|
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 - increasingdifficulty
Pages: 1 ... 66 67 68 69 70 [71] 72 73 74
1751
« on: May 20, 2016, 12:46 »
Motion graphics stuff does pretty well there.
Good to know. I'm doing lots of motion graphics right now, but I think I'll wait until they allow author pricing so I can match the other sites. Selling music has taught me that being non-exclusive always means more $$$ if you like keeping track of 20-50 accounts so I don't want to lock in renders just at one place, since they can take quite a while to do.
1752
« on: May 20, 2016, 07:37 »
That's not how it works when you want something to look top quality. Everything must be top quality.
1753
« on: May 20, 2016, 07:33 »
Does space stuff just not sell at Shutterstock or haven't you uploaded much there?
I know you sell lots of After Effects templates, are you only including FOOTAGE earnings from Envato or templates too? Would make quite a big difference. Do you have templates also at VB?
1754
« on: May 19, 2016, 15:52 »
Nice! Hopefully they've had delays with sales reporting and they all come at once now... I haven't seen much action lately, haha.
1755
« on: May 19, 2016, 05:29 »
Oh, I didn't switch the IS off. Why is that so important? That explains why another one I took with a tripod isn't that sharp either.
Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk
It's important especially with long exposures as the lens correction will get confused and try to correct movement that isn't there. This will ruin the image more the longer your exposure time is.
1756
« on: May 18, 2016, 03:10 »
Music sales at P5 are normal (which means very good) so those buyers are still there. I'm a top seller in music with sales every day so I immediately notice drops.
However, no action regarding video/photos in a while...
1757
« on: May 17, 2016, 05:59 »
My eyes hurt from the amount of qualified marketing bull**** in that article...
"Only 16bit/44kHz"... sigh.
"Not found elsewhere in the industry" - "already received 10,000 clips within 24 hours"... Sure, the composers were just waiting to upload those clips exclusively to the glorious Dreamstime website...
"Most customers in the world"... Right, not even close.
What will the prices be? Don't submit audio to subscription services, please.
I would say, first update your website so it works and doesn't look like it's from 1997 before introducing audio...
1758
« on: May 15, 2016, 08:29 »
Opt out of what? Extended licenses? Subscriptions? Buyouts? You don't just opt out...
1759
« on: May 14, 2016, 02:34 »
Only one way to find out 
Wish their tagging and title process was easier. It's a lot of steps for each file to put the finishing touches on the metadata I think.
Yeah, it's really slow compared to SS, but I find it faster than Pond5 at least. There are some useful boxes to check like "Loopable", "Timelapse" and "Slow motion" that can be used in search. Of course you don't NEED to fill in everything.
1760
« on: May 14, 2016, 02:30 »
Wonder what it costs these agencies for cloud storage, 5 million files on Pond, 71 million on SS, how do they even cover their costs of operating?. These clips aren't going for thousands of dollars.
I would like to see some numbers too, but we can assume it's incredibly expensive.
1761
« on: May 13, 2016, 12:34 »
A player that loops seamlessly. Fotolia has this, but the others introduce a gap which is really annoying when viewing loops.
70%+ cut.
Set our own prices.
Downconvert ProRes original 4k to ProRes HD instead of h264.
1762
« on: May 13, 2016, 02:30 »
For me, it FEELS like SS, Fotolia and VB have picked up a little bit and P5 declined. I only have a small/medium port (5-600) so can't tell for sure.
1763
« on: May 12, 2016, 13:30 »
I would have made use of the cars in the background to create a contrast between leisure feeding and frantic cars.
Where do you see cars? Anyway, I agree with the others. Regarding "commercial value" - you never know. It won't reach the top list and sell hundreds of times no, but common shots of birds do sell (just sold a baby swan clip yesterday). If it's a common bird however it needs to be technically flawless. If it's a rare one or a rare situation - technique won't matter too much.
1764
« on: May 12, 2016, 11:37 »
Nope, you use your trusty old feet mostly.  ...or a boat, bicycle, car, train etc.
1765
« on: May 12, 2016, 10:09 »
Fun fact: This WEEK alone axiomimages sold aerials at Pond5 for a whopping $12,322 ($6,161 for them)! So there is plenty of money in good aerials, and Pond5 isn't completely dead yet. 
1766
« on: May 12, 2016, 08:46 »
The 16-35 f4 is a VERY, VERY sharp lens. It is sharper than the 2.8 and cheaper, so it's basically a no-brainer.
What kind of distortion do you mean? A 16mm lens will always have distortion (or lean back and look elongated) when close to a subject like a tall building.
Do you mean barrel distortion? The 16-35 is very good.
1767
« on: May 10, 2016, 16:08 »
before exporting them as TIFFs, then remove flickr, then import into AE and stabilize, then export. All that can take a lot of time. With wide lenses the warp stabilizer sometimes doesn't work as well, then I have to do manual tracking...
Yeah, it can take many, many hours (or days) to get a complex hyperlapse ready for upload. Sometimes it just works right away though, which I'm thankful for. By the way, I now skip the export TIFF step and import the RAW files straight into AE (after LRT/Lightroom) before export. Saves some time and space and I can still work in 16-bit.
1768
« on: May 10, 2016, 16:05 »
Here's my first successful one:
Very nice and smooth! Bridges are a great help! I shot a bunch at 16mm on full-frame and had to learn the hard way that stabilizing proved to be problematic for some scenes. Cropping the sides heavily made them usable but of course I lost sharpness... 24-35mm seems to work better.
1769
« on: May 10, 2016, 14:18 »
time and effort needed to pull them off (shooting, stabilizing, editing...)
Sometimes I feel like I'm married to the Warp Stabilizer considering the amount of time I spend with it... 
1770
« on: May 10, 2016, 11:12 »
I see that Getty is a different beast altogether. And you can't just submit footage right? They have to invite you via Vimeo or your personal website or similar?
1771
« on: May 10, 2016, 10:50 »
I see. Always the dilemma whether it's worth being exclusive or not... No way to tell what you might be giving up in comparison to what you'll make.
I see you have some clips as RM, and most RF at Getty. Any reasoning behind that or you're just testing out what works?
1772
« on: May 10, 2016, 10:16 »
Nice, thanks for the info.
May I ask, how come you don't have ALL your stuff at Getty? Do they just request certain clips or how does it work?
Those $2000 sales, is that common or more of a once-in-a-year thing? What would be the average sale price at Getty? More comparable to $200?
I have sold 4k hyperlapses at VB which gives me $200, which is always nice, but too early to tell how often that might happen...
Sold one at Shutterstock at small web resolution and got a measly $6.50... not nice.
1773
« on: May 10, 2016, 09:31 »
Unfortunately Getty Images is exclusive only so my best work is there, because i'm earning the most with them.
I do hyperlapses as well. So you feel it's worth being exclusive at Getty? Have you ever sold a clip more than once there? How do the number of sales compare to Pond5/Shutterstock etc.? I guess it's impossible to truly compare since you don't have the same stuff at the other sites, but you feel that a $200 clip at Pond5 would not get the extra sales needed to make more than a $500-1000 clip at Getty?
1774
« on: May 09, 2016, 07:41 »
Did a quick check at Fotolia, just for fun. I checked the best-sellers this week and this month. 60 clips. This does not take into account actual number of sales for each clip, just which clips sold. They all must have sold at least twice though, since I have a clip that sold 2 times this week that is not on the list. 23.98/24 - 20% 25 - 48% 29.97/30 - 27% 60 - 5%. The top 3 clips monthly were all 23.98/24. The top 3 weekly were 1 24, two 25. I don't know the distribution of the different frame rates on the site. I can't even find a way to search by frame rate so they obviously don't think it's important at all. One can really go crazy trying to overanalyze this stuff, I know I almost have. I even used to submit 25/30p versions of the same clips at first but decided it's not worth the extra time. Now the ultimate question: ProRes (Standard) or ProRes HQ?
1775
« on: May 07, 2016, 19:08 »
Then they are truly stupid and desperate. But maybe the rest of the portfolio was stolen too from other sources?
Pages: 1 ... 66 67 68 69 70 [71] 72 73 74
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
