MicrostockGroup
Microstock Photography Forum - General => General Photography Discussion => Topic started by: crazychristina on September 18, 2009, 08:30
-
I bought my first SLR camera in 1985, and that's when I consider myself to have become a serious amateur photographer. I bought books, downgraded my auto (Pentax MG I think) equipment to the venerable Pentax K1000 and learned the basics of photography. Field naturalists club, local camera club, landscape and nature photogrpaphy. Graduated from negative to tranny (slide film, for those who know me too well).
In 2003 I went digital (Pentax *ist D - never figured out how to say that), and mostly looked at my work on computer, with very occasional printing. In 2007 I joined istock. So I've been working out how much money I've spent since then due to istock. Upgrades to K10D and K20D. I would probably have done only one of those if not for the XL size. Started shooting in studio - first hotlights and then some Bowens strobes. I don't think I would have done that if it wasn't where most of the action is at in stock. More recently, some class glass (Pentax Limited lenses).
I'll break even on my investment in stock (over and above being a serious amateur) when I reach gold on istock. 10,000 images, approx $20,000 in royalties. Interesting to note that, according to istockcharts.multimedia.de, only about 1,400 out of nearly 30,000 contributors are gold or above.
-
Do you take into account your time spent as costs assigning a value to it?
If I dont include time spent on this I did break even a lot of time ago... When I take the time spent into the equation using my usual "hourly rate" then things are not so great :P
Time is money!
-
I bought my first SLR camera in 1985, and that's when I consider myself to have become a serious amateur photographer. I bought books, downgraded my auto (Pentax MG I think) equipment to the venerable Pentax K1000 and learned the basics of photography. Field naturalists club, local camera club, landscape and nature photogrpaphy. Graduated from negative to tranny (slide film, for those who know me too well).
In 2003 I went digital (Pentax *ist D - never figured out how to say that), and mostly looked at my work on computer, with very occasional printing. In 2007 I joined istock. So I've been working out how much money I've spent since then due to istock. Upgrades to K10D and K20D. I would probably have done only one of those if not for the XL size. Started shooting in studio - first hotlights and then some Bowens strobes. I don't think I would have done that if it wasn't where most of the action is at in stock. More recently, some class glass (Pentax Limited lenses).
I'll break even on my investment in stock (over and above being a serious amateur) when I reach gold on istock. 10,000 images, approx $20,000 in royalties. Interesting to note that, according to istockcharts.multimedia.de, only about 1,400 out of nearly 30,000 contributors are gold or above.
I am not sure when I broke even. I was not very organized at keeping track in the beginning. I think it probably happened my second year submitting to the micros. I do know that the first year I submitted to the micros (2005) was the first year I broke even for that year.
Out of curiosity, where do you find the total number of contributors to istock listed? 30,000 sounds low to me. I thought it was 50 or 60k
-
I bought my first SLR camera in 1985, and that's when I consider myself to have become a serious amateur photographer. I bought books, downgraded my auto (Pentax MG I think) equipment to the venerable Pentax K1000 and learned the basics of photography. Field naturalists club, local camera club, landscape and nature photogrpaphy. Graduated from negative to tranny (slide film, for those who know me too well).
In 2003 I went digital (Pentax *ist D - never figured out how to say that), and mostly looked at my work on computer, with very occasional printing. In 2007 I joined istock. So I've been working out how much money I've spent since then due to istock. Upgrades to K10D and K20D. I would probably have done only one of those if not for the XL size. Started shooting in studio - first hotlights and then some Bowens strobes. I don't think I would have done that if it wasn't where most of the action is at in stock. More recently, some class glass (Pentax Limited lenses).
I'll break even on my investment in stock (over and above being a serious amateur) when I reach gold on istock. 10,000 images, approx $20,000 in royalties. Interesting to note that, according to istockcharts.multimedia.de, only about 1,400 out of nearly 30,000 contributors are gold or above.
I'd say that there are quite a few people who "break even" primarily through sales on sites other than IS, and with considerably less than $20,000 - personally this was also my first major milestone on stock - earning more than I'd spent on equipment - which at that stage was about $2000. I reached it after about 1.5 years of ad-hoc uploading, but mainly through SS - IS only accounted for about 15% of my earnings at that stage.
My current goal is to earn more than I'm spending week-to-week and for that income to rise steadily (this is proving to be the hard part - maybe time for more work and less travel?!).
I think its easy for newer contributors and photographers to get caught up in buying a whole collection of camera equipment before they really understand what it is that they need. For me this is a constant temptation that I also need to keep in check. Too much equipment is often more of a hindrance than a help. In most cases, any current model DSLR with good quality glass is sufficient for stock. If you're not getting sales and files accepted, chances are the problem is technique and content related, not due to your equipment. While there are clearly some photographers who can earn enough to pay for expensive studios and equipment (such as Yuri) its important to remember that the key to their success isn't due to the equipment that they shoot with (good though it may be), but more to other factors, such as choice of subject, styling and organisation.
The time to spend more serious money on gear is when you know what it is you want to shoot, and that the extra expense is justified by the fact that it will earn you more income. Alternatively you may just want a new toy... and can justify it as an "investment" to your partner... don't let me rain on your parade in that case ;)
-
Out of curiosity, where do you find the total number of contributors to istock listed? 30,000 sounds low to me. I thought it was 50 or 60k
The figure given was from http://istockcharts.multimedia.de/ (http://istockcharts.multimedia.de/) - don't know if this includes absolutely all contributors, but it must be most as the total files listed is over 5 million, which will be the sum of those from the 29,271 contributors listed (as of now).
If there are another 20k or more, they don't upload much!
-
The figure given was from [url]http://istockcharts.multimedia.de/[/url] ([url]http://istockcharts.multimedia.de/[/url]) - don't know if this includes absolutely all contributors, but it must be most as the total files listed is over 5 million, which will be the sum of those from the 29,271 contributors listed (as of now).
If there are another 20k or more, they don't upload much!
I think these big numbers are somewhat misleading. DT claim to have 76K photographers and SS an incredible 191K. I imagine the latter is the number of individuals who have registered, sucked in via the referral scheme, but of whom the majority have no images uploaded.
According to multimedia.de on IS there are just over 1000 contributors with more than 1000 images and fewer than 5000 contributors with 250 images or more.
If the entire microstock market is currently generating about $300M per annum, as suggested by some estimates, then something like $100M should be being paid out to contributors. At a minimum gross income of say $50K, necessary to live in the Western world, then in theory microstock could support about 2000 full-timers. Of course it's never going to be shared out equally and in fact there must be a relatively small number of contributors doing extremely well and lots more struggling to grow.
-
I didn't factor in my time, but I did include 'education' - I'm a bookaholic and have quite a library on graphic arts related material. Not all photography related as I'll be branching out into illustration and 3D as soon as I get my skills up in those areas. Workshops too, and hiring some models as well. And fortunately I don't have a partner to whom I need to justify anything.
-
Out of curiosity, where do you find the total number of contributors to istock listed? 30,000 sounds low to me. I thought it was 50 or 60k
The figure given was from [url]http://istockcharts.multimedia.de/[/url] ([url]http://istockcharts.multimedia.de/[/url]) - don't know if this includes absolutely all contributors, but it must be most as the total files listed is over 5 million, which will be the sum of those from the 29,271 contributors listed (as of now).
Ah. Thanks for the info. I guess I haven't learned how to fully utilize the multimedia.de chart yet :)
Very interesting that the number is so much lower than I thought. Maybe I got confused by all the numbers claimed by SS, DT and the others. Is it really that much harder to get into istock?
Seems a massive discrepency. Maybe it is as Gostwyck suggests and those sites are including people who are registered but never upload and/or never have sales.
-
I wouldn't take into account my equipment in the balance, because I would have bought it regardless of stock photography - otherwise I would have to account for several cameras and rolls of film in the 20+ years before microstock! ;D
I should consider the time spent (even at this forum...).
-
Do you take into account your time spent as costs assigning a value to it?
If I dont include time spent on this I did break even a lot of time ago... When I take the time spent into the equation using my usual "hourly rate" then things are not so great :P
Time is money!
From a business perspective I'd agree with you, but in my case, I was taking photos before Microstock and I'd still be taking photos without Micro, so that's not a business expense it's just a fact of life. ;D What changed is that instead of the pictures only being shown to some bored friends, I now can upload them and bore buyers. ;)
Honestly, many people who are selling now, were also photographers before they discovered Micro. It's just a way to recover some of the expense of a hobby, that would mostly be time and money spent, if there was no microstock.
For the others, the IS information can be looked at as representative, since it may not include all sellers. However it sure does indicate, just like a survey would, what the general situation is for one of the best micro sites in the world. Aside from the small percentage of successful diamonds, golds and exclusives, it does show that many try, but more will give it a try and quit or never reach payout. Simple facts.
What we have on this forum is a highly skewed selective group of successful micro shooters. Look at one of the surveys here of how much people make annually or monthly, then look at the IS survey. There's nothing that matches.
I don't have a valid sampling of referrals, but some people who have websites and have tried recruiting more aggressively may want to add their experience. So far I've had one of my referrals, that actually got something uploaded to a site. (and is making good sales by the way) The majority signed up and never sent in one photo. ??? The numbers aren't as important as the fact that some people sign up for an account on many of the sites, IS included and have never been accepted or never submitted one photo. Same could be said for SS, FT, BS, DT, and others.
-
I wouldn't take into account my equipment in the balance, because I would have bought it regardless of stock photography - otherwise I would have to account for several cameras and rolls of film in the 20+ years before microstock! ;D
I should consider the time spent (even at this forum...).
If you start taking into account time sent on this forum and none of us would break even ;)
-
I broke even I would say within 7-8 month, but I started very humbly with 600 Euro set of eqipment bought used by my former boss. As people already said you do not need to spent thousands of $ for microstock. You can start out with $300 -400, buy a used Canon 10D or 20d together with the 50 1.8 mm and you have all you need for the beginning. If you consider the time microstock is a waste of your time for probably 95% of all contributors ::)
-
I'm with you Lisa, that seems like a very low number of contributors for I-stock in my opinion. I would expect them to have the most in the industry and I've heard much higher numbers for FT.
-
At the beginning of my microstock photography, almost 2 years ago, I upgraded to Canon 40d + one new micro lens. I recovered that cost within 10 months from microstock. Since then, I am shooting cheap pictures and resisting temptation to upgrade, but how long I can resist?
-
There are nearly 500,000 files not accounted for by the contributor charts. 50,000 contributors with 10 files each maybe. I think people only made it onto that list if someone put them there, it wasn't automatic. Mind you, I have no idea who put me there.
-
Geez, Dingo. I expected you to chime in 3 days ago. You're getting slow!
-
wilddingo, you are completely, totally, absolutely correct in your analysis. But I just found out I sold an image on IStock for TWO DOLLARS SEVENTY SIX CENTS and I'm so excited, I can't sit down. I'm heading out right now to spend it on a latte. Viva IStock!
It's called "Stockhom Syndrome".
-
I do agree that if stock was my primary source of income that of course time would be calculated into the break-even. For me, it's not. The hours I have put in have not taken away from paying work so I'm not sure how I could apply an hourly rate. If I have time and feel like doing it, I do it. Stock has actually enabled me to improve my day-job earnings by upgrading equipment. So, if I am not paying myself an hourly rate, I normally break even the moment I have my first sale.
I am considering doing a real shoot though... I am working out a budget right now and if I go through with it I will be renting a location, purchasing props and wardrobe. I will either pay the models, or trade for one of my products. This post has inspired me to earnestly track my time, and to determine an hourly rate for myself, I'll have to estimate the time I've spent budgeting and looking for wardrobe up until now. I will also have to track the TFP time on my graphics design for the models I guess as well then. Without time factored in, the shoot will cost around $500. For me, that is a big deal because I have not paid for a shoot before. (LOL, I am usually the one getting paid for shoots!) I have 7 or 8 random photos in this subject that have earned more than this amount in the past year so it appears to be a good risk. The topic is somewhat timeless so if I get some good shots, they should be salable for many years as well.
Wilddingo, I would be interested in your point of view. I think you will tell me not to sell to micros. I am not on macros, so then what is my option? Alamay? I have not heard of any wild success stories on Alamay (but I only really know micro shooters). Should I split the photos up and send some to micro and some to Alamay? At least 60% of the shots from this location will have models.
-
Geez, Dingo. I expected you to chime in 3 days ago. You're getting slow!
I guess I haven't been paying close enough attention to this forum as I've never seen this Dingo guy around before. What a brilliant analysis by yet another anonymous photographer who for all we know is shooting with his phone cam. What's the point of contributing to any forum if all you plan to bring to the table is trash talk. It's boring.
-
Dudes, why keep trying to twist the meaning of financial terms to sidestep the reality that you are photography failures?
Break even point is a financial term that describes when expenses equal revenue.
You bozos don't even calculate expenses correctly, why . do you bother with figuring out some imaginary break even point? The biggest expense in stock is labor, not equipment.
You dudes are losing money with every image you sell. You have a higher chance of "breaking even" by sitting on your butts and spending no more time on microstock and just letting your images earn.
It's that simple really.
This is a very shallow analysis. Most businesses spend a few years not breaking even while they establish themselves. With a few exceptions (people who are already making a living from microstock) people on this forum are in the development stage. Your assumption that no one here will ever be doing any better, and is wasting their time, completely misses the point of forums like this. But then, maybe you're not intending to make a positive or rational contribution here, but have some other motive.
-
I think wilddingo is basically correct up to a point - the microstocks' commissions are abyssmally low and many of us are still pursuing this hoping for some sort of lightning to strike. Maybe I find a subject that clicks and starts making sales, or a microstock adds flexible pricing so I can actually get $2 instead of 25 cents- or something. As it is now, it seems to me that it's very difficult to come up with many images that will pay back the actual cost of making them. Not impossible, but not easy.
That doesn't mean I'm "losing" money, though. It's like the RIAA claiming they're "losing" billions because of illegal MP3s. They're not, because in most of those cases people would not have bought the actual (overpriced) legal copies.
-
I guess I haven't been paying close enough attention to this forum as I've never seen this Dingo guy around before. What a brilliant analysis
Agreed, Mr. Wilddingo is not only a voice of reason but an immensely talented writer in itself. Reading his enlightening comments is always a pleasure.
Most businesses spend a few years not breaking even while they establish themselves.
Yes, but regular businesses start with honest business planning and a clear picture of their real costs. Talking about break-even and looking only at the price for a handful of lenses and books is not exactly what I would call a professional approach. I don't get it why so much aspiring semipro microstockers are not willing to learn the basics of business. All serious contributors would win if colleagues learn to understand the differences between making a profit and taking part in postmodern slavery. This is no macro vs. micro or old fart vs. youngster thing but plain common sense.
-
Any time I am trying to dissuade someone from getting into microstock I will give them a similar speech to what Wilddingo is spreading (minus the vitriol of course).
However in my case I do approach this as a business. Keeping track of all possible expenses including props, models, locations, equipment, office supplies, home office deductions, entertainment etc. You name it, I deduct it, but I still can't manage to get my expenses to amount to more than 15% of my gross.
I think the vast majority of spending for a stock photography business is in the first couple of years as you collect all your equipment. Of course you do have to upgrade cameras every two to three years, and probably also your computer, but other major costs such as lighting gear, backdrops, and a good lens collection are one time costs.
According to my accountant 15% overhead extremely low for a business. He keeps trying to get me to spend more so my tax burden would be lower ;)
-
I think the vast majority of spending for a stock photography business is in the first couple of years as you collect all your equipment. Of course you do have to upgrade cameras every two to three years, and probably also your computer, but other major costs such as lighting gear, backdrops, and a good lens collection are one time costs.
According to my accountant 15% overhead extremely low for a business. He keeps trying to get me to spend more so my tax burden would be lower ;)
Exactly.
You could always try going on a vacation photography field expedition Lisa to suck up those extra $'s and add variety to the jolly old port. They say travelling broadens the mind but they never mention how fast it thins the wallet too.
-
You could always try going on a vacation photography field expedition Lisa to suck up those extra $'s and add variety to the jolly old port. They say travelling broadens the mind but they never mention how fast it thins the wallet too.
Great idea! My portfolio would probably benefit enormously from some "stock" images of, let's say.... Hawaii? ;)
-
My impression has always been that micros shot themselves on the foot right from the start. The price delta between micros and trads RF images was too steep, the micros started with one dollar vs the hundreds from the trads... The price point selected by the micros should have been 5x-10x that base: at $5-10 (or even $20) those images would still have been bargains. But no, they drove prices to the very bottom and once buyers got used to those prices having them to come up has been a slow and lenghty pain (Vetta is trying to do it, but wouldn't it been better that Vetta prices were the starting price and not the distant hopeful goal?). Once micro prices settled in there was nothing more to do, except to jump into the "feed the beast" model in which we are all in.
-
You can't apply a traditional business model to microstock production. Most of us were taking photos (and paying the associated costs) for years without ever making a cent because it's something we like to do. Unlike many forms of work, photography can be a pleasure, and the rewards are not necessarily purely financial. Maybe pro photographers only do it for work, and don't get any enjoyment out of what they do. Monetizing a hobby is not something that can easily be reduced to a business plan and accounting.
If I never make another cent from microstock my 'investment' will have been well worth it because I'll be so much better at (and better equiped for) taking the pictures I really want to take.
-
I don't agree with the "I was taking pictures before anyway so my time isn't an expense" idea. Business is business and if you're making any money it's a business.
Yes, a lot of you at one point were probably spending very little time taking random snapshots and then not doing much with them. Maybe uploading to Flickr.
But now, in addition to buying a lot more stuff, you're spending a lot more time researching things to shoot, coming up with ideas, traveling to the locations, setting up lighting, picking keepers, post processing, keywording, uploading to multiple sites, checking sales stats, and on and on.
I doubt any of you were doing all of that time consuming stuff before you started micro.
Does anybody really know what they make per hour doing this?
-
I don't agree with the "I was taking pictures before anyway so my time isn't an expense" idea. Business is business and if you're making any money it's a business.
Yes, a lot of you at one point were probably spending very little time taking random snapshots and then not doing much with them. Maybe uploading to Flickr.
But now, in addition to buying a lot more stuff, you're spending a lot more time researching things to shoot, coming up with ideas, traveling to the locations, setting up lighting, picking keepers, post processing, keywording, uploading to multiple sites, checking sales stats, and on and on.
I doubt any of you were doing all of that time consuming stuff before you started micro.
Does anybody really know what they make per hour doing this?
Your division of photographers into pros or happy snappers is very simplistic. Long before I joined mictostock I was a camera club member with an interest in nature and landscape photography. I travelled long distances to good locations, spent many many hours in the darkroom processing (B&W only, not color), mounting prints for club comps etc. Also pushing my creative boundaries. I also shot pics for the school where I worked - sports events, drama, music, formal balls, products from the woodworking and cooking classes, etc. This was mostly to learn to be a better photographer (and be somewhat useful as well). All for no pay because it was my abiding passion. I don't think I'm alone amongst microstockers.
-
Does anybody really know what they make per hour doing this?
Isn't that impossible to define until you stop 'doing this' and also remove your portfolio from all agencies?
I know what I've already grossed and, even if I never uploaded another image, I'd certainly project that sum to at least double over the next 3-5 years. Some images might continue to sell for another 20 years if they're unique and good enough. Also, there's always the possibility of hitting the jackpot with an image or two that could completely skew the equation.
-
I do agree that if stock was my primary source of income that of course time would be calculated into the break-even. For me, it's not. The hours I have put in have not taken away from paying work so I'm not sure how I could apply an hourly rate. If I have time and feel like doing it, I do it. Stock has actually enabled me to improve my day-job earnings by upgrading equipment. So, if I am not paying myself an hourly rate, I normally break even the moment I have my first sale.
...
Wilddingo, I would be interested in your point of view. I think you will tell me not to sell to micros. I am not on macros, so then what is my option? Alamay? I have not heard of any wild success stories on Alamay (but I only really know micro shooters). Should I split the photos up and send some to micro and some to Alamay? At least 60% of the shots from this location will have models.
Dude, if you want to be successful in business, you need to understand what's a business.
You form a business to earn a profit.
In business, there are standard ways to calculate revenue, costs and profit/loss. It's quite simple. It is of little relevance if you personally think your labor should be included in your costs or not. In the business world, the rules are already made for you, you don't make 'em up as you go along.
Since you've chosen not to track your labor it only means that, as a business owner, you have absolutely no idea how your business is performing. That's all. Don't think that you're automagically sitting on a goldmine just because you decided to cook the books by doing improper accounting.
The fact that one can cruise the microstock forums and hear tales of people "making money" and "breaking even" only serves to perpetuate the myth that microstock is a legitimate business model, with legitimate business objectives, which it isn't.
It shouldn't even be called a "business model". Any activity where 99% of participants do not make a profit shouldn't even have the word "business" in it.
What you have is a hobby:
n. pl. hob·bies
An activity or interest pursued outside one's regular occupation and engaged in primarily for pleasure.
So, I can't even take your question regarding micros, macro or Alamy all that seriously. Business is not about micro or macro. It's about profit. You're treating stock photography like a hobby.
If you've got $500 to burn, stamp collecting might be a better option for you.
-
For tax purposes I record all expenses related to my microstock photography, computer costs, home office costs, etc. However, in a sole proprietorship business model I don't need to trace cost of my time or labor, at least for taxes. I don't pay a salary to myself. I have some other streams of income in this mode, but microstock is starting to dominate.
Of course, it would be interesting and a good business practice to include my labor cost when analyzing a profit or loses from microstok, i.e., to look not at RPI (return per image) but return per investment.
So, what my hourly rate should be when working on microstock? Any ideas or suggestions? Let's assume that things like medical insurance are covered by my other job.
-
According to my accountant 15% overhead extremely low for a business. He keeps trying to get me to spend more so my tax burden would be lower ;)
No crap Sherlock!
Your accountant is talking about taxable profit, which in the case of a self-employed individual does not include labor.
If you're running a business, you're concerned with the operating profit in your business' financial statements which should account for labor.
You can twist facts and anecdotes all you want, but you won't get away from the fact that producing, distributing and managing your 5,000 microstock images involved considerable labor. So, really, revealing that your tax deductable expenses are only 15% of your gross says nothing at all about the health of your microstock endevour.
-
That doesn't mean I'm "losing" money, though. It's like the RIAA claiming they're "losing" billions because of illegal MP3s. They're not, because in most of those cases people would not have bought the actual (overpriced) legal copies.
Dude, you're seriously confused about the business of licensing intellectual property.
Are you saying that I can walk up to a Bentley factory and drive away with their entire stock without paying because I think their products are overpriced? Are you saying that Bentley did not "lose" money on me because I wouldn't have bought their product anyway?
Dude, you're seriously confused about the nature of IP if you use that analogy. Feel free to walk away with a copy of one of their Bentleys if you can manage it.
So what's the nature of IP then?
I don't advocate piracy, however, here's the difference. If I steal your car you no longer have a car. If I copy one of your images illegally you still have that image to do whatever you want with it. You have 'lost' nothing, except the chance to sell it to me (or anyone else I might give it to).
-
That doesn't mean I'm "losing" money, though. It's like the RIAA claiming they're "losing" billions because of illegal MP3s. They're not, because in most of those cases people would not have bought the actual (overpriced) legal copies.
So is that the same as a micro agency claiming they're losing thousands/millions/billions from illegal photos? What about you as the contributor? You wouldn't feel ripped off with people saying your cheap micro images are overpriced so they feel it's okay to take them?
If there was no way to cheat the system, and people wanted the MP3/image/whatever, they would have no choice but to pay for it. If everyone can get away with stealing then the product will have little to zero value.
-
Your accountant is talking about taxable profit, which in the case of a self-employed individual does not include labor.
If you're running a business, you're concerned with the operating profit in your business' financial statements which should account for labor.
I agree with above and would like to take my labor into account.
So, I would repeat my question: what my labor is worth?
Hourly rate for a stock photographer? Example?
-
Your division of photographers into pros or happy snappers is very simplistic. Long before I joined mictostock I was a camera club member with an interest in nature and landscape photography. I travelled long distances to good locations, spent many many hours in the darkroom processing (B&W only, not color), mounting prints for club comps etc. Also pushing my creative boundaries. I also shot pics for the school where I worked - sports events, drama, music, formal balls, products from the woodworking and cooking classes, etc. This was mostly to learn to be a better photographer (and be somewhat useful as well). All for no pay because it was my abiding passion. I don't think I'm alone amongst microstockers.
If your microstock adventure is entirely about passion, and you have no hope in hell of making a profit out of your efforts, what exactly is the point of discussing break-even points and, as if one some misguided mission, not even bothering to calculate the break-even point properly?
You microstockers live in this Lala land of make believe where everyone hides their monumental failures by discussing everything in generic business terms.
"This is my BME!"
"I'm up 34% year-to-year!"
"I broke even after only a few months!"
"My expenses are only 15% of my gross!"
Why not just tell it like it is? How about:
"99% involved in microstock do not make a profit. The majority don't even treat it as a business."
"It's an expensive hobby that allows me to pursue my passion for photography while enriching my agents with my free labor."
-
Your accountant is talking about taxable profit, which in the case of a self-employed individual does not include labor.
If you're running a business, you're concerned with the operating profit in your business' financial statements which should account for labor.
I agree with above and would like to take my labor into account.
So, I would repeat my question: what my labor is worth?
Hourly rate for a stock photographer? Example?
What do you want it to be worth? What do you need to make for this to be considered a good use of time or a waste of time?
That's the whole point. It seems like most people here don't manage financials so they have no idea what their revenue, expenses, and profits/losses are.
I'd take a guess that most people here make less than $2 per hour US. What's minimum wage working at the hamburger joint? About $8-$10 p/h here in the US.
-
So, I would repeat my question: what my labor is worth?
If your goal is to become a full-time stock photographer, I would start by calculating the hourly rate for your OTHER job and aim for that.
If you accept to do stock photography for less than your other job, then in purely rational business terms, you're losing money.
-
I bought my first SLR camera in 1985, and that's when I consider myself to have become a serious amateur photographer. I bought books, downgraded my auto (Pentax MG I think) equipment to the venerable Pentax K1000 and learned the basics of photography. Field naturalists club, local camera club, landscape and nature photogrpaphy. Graduated from negative to tranny (slide film, for those who know me too well).
In 2003 I went digital (Pentax *ist D - never figured out how to say that), and mostly looked at my work on computer, with very occasional printing. In 2007 I joined istock. So I've been working out how much money I've spent since then due to istock. Upgrades to K10D and K20D. I would probably have done only one of those if not for the XL size. Started shooting in studio - first hotlights and then some Bowens strobes. I don't think I would have done that if it wasn't where most of the action is at in stock. More recently, some class glass (Pentax Limited lenses).
I'll break even on my investment in stock (over and above being a serious amateur) when I reach gold on istock. 10,000 images, approx $20,000 in royalties. Interesting to note that, according to istockcharts.multimedia.de, only about 1,400 out of nearly 30,000 contributors are gold or above.
This has been an interesting discussion.
Just out of curiosity, based on your past year-to-year and projected performance, when do you expect to hit gold on iStock and be profitable?
-
I bought my first SLR camera in 1985, and that's when I consider myself to have become a serious amateur photographer. I bought books, downgraded my auto (Pentax MG I think) equipment to the venerable Pentax K1000 and learned the basics of photography. Field naturalists club, local camera club, landscape and nature photogrpaphy. Graduated from negative to tranny (slide film, for those who know me too well).
In 2003 I went digital (Pentax *ist D - never figured out how to say that), and mostly looked at my work on computer, with very occasional printing. In 2007 I joined istock. So I've been working out how much money I've spent since then due to istock. Upgrades to K10D and K20D. I would probably have done only one of those if not for the XL size. Started shooting in studio - first hotlights and then some Bowens strobes. I don't think I would have done that if it wasn't where most of the action is at in stock. More recently, some class glass (Pentax Limited lenses).
I'll break even on my investment in stock (over and above being a serious amateur) when I reach gold on istock. 10,000 images, approx $20,000 in royalties. Interesting to note that, according to istockcharts.multimedia.de, only about 1,400 out of nearly 30,000 contributors are gold or above.
This has been an interesting discussion.
Just out of curiosity, based on your past year-to-year and projected performance, when do you expect to hit gold on iStock and be profitable?
Good question. I'm in a very formative phase at the moment. I'm working hard at reaching an adequate level of proficiency with Illustrator and with a 3D application to contribute those media. I could expand that to Flash content too if I wanted - I've done some basic Flash production and my developing illustration skills (plus my knowledge of scripting) could make that viable. As far as photography goes I've more than doubled my port in the past few months (being exclusive on istock helps that) and have had several BMEs although numbers are still not great.
So, it's all a bit of a melting pot. My ultimate aim is to pay my rent (approx $20,000 AUD) from microstock. If I put the expenses behind me (dons flack suit) I could be half way there in a year and achieve it by the end of the following year. I should be gold round about then. I could take a second job in my current profession (teaching), maybe by teaching night classes, but I really prefer to diversify my interests and meet different challenges. I get bored fairly easily.
-
Sh*t. I feel horrible, I've been such a freaking idiot. I better get a ladder and rip all the shingles off my roof and ship all the backdrops back to the U.S. and drag my 3 most recent lenses down to the camera store because these are a few things that I purchased in the past 13 months with my illegitimate micro earnings.
Seriously Wilddingo, I asked you specifically for your opinion oh-wise-one, but your reply is just another rant. Your way of treating others tells me clearly what your life must really be like. I don't doubt that you are a very talented artist and keep a good set of books, but you really need to find some beauty in your life. This perpetual state of misery will give you a heart attack and there's way too many shots left to take for that.
-
Every month so far since January my microstock earnings have been twice what I earn at my regular fulltime job with not even one 10th of the effort put into it. Because of personal circumstances I spent 2 months this summer without even taking or uploading a photo and other than a bit of a drop at SS my earnings have improved. If that is my case then I'm sure that there are many others with the same results and no I don't live in a 3rd world country where the wages are low.
I agree that it is my hobby but an extremely profitable one.
Wilddingo
Dude, if you want to be successful in business, you need to understand what's a business.
You form a business to earn a profit.
In business, there are standard ways to calculate revenue, costs and profit/loss. It's quite simple. It is of little relevance if you personally think your labor should be included in your costs or not. In the business world, the rules are already made for you, you don't make 'em up as you go along.
Since you've chosen not to track your labor it only means that, as a business owner, you have absolutely no idea how your business is performing. That's all. Don't think that you're automagically sitting on a goldmine just because you decided to cook the books by doing improper accounting.
The fact that one can cruise the microstock forums and hear tales of people "making money" and "breaking even" only serves to perpetuate the myth that microstock is a legitimate business model, with legitimate business objectives, which it isn't.
It shouldn't even be called a "business model". Any activity where 99% of participants do not make a profit shouldn't even have the word "business" in it.
What you have is a hobby:
n. pl. hob·bies
An activity or interest pursued outside one's regular occupation and engaged in primarily for pleasure.
So, I can't even take your question regarding micros, macro or Alamy all that seriously. Business is not about micro or macro. It's about profit. You're treating stock photography like a hobby.
If you've got $500 to burn, stamp collecting might be a better option for you.
-
My impression has always been that micros shot themselves on the foot right from the start. The price delta between micros and trads RF images was too steep, the micros started with one dollar vs the hundreds from the trads... The price point selected by the micros should have been 5x-10x that base: at $5-10 (or even $20) those images would still have been bargains. But no, they drove prices to the very bottom and once buyers got used to those prices having them to come up has been a slow and lenghty pain (Vetta is trying to do it, but wouldn't it been better that Vetta prices were the starting price and not the distant hopeful goal?). Once micro prices settled in there was nothing more to do, except to jump into the "feed the beast" model in which we are all in.
I don't mind the low prices so much, as they sell in high quantity. The more prices go up, the less sites sell and sometimes I wonder if higher prices are going to be detrimental. I do think the licences should be more restrictive though. 1$ for a small blog photo seems fair but prices for a photo on the front cover of a magazine should be nearer the macros. This does put off lots of contributors from using microstock and perhaps that isn't a bad thing.
-
So, what my hourly rate should be when working on microstock? Any ideas or suggestions? Let's assume that things like medical insurance are covered by my other job.
There is no such thing as a correct hourly rate. Someone like Yuri Arcurs might feel that 1,000$ is appropriate while a 16year old living in Romania might feel that 2.50$ is great. Simply choose a rate that you are comfortable with and that reflects your background and your costs of living.
What really counts is not to overlook your invested labour for getting an educated opinion about when your work starts to become profitable.
-
Every month so far since January my microstock earnings have been twice what I earn at my regular fulltime job with not even one 10th of the effort put into it.
That sounds like you need to give up your full-time job and concentrate on microstock asap.
-
I guess only "bozo with a tiny brain" would share some numbers here ...
almost 2 years in microstock, ~1600 pictures in microstock portfolio
"breaking even" gives me estimate of my work value as ~5 $/hour for the entire period of my microstock activity
analyzing a few recent months and assuming that 1/3 of sale income is saved for equipment investments my hourly microstock rate is about 15 $/hour, so a double minimum wage in US
My goal is not to be a full time stock photographer. I lost 1/2 of my "other" job a year ago. Microstock is helping me to survive a rough time. Among my supplemental streams of income microstock looks pretty stable and is growing. And, there is also a high fun factor here.
-
I'm not screwing the taxman, and everything is in accordance with the law and I don't do anything that would upset Revenue Canada and I have had my statements reviewed by accountants that have found nothing wrong with them. Microstock is part of my business offerings, and I don't just do microstock. I have other parts that also produce revenue. So fark off
Given your ridiculous assertions about everything, I am not going to give you any more ammo to fuel whatever fire you are trying to burn.
Just for anyone who cares to know about the tax implications: Lets say I make $8000 US this year from microstock, that would be $8000 US that IS will give me a T5 statement for (a Canadian royalties statement used for my income tax form), I would need to pay tax on that. However, I incurred many expenses while producing many of the images that are generating that revenue this year and for years to come. I am entitled to deduct those expenses, which I do in accordance to the guidelines published by Revenue Canada. I also deduct the appropriate capital cost allowances for my gear, calculate the percentage used (km/total km) by me from my car for business purposes and try to complete my forms in the most accurate, legal way possible. When I take trips for photographs which do not just include images for micro, I deduct whatever expenses I can justify if questioned by the Revenue Agency. The snarky comments that I'm evading taxes is full of B.S. I do expect to pull in a profit. If I do not pull in that profit, its because I'm trying to build my business, and thus I will definitely pull in less money than I spend. When my CCA credits run out, I will lose a lot of tax credits. I operate like a legitimate business would and its not about tax evasion, but I'm not going to be afraid to use the tools made available to me by my government. And I'm not going to listen to some shmoe who can't cut it in the world of microstock (and will be my opinion until I see some proof of awesomeness).
Wilddingo's actions and words are completely opposite. You claim that no one should do microstock because their is no money and you aren't getting paid for it properly. However, who is paying you to post here? To harass forum members and hijack threads? If there is no money, then you could be doing something better with your time? Say, like producing images where you could earn a return. Or work for an 'acceptable' hourly wage (although I don't think one exists because you are a sour *insult removed* with nothing better to do). I'm not inclined to take advice from someone who can't even take their own.
Honestly, what do you expect to gain here by posting? Do you expect people to respect you because you are going against an establishment of some sort? Do you think people are going to see you as smarter than the rest because you see things differently? You are going to have to do more than say 'dude' and call people who are obviously successful at this game 'bozos' to gain some of that respect.
-
In the US, if the artist registered his copyright with the Copyright Office, he can further claim statutory damages.
This is exactly the issue now being argued in the courts. The question is, what are the guidelines for awarding statutory damages? The original intent was to cover cases where the exact number of copies made by an infringing business could not be determined. Whether statutory damages should be awarded for personal use of a single copy is currently controversial. The recent statutory damage award of $1.92 million to the RIAA (for 24 songs, from a single mother of modest means) was based on her alleged participation in a file-sharing network. The RIAA lawyers convinced a jury - which clearly didn't understand how peer-to-peer networks or file-sharing software actually worked - that her deliberate actions had resulted in the loss of millions of potential sales. Many of us are hoping that eventually sanity will prevail in a higher court.
Here's a summary of the issue:
http://www.publicknowledge.org/node/2529 (http://www.publicknowledge.org/node/2529)
That article makes the point that "the law needs to consider a number of factors when awarding statutory damages, including the defendant’s size (are they a private party or a small start up as opposed to a giant corporation?), the intent of the party and any reasonable defenses provided by that party."
I can employ a reductio ad absurdum argument to illustrate the "slipperiness" of IP protection when it comes up against the "fair use" doctrine. If I purchase CDs, I clearly have the rights to listen to the music on them. I believe I also have the rights to let my friends listen to them in my house. Can my friends borrow the CDs? I believe so, but I'm not sure the RIAA would agree. If I put my speakers in my back yard so that my neighbors can hear the music too - have I exceeded my rights? Maybe - depending on my "intent". If I let my neighbors call out requests, and I play the CDs they want to hear... am I just a nice neighbor, or a pirate broadcaster? My point here is that IP law is always a matter of interpretation and in the end, it is hard to assert rights of control over images and music, because they consist - in the real world - of light and air.
This is now totally off topic. I'll let you have the last word.
-
There are certainly many ways to look at labor in factoring how much "profit" you've made to date.
The dingo has pointed out to me in a prior thread that my hourly microstock wage is less than that of a McDonald's employee. If I add up my sales to date, subtract my cost of hardware and software, and divide that amount by the total number of hours I have put into microstock from day 1 to today, he's right... I could have earned the same money at Mickey D's for the past ten months or so. No argument there.
But what he fails to consider is that if I stopped today, all the pics I've generated will continue to earn money for me well into the future, effectively increasing my hourly rate for the past ten months significantly as time goes on, without me putting another minute into it. My hamster wheel will keep spinning ON ITS OWN while I lie back and watch.
However, I choose to look at it month to month, or even day to day. My first months were an INVESTMENT. I was LEARNING the ropes of microstock and did not expect to bring in a professional's earnings in the beginning. Apply the dingo's logic to my college years, when I was learning my profession while paying tuition and working a low-paying job in my field in the afternoons. The dingo would have told me to give up... I'd be better off flipping burgers.
Fast forward to today... if I divide the money I'll make in sales today by the amount of hours I'll put in tonight, I am VERY pleased with that hourly rate, and based on my stats to date, I expect that rate to keep growing as time goes on.
To sum up... my total profit for Year 1 will be fair while nothing to crow about. But even if I plateau today and earn my current rate throughout Year 2, it will be a very comfortable second salary for me, more than justifying the few hours a night I'll continue to put into microstock.
-
Just to note that this thread is open for discussion again. The ridiculous off topic posts (and the responses to them) have been moved into a hidden area. Hopefully this discussion can continue - it is an interesting topic.
-
There are certainly many ways to look at labor in factoring how much "profit" you've made to date.
The dingo has pointed out to me in a prior thread that my hourly microstock wage is less than that of a McDonald's employee. If I add up my sales to date, subtract my cost of hardware and software, and divide that amount by the total number of hours I have put into microstock from day 1 to today, he's right... I could have earned the same money at Mickey D's for the past ten months or so. No argument there.
But what he fails to consider is that if I stopped today, all the pics I've generated will continue to earn money for me well into the future, effectively increasing my hourly rate for the past ten months significantly as time goes on, without me putting another minute into it. My hamster wheel will keep spinning ON ITS OWN while I lie back and watch.
I definitely agree. There a lot of upfront labor costs that I probably won't recoup for a long time. Some of my illustrations will probably never be profitable. But when I look at what I earn versus the time I put in each month now, it is definitely worth it. This may be what holds a lot of people back. The first hump is hard to get over. Dingo is probably right that a large percentage (I'm not sure if it's 99%) won't make much money. It is not a get rich quick scheme. You have to work hard, invest time and want to do it.
-
I agree Leaf, it is an interesting topic. Glad to see it resurrected minus the irrelevant stuff.
Powerdroid (as usual) makes a very good point. In the beginning you are working really hard for very little return. But over a couple of years, if you keep working hard and uploading regularly the time spent vs. dollars received ratio turns more in your favor because of the older files still earning and hopefully new ones selling too.