Shooting Stock Footage.

[Patrick Kaplin]

Is shooting stock footage a viable source of income? As in, is using a Red One during off-production times to shoot stock footage an way to make any sort of cash?

I have no experience in the world of stock footage. Can anybody shed any light:tongue:

 

[Phil Bates]

Is shooting stock footage a viable source of income? As in, is using a Red One during off-production times to shoot stock footage an way to make any sort of cash?

I have no experience in the world of stock footage. Can anybody shed any light:tongue:

Yes, stock footage can provide income, but it may take a while to build a library, so it takes persistence. It is also important to know what subjects are in demand and stay on top of them. Think like an editor when you shoot, and shoot subjects that are challenging so they have some production value.

That said, I think the best strategy is to re-purpose footage that you have already shot for another job. OR, like you suggested, stay an "extra day" on a job or location and shoot your own.

Good luck!
Phil
http://www.artbeats.com

 

[Patrick Kaplin]

Thanks a lot Phil!

I checked out your website and saw all the stock footage. Was all of it shot by yourself? It looked really spectacular!

Are there stock footage companies that buy clips off cinematographers? Or is it better practice for cinematographers to set up their own business selling stock footage?

 

[Vigen Vartanov]

Artbeats it is biger (? ) footage stock .

 

[Patrick Kaplin]

Also, does the stock footage sell fairly well? Does anybody have any experience shooting stock footage and selling to television stations and networks?

Thanks!

 

[Pawel Achtel]

Also, does the stock footage sell fairly well? Does anybody have any experience shooting stock footage and selling to television stations and networks?

Thanks!

From my experience, selling stock footage can be profitable, but not when you are dealing through a stock footage library. The best sales I had were direct (6-figures per sale). On the other hand, money from stock footage agencies (I work with a number of well-known libraries) is negligable - not even worth the time or effort to put the material up. Certainly not sustainable.

 

[Phil Bates]

Thanks a lot Phil!

I checked out your website and saw all the stock footage. Was all of it shot by yourself? It looked really spectacular!

Thank you. About half of our footage was shot by us, half comes from outside producers. We are a little different that way. Most stock footage companies don't shoot, just represent.

Thanks a lot Phil!
Are there stock footage companies that buy clips off cinematographers?

Usually they work out a royalty arrangement. Sometimes it is possible to get an advance against royalties. That's rare, though.

Or is it better practice for cinematographers to set up their own business selling stock footage?

Typically, it is better to be represented by a stock footage company unless you have a very specific and exclusive subject that is easily searchable on the web, like tornado footage. A niche market can work.

Otherwise, customers will choose a larger footage company to do a search. If they Google "Stock Footage" will your name come up in the first couple of pages? If not, those established companies that do will get the lions share of the business.

What Pawel says about sales being negligible is true for some, but I disagree with the generalization. We have many producers who are getting royalty checks of thousands per quarter.

Another problem with setting up your own company is managing the website and creating downloadable files for every clip, plus creating keywords, doing marketing, etc. Most cinematographers would rather shoot.

Hope that helps,
Phil

http://www.artbeats.com

 

[Pawel Achtel]

What Pawel says about sales being negligible is true for some, but I disagree with the generalization. We have many producers who are getting royalty checks of thousands per quarter.

My point is that, unless it is tens of thousands a quarter, it is negligible.

Considering the cheapest shooting day cost you ~$2k in equipment, AC, sundo and your time. How on earth are you going to pay the bills, not to mention putting food on the table?

My costs are generally much higher, often upwards of $6k per shooting day. Just boat hire is $3.5k per day and there are days, sometimes weeks when you can film nothing!

Phil can correct me if I am wrong, but I do not believe there is a single footage library paying 6 or even 5 digits to a film maker every quarter.

If you can be bothered with your b-rolls or repurposed material, you may consider a library, but I found just preparation of the material not worth the effort.

 

[Phil Bates]

My point is that, unless it is tens of thousands a quarter, it is negligible.

Considering the cheapest shooting day cost you ~$2k in equipment, AC, sundo and your time. How on earth are you going to pay the bills, not to mention putting food on the table?

My costs are generally much higher, often upwards of $6k per shooting day. Just boat hire is $3.5k per day and there are days, sometimes weeks when you can film nothing!

Phil can correct me if I am wrong, but I do not believe there is a single footage library paying 6 or even 5 digits to a film maker every quarter.

If you can be bothered with your b-rolls or repurposed material, you may consider a library, but I found just preparation of the material not worth the effort.

Pawel, if you are getting five to six figures per sale, that's great but you are among the very few that we know of. The stock footage route doesn't work for you and I respect that. It's the generalization that I disagree with. If it didn't work, we wouldn't have producers sending us footage over and over (well shot, 35mm). We build successful relationships with producers that last years. I don't think we've lost more than two in the past 10 years. If the business model didn't work, we would simply be out of business.

I agree that a high-dollar shoot for stock is risky. No one is spending $200K on a shoot just to send it to us. But the re-purpose/shoot-an-extra-day/b-roll strategy works for many.

Riskyness aside, high production value footage stands out, gets noticed and sells. In 2000 we could not find a producer willing to send us cloud aerials, so we spent $70K in three days shooting clouds from a Learjet. We recouped that money from sales in less than 6 months. Those same clips have been selling for 8 years now. Granted, we were the producer so we get 100%. But still, an outside producer getting a royalty would have made that money back multiple times over by now, and without our marketing and overhead costs. This is not an isolated case, our special effects and nature shoots yield similar ratios. (we've had the occasional bomb too)

Pawel, it sounds like you have had a bad experience with your stock footage rep. That's too bad because your footage looks wonderful. If you don't mind a friendly opposing opinion, there are too many variables to generalize. To be fair (and respectfully so), stock footage companies are not all alike.

Phil
http://www.artbeats.com

 

[Tom Lowe]

Hehe. My last stock shoot cost... oh... about $220. Gas, beer, some canned food...

In addition to the ways Phil described above (investing in the means by which you can acquire great shots), it occurs to me that there are also ways that up-and-comers can get really unique, valuable footage just through sheer hard work, determination, and careful planning. Hauling a 75-lb camera package 6 miles up a mountain trail in the sierras just to get a spectacular sunrise over an alpine lake doesn't cost a whole lot (although your leg muscles might disagree!), but it takes some thinking and some grittiness.

Having said that, I am hoping to get to the point with stock where I do feel comfortable setting up aerial shots, for example, or renting a mako to get some great surface shots at sea or at Lake Powell or whatever.

 

[Andrew Martin]

Hey Phil, Im still waiting to hear back from you guys. I'm going out in a few days to get some stuff shot for a camera course i'm doing in a few weeks so should have some great stuff.


Andrew.

 

[Phil Bates]

Hey Phil, Im still waiting to hear back from you guys. I'm going out in a few days to get some stuff shot for a camera course i'm doing in a few weeks so should have some great stuff.


Andrew.

Thanks Andrew, I'll find out what's up. You will hear from us Monday for sure.

Phil

 

[Phil Bates]

Artbeats it is biger (? ) footage stock .

Biba, I would be happy to respond, but I don't understand the comment/question.

Phil
http://www.artbeats.com

 

[Pawel Achtel]

Hehe. My last stock shoot cost... oh... about $220. Gas, beer, some canned food...

I think you and Phil are right in that shots obtained inexensively or re-purposing shots can work well. What my main points were:

1. More often than not the footage is priced as "comodity" irrespective of how much it cost to acquire. You can take it to your advantage or it can send you broke.

2. It is unrealistc to expect making a living out of filming specifically for footage. One should view it more as a suplementary income.

Also, I think, the subject matter plays very important role. The cost of footage does not always influence popularity. Tom's remarkable time lapse sequence of stars would always be more desirable than a sequence of a potato cod spawning, even though the latter is extremely rare and extremely expensive to get.

 

[Phil Bates]

I think you and Phil are right in that shots obtained inexensively or re-purposing shots can work well. What my main points were:

1. More often than not the footage is priced as "comodity" irrespective of how much it cost to acquire. You can take it to your advantage or it can send you broke.

2. It is unrealistc to expect making a living out of filming specifically for footage. One should view it more as a suplementary income.

Also, I think, the subject matter plays very important role. The cost of footage does not always influence popularity. Tom's remarkable time lapse sequence of stars would always be more desirable than a sequence of a potato cod spawning, even though the latter is extremely rare and extremely expensive to get.

Pawel, I agree that you need to protect those special niche clips. RF stock is probably not the place for those. However, if you can stand to let go any run-of-the-mill reefs, common fish or boring ocean textures, I'd love to see what we can do for you.

Phil
http://www.artbeats.com

 

[Mark Thorpe]

My point is that, unless it is tens of thousands a quarter, it is negligible.

Considering the cheapest shooting day cost you ~$2k in equipment, AC, sundo and your time. How on earth are you going to pay the bills, not to mention putting food on the table?

My costs are generally much higher, often upwards of $6k per shooting day. Just boat hire is $3.5k per day and there are days, sometimes weeks when you can film nothing!

Phil can correct me if I am wrong, but I do not believe there is a single footage library paying 6 or even 5 digits to a film maker every quarter.

If you can be bothered with your b-rolls or repurposed material, you may consider a library, but I found just preparation of the material not worth the effort.

Pawel,
You must be the chap I heard about who hires the QE2 as a dive tender whilst snorkeling in rock pools !!!! :whistling:

$6k a day?? What ever happened to going on a dive trip for ten days, paying tourist rates and having a word with the dive shop owner, normally beforehand, to say you will just do your own thing? I've done many liveaboards, done all the diving on my own, solo to boot, and come away with great stock. Also land based. Backs need scratching in this world and as such I am happy to put a short promo reel together for a dive shop that gives me a few k's worth of diving over a period of time.....

Respect for dem deep pockets.....

Cheers,
Mark.

 

[Phil Bates]

Hey Phil, Im still waiting to hear back from you guys. I'm going out in a few days to get some stuff shot for a camera course i'm doing in a few weeks so should have some great stuff.


Andrew.

Hi Andrew,
We sent an email out to you last week and it bounced. We are trying again this morning in case there was a problem on our end.

Sorry about that,
Phil

http://www.artbeats.com

 

[Tom Lowe]

LMAO, Mark.

 

[Andrew Martin]

Hey Phil. Ignore the PM i just sent you i got the email from Wanda.

Andrew.

 

[Pawel Achtel]

Pawel,
You must be the chap I heard about who hires the QE2 as a dive tender whilst snorkeling in rock pools !!!! :whistling:

$6k a day??

Hehehe.

Mark, it may work for stock, not if you follow the action. Also, with the amount of gear I have, I usually take 3/4 of the deck space. I'm as bad or even worse than Howard Hall. We do take some divers to offset some cost, but generally those divers pay a fraction of normal cost and are limited to less than 20% of the boat capacity. I take the rest of space. :biggrin: Divers do not have any say where we go or how long we stay there, although no one complained yet...(and came back alive).

Besides, I go to very strange places out of the beaten track. Sometimes it takes 5 days just to get there by boat. It is not unusual for me to film in the same spot for a month. Most tourist divers would find it boring.

Lastly, and most importantly, I do not film when tourists divers are in the water. How do you avoid some clowns getting in the view with 20+ tourist divers in the water?

Most professional u/w film makers do exactly the same: Howard Hall, Dave Hannan, Richard Fitzpatrick, just to name a few.

With topside filming, it is completely out of question to take any tourists. The places I go are remote, hazardous, require strict permits, and I spend long times with animals trying not to disturb them.

Today's nature films are very competitive. BBC, Disney, Nat Geo and others make it very hard for independents to compete. They have budgets of tens of millions of dollars per film. No one will give you money to produce your nature film. They may take your ideas and hire you at best.

If you are filming just as good material, frankly, you are wasting your time! To be competitive you have do do better, much better than the BBC. And, it is tough.

Unfortunately, to get better results more often than not you have to spend more too. When it hurts is if you go for a 2-3 week shoot and come back literally with nothing. It happened more than once...But then sometimes you do get footage that would make producers of the Planet Earth green with envy. :bleh: And, that's the reward :devil: