Jump to content

What's your average monthly income here?


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Doug Jensen said:

Eactly.  I shoot a lot of photos for pleasure, but I wouldn't waste two seconds uploading them. Not worth my time for the pennies they would earn.

Doug,

You have seven times the amount of videos in your portfolio here - compared to my amount of stills, and you earn seven times the amount of money per month here.

So I don't necessarily see the huge advantage of videos over stills, which you keep promoting here. I find the statement a bit generalistic.

I'm quite sure that any contributor can earn as much money with stills as you do with videos - if he/she approaches it in an equally structured and professional way.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 66
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

This topic is taboo but since I disclose anyway I don't care.  My average month on here is about $330 (and dropping fast) on just over 10,000 images and 1,000 clips.  

You are absolutely correct that that kind of mentoring and help from someone who is already successful is priceless.  I have a 4.5 hour training video that explains my entire strategy and workflow in

A bit more than $400 in average here. 1250 images - no videos. But the new revenue structure is pushing the average down. 

Posted Images

15 minutes ago, Wilm Ihlenfeld said:

Doug,

You have seven times the amount of videos in your portfolio here - compared to my amount of stills, and you earn seven times the amount of money per month here.

So I don't necessarily see the huge advantage of videos over stills, which you keep promoting here. I find the statement a bit generalistic.

I'm quite sure that any contributor can earn as much money with stills as you do with videos - if he/she approaches it in an equally structured and professional way.

 

Wilm, maybe you are right, but I suspect you are the exception. Your images are of a much higher caliber than the videos that I go out and shoot on the weekends -- mostly just for fun -- much like other people go fishing or play golf for recreation.  You have some of the best images I've seen at Shutterstock. You obviously put a considerable amount of time and effort into your images and that is why you are successful with a smaller portfolio. You are selling Land Rovers and I am selling Kias. Of course I have to stock more inventory to hit the same sales figures.  But since I will never do photos and you are unlikely to do video, we will never know for sure.

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Doug Jensen said:

Wilm, maybe you are right, but I suspect you are the exception. Your images are of a much higher caliber than the videos that I go out and shoot on the weekends -- mostly just for fun -- much like other people go fishing or play golf for recreation.  You have some of the best images I've seen at Shutterstock. You obviously put a considerable amount of time and effort into your images and that is why you are successful with a smaller portfolio. You are selling Land Rovers and I am selling Kias. Of course I have to stock more inventory to hit the same sales figures.  But since I will never do photos and you are unlikely to do video, we will never know for sure.

Hmmm,

first of all, thank you for the compliment.
But compared to others I know, I sell only old, used LandRovers. Because they have much less images and sell much more.

But regardless of that, you are an exception in my opinion. Obviously you are at the top end of the scale.

So from my point of view it's not necessarily a question whether you sell videos or stills. Money can be made with both. Especially if you work hard. Which unfortunately very rarely applies to me.

However: I wish you continued good sales!

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Doug Jensen said:

I have an A6300 I use mostly for stills and I don't think it or the A6500 would be a good choice for long-telephoto 4K stock footage no matter what lens you put on them due to rolling shutter issues and other shortcomings.

My plan is to upgrade to the A7R III, which, from my research, is competitive with the best on the market. I would like to hear your thoughts on this.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, The Jungle Explorer said:

My plan is to upgrade to the A7R III, which, from my research, is competitive with the best on the market. I would like to hear your thoughts on this.

I'm sure the A7R III is a fine camera especially if you already own e-mount lenses.  But in my opinion, it is camera that is designed primarily for taking stills and the video features are just tacked on as an afterthought.  If you're buying the camera to shoot video for stock, there are better choices.  But if you mostly want to shoot stills, or if stock is not your primary purpose for the camera, go for it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Doug Jensen said:

I'm sure the A7R III is a fine camera especially if you already own e-mount lenses.  But in my opinion, it is camera that is designed primarily for taking stills and the video features are just tacked on as an afterthought.  If you're buying the camera to shoot video for stock, there are better choices.  But if you mostly want to shoot stills, or if stock is not your primary purpose for the camera, go for it.

I have never heard this before.  I bought the a6500 specifically for my YouTube channel, because it was a really popular option for youtubers at the time.  

What camera do you think is better for video then. I mean within economic reason. I realize you can spend 100k on a good video setup. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Wilm Ihlenfeld said:

 it's not necessarily a question whether you sell videos or stills. Money can be made with both.

I seem to recall that we had this conversation before. To further the point, I offer up the stats for my image and video sets of an identical subject.

The number on the right is the number of files in the set (very comparable), the middle number is the number of downloads for the set. The files have been online for an equal amount of time.

Photos:

1567998678_ScreenShot2020-08-11at8_26_09PM.png.5da607b47137a459c4d8d6cb031d9892.png

Videos:

1780797715_ScreenShot2020-08-11at8_26_15PM.png.88604b510cc26157b7dbcba33969fea3.png

 

Interesting, isn't it? Yes, the video clips earn way more per download. But stills sell at a much faster rate.

But we all like shooting what we shoot. Doug prefers video, nothing wrong with that. Personally, I enjoy shooting photos more than shooting video. The latter smacks too much of work.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, The Jungle Explorer said:

I have never heard this before.  I bought the a6500 specifically for my YouTube channel, because it was a really popular option for youtubers at the time.  

What camera do you think is better for video then. I mean within economic reason. I realize you can spend 100k on a good video setup. 

I thought we were talking about cameras that are best suited for shooting stock footage.  What does the opinion of Youtubers matter in this conversation about shooting stock footage?  The needs of a Youtuber, who mostly just wants to shoot a glorified selfie with sound, are totally different from those of a stock footage shooter.

BTW, if the A6500 is as good for video as you say it is, then why don't you have a single video clip in your portfolio?

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Doug Jensen said:

I thought we were talking about cameras that are best suited for shooting stock footage.  What does the opinion of Youtubers matter in this conversation about shooting stock footage?  The needs of a Youtuber, who mostly just wants to shoot a glorified selfie with sound, are totally different from those of a stock footage shooter.

BTW, if the A6500 is as good for video as you say it is, then why don't you have a single video clip in your portfolio?

 

 

Please do not misunderstand me. I am not arguing in favor or against anything. I simply do not have enough understanding of the issue to make an informed statement.  I am not in the mood to argue, I am here to learn. 

I only know what I know. I do not know what I do not know.  What I know is, when I was looking for a good video camera for my YouTube channel, it seemed the the consensus at that time was that the a6500 was the cream de la cream for video.  I watched dozens of review videos from leading tech reviewers praising the video abilities if the A6500. So this was my impression of the camera. I only know what I know.  

When I say that I have never heard people refer to the a6500 as a bad camera for video, that is because I never have.  I am not saying you are incorrect. I simply have never heard what you are saying.  

I beg you to not ge snarky with me because you think I am some fanboy that is just out to defend their camera or camera brand. I assure that nothing could be farther from the truth.  What I am, is not rich. If I could afford to drop 5k an a top Canon or Nikon body and 10 to 20k on the best 800mm telephoto lens out there, I would.  There is no brand loyalty in me. The only loyalty I have is to my bank account. 

I am also not one of those people who are impressed by newest an skinniest.  People have been doing great photography and videography for a long time without the latest greatest newest tech that just came out last week.  So, I am cautious of people who only know how to push the latest tech, as if everything before it was garbage.   While I am not a fanboy or bias, people that have this addiction to the latest and greatest seem a bit bias to me.

None of what I have said is directed at you. I have said things things to help you understand where I am coming from, so that you will not misunderstand me again as you did in your last post.

To answer your question as to why I did not have any video clips in my portfolio. I simply have not focused on video for stock.  YouTube is my primary focus when it comes to video. I love nature and love shooting macros. I do it for my own enjoyment. If started doing stock images, just because, Why Not?  I mean, I am already going to do it, so why not make a little money on it? But selling stock images has pushed me to try to improve my photography, so I think it has been beneficial in that way too. 

As far as your comment about YouTube just being a video selfie.  I agree with you 100% on this. This is why that in not one of my over 300 videos, do you ever see my face. I have created a channel that is moderately successful in which no one of my 8,000 subscribers has a clue who I am.  Why have I done this? For one, I really hate with a passion how every other YouTuber shoves their face in the camera so close that you can count their nose hairs.   They are about one thing, Themselves. My channel is not about me the person. It is a DIY teaching channel and it is all about what I am teaching.  It does not bother me that no one who I am. I am not seeking personal fame.  It does however bother a lot of viewers, who do not understand why I do not a follow the crowd and shove my face in the camera and say "Look at me!".

I am not a crowd follower, just as I am not a camera brand fanboy. Just call me Mr. Opposite. 

Now, I repeated my last question from my my last post.  

"What camera do you think is better for video then?"

Written on my smartphone, so there will be typos. 😉

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not so much about the quality of the video, it's about shooting with a camera that was designed to shoot video - in other words a camcorder vs. a DSLR with video capabilities. Video camcorders are just so much easier to work with!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for the clarification.  It is not my intention to get snarky but I don't like it when someone repeats something they heard somewhere else and then expects other people to explain it, refute it, or whatever.  I am much more interested in hearing what YOU think and what YOUR experience has been.  If you will take the time to shoot some video that you think has commercial value as stock, then you can come to your own conclusions about the right cameras, lenses, workflows, etc. very quickly.  It doesn't matter what me or anyone else thinks. If whatever camera you own meets your needs and expectations for shooting stock footage, then you have chosen the right camera. Period.  But you can only find that out if you actually go out and use it for shooting stock.

Now, to answer your question:  "What camera do you think is better for video?"   That isn't the right question to ask.  The question you really need to ask is:   "What TYPE of camera do you think is better for video?".   And the answer is, a camera that is designed first and foremost for the purpose of shooting video.  Most DSLRs and mirrorless cameras, including the A6500 and A7 series are primarily built for the purpose of shooting still photographs and video is tacked on as a bonus because it an easy feature to add to today's cameras.   I am not saying you cannot shoot some very good video with with those types of cameras if you stay within the narrow range of what they do best.  But compared to a true video camera your options are more limited.  That includes issues of ergonomics, lens options, workflow, quality of available recording codecs, etc.  I don't have time to give you a big explanation of all the advantages of a true video camera over a stills camera that happens to shoot video, but there are many, and they are important.

Here's an analogy.  A sports car and a pickup truck both have four wheels, an engine, seats, etc.  But if you want to haul gravel and lumber, then the pickup is the better choice, right?  That is the TYPE of vehicle you need.  Once you have chosen the type of vehicle, there are many excellent pick trucks from many manufacturers that will get the job done.  It's the same way with cameras.  Once you decide what you want to do with the camera, then there are many options available.

Some examples of cameras that are designed for shooting video, with little or no support for stills, include:  The Sony FS5, FS7, F55, FX9, Z280, Z190, Z90, NX80, any of the RED cameras, Blackmagic Pocket Cameras, Canon C300, C500, Panasonic EV1, Varicam, S1H, etc.     And you don't need to buy a brand new camera.  There are some really great deals to be had on lightly used professional cameras.  A 5-year old used FS7 would blow the doors off the newest A7 camera for stock video and probably cost less.

If you want to be successful with stock footage, choose a camera that can shoot the kind of video that YOU want to shoot.  That very well might be an A6500 or A7 cameras, but for most video professionals, those would be the complete wrong choices.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Milo J said:

It's not so much about the quality of the video, it's about shooting with a camera that was designed to shoot video - in other words a camcorder vs. a DSLR with video capabilities. Video camcorders are just so much easier to work with!

Ha, you took the words right out of my mouth while I was typing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Doug Jensen said:

Thank you for the clarification.  It is not my intention to get snarky but I don't like it when someone repeats something they heard somewhere else and then expects other people to explain it, refute it, or whatever.  I am much more interested in hearing what YOU think and what YOUR experience has been.  If you will take the time to shoot some video that you think has commercial value as stock, then you can come to your own conclusions about the right cameras, lenses, workflows, etc. very quickly.  It doesn't matter what me or anyone else thinks. If whatever camera you own meets your needs and expectations for shooting stock footage, then you have chosen the right camera. Period.  But you can only find that out if you actually go out and use it for shooting stock.

Now, to answer your question:  "What camera do you think is better for video?"   That isn't the right question to ask.  The question you really need to ask is:   "What TYPE of camera do you think is better for video?".   And the answer is, a camera that is designed first and foremost for the purpose of shooting video.  Most DSLRs and mirrorless cameras, including the A6500 and A7 series are primarily built for the purpose of shooting still photographs and video is tacked on as a bonus because it an easy feature to add to today's cameras.   I am not saying you cannot shoot some very good video with with those types of cameras if you stay within the narrow range of what they do best.  But compared to a true video camera your options are more limited.  That includes issues of ergonomics, lens options, workflow, quality of available recording codecs, etc.  I don't have time to give you a big explanation of all the advantages of a true video camera over a stills camera that happens to shoot video, but there are many, and they are important.

Here's an analogy.  A sports car and a pickup truck both have four wheels, an engine, seats, etc.  But if you want to haul gravel and lumber, then the pickup is the better choice, right?  That is the TYPE of vehicle you need.  Once you have chosen the type of vehicle, there are many excellent pick trucks from many manufacturers that will get the job done.  It's the same way with cameras.  Once you decide what you want to do with the camera, then there are many options available.

Some examples of cameras that are designed for shooting video, with little or no support for stills, include:  The Sony FS5, FS7, F55, FX9, Z280, Z190, Z90, NX80, any of the RED cameras, Blackmagic Pocket Cameras, Canon C300, C500, Panasonic EV1, Varicam, S1H, etc.     And you don't need to buy a brand new camera.  There are some really great deals to be had on lightly used professional cameras.  A 5-year old used FS7 would blow the doors off the newest A7 camera for stock video and probably cost less.

If you want to be successful with stock footage, choose a camera that can shoot the kind of video that YOU want to shoot.  That very well might be an A6500 or A7 cameras, but for most video professionals, those would be the complete wrong choices.

 

Thank you for clarifying.  This is new information to me.  I was under the mistaken impression that DSLRs had all but rendered Camcorders obsolete for all but Hollywood style production.  

I looked up the FS7.  Starting at 7K, I would really have to start focusing 100% on stock footage to justify spending that much on a piece of equipment. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Jungle Explorer said:

Thank you for clarifying.  This is new information to me.  I was under the mistaken impression that DSLRs had all but rendered Camcorders obsolete for all but Hollywood style production.  

I looked up the FS7.  Starting at 7K, I would really have to start focusing 100% on stock footage to justify spending that much on a piece of equipment. 

As I said, why buy new when you can get a low-mileage used FS7 for a fraction of the price?

BTW, DSLRs have been completely eliminated from 99% of professional video/TV production.  Mirrorless cameras do have a share of the market, but for most professionals mirrorless are generally only used for specialty shooting or as b-cameras in conjunction with a real video camera.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No disrespect to your highly professional advice, Doug.

Don't shoot me for bringing this up.

You asked why buy a new one when you can buy an old one?  The logic is reversed. And we are not talking about investing in a piece of antiques here?

If I have to spent 7K on a device, I better be damn sure that it wouldn't act up on me within few weeks from the purchasing date. How do I make sure if it won't go wonky within a few weeks or even a few days? I don't. With a new one, I get at least 12 months warranty.

To fork out 7k for a 6 year old used 4k camcorder no matter how mint the condition is, is like daring a newbie to jump straight in to the sea from a 60 meter cliff. 

It sounds scary to people given the economy outlook now, at least I earned no way near where you earned in stock. 🥶 

If I really must put my money on videography as a newbie now, then I feel this is right for me to start it with https://www.blackmagicdesign.com/products/blackmagicpocketcinemacamera  

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, chyworks said:

No disrespect to your highly professional advice, Doug.

Don't shoot me for bringing this up.

You asked why buy a new one when you can buy an old one?  The logic is reversed. And we are not talking about investing in a piece of antiques here?

If I have to spent 7K on a device, I better be damn sure that it wouldn't act up on me within few weeks from the purchasing date. How do I make sure if it won't go wonky within a few weeks or even a few days? I don't. With a new one, I get at least 12 months warranty.

To fork out 7k for a 6 year old used 4k camcorder no matter how mint the condition is, is like daring a newbie to jump straight in to the sea from a 60 meter cliff. 

It sounds scary to people given the economy outlook now, at least I earned no way near where you earned in stock. 🥶 

If I really must put my money on videography as a newbie now, then I feel this is right for me to start it with https://www.blackmagicdesign.com/products/blackmagicpocketcinemacamera  

Well, I have hard time to decide what to buy too, for video. I am thankful Mr. Jensen helping me decide. Although I will, as it looks, buy something xy. Hard to decide. From my humble presonal experiences, I am not pro videographer, but hobby one, and I might say had a success doing stock footage (im in for 10 years now), I have done 90% of my clips online with Canon D60. They still do sell! What is on clip is important. You might buy Arri or RED and spend $50K up, and if clips will sucks - no one will noticed cam model.

Nature of time is as such bad for videography. But it will be better in time. Cam is important, sure. But if you can shoot idea good - you will won - trust me. ;) 100% proven on myself.

Have been looking at this BM too. Good camera! From my pov, IMHO.

May some pro corrects me: this cam has a lot of resolutions, great codecs, etc. - fault, as I see, is very low Mbps rates per resolution and it would mean it stores low amount of data per second of clip. Am I correct? Dislike this low mbps in my old D60 ...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...