|
MicrostockGroup Sponsors
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Zero Talent
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 ... 94
151
« on: July 05, 2023, 11:38 »
Doesn't your example show the opposite of what you claim? Obviously, there is no equivalency between money and time.
Buffet cannot buy himself more time with his money (or only to a limited degree with better healthcare) and the 18 year old person cannot necessarily monetize the years they have ahead of them.
No it doesn't. If you consider Time as being free, meaning no Time is factored in the equation, then you have something divided by zero, in other words the absurdity of ♾️. Or $348 as per "Jensen's financials", when you only consider 5 minutes for keywording, without considering the Time for planning, shooting, processing, etc. Obviously, when you factor all this missed Time, then the infamous $348/hour will fall down fast to realistic values. Playing games, because you enjoy gaming, is not free. You could use that Time to shoot and process clips, for example. So playing games for fun, is depriving you of that revenue, costing you the money you missed. You should always treat Time as a valuable resource, which is never free. This why we have the expression "wasting Time". Those who chose the 18 years old option are evaluating Time at more than $110 Billions (Buffet's worth) / 74 years difference/ 365 days per year / 24 hours per day = ~$170k/hour >> $0/hour
152
« on: July 05, 2023, 10:11 »
Now, what could possibly be more lucrative than an infinite amount of money per hour?
You cannot have it both ways. Either you are doing stock photos because it is what you love, without financial considerations and then what does it matter that something else would earn you more money, when it is just a hobby?
Obviously that's absurd. It is a logical tool used to prove that the Jensen hypothesis is flawed. My point is that Time is never free. Time costs money even when you do something you enjoy. Time is probably our most expensive resource, and it must be accounted for. Think about this: Would you swap your life with Warren Buffet - one of the richest and most respected people in the world?
Or with a person with only 100 USD in her/his pocket?
Buffet is 92. The poor person is 18.
153
« on: July 05, 2023, 09:45 »
154
« on: July 04, 2023, 21:07 »
Sure thing.
Then my ♾️/hour stands correct, since almost all my photos and videos are made while on vacation, or on trips paid by my company, thus I had zero production costs.
And since I also enjoy keywording, not just shooting and processing, then I also have zero keywording costs.
This makes my hourly rate ♾️/hour
Well, I guess you can see it that way. I would question, though, whether it makes sense for you to calculate an hourly rate at all, since in your case, you seem to be enjoying windfall profits for basically doing nothing, similar to winning the lottery. You would not usually calculate an hourly rate for that either.
Not really, I am not doing "nothing", I am spending TIME on this lucrative hobby. But time is not free. Time is money. Time may be taken away from doing some even more lucrative business. Or from learning a new skill than may pay back much more in the future. Or simply, time is taken away from the family. I am sure that many of us know well how many times our partners were upset with the amount of time we spent on this passion. Not accounting for ALL the time spent doing this work, while claiming that money is falling from the sky at a rate of $348/hour (only to impress people), because only the keywording time matters, is a fallacy. Anyway, it will be also interesting to see a tax return from Mr. Jensen, to understand if he truly claimed zero expenses, for this business. I have my doubts here, but even so, what I said above remains a fact: time is money.
155
« on: July 04, 2023, 17:35 »
Again, if you agree that Jensen's hourly earnings are correct, then you must also agree that mine are also correct, when I say ♾️/hour.
But Ralf, I think you could do better, if you would remember your Latin, because both claims are absurd.
Sweet dreams!
Dougs calculations can make sense under certain conditions.
Let's say you are taking pictures or videos just as a hobby and are just returning from a cruise to Anarctica and Patagonia where you took a lot of great pictures of penguins, albatrosses, orcas, icebergs, mountains and whatnot.
Now someone tells you that you can earn money by offering those pictures at agencies on the Internet.
Then you can try to calculate whether the money you can earn is worth your time to process, keyword and upload the pictures. You don't have to take into account the time it took to take pictures, because you already have the pictures and you will probably never earn enough to cover the costs of your trip anyway.
If you are doing this as a business, you cannot calculate that way, though. Even if you enjoy every aspect of the work, even the keywording. Because the day has only so many hours and even if you enjoy yourself the whole time you need to make a certain amount of money per hour to cover your expanses and the cost of living. Otherwise, you cannot do it as a business, at least not without other sources of money.
Sure thing. Then my ♾️/hour stands correct, since almost all my photos and videos are made while on vacation, or on trips paid by my company, thus I had zero production costs. And since I also enjoy keywording, not just shooting and processing, then I also have zero keywording costs. This makes my hourly rate ♾️/hour
156
« on: July 04, 2023, 16:02 »
Oh Zero, you are persistent. At no point did I say that I agree with Jensen's hourly wage or find it correct, but that it should not be called wrong under the given arguments.
Possible that these nuances only come out in my language.
Perhaps you can get No Talent to present us with his "approved" formula for measuring the financial success/failure for someone's stock footage business. I have tried to get it out of him, but he just wants to call names and throw rocks. Not one thing he has posted is helpful to the conversation. See if you can get him to give us his approved formula and I'll plug my numbers into and see where things stand. Good luck, though, because we both know he has no such formula. He's a troll, hiding behind a fake (but appropirate name) with nothing to contribute except animosity towards others.
You can't be further from the truth. Fyi, excluding July, my all-time number is 36.9% higher than yours, and my combined photo + video port is probably 4 times smaller than yours. And yet, I am not claiming that I am making 1,500/hour, when I account only for the time spent keywording. I am simply making ♾️/hour, because that's how the silly "Jensen financials" work. 
157
« on: July 04, 2023, 15:49 »
Oh Zero, you are persistent. At no point did I say that I agree with Jensen's hourly wage or find it correct, but that it should not be called wrong under the given arguments.
Possible that these nuances only come out in my language.
I'm sorry Ralf, we must have a language problem, indeed. If something is not correct, then it is wrong. "Wrong" and "correct" are antonyms.
158
« on: July 04, 2023, 15:15 »
Thank you, now I have finally understood your argumentation.
But Doug's hourly wage is still not wrong, he just defined the conditions differently than you or others and explained it the same way.
Now I can go to sleep calmly 
Again, if you agree that Jensen's hourly earnings are correct, then you must also agree that mine are also correct, when I say ♾️/hour. But Ralf, I think you could do better, if you would remember your Latin, because both claims are absurd. Sweet dreams!
159
« on: July 04, 2023, 14:35 »
No worries, Ralf.
Discussing workflows is perfectly fine.
But there is difference between discussing workflows and chestbeating yourself with an absurd (for microstock) $348/hour earnings, only because you have fun doing your work. 
And all this, to impress some who will be will be willing to pay for his get-rich-quick course.
But since this hasn't happened here, yet: "In dubio pro reo"
Thank you Zero for your reply.
However, I still do not understand the aggressiveness in the discussion.
As I understand it, the agitation is the $348/hour. Of course, that in itself is very lurid and attention grabbing. But Doug was also fair enough to explain how the total came about.
I can relate to all of this in that I am in the same situation and my bill looks similar.
Professionally, I do something completely different full time.
Stock photography is purely a hobby for me. High quality cameras and other equipment were already in place. The photography itself I do not see as work, but as relaxation from my actual job. During this time I could have also watched TV, read a book or done something else.
So for me, this is also not working time, but relaxing leisure. It's the same with image post-processing.
Without it being my intention at the beginning, I now regularly earn money with it.
From this personal point of view, which is also ultimately Doug's, I find the absolute numbers presented - leaving aside the hourly wage - very impressive.
At least for a hobby. And that's how I understood Doug's explanations here.
I also do something else full time. But if you understand the "Jensen logic", which wrongly claims that he is making $348/hour, because he only accounts for the time spent keywording, then you also must agree that those who have fun shooting (while doing something else full time, like us) AND also have fun keywording, must be making ♾️/hour. Presenting his absolute numbers while leaving out his $348/hour silly falacy should be perfectly fine.
160
« on: July 04, 2023, 14:29 »
.
You are losing the discussion here Zero by a mile. C'mon get up and fight
No worries, the dot was just me noticing that I misspelled Ralf's name, and clicking the wrong button to fix it.
161
« on: July 04, 2023, 13:22 »
.
162
« on: July 04, 2023, 11:48 »
No worries, Ralf. Discussing workflows is perfectly fine. But there is difference between discussing workflows and chestbeating yourself with an absurd (for microstock) $348/hour earnings, only because you have fun doing your work. And all this, to impress some who will be will be willing to pay for his get-rich-quick course. But since this hasn't happened here, yet: "In dubio pro reo"
163
« on: July 04, 2023, 11:12 »
Nevertheless, it's never too late to catch up with your math and logic and adjust your silly $348/hour calculation.
Okay, against my better judgement, and despite what I said in my last post, I will give you one more chance to explain exactly what is about by calculation you don't like. What should I do differently? What is wrong with it? Please tell me what you find so flawed with my calculation -- and I will do my best to plug in the appropriate values to your satisfaction.
In other words, if my calculation is wrong, tell me how to fix it. What is missing? Just tell me in simple words even a moron like me can understand.
The floor is yours.
The beauty of the reductio ad absurdum method is that you don't have to show WHY a hypothesis is wrong. You just prove it is. Besides, I am not here to help you to understand how to better run your business. I only did you a favor by showing that you made an error. You're welcome! So accept that your calculation is wrong (and silly) and try to figure out WHY by yourself. Good luck!
164
« on: July 04, 2023, 10:51 »
Wow, you are really a piece of work I've given you multiple opportunities to explain yourself but you won't do it. Childish. I will not waste time discussing it with you any further. If anyone else would care to enage in an adult conversation and compare methods I would be a happy to do so. I have no time for trolls.
Sorry, man, but it looks like you may have skipped some high school classes, back in the day. But that's OK, since you were working hard distributing newspapers to buy your first camera. I respect that 100%. Nevertheless, it's never too late to catch up with your math and logic and adjust your silly $348/hour calculation. This knowledge is now widely available on the internet, for free, similarly to what you are selling in your look-at-me-and-get-rich-quick "course".
165
« on: July 04, 2023, 10:32 »
What do we get instead, silly childish postings about infinite earnings per hour,
I know it hurts, but this not childish.
It's simple math and a logical consequence of your, no matter how you try to spin it, silly calculation.
What is wrong with my calculation and why is it so offensive to you?
What is your calculation? Please share.
In case you don't realize, it's elementary logic called "reductio ad absurdum".
You asume the premise to be right, and you prove it wrong, when it leads to an absurd conclusion.
You're just avoiding the question with childish statments like that. "It's wrong becuase I say it is wrong". Childish
I'll ask you again . . .
What is wrong with my calculation and why is it so offensive to you?
What is your calculation? Lay it on the table so we can be enlightened at to the correct way to do it that meets your standards. I am listening. Here is you chance to actually post something of substance rather than throwing stones.
I am not avoiding anything. Follow me: Let's assume that your calculation leading to your claim of $348/hour is correct. If that's true, then following the same "logic", my earnings are ♾️/hour, as shown above. But this is absurd. Therefore the original assumption, your calculation, is wrong. And silly. Quod Erat Demonstrandum.
166
« on: July 04, 2023, 10:22 »
What do we get instead, silly childish postings about infinite earnings per hour,
I know it hurts, but this not childish.
It's simple math and a logical consequence of your, no matter how you try to spin it, silly calculation.
What is wrong with my calculation and why is it so offensive to you?
What is your calculation? Please share.
In case you don't realize, it's an elementary logic tool, called "reductio ad absurdum". You assume a hypothesis to be right, and you prove it wrong, when it leads to an absurd conclusion.
167
« on: July 04, 2023, 10:15 »
What do we get instead, silly childish postings about infinite earnings per hour,
I know it hurts, but this not childish. It's simple math and a logical consequence of your, no matter how you try to spin it, silly calculation.
168
« on: July 04, 2023, 08:28 »
I too love my job as a designer, enjoy it every day and couldn't imagine doing anything else.
Nice! So you are also making ♾️/hour, according to the "Jensen logic"! Lucky you!
169
« on: July 03, 2023, 20:56 »
PS. There is no chance that I would ever share my trade secret with you!
Not even if you pay me for a crash course!
That's a shame. I already had my wallet out.
Well... you will have to learn it the hard way! Go back to grinding! In life, you don't get success served on a silver platter!
170
« on: July 03, 2023, 20:47 »
Average time to edit, grade, add metadata, and upload each clip: 5 minutes
Right...
Right, right... and I'm earning ♾️/hour because everything I do is for fun.
If that is true, then you are a very lucky person. I hate doing metadata, so that will always be a chore for me and I absolutely must be paid well for doing it. As shown above, I'm at $348 per hour right now, but I'd keep doing it for 1/3 that. If it gets down to less than $100 per hour that is the day I will stop submitting.
I am not lucky! ♾️>348. Therefore I am better, despite my lack of talent!
Imagine that!
Congratulations! I envy your willingness to do it all for free.
Thanks! But rest assured that I'm not doing all this for free! I'm doing it for a lot of money and I'm enjoying it! Based on your calculation, my my rate is ♾️/hour and that's so much fun!  Please point me to some of your clips so I can judge your ability. This is gonna be great for both of us!! Makes me feel a little like Tom Sawyer.
There is zero chance that I would ever share my trade secret with you! Not even if you pay me for a crash course! It is not up to you to judge my ability, but rather the other way around, since I am making ♾️/hour, and you are only making $348/hour.
171
« on: July 03, 2023, 16:45 »
Average time to edit, grade, add metadata, and upload each clip: 5 minutes
Right...
Right, right... and I'm earning ♾️/hour because everything I do is for fun.
If that is true, then you are a very lucky person. I hate doing metadata, so that will always be a chore for me and I absolutely must be paid well for doing it. As shown above, I'm at $348 per hour right now, but I'd keep doing it for 1/3 that. If it gets down to less than $100 per hour that is the day I will stop submitting.
I am not lucky! ♾️>348. Therefore I am better, despite my lack of talent! Imagine that!
172
« on: July 03, 2023, 16:34 »
Average time to edit, grade, add metadata, and upload each clip: 5 minutes
Right...
Right, right... and I'm earning ♾️/hour because everything I do is for fun.
173
« on: July 02, 2023, 13:05 »
That dude used to attack me when I criticized Shutterstock on Shutterstock's contributor forum. Now he's suffering the same fate as everybody else huh.
Yes. The dude is an arrogant know-it-all type, who was caught with his pants down on multiple occasions. He was there to sell his "course" to those gulible enough to pay for something that is widely available for free.
174
« on: July 01, 2023, 16:48 »
June '23: not a great month (second worse this year ahead of January only).
Adobe is for the 2nd time in a row (3rd time this year), my #1.
175
« on: June 22, 2023, 08:26 »
The initial AI check is here always checking for noise and stuff (unless you marked it as a re-delivery, I think). You will get a notification within a few minutes when it's rejected.
The initial AI (sorrry... AS) is badly trained. It confuses photos with pattern like details for noise/pixelation. Below is an example of perfectly fine, noise free photo (100% zoom) instantly rejected by the SS AI (sorry... AS). The rejection was always instant, no matter how many times the upload (with or without other changes) was tried. The same photo was accepted by a human, after 3 days, once a case number was provided.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 ... 94
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
