but THREE?  Even my bank doesn't need THREE!

when you signed up at your bank the first time you probably needed photo ID and a few other forums of ID.  I didn't require any.  When you sign in there is NO captcha.  It is just for registration.  There are still bots that get through.

"Does your home insurance cover your camera equipment if they are used for business purposes?  most insurance plans don't."


Yes, I had them write (cannot remember the legal term) an additional part to the policy. I will look thru my policy and scan it for you Leaf...

Tom

No, that's fine.  I'll double check my home insurance to see if I can get something added instead of a separate insurance.  I believe last time I tried I wasn't able to but it is worth checking agian.

$531 - $600 sounds reasonable for equipment and $1 million in liability.  Does that include Errors and Omission coverage?  Do they charge extra for property rental owner (additional insured) certificates? 

$531 is reasonable for how much equipment?  It isn't reasonable for $5000 in equipment for example.  The cost of insurance is rather dependent on the amount being insured.

Currently I have insurance on my equipment, but every year when the premium is due I reconsider whether it is really worthwhile.  Currently I'm paying $1,526 on $40,000 of equipment (3.8%) with a $1,200 deductable.  The insurance is a dummy insurance so it covers everything, even if I were to drop it on a concrete floor.  The problem is, for most small accidents the damage isn't going to be over $1,200.  My 70-200 f/2.8 dropped out of my backpack on concrete once and I sent it to repair and the cost was $500 or so... so insurance didn't help.

I feel the only time I'd really find the insurance useful is if my entire gear bag was stolen while shooting or someone came into my house and took all my gear.  In those cases insurance would be very nice but I've also heard that if you can afford to replace something, insurance probably isn't worth it.  It would certainly hurt but I could probably afford to replace most of my equipment if I had to.

Thoughts?  Do you have equipment insurance?  How much are you paying?

I had to change my answer.  I now save files at Q12.  not because I can see a difference but because there is no reason not to. 

     They  rejected  what  has  turned  out  to  be  my  best  seller.  Maye  resubmit  (what  do  you  think?).

it all depends on what said image looks like and why they rejected it.

A few posts were removed talking negatively about members on another forum.  It is not Ok to trash talk photographers on another forum, just as it is not ok to trash talk members on this board.... even if they don't like microstock

Food Photography Master class by Jamie Oliver

They don't really give any tips or anything, more of just watching Jaimie and David in action.  I always liked Jaime Oliver's style and the photography is real and unstaged.  A fun little vid.

Quote from: daveh900 on February 13, 2013, 14:16

Wow, old post. 

The oldest file in my latest batch to be accepted was submitted two weeks prior.

i know is an old topic... but  I believe that it is not necessary to open a new topic for this issue.

I agree, it isn't always necessary to start a new thread all the time when the subject is identical.  Fun to see some old faces in the posts from 2007.  Including Mr. Strathdee who has since past away
http://www.microstockgroup.com/off-topic/stephen-strathdee-aka-sharply_done-rip/

Leaf, to be sure I'm understand the meaning of the exclusive number (currently 222.1), it is still in a score of 100 = $500 a month? 

This means that the score 222.1 = 500 x 2.221 = $1,110.50 reported average income for an exclusive Istocker?

If so then the reported combined non-exclusive total (all the poll results with a number total excluding the exclusive Istock number) is 259.4 which = 500 x 2.594 = $1,297 reported average income for an independent?

correct.

It is a very broad average though.  The top limit of $2500 probably limits a lot of people, both on Shutterstock and for iStock exclusives (perhaps Fotolia as well for some).  Right now it looks like independents are earning a bit more, but in terms of how accurate the poll results are, they are essentially identical.  The poll is just meant to give a rough guide as to how the agencies stack up against each other.  The yearly microstock survey will give a better idea of how exclusive/non-exclusive compare.

Quote from: MichaelJayFoto on February 13, 2013, 08:34

You could still add up the individual poll result for each contributor and get a rating for the overall income. Would still help put things in perspective about indie total vs exclusive ratings.

Or just total up the Agency figures showing up on the left (including iStock indy) and put a category at the top 'Agencies combined' with it's earning rating - treat the total like a separate Agency. Simples :-)

Yeah, that seems like a good solution.

I dont see an option to submit istock exclusive poll results on the poll page.

If you only fill in data for iStock the poll will assume you are exclusive.

Quote from: leaf on February 12, 2013, 18:57

Average earnings for exclusives vs. avg earnings for non-exclusives won't be posted next week.  Just the raw data from the questions will be posted next week.  In terms of earnings that will be everyone's average earnings, the median, lowest and highest.

It looks like exclusive earnings are now being posted in the poll, thanks for that update.  Now that it's being shown maybe you should make the highest level $5000+.

Yeah, they are being shown there.  It is a bit deceiving as now, at first glance, it looks like an exclusive makes 2-3x more than any non-exlcusive.  You have to remember to add up all the non-exclusive amounts (shutterstock+istock+dreamstime+fotolia+...) to see how much the non-exclusive total is.  It works out to be just a tad higher than the exclusive number... but pretty close to the same.