good if it ain't a still-life. Plus, you have to use hot lights, no strobes.
17
« on: June 09, 2009, 17:00 »
but talking about profits ... Getty is in deep crap at the moment.
last i heard was they were making huge profits with iStock
and losing a lot with macros, shooting in their foot, but hey
they call this "strategy", we'll see.
Better for Getty to shoot themselves in the foot, and have iStock as a good foot (stretching your analogy), than having somebody else buy iStock and shoot Getty in the foot.
18
« on: June 08, 2009, 20:35 »
Well, you're doing much better than I on Alamy then.
I've only got a little over 200 images on Alamy, but aren't making anywhere near $0.50 per image per year. I'm doing a little over half that. I suppose I need to work on what to upload there.
19
« on: June 08, 2009, 17:34 »
Flipping burgers? Sure, full time flipping burgers will make you more money compared to my couple hours a week of photography. You can say the same thing for all microstock photography.
I've got about 1,500 editorial images on SS out of a total of
46 editorial sales at $0.38 = $17.48 so far this month (8 days).
Extrapolating that's $797.53 per year in editorial sales, divide by 1,500 = $0.53 per image per year.
Non editorial images have been 72 sales so far -> $27.36
Extrapolate to $1248.30 per year, divide by 2609 (non editorial images), gets me $0.49 per image per year.
So it looks like I'm making about as much money per image on my editorial and my non-editorial. 50 cents per image per year, from one site.
These same editorial images are also going on DreamsTime and BigStockPhoto.
Note: my numbers may be off, as I'm basing it completely on only these first 8 days (calculating $171 / month). I typically make between $200 and $250 per month on royalties at SS (and another $250 in referrals).
20
« on: June 08, 2009, 17:18 »
That last bit in the article about 42 sales is a bit silly. If he were selling that image on microstock, he'd likely get something like 4200 sales over the same period of time, giving him at least as much royalty income. Nor is there a mention of the vast number of stock images that never sell.
All of the old books I've read that mentioned stock photography mentions you get very few sales per image (average was about once per century) at a high cost, averaging $0.50 to $1.00 per image per year. Not corrected for inflation, microstock typically does better than that for me.
21
« on: June 08, 2009, 16:49 »
http://www.419eater.com/Website chronicles the adventures of people scamming the scammers for fun.
22
« on: June 05, 2009, 15:19 »
Editorial sells on SS like anything else, same price, same commission. I find my travel editorials sell well. Yesterday 8 of 20 were editorial (half travel), today only 2 of 14.
Something SS has that's nice for editorial is the Red Carpet program, where they help you get press credentials for events.
Shutterstock pays usually within 10 days of the first of the month if you're over the minimum payout you set (the lowest is $75, but you set it higher if you want).
As I like to travel, a lot of my SS port is editorial / travel editorial (probably just over half). I'd say just under half is editorial sales.
Funny Old Hippy, I thought you hated microstock.
23
« on: June 05, 2009, 15:10 »
This may have been mentioned, as I skipped 10 pages of comments.
From a pragmatic point of view for people pulling their ports, isn't 70% of income more than 100% of no income?
On the WWII tangent, I'd say two of the biggest contributors to winning the war was the Soviet Union's manpower (or should I say personpower, as they had women serving too) and industrial capacity, and the USA's industrial and agricultural capacity. It also helped that Hitler decided to attack the USSR, against their peace treaty - opening up the Eastern front and soaking up Axis resources.
I can definately say with the USA's invovlment, I'd probably be living (if I would even have been born) in the Philippines under Japan's East Co-Prosperity Sphere cursing my Japanese colonizers instead of being in California driving a Toyota Prius.
24
« on: May 15, 2009, 02:04 »
In the case of Corpse Bride (not Nightmare, that was a 93 movie, Pre 1D), it's because the production company already had a bunch of Nikon lenses.
I've also heard some shots on the new Harry Potter movie are being done on 5D II. It's spurring the rumor there's a beta firmware giving more manual controls floating around.
25
« on: April 20, 2009, 17:29 »
I'm doing OK with editorial stuff. It's true you can't really sell late breaking news type images with microstock.
I do well with travel editorials, landmarks, touristy things, parades, cultural events, sports and occasional politics.
Since you're in SE Asia, I suggest concentrating on the tourism thing. Think like an American looking for "exotic" imagery for travel magazines and brochures. So that means get photos of traditional cultural festivals, dancing, music, cultural landmarks, even silat. Don't forget to use the natural beauty that many living in the area take for granted - such as beautiful tropical beaches and people enjoying the "resort" life. Think of things that most Americans don't see. Even simple fishermen on an outrigger canoe ('banka' in the Philippines gives a sense of place).
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
