Author Topic: Yuri Arcurs beginning (Read 25296 times)

calcaneus10 · « **on:** July 17, 2013, 20:37 »

When Yuri was on shutterstock, it said his location was South Africa. I'm wondering if he incorporated his business there to avoid taxes? Since he is from Denmark, I suspect it would be too expensive to run a profitable company there because of labor costs. In fact, when I look at where the big time contributors are (like 50,000-250,000) they are usually from Estonia or South Africa, etc. I've never seen a big time contributor in the U.S. Is it because the costs are so prohibitive? I imagine just finding someone to help retouch could cost $20/hr in the U.S. I wonder if you wanted to really scale up, would you have to be in a country where labor costs are super cheap or could you somehow do it in the U.S.? Anyone have any thoughts?

tab62 · « **Reply #1 on:** July 17, 2013, 20:42 »

I thought about making my teen age daughter do all my processing for $3 per hour but all she has do is contact the child protective services and I am busted lol

tickstock · « **Reply #2 on:** July 17, 2013, 21:26 »

leaf · « **Reply #3 on:** July 17, 2013, 21:37 »

It's pretty easy to own a company in Denmark or wherever and do shoots in South Africa and outsource image editing to India. Where you shoot doesn't need to be connected to where you company is registered.

calcaneus10 · « **Reply #4 on:** July 17, 2013, 22:01 »

Interesting thoughts, thanks.

You wouldn't by chance have any links to Sean and Lisa's work on shutterstock would you?

gbalex · « **Reply #5 on:** July 17, 2013, 22:25 »

Quote from: calcaneus10 on July 17, 2013, 20:37

When Yuri was on shutterstock, it said his location was South Africa. I'm wondering if he incorporated his business there to avoid taxes? Since he is from Denmark, I suspect it would be too expensive to run a profitable company there because of labor costs. In fact, when I look at where the big time contributors are (like 50,000-250,000) they are usually from Estonia or South Africa, etc. I've never seen a big time contributor in the U.S. Is it because the costs are so prohibitive? I imagine just finding someone to help retouch could cost $20/hr in the U.S. I wonder if you wanted to really scale up, would you have to be in a country where labor costs are super cheap or could you somehow do it in the U.S.? Anyone have any thoughts?

Re Tax's You could always hire SS's early accounting firm.

"As a result of our Reorganization, we are subject to entity-level taxation, which will result in significantly
greater income tax expense than we have incurred historically.

Prior to our Reorganization, we operated as a New York limited liability company. As a limited
liability company, we recognized no federal and state income taxes, as the members of the LLC, and
not the entity itself, were subject to income tax on their allocated share of our earnings. On October 5,
2012, we reorganized as a Delaware corporation.

Consequently, we are currently subject to entity-level taxation even though historically Shutterstock Images LLC did not pay U.S. federal or state income taxes. As a result, our corporate income tax rate will increase significantly as we are now subject to federal, state and city income taxes.

Page 29 SS 2012 Annual Report"

calcaneus10 · « **Reply #6 on:** July 17, 2013, 23:04 »

Yep, wish I had bought their stock during their IPO. Doubled in under a year

But even with an LLC, the tax on profits still affects the owners rather than the corporation.

The beauty in living in a country like Moldova is the tax treaty whereby you only pay 10% to the Moldavian country and none of the outrageous 30% you would pay to the U.S.

jacoblund · « **Reply #7 on:** July 17, 2013, 23:26 »

Quote from: calcaneus10 on July 17, 2013, 20:37

When Yuri was on shutterstock, it said his location was South Africa. I'm wondering if he incorporated his business there to avoid taxes? Since he is from Denmark, I suspect it would be too expensive to run a profitable company there because of labor costs. In fact, when I look at where the big time contributors are (like 50,000-250,000) they are usually from Estonia or South Africa, etc. I've never seen a big time contributor in the U.S. Is it because the costs are so prohibitive? I imagine just finding someone to help retouch could cost $20/hr in the U.S. I wonder if you wanted to really scale up, would you have to be in a country where labor costs are super cheap or could you somehow do it in the U.S.? Anyone have any thoughts?

It's true that it's difficult to expand your business in a country like Denmark. In Denmark a skilled retoucher needs at least $25/hr. At PeopleImages.com the starting salary for a retoucher is $3,8/hr. So in South Africa you get 6-7 retouchers for the price of one in Denmark.

Xanox · « **Reply #8 on:** July 17, 2013, 23:47 »

Quote from: calcaneus10 on July 17, 2013, 23:04

Yep, wish I had bought their stock during their IPO. Doubled in under a year

But even with an LLC, the tax on profits still affects the owners rather than the corporation.

The beauty in living in a country like Moldova is the tax treaty whereby you only pay 10% to the Moldavian country and none of the outrageous 30% you would pay to the U.S.

well, if you think 30% is outrageous try some european countries where it's up to 45% and in plus the services provided are sh-ite.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #9 on:** July 18, 2013, 00:45 »

I might be wrong but I think he actually said at the time that he was relocating for tax purposes.

JPSDK · « **Reply #10 on:** July 18, 2013, 01:13 »

Tax purposes are many things. Such as having a couple of companies and directing money streams here and there.
Surplus here and minus there.

And we can sit and guess as we always do when the talk is about Yuri.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #11 on:** July 18, 2013, 05:49 »

Don't we already have a thread here discussing his $2 an hour or something African interns?

To Calcaneus, I'm not on SS. Why?

calcaneus10 · « **Reply #12 on:** July 18, 2013, 08:48 »

Sean--I just took a look at your website. Wow! That is impressive stuff, man. Just quality image after quality image. Love it!

The reason I was asking about your portfolio was because I was wondering if it was possible in the U.S. to have a portfolio of 50,000 quality images. I look at some of the contributors on SS, and I'm wondering how . this one guy has a port of 250,000 pictures?

? And they aren't crap either...they are really professional quality. I guess it's a factory of workers.

Sean, if you don't mind me asking, how big is your team?

cthoman · « **Reply #13 on:** July 18, 2013, 08:56 »

Quote from: calcaneus10 on July 18, 2013, 08:48

Sean--I just took a look at your website. Wow! That is impressive stuff, man. Just quality image after quality image. Love it!

The reason I was asking about your portfolio was because I was wondering if it was possible in the U.S. to have a portfolio of 50,000 quality images. I look at some of the contributors on SS, and I'm wondering how . this one guy has a port of 250,000 pictures?? And they aren't crap either...they are really professional quality. I guess it's a factory of workers.

Sean, if you don't mind me asking, how big is your team?

Some people do it all themselves too.

calcaneus10 · « **Reply #14 on:** July 18, 2013, 09:04 »

ammentorp--interesting stuff

calcaneus10 · « **Reply #15 on:** July 18, 2013, 12:28 »

http://www.shutterstock.com/g/belchonock/sets

Of the 150,000 some images added on SS this week, 10,000 was from the factory above. I looked at this guy's port one month ago, and since that time he/she/they has/have added 40,000 images!!!! Mind boggling. Kudos to them--smart businesspeople.

Xanox · « **Reply #16 on:** July 18, 2013, 12:39 »

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on July 18, 2013, 05:49

Don't we already have a thread here discussing his $2 an hour or something African interns?

that's a lot of money anyway.

in Vietnam i've seen people doing office jobs earning 150-200$ at most and they were using computers with MS Office and all.

i guess a decent photoshop retoucher could get away with 200-250$/month all inclusive, or 3-400$ if he's really top notch.

Jonathan Ross · « **Reply #17 on:** July 19, 2013, 11:32 »

Hi calcaneus10,

Same thing goes on right inside the U.S. as well. You can run your LLC from a state that does not have state taxes and save. There are some road blocks to go around but it is done all the time.

Best,
Jonathan

Jaak Nilson · « **Reply #18 on:** July 20, 2013, 02:22 »

Hi calcaneus10,

I live in Estonia. Nordic country at Baltic sea in Europe.
About taxes. It is truth that our taxes are very frindly for company owners, but taxes for labor power are pretty high. But peoples salary is still pretty low. It means it is very good if you live and work here and can sell your production out from Estonia fro international market.
I know one very successful microstock photographer from Estonia Lev Dolgachov.
But he really lives in Estonia too. Sure he is working and shooting in several locations sometimes.
Yes, Estonia is very good place if you wish to optimize your taxes. Our taxes system is very easy and takes about 15 minutes to send a declaration in internet. Americans usually must hire a specialist to send their annual taxes report for uncle Sam.

Lev · « **Reply #19 on:** July 20, 2013, 02:54 »

i once mentioned it in public elsewhere, so it's not a big secret:

every single photoshoot overall production cost is usually 2000 to 3000 EUR for us. sometimes much more. rarely less. every single shoot. in "super cheap" Estonia.

if we've done our job very well, we can get it back in one year. if we make it good, it takes 2 to 3 years. if we are extremely lucky and hit jackpot, it can sometimes be 6 to 9 months. if we fail (it means if we performed "above average"), we never get this money back. "it's ok" quality never pays back on stock nowadays. if you produce just "above average" it effectively means you're in charity business, donating designers with your money and effort.

in average, it takes 1.5 to 2 years for us to get to ground zero level for photoshoot. then we start to profit. if someone still buys it after 2 years.

it's a tough business.

so don't be illusioned, people. it's not about the location you're living in. it's about fighting for market every single day, no days off, no vacations. wherever you live. microstock is not Eldorado it used to be back in 2005. not anymore. and never will be. if you're able to deliver good-selling content, you can compete. if you're not - living in Vietnam or Zimbabwe will not help you.

WarrenPrice · « **Reply #20 on:** July 20, 2013, 09:00 »

Quote from: dolgachov on July 20, 2013, 02:54

i once mentioned it in public elsewhere, so it's not a big secret:

every single photoshoot overall production cost is usually 2000 to 3000 EUR for us. sometimes much more. rarely less. every single shoot. in "super cheap" Estonia.

if we've done our job very well, we can get it back in one year. if we make it good, it takes 2 to 3 years. if we are extremely lucky and hit jackpot, it can sometimes be 6 to 9 months. if we fail (it means if we performed "above average"), we never get this money back. "it's ok" quality never pays back on stock nowadays. if you produce just "above average" it effectively means you're in charity business, donating designers with your money and effort.

in average, it takes 1.5 to 2 years for us to get to ground zero level for photoshoot. then we start to profit. if someone still buys it after 2 years.

it's a tough business.

so don't be illusioned, people. it's not about the location you're living in. it's about fighting for market every single day, no days off, no vacations. wherever you live. microstock is not Eldorado it used to be back in 2005. not anymore. and never will be. if you're able to deliver good-selling content, you can compete. if you're not - living in Vietnam or Zimbabwe will not help you.

Thank You. That is one of the best written pieces of advice that I ever have read on this forum. Wishing you continued success.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #21 on:** July 20, 2013, 09:21 »

Quote from: dolgachov on July 20, 2013, 02:54

every single photoshoot overall production cost is usually 2000 to 3000 EUR for us. sometimes much more. rarely less. every single shoot. in "super cheap" Estonia.

if I may say I believe you are spending more than you should, I don't think Sean, Lisa, Tyler and many other "people" photographers are running that kind of numbers (not even close)

I am sure you know what you are doing so I don't think microstock ain't that "tough" or you would look into other markets like RM per example

JPSDK · « **Reply #22 on:** July 20, 2013, 09:30 »

So now we learn that the produsers first get their investment back after a long time, 1-2 years are mentioned.

That at the same time, the agencies get their money in advance and pay us later, or directly postponed.

Its us contributors whe suffer all the financial burden and risk. There is a huge financial backlog out there: Contributors who never reach a payment, pictures that first earn their back after a very long time, or pictures that are so expencive to produce that they never can pay back.

And havent we always been told that - "they who take risks, should be rewarded. It is they, who develop society and bring prosperity ".

There is something wrong here!

Lev · « **Reply #23 on:** July 20, 2013, 10:05 »

nothing is wrong. it's business. it's investing. it's money making. sentiments and sufferings do not count. money counts. net profit is the king.

back to South Africa, Estonia, Vietnam and whatever. it does not matter where you are. it only matters WHO you are. this topic is about Yuri, so let's get back to Yury.

whatever people here talk or think, the fact is: Yury is a brilliant money making machine. he was making money from Denmark, he makes money from South Africa now, and i bet you can put him to North Pole and guy will start making money right away. literally in minutes. it's not about cheap SA retouchers. it's not about tax system. it's just in his blood. he is just * brilliant in this. period.

calcaneus10 · « **Reply #24 on:** July 20, 2013, 10:38 »

Thanks for everyone's comments! Really brings to light many things I was in the dark about.

Dolgachov--totally agree with you on many things. This is a business. The whole point of my post was not to complain about the high costs in the U.S. and other European countries. Rather, I wished to understand the business model of contributors with large volume and high quality. I find Yuri's business model to be very intriguing, and if anything, his scale of production should be emulated---not his work.

It's not just about taxes though. It's about standard of living. In the U.S., a good cup of coffee from Starbucks can cost $2 vs. in India a good cup of coffee is $.20. Or take for example, my friend who lives in Moldova. His apartment monthly rent costs $300--the same apartment in the U.S. costs $3000. You can't deny the point that if you have some money saved up in the U.S., you could stay afloat longer in another country with a lower standard of living, allowing you to put in more work hours for your photography rather than trying to do this in the background of a part-time job. It is true you need your own creative ideas...but it sure as hell helps A LOT to have lower costs, lower taxes, and lower standard of living. That's why U.S. corporations move overseas--to increase profits.

topol · « **Reply #25 on:** July 20, 2013, 10:44 »

Quote from: dolgachov on July 20, 2013, 02:54

i once mentioned it in public elsewhere, so it's not a big secret:

every single photoshoot overall production cost is usually 2000 to 3000 EUR for us. sometimes much more. rarely less. every single shoot. in "super cheap" Estonia.

if we've done our job very well, we can get it back in one year. if we make it good, it takes 2 to 3 years. if we are extremely lucky and hit jackpot, it can sometimes be 6 to 9 months. if we fail (it means if we performed "above average"), we never get this money back. "it's ok" quality never pays back on stock nowadays. if you produce just "above average" it effectively means you're in charity business, donating designers with your money and effort.

in average, it takes 1.5 to 2 years for us to get to ground zero level for photoshoot. then we start to profit. if someone still buys it after 2 years.

it's a tough business.

so don't be illusioned, people. it's not about the location you're living in. it's about fighting for market every single day, no days off, no vacations. wherever you live. microstock is not Eldorado it used to be back in 2005. not anymore. and never will be. if you're able to deliver good-selling content, you can compete. if you're not - living in Vietnam or Zimbabwe will not help you.

Tho you have a lot of truth there, it obviously will help you if you can cut costs to half or quarter of what your competition need to spends, simply by operating in a low cost country. Also because most microstockers are basically coming from flippin' burgers, no art education or anything, they don't realize that the average quality of microstock is pathetically low. 80%+ (maybe 90+) of the stock is almost completely useless junk with inapt, unattractive models, poor lightning, ridiculous post processing, dogs in the back garden, snapshots of pigeons, relatives, stray cats, supposed-to-be funny selfies, etcetc...

JPSDK · « **Reply #26 on:** July 20, 2013, 10:45 »

Its right it is business and profit making for the agencies, and you and yuri.

But what about all the hobbyists, they are as you said: supporting designers. Or profit is being made on people who does not make a profit. Isnt that called exploitation, like in the 16 tons a day song?

It can be compared to fishing an fishermen, when first the commercial fishermen have caught most of the fish, it does not pay to fish anymore and they stop.
The hobbyists continue to fish they are happy if just they catch something.
I can see its a brilliant setup for the agencies, very profitable. But in its nature it is exploitative.

And what about you, dolgachov, we have heard that yuri found other ways. Are you also planning to. Is micro still sustainable for a professional?
I can understand if you dont want to tell, but I would be very interested in any comment on sustainability and also the hobbyist factor.

topol · « **Reply #27 on:** July 20, 2013, 10:48 »

Quote from: calcaneus10 on July 20, 2013, 10:38

Thanks for everyone's comments! Really brings to light many things I was in the dark about.

Dolgachov--totally agree with you on many things. This is a business. The whole point of my post was not to complain about the high costs in the U.S. and other European countries. Rather, I wished to understand the business model of contributors with large volume and high quality. I find Yuri's business model to be very intriguing, and if anything, his scale of production should be emulated---not his work.

It's not just about taxes though. It's about standard of living. In the U.S., a good cup of coffee from Starbucks can cost $2 vs. in India a good cup of coffee is $.20. Or take for example, my friend who lives in Moldova. His apartment monthly rent costs $300--the same apartment in the U.S. costs $3000. You can't deny the point that if you have some money saved up in the U.S., you could stay afloat longer in another country with a lower standard of living, allowing you to put in more work hours for your photography rather than trying to do this in the background of a part-time job. It is true you need your own creative ideas...but it sure as hell helps A LOT to have lower costs, lower taxes, and lower standard of living. That's why U.S. corporations move overseas--to increase profits.

It's the same thing as with every other job that moved out of the U.S...

cthoman · « **Reply #28 on:** July 20, 2013, 10:48 »

Quote from: calcaneus10 on July 20, 2013, 10:38

Thanks for everyone's comments! Really brings to light many things I was in the dark about.

Dolgachov--totally agree with you on many things. This is a business. The whole point of my post was not to complain about the high costs in the U.S. and other European countries. Rather, I wished to understand the business model of contributors with large volume and high quality. I find Yuri's business model to be very intriguing, and if anything, his scale of production should be emulated---not his work.

It's not just about taxes though. It's about standard of living. In the U.S., a good cup of coffee from Starbucks can cost $2 vs. in India a good cup of coffee is $.20. Or take for example, my friend who lives in Moldova. His apartment monthly rent costs $300--the same apartment in the U.S. costs $3000. You can't deny the point that if you have some money saved up in the U.S., you could stay afloat longer in another country with a lower standard of living, allowing you to put in more work hours for your photography rather than trying to do this in the background of a part-time job. It is true you need your own creative ideas...but it sure as hell helps A LOT to have lower costs, lower taxes, and lower standard of living. That's why U.S. corporations move overseas--to increase profits.

Cost of living really isn't that bad in the U.S. It is not the cheapest, but it is also nowhere near the most expensive.

topol · « **Reply #29 on:** July 20, 2013, 10:51 »

Quote from: calcaneus10 on July 20, 2013, 10:38

... I find Yuri's business model to be very intriguing...

How can you? You basically don't know anything about his business model, neither do the rest of the ppl here. What if he was heavily leveraged f.e.? You will never know.

tickstock · « **Reply #30 on:** July 20, 2013, 10:54 »

luissantos84 · « **Reply #31 on:** July 20, 2013, 11:00 »

Quote from: JPSDK on July 20, 2013, 10:45

Is micro still sustainable for a professional?

looking at his latest approvals at FT (over 1300) I would say yes

calcaneus10 · « **Reply #32 on:** July 20, 2013, 11:00 »

Quote from: topol on July 20, 2013, 10:51

Quote from: calcaneus10 on July 20, 2013, 10:38

... I find Yuri's business model to be very intriguing...

How can you? You basically don't know anything about his business model, neither do the rest of the ppl here. What if he was heavily leveraged f.e.? You will never know.

Yes, you are right topol...I don't know anything about his business model. I should rephrase my sentence--I would be very grateful to be able to learn more about how his business model works.

JPSDK · « **Reply #33 on:** July 20, 2013, 11:08 »

Quote from: luissantos84 on July 20, 2013, 11:00

Quote from: JPSDK on July 20, 2013, 10:45
Is micro still sustainable for a professional?

looking at his latest approvals at FT (over 1300) I would say yes

Im not so sure.
I think the factories are dumping their content all over in these the last days.
But what would I know, I cannot comprehend the factories. They must be selling to another martket also, so the images are already ½ paid for.

I mean what sort of business can you have that can produce a variation of all kinds of subjects from grapes to models in the 10.000 pic scale. Hired hands, hired photoshoppers, collections you have achieved?
I cannot understand where the pictures come from.

robhainer · « **Reply #34 on:** July 20, 2013, 11:08 »

Quote from: calcaneus10 on July 20, 2013, 10:38

Thanks for everyone's comments! Really brings to light many things I was in the dark about.

Dolgachov--totally agree with you on many things. This is a business. The whole point of my post was not to complain about the high costs in the U.S. and other European countries. Rather, I wished to understand the business model of contributors with large volume and high quality. I find Yuri's business model to be very intriguing, and if anything, his scale of production should be emulated---not his work.

It's not just about taxes though. It's about standard of living. In the U.S., a good cup of coffee from Starbucks can cost $2 vs. in India a good cup of coffee is $.20. Or take for example, my friend who lives in Moldova. His apartment monthly rent costs $300--the same apartment in the U.S. costs $3000. You can't deny the point that if you have some money saved up in the U.S., you could stay afloat longer in another country with a lower standard of living, allowing you to put in more work hours for your photography rather than trying to do this in the background of a part-time job. It is true you need your own creative ideas...but it sure as hell helps A LOT to have lower costs, lower taxes, and lower standard of living. That's why U.S. corporations move overseas--to increase profits.

Err...$3000 a month would rent you a mansion where I live. Cost of living varies greatly from place to place in the U.S. I'm sure I could hire people to do photo processing for $7.25 an hour if that's what I wanted to do. Or I could use the internet to have people in India or China do it. I could probably hire a stock shooter for $15 an hour, no problem.

Ron · « **Reply #35 on:** July 20, 2013, 11:12 »

To me it seems way too long to break even after 2 years on a 2000 dollar investment. The risk is way too high as well. Anything can happen in two years.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #36 on:** July 20, 2013, 11:15 »

Quote from: Ron on July 20, 2013, 11:12

To me it seems way too long to break even after 2 years on a 2000 dollar investment. The risk is way too high as well. Anything can happen in two years.

actually he talked in EUR, so its more like 2627$, peanuts anyway

calcaneus10 · « **Reply #37 on:** July 20, 2013, 11:32 »

peanuts in the U.S. but not peanuts in India

luissantos84 · « **Reply #38 on:** July 20, 2013, 11:37 »

Quote from: calcaneus10 on July 20, 2013, 11:32

peanuts in the U.S. but not peanuts in India

sure it can also feed a family of 10 in Africa during a few years if you want to put it that way but in fact I was talking about the currency difference not what we can do with it

Lev · « **Reply #39 on:** July 20, 2013, 12:07 »

Quote from: JPSDK on July 20, 2013, 10:45

Its right it is business and profit making for the agencies, and you and yuri.

But what about all the hobbyists, they are as you said: supporting designers. Or profit is being made on people who does not make a profit. Isnt that called exploitation, like in the 16 tons a day song?

I can understand if you dont want to tell, but I would be very interested in any comment on sustainability and also the hobbyist factor.

very easy. job or business is where people get PAID. hobby is something people are PAYING FOR. there is no other way. if some hobbist out there has an illusion it works other way, he'd better stop dreaming and wake up.

back in 2005 and until 2008 there was a fiesta on micros when hobbists had a chance to profit a bit and even make a living from micros. some of them used this chance to grow up to pro level and get ready to compete with newcoming pros on this market. but most just believed they can eternally make a living being just hobbists. now they are effectively out of this market. no more nonsence. if you are hobbist, you should either grow up to pro or you should pay for your hobby.

JPSDK · « **Reply #40 on:** July 20, 2013, 12:20 »

Good answer.
I agree. Somehow.
But there could be a bit more to it, such hobbyist could be the only providers of a certain niche material. And such he would always have downloads.
Like geology pitures, rare earths and such.

What happens for a hobbyists if he stays competitive or better within his nische?

Im trying to say that the competition is different in the main stream as in the niches?

lisafx · « **Reply #41 on:** July 20, 2013, 12:28 »

Interesting. We seem to have two different schools of thought here. One is that this business is no longer sustainable for hobbyists and will be left to the high end pros. The other is that this business is no longer sustainable for the high end pros, and will eventually only be populated mainly by hobbyists.

I tend to believe the second. Honestly, Lev, do you believe you can continue to spend 2-3k per shoot and make a profit? Regardless of the volume you produce, I don't see how it will be possible in the long term.

"The meek will inherit the Earth", and the hobbyists, who don't need to see a profit, will most likely eventually inherit the microstock market.

I believe it is already happening.

cthoman · « **Reply #42 on:** July 20, 2013, 12:34 »

Quote from: lisafx on July 20, 2013, 12:28

Interesting. We seem to have two different schools of thought here. One is that this business is no longer sustainable for hobbyists and will be left to the high end pros. The other is that this business is no longer sustainable for the high end pros, and will eventually only be populated mainly by hobbyists.

I tend to believe the second. Honestly, Lev, do you believe you can continue to spend 2-3k per shoot and make a profit? Regardless of volume, I don't see how it will be possible in the long term.

"The meek will inherit the Earth", and the hobbyists, who don't need to see a profit, will most likely eventually inherit the microstock market.

I believe it is already happening.

I actually think both will happen. That the two will split off at some point. It just seems like the natural evolution.

lisafx · « **Reply #43 on:** July 20, 2013, 12:40 »

Quote from: cthoman on July 20, 2013, 12:34

Quote from: lisafx on July 20, 2013, 12:28
Interesting. We seem to have two different schools of thought here. One is that this business is no longer sustainable for hobbyists and will be left to the high end pros. The other is that this business is no longer sustainable for the high end pros, and will eventually only be populated mainly by hobbyists.

I tend to believe the second. Honestly, Lev, do you believe you can continue to spend 2-3k per shoot and make a profit? Regardless of volume, I don't see how it will be possible in the long term.

"The meek will inherit the Earth", and the hobbyists, who don't need to see a profit, will most likely eventually inherit the microstock market.

I believe it is already happening.

I actually think both will happen. That the two will split off at some point. It just seems like the natural evolution.

Makes sense. Where do you envision the pros going? Staying in micro, or migrating to RM and/or small boutique agencies?

Lev · « **Reply #44 on:** July 20, 2013, 12:41 »

Quote from: lisafx on July 20, 2013, 12:28

I tend to believe the second. Honestly, Lev, do you believe you can continue to spend 2-3k per shoot and make a profit?

with 7 years of stock experience and 700+ stock shoots made so far - yes, i do.

lisafx · « **Reply #45 on:** July 20, 2013, 12:42 »

Quote from: dolgachov on July 20, 2013, 12:41

Quote from: lisafx on July 20, 2013, 12:28

I tend to believe the second. Honestly, Lev, do you believe you can continue to spend 2-3k per shoot and make a profit?

with 7 years of stock experience and 700+ stock shoots made so far - yes, i do.

Good luck

JPSDK · « **Reply #46 on:** July 20, 2013, 12:42 »

hasnt it already happened? For the nische markets?

Fx it is not sustaibnable for a hobbyist in rare earths to be an istock exclutive. He needs all the downloads he can get from whatever source. And every agency has a few, that goes his way,

Meaning... such a hobyist must be and is per definition non exclusive.

lisafx · « **Reply #47 on:** July 20, 2013, 12:47 »

Quote from: JPSDK on July 20, 2013, 12:42

hasnt it already happened? For the nische markets?

Fx it is not sustaibnable for a hobbyist in rare earths to be an istock exclutive. He needs all the downloads he can get from whatever source. And every agency has a few, that goes his way,

Meaning... such a hobyist must be and is per definition non exclusive.

I'm not quite sure what you're saying here, but if I read you correctly you are saying that hobbyists have to be non-exclusive?

I don't see why that would be the case. By definition, hobbyists don't need to turn a profit, so they can pretty shoot what they want and put it where they like, even if that means exclusivity.

JPSDK · « **Reply #48 on:** July 20, 2013, 12:54 »

the hobbyists dont have to be anything. They can upload one pic, get one sale oand delete it again.

But the general pressure on hobbyists works towards non exclusive and heing spread out all over.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #49 on:** July 20, 2013, 13:09 »

the all hobbyist talk is interesting but I don't believe it is that relevant once we all have different money needs in terms of living and also in terms of expenses while creating new content so a relative small income can be enough to survive in this industry, sure it isn't very stable but reading Lev's last post makes us thing that the all myth behind "microstock is dead" is once again false

apart from that I also think that the "hobbyists" represent a very small % of the files sold so the professionals (even the ones having small income) will continue to be the ones providing new salable content

at some point all these hobbyists will eventually turn into professionals too even if they keep their "day job" and then they will be upset with agencies cuts, etc

cthoman · « **Reply #50 on:** July 20, 2013, 13:11 »

Quote from: lisafx on July 20, 2013, 12:40

Makes sense. Where do you envision the pros going? Staying in micro, or migrating to RM and/or small boutique agencies?

It's hard to say. I think that is what is killing my theory is that not a lot exists to go to. It's all very Ayn Rand too.

The whole Stocksy and Offset popping up near each other was interesting. I like the idea of personal shops or Symbiostock type stuff being a factor. I'd love to see somebody like Dreamstime or Canstock just announce they no longer wanted to compete with Shutterstock anymore (since they really aren't anyway) and build micro 2.0. But, that seems like pure fantasy. It's probably easier to build a new site and experiment with it like Offset.

calcaneus10 · « **Reply #51 on:** July 20, 2013, 13:27 »

Wow, didn't think anyone would pull an Ayn Rand in here

From what I can see in Shutterstock at least, I believe microstock will be dominated by big microstock contributors. How many contributors are contributing to the 150,000 pics that were accepted last week? All I know is there are 40,000 contributors, 1 of those contributors had 10,000 pictures uploaded.

cthoman · « **Reply #52 on:** July 20, 2013, 14:07 »

Quote from: calcaneus10 on July 20, 2013, 13:27

Wow, didn't think anyone would pull an Ayn Rand in here

Yeah, I couldn't resist. Something about a bunch of capitalists moving to an island to start a utopian society free of regulations cracks me up every time I think about it. And, it always seems so appropriate for micro.

ShadySue · « **Reply #53 on:** July 20, 2013, 14:20 »

Quote from: JPSDK on July 20, 2013, 12:42

hasnt it already happened? For the nische markets?

Fx it is not sustaibnable for a hobbyist in rare earths to be an istock exclutive. He needs all the downloads he can get from whatever source. And every agency has a few, that goes his way,

Meaning... such a hobyist must be and is per definition non exclusive.

I'm not 100% I'm interpreting what you mean by 'rare earths', but I'm assuming you mean a geology specialist who has geological images which are rare in stock. (Please correct me if I'm wrong.)

If these pics really have rarity value, it would be better for that person to sell through a specialist macro agency. However, as I've mentioned before, many (most?/all?) of these have high demands about numbers of introductory images, and particularly of the number to be added in certain periods of time, which may not be possible for someone who isn't working in the field full time.

So they'd have to consider either selling at Alamy or exclusively on iStock. Why on earth would you give away your rare images for cents on some other sites? Trouble is that while starting at iStock, you now are forced to give away your images for cents, both in the Main collection and in the PP. So until you have enough images to actually become exclusive, you are caught between a rock and a hard place, having to find enough buyers to let you become exclusive. Same on e.g. SS where you have to earn sales to get to higher levels. I'm guessing the demand on these images isn't very high, so any micro would be pointless, UNLESS this hobbyist is taking these photos anyway (because they are a professional or keen amateur geologist) and they take the photos to a high enough standard (what does that even mean on iStock nowadays?

)
Then at Alamy, the rock and hard place is that it's not the quality or rarity of the image which determines the price the image is sold for, but the discount the buyer has negotiated with Alamy. So the rarest of images can be sold for peanuts. Same on Getty.

topol · « **Reply #54 on:** July 20, 2013, 14:58 »

Quote from: lisafx on July 20, 2013, 12:42

Quote from: dolgachov on July 20, 2013, 12:41
Quote from: lisafx on July 20, 2013, 12:28

I tend to believe the second. Honestly, Lev, do you believe you can continue to spend 2-3k per shoot and make a profit?

with 7 years of stock experience and 700+ stock shoots made so far - yes, i do.

Good luck

Let's just say I too have a reaaally hard time believing those numbers. Reminds of the SS bragathon threads : )

gillian vann · « **Reply #55 on:** July 20, 2013, 15:35 »

Quote from: JPSDK on July 20, 2013, 10:45

Or profit is being made on people who does not make a profit. Isnt that called exploitation, like in the 16 tons a day song?

It can be compared to fishing an fishermen, when first the commercial fishermen have caught most of the fish, it does not pay to fish anymore and they stop.
The hobbyists continue to fish they are happy if just they catch something.
I can see its a brilliant setup for the agencies, very profitable. But in its nature it is exploitative.

this is true, and interesting to see how they treat us with such disrespect. It's not a race thing (which in the past the master/slave thing has boiled down to race or religion), this is just simple economics: we are expendable, from fledglings like me all the way up to Sean, and they treat us with open contempt.

tickstock · « **Reply #56 on:** July 20, 2013, 15:37 »

fotografer · « **Reply #57 on:** July 20, 2013, 15:41 »

Quote from: tickstock on July 20, 2013, 15:37

Quote from: topol on July 20, 2013, 14:58
Quote from: lisafx on July 20, 2013, 12:42
Quote from: dolgachov on July 20, 2013, 12:41
Quote from: lisafx on July 20, 2013, 12:28

I tend to believe the second. Honestly, Lev, do you believe you can continue to spend 2-3k per shoot and make a profit?

with 7 years of stock experience and 700+ stock shoots made so far - yes, i do.

Good luck

Let's just say I too have a reaaally hard time believing those numbers. Reminds of the SS bragathon threads : )
a portfolio of high quality images should easily be able to make $25 per image over a life time.

Yes it should easily and without spending 2 to 3 thousand on a shoot.

Ron · « **Reply #58 on:** July 20, 2013, 16:32 »

Quote from: tickstock on July 20, 2013, 15:37

Quote from: topol on July 20, 2013, 14:58
Quote from: lisafx on July 20, 2013, 12:42
Quote from: dolgachov on July 20, 2013, 12:41
Quote from: lisafx on July 20, 2013, 12:28

I tend to believe the second. Honestly, Lev, do you believe you can continue to spend 2-3k per shoot and make a profit?

with 7 years of stock experience and 700+ stock shoots made so far - yes, i do.

Good luck

Let's just say I too have a reaaally hard time believing those numbers. Reminds of the SS bragathon threads : )
a portfolio of high quality images should easily be able to make $25 per image over a life time.

How many images do you get from a 2000-3000 euro shoot? 100? 200?

25 x 100 = 2500 dollar, 2000 euro is 2700 dollar. Thats a loss over the life time of the image. If the shoot is 3000 dollar is not even sustainable.

I would never in a million years chuck 3000 euro into a shoot if break even is 2 years. That money is tied up way too long before it starts to return a profit. Its risky business in my opinion. But I could be wrong, maybe it works differently in stock photography.

trek · « **Reply #59 on:** July 20, 2013, 16:54 »

Quote from: calcaneus10 on July 18, 2013, 12:28

http://www.shutterstock.com/g/belchonock/sets

Of the 150,000 some images added on SS this week, 10,000 was from the factory above. I looked at this guy's port one month ago, and since that time he/she/they has/have added 40,000 images!!!! Mind boggling. Kudos to them--smart businesspeople.

274614 images.... plus 10K added in a week! Gotta wonder... how many employees are needed to do that?

luissantos84 · « **Reply #60 on:** July 20, 2013, 16:58 »

I wonder what is included in the 2k euro shoot

- 100 eur per hour / model?
- how many people working on the pictures beside the photographer(s)?
- studio rent, electricity, water?
- lighting equipment?
- insurance?
- computer, monitors, photoshop?

topol · « **Reply #61 on:** July 20, 2013, 17:20 »

Quote from: tickstock on July 20, 2013, 15:37

Quote from: topol on July 20, 2013, 14:58
Quote from: lisafx on July 20, 2013, 12:42
Quote from: dolgachov on July 20, 2013, 12:41
Quote from: lisafx on July 20, 2013, 12:28

I tend to believe the second. Honestly, Lev, do you believe you can continue to spend 2-3k per shoot and make a profit?

with 7 years of stock experience and 700+ stock shoots made so far - yes, i do.

Good luck

Let's just say I too have a reaaally hard time believing those numbers. Reminds of the SS bragathon threads : )
a portfolio of high quality images should easily be able to make $25 per image over a life time.

That sounds great because "life time" can mean whatever it takes I guess... so it's always true

topol · « **Reply #62 on:** July 20, 2013, 17:25 »

Quote from: luissantos84 on July 20, 2013, 16:58

I wonder what is included in the 2k euro shoot

- 100 eur per hour / model?
- how many people working on the pictures beside the photographer(s)?
- studio rent, electricity, water?
- lighting equipment?
- insurance?
- computer, monitors, photoshop?

You can easily get to 2K just by buying fancy clothes for a handful of models, but It's simply unecessary.

farbled · « **Reply #63 on:** July 20, 2013, 18:08 »

Quote from: ShadySue on July 20, 2013, 14:20

Quote from: JPSDK on July 20, 2013, 12:42
hasnt it already happened? For the nische markets?

Fx it is not sustaibnable for a hobbyist in rare earths to be an istock exclutive. He needs all the downloads he can get from whatever source. And every agency has a few, that goes his way,

Meaning... such a hobyist must be and is per definition non exclusive.

I'm not 100% I'm interpreting what you mean by 'rare earths', but I'm assuming you mean a geology specialist who has geological images which are rare in stock. (Please correct me if I'm wrong.)

If these pics really have rarity value, it would be better for that person to sell through a specialist macro agency. However, as I've mentioned before, many (most?/all?) of these have high demands about numbers of introductory images, and particularly of the number to be added in certain periods of time, which may not be possible for someone who isn't working in the field full time.

So they'd have to consider either selling at Alamy or exclusively on iStock. Why on earth would you give away your rare images for cents on some other sites? Trouble is that while starting at iStock, you now are forced to give away your images for cents, both in the Main collection and in the PP. So until you have enough images to actually become exclusive, you are caught between a rock and a hard place, having to find enough buyers to let you become exclusive. Same on e.g. SS where you have to earn sales to get to higher levels. I'm guessing the demand on these images isn't very high, so any micro would be pointless, UNLESS this hobbyist is taking these photos anyway (because they are a professional or keen amateur geologist) and they take the photos to a high enough standard (what does that even mean on iStock nowadays? )
Then at Alamy, the rock and hard place is that it's not the quality or rarity of the image which determines the price the image is sold for, but the discount the buyer has negotiated with Alamy. So the rarest of images can be sold for peanuts. Same on Getty.

Thought I'd chime in now as a hobbyist AND one that specializes in rare earth minerals and geology (Since it came up. I think there might be others, but I don't know of any). The really fun part about not being dependent on MS for my living is that I can try various avenues for my images, whether RM, speciality sites catering to only industrial, MS and self-hosting. I can tell you from doing this part-time for the last 6 years is that most of the suppositions made earlier are incorrect. I have researched and tried all available avenues that I've been able to find and I am pleased with the return on my time investment (my gear was bought and paid for by other photographic business, as was finding my subjects for my niche market).

For me, MS was, is and always will be a quick and easy way for me to make extra money on photos that otherwise would sit on my hard drive after they were paid for.

Yes, some are very rare. But you have to ask that if very few buyers want them, how many is very few? 10? 100? 1000? What makes it worth it to a hobbyist? I strongly suspect you'd be shocked what one of my all time best sellers is (not gold), and who consistently buys it. I'm not exclusive but I am not on many sites anymore because I can't be bothered with low returning ones (including Alamy, they don't have buyers in my niche). I'm leaning more towards my Symbiostock site and if/once I generate enough sales through my marketing efforts, I'll move them there exclusively.

All that aside, it's a terrible niche, not worth anyone else trying it or giving it another thought.

tickstock · « **Reply #64 on:** July 20, 2013, 21:05 »

Jaak Nilson · « **Reply #65 on:** July 21, 2013, 01:39 »

Production cost is 2000-3000 euros per photo session. I do not know, maybe really. I think in US or in western part of Europe fees for models are would be two-three times higher than in Estonia. Our overall income is simply 2-3 lower.

Next is out of topic already. I do assignments and a lot of architectural assignments. I send same images usually to macrostock too. But I have no costs. Only some euros for gas. And I am paid by customer already. Best solution. And an income from marcostock is bonus.

Today only some contibutors can live from stock only. Sure there are such people. But they started some time ago. It is very important for your ranking. A competition was not so high like today. If a contributor started in time and her/his images were very good then they sold lot of images. And all agencies loves a people whose images sells well. Searching system displaying their images usually at first. So if you have no good sale history it is very high to be on top.

http://goo.gl/Lv2HF

Ron · « **Reply #66 on:** July 21, 2013, 01:48 »

Quote from: tickstock on July 20, 2013, 21:05

Quote from: Ron on July 20, 2013, 16:32
Quote from: tickstock on July 20, 2013, 15:37
Quote from: topol on July 20, 2013, 14:58
Quote from: lisafx on July 20, 2013, 12:42
Quote from: dolgachov on July 20, 2013, 12:41
Quote from: lisafx on July 20, 2013, 12:28

I tend to believe the second. Honestly, Lev, do you believe you can continue to spend 2-3k per shoot and make a profit?

with 7 years of stock experience and 700+ stock shoots made so far - yes, i do.

Good luck

Let's just say I too have a reaaally hard time believing those numbers. Reminds of the SS bragathon threads : )
a portfolio of high quality images should easily be able to make $25 per image over a life time.
How many images do you get from a 2000-3000 euro shoot? 100? 200?

25 x 100 = 2500 dollar, 2000 euro is 2700 dollar. Thats a loss over the life time of the image. If the shoot is 3000 dollar is not even sustainable.

I would never in a million years chuck 3000 euro into a shoot if break even is 2 years. That money is tied up way too long before it starts to return a profit. Its risky business in my opinion. But I could be wrong, maybe it works differently in stock photography.
I was using dolgachevs port size divided by 700 shoots of $2000. That comes out to needing to make $25 per shot. Didn't yuri have a million istock sales on around 20000 images? That's probably more than $50 or $100 per shot just on istock and they will continue to sell.

I missed it that he said he had done 700 photo shoots. I cant find that comment.

stockxfoto · « **Reply #67 on:** July 21, 2013, 02:23 »

"it's about fighting for market every single day, no days off, no vacations."
.... that's the line I burning in my head. what is the point than?
I hope there are people doing ok that take vacations.

There are probably some pretty smart people with lower overheads taking time off and still making a living between macro, micro, and alamy. I have to wonder what kind of profit is actually being made with that kind of overhead and workload. I hope a lot. I would need a few million to give up weekends for a year.

There should be a new poll - how many make 80% or more if there living from stock and still take weekends off.

Lev · « **Reply #68 on:** July 21, 2013, 04:49 »

i believe i told way too much and wasted way too much time here.

have a great success with sales, everybody.

farbled · « **Reply #69 on:** July 21, 2013, 09:39 »

Quote from: dolgachov on July 21, 2013, 04:49

i believe i told way too much and wasted way too much time here.

have a great success with sales, everybody.

Not a waste at all. If it works for you and you enjoy it, then you're doing it right! All the best!

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #70 on:** July 21, 2013, 10:28 »

Quote from: stockxfoto on July 21, 2013, 02:23

"it's about fighting for market every single day, no days off, no vacations."
.... that's the line I burning in my head. what is the point than?
I hope there are people doing ok that take vacations.

There are probably some pretty smart people with lower overheads taking time off and still making a living between macro, micro, and alamy. I have to wonder what kind of profit is actually being made with that kind of overhead and workload. I hope a lot. I would need a few million to give up weekends for a year.

There should be a new poll - how many make 80% or more if there living from stock and still take weekends off.

If I worked the sort of hours suggested here I'd have made millions out of this. I'm extremely lazy but I make enough to get by on with very little effort just by sticking to the original idea of microstock and not getting involved in location expenses, model fees and all the rest of it. I feel I'm being a complete wastrel if I spend as much as $30 on a shoot. I'm about to embark on one now that cost me $8 - and I can tell you that I hummed and hawed over whether to invest that much!
It might sound stupid, but look at the implications for the figures. Within three of four years a really successful shoot can bring me in 100 times what it cost. To match that sort of return, Dolgachov would have to make $250,000 from one of his shoots in three years, or $80,000 a year - whereas he says that getting close to 5% of that would represent a highly successful shoot.
On the downside, he says that a shoot might completely flop, leaving him about $2,500 out of pocket. I have flops, too, that can leave me as much as $25 out of pocket. The $2,500 he can lose on one shoot is more than I would budget for an entire year of (lazy) stock shooting.
And it gets better (for me) because I am wildly over-estimating my costs. In fact they are less than zero because (you guessed it) most of my subjects end up getting eaten. It saves on eating out and means we almost completely avoid salty, processed foods, too.
What this boils down to is that while the professional studios incur very high costs and high risks for a fairly low margin and a limited upside, I have almost no costs, no downside risk, a large profit margin and a gigantic potential upside.
That's why he has to work hard and I don't.

farbled · « **Reply #71 on:** July 21, 2013, 10:34 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on July 21, 2013, 10:28

I'm extremely lazy but I make enough to get by on with very little effort just by sticking to the original idea of microstock and not getting involved in location expenses, model fees and all the rest of it.

That sums it up completely for me as well. Nicely put.

Ron · « **Reply #72 on:** July 21, 2013, 10:35 »

Quote from: dolgachov on July 21, 2013, 04:49

i believe i told way too much and wasted way too much time here.

have a great success with sales, everybody.

I thought the part you deleted was a good summary of a photoshoot. You really have it all thought out. THats good.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #73 on:** July 21, 2013, 11:37 »

Quote from: dolgachov on July 21, 2013, 04:49

i believe i told way too much and wasted way too much time here.

have a great success with sales, everybody.

I believe you haven't told/spent much time here looking at your 41 posts in over 6 years

lisafx · « **Reply #74 on:** July 21, 2013, 14:25 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on July 21, 2013, 10:28

What this boils down to is that while the professional studios incur very high costs and high risks for a fairly low margin and a limited upside, I have almost no costs, no downside risk, a large profit margin and a gigantic potential upside.
That's why he has to work hard and I don't.

^^Exactly!!

I can't say I have no expenses, but I will say my most expensive photo shoot ever cost me around $500, and most of them cost a couple hundred dollars or less. And that's with models, props, locations, etc. Most locations I shoot will trade for photos, and so will some models.

I DO take weekends off, and some weekdays too. The whole reason I prefer working for myself is so that I can have free time to do other things that are important to me, such as volunteer work, spending time with family, and - yes- sitting on my a$s.

And I manage to make a living at this. I'm not in the same league as the factories, but then my overhead is way lower and my lifestyle is exactly how I want it.

I am sorry that the agencies have made it tougher to make a living in stock, but I think that applies across the board, whether you have 5k in your port, or 50k.

Even for those who bust hump to up their production to compensate for falling incomes, you can only do that so long. You will, sooner or later, reach maximum capacity, and once that happens, it's time for the law of diminishing returns to kick in.

gillian vann · « **Reply #75 on:** July 21, 2013, 17:56 »

Quote from: farbled on July 20, 2013, 18:08

Thought I'd chime in now as a hobbyist AND one that specializes in rare earth minerals and geology (Since it came up. I think there might be others, but I don't know of any). The really fun part about not being dependent on MS for my living is that I can try various avenues for my images, whether RM, speciality sites catering to only industrial, MS and self-hosting. I can tell you from doing this part-time for the last 6 years is that most of the suppositions made earlier are incorrect. I have researched and tried all available avenues that I've been able to find and I am pleased with the return on my time investment (my gear was bought and paid for by other photographic business, as was finding my subjects for my niche market).

For me, MS was, is and always will be a quick and easy way for me to make extra money on photos that otherwise would sit on my hard drive after they were paid for.

Yes, some are very rare. But you have to ask that if very few buyers want them, how many is very few? 10? 100? 1000? What makes it worth it to a hobbyist? I strongly suspect you'd be shocked what one of my all time best sellers is (not gold), and who consistently buys it. I'm not exclusive but I am not on many sites anymore because I can't be bothered with low returning ones (including Alamy, they don't have buyers in my niche). I'm leaning more towards my Symbiostock site and if/once I generate enough sales through my marketing efforts, I'll move them there exclusively.

All that aside, it's a terrible niche, not worth anyone else trying it or giving it another thought.

ditto.

grsphoto · « **Reply #76 on:** July 21, 2013, 19:53 »

Quote from: luissantos84 on July 20, 2013, 16:58

I wonder what is included in the 2k euro shoot

- 100 eur per hour / model?
- how many people working on the pictures beside the photographer(s)?
- studio rent, electricity, water?
- lighting equipment?
- insurance?
- computer, monitors, photoshop?

http://peopleimages.grsphoto.ca/wp/image/christmas-lady-pin-up/

The budget for this image was between 3 & 5K CDN ( can't remember exact amounts..it was years ago)

Model $600-800 ( full buy out)
Set design build, prop rental... $800- 1200
Makeup, hair, wigs.... $500
Stylist ( clothing) .... $500
studio rental...... 2 days $500
Post production ( Photo shop)... $100
Catering, assistants misc.... $400

luissantos84 · « **Reply #77 on:** July 21, 2013, 20:04 »

Quote from: grsphoto on July 21, 2013, 19:53

Quote from: luissantos84 on July 20, 2013, 16:58
I wonder what is included in the 2k euro shoot

- 100 eur per hour / model?
- how many people working on the pictures beside the photographer(s)?
- studio rent, electricity, water?
- lighting equipment?
- insurance?
- computer, monitors, photoshop?

http://peopleimages.grsphoto.ca/wp/image/christmas-lady-pin-up/

The budget for this image was between 3 & 5K CDN ( can't remember exact amounts..it was years ago)

Model $600-800 ( full buy out)
Set design build, prop rental... $800- 1200
Makeup, hair, wigs.... $500
Stylist ( clothing) .... $500
studio rental...... 2 days $500
Post production ( Photo shop)... $100
Catering, assistants misc.... $400

you know how to spend money, guess we all do but looks like a little too much...

anyway you have an interesting domain name

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #78 on:** July 21, 2013, 20:16 »

Neat image, but no way that was worth it, for micro, anyways.

I spent about $3k on my airport shoot in January. Think I've sold one or two from that, lol.

grsphoto · « **Reply #79 on:** July 21, 2013, 20:38 »

Quote from: luissantos84 on July 21, 2013, 20:04

Quote from: grsphoto on July 21, 2013, 19:53
Quote from: luissantos84 on July 20, 2013, 16:58
I wonder what is included in the 2k euro shoot

- 100 eur per hour / model?
- how many people working on the pictures beside the photographer(s)?
- studio rent, electricity, water?
- lighting equipment?
- insurance?
- computer, monitors, photoshop?

http://peopleimages.grsphoto.ca/wp/image/christmas-lady-pin-up/

The budget for this image was between 3 & 5K CDN ( can't remember exact amounts..it was years ago)

Model $600-800 ( full buy out)
Set design build, prop rental... $800- 1200
Makeup, hair, wigs.... $500
Stylist ( clothing) .... $500
studio rental...... 2 days $500
Post production ( Photo shop)... $100
Catering, assistants misc.... $400

you know how to spend money, guess we all do but looks like a little too much...

anyway you have an interesting domain name

This was for a calendar series, client paid for 12 images like this... and 12 the year after.... until now not offered for stock.

ShadySue · « **Reply #80 on:** July 21, 2013, 20:39 »

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on July 21, 2013, 20:16

Neat image, but no way that was worth it, for micro, anyways.

I spent about $3k on my airport shoot in January. Think I've sold one or two from that, lol.

I'm astonished it cost you so little, but that very shoot was the one I imagined might pay for itself as renting part of an airport is something that's only possible for a very few people. Hopefully over time.

w7lwi · « **Reply #81 on:** July 21, 2013, 21:21 »

Quote from: grsphoto on July 21, 2013, 20:38

Quote from: luissantos84 on July 21, 2013, 20:04
Quote from: grsphoto on July 21, 2013, 19:53
Quote from: luissantos84 on July 20, 2013, 16:58
I wonder what is included in the 2k euro shoot

- 100 eur per hour / model?
- how many people working on the pictures beside the photographer(s)?
- studio rent, electricity, water?
- lighting equipment?
- insurance?
- computer, monitors, photoshop?

http://peopleimages.grsphoto.ca/wp/image/christmas-lady-pin-up/

The budget for this image was between 3 & 5K CDN ( can't remember exact amounts..it was years ago)

Model $600-800 ( full buy out)
Set design build, prop rental... $800- 1200
Makeup, hair, wigs.... $500
Stylist ( clothing) .... $500
studio rental...... 2 days $500
Post production ( Photo shop)... $100
Catering, assistants misc.... $400

you know how to spend money, guess we all do but looks like a little too much...

anyway you have an interesting domain name

This was for a calendar series, client paid for 12 images like this... and 12 the year after.... until now not offered for stock.

It's a beautiful image. At first I thought your watermark was a series of bubbles floating in the air. Then I realized they were not, but it's an idea if you wanted to add something like that in, possibly for use in stock if you wanted to offer it as such.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #82 on:** July 22, 2013, 02:16 »

Quote from: grsphoto on July 21, 2013, 19:53

Quote from: luissantos84 on July 20, 2013, 16:58
I wonder what is included in the 2k euro shoot

- 100 eur per hour / model?
- how many people working on the pictures beside the photographer(s)?
- studio rent, electricity, water?
- lighting equipment?
- insurance?
- computer, monitors, photoshop?

http://peopleimages.grsphoto.ca/wp/image/christmas-lady-pin-up/

The budget for this image was between 3 & 5K CDN ( can't remember exact amounts..it was years ago)

Model $600-800 ( full buy out)
Set design build, prop rental... $800- 1200
Makeup, hair, wigs.... $500
Stylist ( clothing) .... $500
studio rental...... 2 days $500
Post production ( Photo shop)... $100
Catering, assistants misc.... $400

I take it that was for the entire calendar, not for just one shot in it?

Obviously, there's a huge difference between doing a job at a known rate, when everything is budgeted against a known return, and shooting any sort of stock where the return is unknowable.

gillian vann · « **Reply #83 on:** July 22, 2013, 04:36 »

post production, which no doubt ran into more hours than the actual shoot, is very cheap!

grsphoto · « **Reply #84 on:** July 22, 2013, 06:44 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on July 22, 2013, 02:16

I take it that was for the entire calendar, not for just one shot in it?

Obviously, there's a huge difference between doing a job at a known rate, when everything is budgeted against a known return, and shooting any sort of stock where the return is unknowable.

No this budget was per shot.

The budget for photography was a small percentage of the overall project budget. The client was a printing company who wanted to show the quality of it's new printing presses. It was a fun project, but the stress of having to produce was very high.

Quote from: gillian on July 22, 2013, 04:36

post production, which no doubt ran into more hours than the actual shoot, is very cheap!

The shoot with hair and makeup was about 6 hours.... post production 15 minutes ( some colour adjustments) I like to get it right in camera.

I posted this because someone asked what a $K image looked like. I doubt I would put this money out myself for stock. The returns

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Yuri Arcurs beginning (Read 25296 times)

calcaneus10

tab62

calcaneus10

calcaneus10

calcaneus10

calcaneus10

calcaneus10

WarrenPrice

calcaneus10

calcaneus10

Ron

calcaneus10

lisafx

lisafx

lisafx

lisafx

calcaneus10

Ron

farbled

Ron

farbled

farbled

Ron

lisafx

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors