Selling Stock Video Footage.

[Bob Safay]

Steve, great story. Reminds me of the time I was asked by the Federal Agency that I worked for to shoot a video on the health effects of mercury at the Oak Ridge Reservation in Tennessee. This is where they developed the fuel for the atomic bomb. I had all the right permits, and even an escort. Well I guess no one told security about it. I hadn't even had the tripod set up when I was literally surrounded by security forces. Fortunately my escort showed them the permits and all ended up well. It is interesting that lately it seems that Shuttershock is doing really quick turn arounds on reviews. I submitted 7 clips yesterday and they were reviewed and 6 were approved by this morning, the one that was not approved was due to the fact that it was to similar to another one that I also submitted. This has really been a lot of fun for me. I am now shooting video with an entirely different focus, and everything I now shoot is in 4K. Used to be I would see a great shot and then wonder "great, now what do I do with it?" Well, now I know what I am going to do with it. Also, like Doug suggested I have been having a blast looking over old footage to see what I have that may be worthwhile posting on Shutterstock. Thank you Doug!! Bob

[Steven Digges]

As I mentioned in the post I am the first one to admit the opportunity for great shots was there, I did not get them. I have many years of live event and professional sports experience. This is how I always work and how I train crews working for me. When your shooting in a high risk situation ie: non repeatable, fast moving, spontaneous etc. You first priority is to always get "the shot" first. Then go for the hero shot. I will define "the shot" as the insurance shot that is at least good enough to keep your job and satisfy the client. Then knock yourself out with the high risk shots. That is exactly what I was doing in this case, grabbing what I could as quickly as I could. Right after I set up a guy in a construction truck drove by. That let me know I was not as isolated as I hoped. The opportunity was there, the time wasn't. If you want to see heartbreak look at the two shots looking through the wall. One is static letting trucks roll by on the other side and one pans up. To see those two clips as submissions with my name on them sucks. It looks like I don't know how to shoot at all. The sun was shinning through the wall pillars from the Mexico side, it was perfect. Everything was in front of me to get this glorious, high contrast, tilt up from the base of the wall until the brilliant sun rays come shinning through like hope from the other side shot. In reality, that is the moment the Border Patrol guy was walking up to me so the last thing I did was tilt up. The two crappy shots they accepted were the only shots I got to take. No set up time, no exposure adjustments, no multiple takes to play with shooting right into the sun. The shot was right in front of me but I did not get it. Since I had just trespassed into a highly restricted government space and the Federal Agent arrived it is time to turn the camera off. It was heartbreaking to miss the shot. It was also not the time to give him shit. I have only had two careers in my life. Before my 25+ years working in media I was a firefighter/EMT. I understand how cops and authorities work and think and how much discretion they have. I was not shooting from a public road. I turned the camera off and was respectful because I had no desire to go to jail. There is a time to fight for your rights and I am a fighter by nature. When your in the wrong and facing a Federal Agent who can choose between arresting you or escorting you out it is a time to be respectful. Maybe I should be a faster at getting the perfect shot first shot every shot but thats not my reality. I do know I successful avoided going to jail. Thats worth a lot more than making $50 bucks from Sutterstock. And I had a blast playing the game!

I will write more later. I have other things to discus about this. I'm loving the conversation. I have more questions than answers about this topic.

Kind Regards,

Steve

[Doug Jensen]

Originally Posted by Steven Digges

As I approached the site I was met by two guys in an unmarked desert tan chevy blazer. It was unmarked . . . They didn't even have name tags or insignias other than a shoulder marking that said Alliance Security Services or something like that. On a long sleeved yellow shirt that looked funny under all of BDU and gear . . . What I ran into is a private security force . . . these guys are not Border Patrol.

Steve, again, not to second guess the decisions you made in the heat of the moment, but the comments above are what had me wondering if I would have stopped shooting or not. Under the circumstances I may have done the exact same thing as you did, but in other similar situations I've been in before, I often just keep right on shooting and require them to identify themselves and explain what authority they have to even question me -- let alone stop me. I do not hesitate to push back and have never been arrested. Sometime I refuse to even say what/why I am shooting or to identify myself. Occassionally I will allow a uniformed law enforcement officer to see my ID (passport card, not drivers license) but I'm not going to live in a police state where I have to show my papers at every checkpoint. I feel it is my duty to push back.

Sorry if this conversation has gone off the rails! We can get back to talking about stock if you want.

[Steven Digges]

I love this conversation! I have worked all over the world. Dealing with authorities of different types is part of what I do as a photographer and video producer. I handle every situation differently. This conversation is about video.

The heavily armed private security were the first ones I encountered. They did not ask for ID or even ask why I was there. They were the ones that let me know how highly restricted the area is at this time. They informed me it is not public land at this time. There was not a lot of conversation. The only question they would answer was when I asked if there was a place where I could drive up to the wall. They said no, the entire area is designated as a security zone by the US Government and that the Border Patrol was in control of everything. The wall and construction was right in front of me and the guy standing at my door made it clear I had to leave. I had no idea I was going to run into those kinds of restrictions.

There is a dirt road along the border called the Border Road. It is clearly posted as closed and restricted. That is why I went to extremes to sneak in on 4WD trails out in the middle of nowhere.

You are absolutely correct there is a huge difference between private security and Federal law enforcement. The security guys are clearly there on the active work sites for true protection. They are there to fight should one of those sights be attacked. They do not have true police powers. The guy that later stopped me from shooting was US Border Patrol with Federal Agent across his back. That is a different story. All he really wanted to do was get me the hell out of there and I complied. In my two decades of emergency service I saw a lot of people go to jail because of their own attitude and stupidity. They challenged the authority of cops who had no desire to arrest them until the situation escalated beyond reason. The Border Patrol Agent did not harass me. We both knew what I had done. It was his job to get me out of there. No big deal. Much easier to be followed out of a restricted area then getting restricted in a jail cell screaming about "my rights". Its all good!

Steve

[Doug Jensen]

I understand and agree with what you are saying. And I certainly don't want to imply my interactions with law enforcement are always negative. Just the opposite. I'm a big proponent of law enforcement in general and support the job they are doing. I have donated my production services to different agencies on numerous occasions. But, as I say in my video, I will stand my ground when I have a right to and the individual who has contact with me is going to get their attitude reflected right back at them. It is really up to them how it is going to go.

[Andrew Smith]

I too am enjoying this thread. Plus, the Doug Jensen factor is always a bonus.

Yeah, whatever Doug says. :-)

Andrew

[Steven Digges]

Key Words?

I am trying to understand the anti-spam filter on Shutterstock keywords. As this was my first submission I did not try a CVS file yet. I used the Shutterstock entry port. Very frustrating! Apparently there is a limit on how many times you can use any particular word. Seems to be around 4 or 5 times. But it is not that simple. If you enter words it feels is excessive it accepts the new entry and automatically deletes a previous entry it feels was to close a match. So while your typing away trying hard to come up with relevant terms it is deleting your best earlier entries. It does not tell you what it removed, you have to look at your long list and try to figure out what is now missing. It is a PIA!

If you submit a CSV file I have to assume it is going to edit your key words the same way. Therefore its necessary to proof them after acceptance or to know the exact rules of the filtering. I have searched Sutterstock and not found the keyword specifics yet but it must be there. I think there might be more to it than just a number of times you can include the same word?

And Doug, yes I should have made the wall commercial. Another beginner mistake on my part.

Steve

[Steven Digges]

As Doug suggests in his video next time I will submit using a .cvs file for several reasons. I will also keep a close eye on the filtering. I found a long thread on the Shutterstock forum complaining about the spam bot filter for keywords, just as I mentioned above. By using the .csv system you will have your submitted list to see what happened to it after filtering.

It is a bot so there is no set parameters or rules and it fails common sense as many algorithm systems do. It can be hard to second guess it. It also works backwards. Instead of rejecting your new entry it randomly deletes an entry from your list it feels is too close to the new entry. Bam, something is gone, and you don't know what it is without comparing a written list to what you now have in the Shutterstock entry box.

As I suspected it is not just about using the same word a given number of times. It looks for variations of the word like plural forms of it and such. For example, build, bilt, and building will be be counted the same. And of course it does not know or care about connotation (verb /adjective).

I'm just throwing in my two cents as I go through this learning process.

Kind Regards,

Steve

[Bob Safay]

Doug, I just sold my first clip on Shutterstock!! It was an older HD clip of a black bear eating a salmon at a hatchery in Alaska. Thanks to you and that great course you put together. I am supper happy. Thanks again, Bob

[Steven Digges]

Good for you Bob!

I just uploaded another small batch. Using the .csv method worked much better than the SS tools. I should have listened to Doug's advice in the first place!

Steve

[Doug Jensen]

Bob, Congratulations! And the odds just went up that that clip will sell again because the SS computer will be more likely to push it higher in search results. The more people that see it, then the more chances it have to be bought. Good for you.

[Doug Jensen]

Originally Posted by Steven Digges

Good for you Bob!

I just uploaded another small batch. Using the .csv method worked much better than the SS tools. I should have listened to Doug's advice in the first place!

Steve

And even better, you OWN the metadata now and can repurpose it for other agencies. Don't make the same mistake I did when I got started.

[Doug Jensen]

Originally Posted by Bob Safay

Thanks to you and that great course you put together. I am supper happy. Thanks again, Bob

Bob, I've released an update video that crunches my own numbers for 2019 so far. Hopefully it will lay some people's skepticism about making money from stock footage to rest. Anyone who has a professional camera and isn't shooting for stock in their spare time is missing out on a great opportunity. Heck, I haven't even had time to submit anything new since early July and the business keeps growing.

MAKE MONEY SELLING STOCK FOOTAGE - CRUNCHING THE NUMBERS - Nov. 2019 on Vimeo

[Steven Digges]

I am still dabbling in stock a little at a time as time allows. My intent is to figure it out now so when I have more time I can be productive. So far it has been interesting to climb the learning curve. Some lessons are simple and obvious, others are not:

Most of my rejections are for "similar content". When I shoot I try to work a lot of angles or looks for the same subject. They accept the work but not all of the shots. What I see as giving an editor a choice they see as too much similarity to bother with. This is important to learn so I don't waste time editing. Give them your best shots and move on. I believe that is what Doug recommends.

I have had a few rejections for, Noise / Artifacts / Pixelation / Posterization: Sometimes I can't see this issue myself, it does not always make sense. For example, I shot a sunrise over a lake directly into the sun with some beautiful flares and intentional lens artifacts. They accepted a couple of them and rejected others. I can't see the difference in the rejected clips. I had a few other rejections for this reason that made more sense. I learned when it comes to this they will hold a very high standard, as they should.

I have a lot of different cameras. My main camera for this is a Sony PXW-FS5 (witch I still love to shoot with). I am ruined forever by having a variable ND filter at my fingertips. I am recording internally not external raw. This image quality seems to be fine when well shot. My action camera is a Sony FDR-X3000. It seems to me if your going to shoot with a camera of less than professional quality you better make it damn good in every way...technically and content. I guess I'm saying just because you got some cool looking action footage don't think they will accept it if it was not perfectly shot. Content is king only to a reasonable point. They have incredible action cam footage, that is why.

I am no Doug Jensen by a long shot. I am simply sharing my new experiences at stock for the sake of this thread because I love the DVINFO community. My comments above are not complaints at all. My rejections are GOOD NEWS. It seems the biggest hurdle to overcome in getting your clips sold is competing with the millions of clips in the database. And I am talking about getting them seen by a buyer, not the quality competition part. It seems to me even though the quantity numbers are staggering Shutterstock is back to holding very high professional standards of acceptance. That is a good thing for contributors shooting at a professional standard. If they were a garbage dump accepting every cool clip an amature submitted that might sell the numbers would be off the charts. Even the best of submissions would never be found. They are not a garbage dump.

I am loving all of this. It is challenging, fun, and will make me a better shooter. I have been shooting for many years. Shooting stock to the best of my ability will cause me to shoot in many different situations I would not be shooting with my comercial work. For now it is almost a fun game I am playing with myself. So...I think I am a pretty good shooter...right? Well, shooting stock means someone else is going to review the shots and give you a thumbs up or down based on their professional opinion. If you get a thumbs up you might even make a few bucks. Someday maybe more than a few bucks. I am learning from the rejections. It is a lot of fun and I am just getting started with a few submissions.

Kind Regards,

Steve

[Steven Digges]

I just received an email from Shutterstock about a submission. Because I have limited time for stock I am trying to experiment with useful content. For example, I am an avid outdoorsman, but instead of going after sunsets and wildlife I am trying to improve my odds by doing research into what they want. I have received shot list suggestions from two agencies saying shots of alternative lifestyles are a top seller and they need them. So in April I spent a couple hours shooting the LGBTQ Pride Parade in Phoenix. I just got around to submitting. I sent in two totally different types of shots from the parade. Basic benign shots of people marching in the parade that will probably never sell. The other clips were of radical religious protesters shouting hate speech at the alternative lifestyle people. As all of this was editorial I thought the later would be the shots that might sell. If your going to do news or an expose on gay rights wouldn't you want to show what they are still up against? I was wrong. Shutterstock accepted the happy shots and rejected the haters as "objectionable content". What the haters are doing in the shots IS very objectionable. I get that. It is also a very real part of the story and lifestyle. I am not promoting the haters, just the opposite. I offered it for editorial content I think could be used in any conversation about the topic. I removed the audio of the hate speech (typical amature overmodulated PA anyway). These people were screaming pejoratives and hate in the name of God. They were hostile. You don't get much more messed up than that.

The gay samples SS and Pond5 put out in their newsletter was same sex couples kissing and being affectionate and happy. If you get that shot and a release your golden. I don't know a lot of gay couples and certainly not any that are going to sit in front of my camera. So I tried the editorial approach.

This result begs a question I think they answered. Because this is stock should you stay away from controversy? Is ENG type shots not the way to go? Is warm and fuzzy happy stock what sells? Another lesson learned as I try to figure out how to be productive at this.

Photo 1 is a grab of what they accepted. Photo 2 is obviously the phyco haters.