|
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 - SpaceStockFootage
Pages: 1 ... 62 63 64 65 66 [67] 68 69 70 71 72 ... 98
1651
« on: March 27, 2017, 09:43 »
I do. Been selling since 2010, but only started putting some real effort into it since mid 2014. Before that I was making less than $100 a month. Now I'm making enough to live on. I am in South East Asia currently, so it's pretty cheap, but still... as long as I'm not living in London, New York or LA, I'd still be able to get by without any worries.
That's me though, I seem to have found a decent niche, and I guess my stuff is of a reasonably decent quality with commercial viability. Not sure how easy it will be for others, but it is doable.
I hit a bit of a wall six months ago though, although I've not been uoading that much new stuff, which doesn't help. Will need to get my thinking cap on and put some graft in to increase what I'm making currently.
1652
« on: March 24, 2017, 06:01 »
What dirkr said. There's far too many potential issues for anyone to give you definitive answers, and it will also rely heavily on where you are based, whether you sell stuff for other people, and who you sell to. There may be things like VAT, sales tax and withholding taxes that might come in to play... and depending on your location, the rules are going to vary considerably when it comes to you paying taxes. You might be able to register as self-employed, you might have to register as a business, if you're in most European countries you'll have to register for VAT, charge it and then remit it to the correct department etc etc.
Nothing wrong with asking for a bit of advice here, but you should just take the answers as opinions and anecdotal evidence to give you a rough idea of what may or may not be involved... avoid taking them as gospel.
1653
« on: March 21, 2017, 18:25 »
Does everyone have to have a big budget to be in business? I think the last couple of comments are quite representative of the 'us vs. them' mentality that I often see when it comes to freelancers and clients, which probably isn't doing anyone any favours.
A) It's custom work, so the client doesn't know how much it will cost before you tell them. If it was gravel or suits, then there would be a set, advertised price... but the client may not know the freelancers rate or how much work will be involved.
No, everyone doesnt have to have a big budget. But I don't care what part of the world you are in...doing any kind of job for $5 is just ridiculous, especially when not for a repeat client. I can't read thru the job description, download files, and write the job ticket for $5! And when someone in the US expects to pay that for any kind of work from a freelancer living in the US, then I guess I will be dying a pauper because i am willing to bet that person expecting to pay that makes a whole lot of money themself and would never dream of accepting $5 for their work. Think micro agencies aka greedy ba$tards.
I didn't realise that "I don't have a big budget" translates to exactly five US Dollars. I feel stupid now, sorry. Do you have a handy chart I can refer to so I don't make that mistake again?
Wow. Seriously? You sound like one of those clients that must expect to pay $5 since you are being so defensive.
I'm putting forward the possibility that if somebody says they don't have a big budget... it doesn't automatically mean they are an evil, manipulative, and abusive potential client. If somebody wants to pay you $5 for a bunch of work that would cost several times more than that, then that's a different matter entirely, and i would agree with you... but you seem to be the only person that mentioned $5.
1654
« on: March 21, 2017, 14:25 »
Does everyone have to have a big budget to be in business? I think the last couple of comments are quite representative of the 'us vs. them' mentality that I often see when it comes to freelancers and clients, which probably isn't doing anyone any favours.
A) It's custom work, so the client doesn't know how much it will cost before you tell them. If it was gravel or suits, then there would be a set, advertised price... but the client may not know the freelancers rate or how much work will be involved.
No, everyone doesnt have to have a big budget. But I don't care what part of the world you are in...doing any kind of job for $5 is just ridiculous, especially when not for a repeat client. I can't read thru the job description, download files, and write the job ticket for $5! And when someone in the US expects to pay that for any kind of work from a freelancer living in the US, then I guess I will be dying a pauper because i am willing to bet that person expecting to pay that makes a whole lot of money themself and would never dream of accepting $5 for their work. Think micro agencies aka greedy ba$tards.
I didn't realise that "I don't have a big budget" translates to exactly five US Dollars. I feel stupid now, sorry. Do you have a handy chart I can refer to so I don't make that mistake again?
1655
« on: March 21, 2017, 02:06 »
I don't have a big budget?
Well they shouldn't be in business.
Walk away
Does everyone have to have a big budget to be in business? I think the last couple of comments are quite representative of the 'us vs. them' mentality that I often see when it comes to freelancers and clients, which probably isn't doing anyone any favours. A) It's custom work, so the client doesn't know how much it will cost before you tell them. If it was gravel or suits, then there would be a set, advertised price... but the client may not know the freelancers rate or how much work will be involved. B) This was used in the opening of the email, before prices were discussed. If the OP told the client the price and then they said they didn't have a big budget, that would be slightly different. C) As it was used in the beginning of the email, we have no way to know how 'big' that budget is without discussing it further. It could be $50 for a one day shoot or it could be $5000 for a one day shoot. D) It's hard to tell exactly what the client is trying to get across by saying that. It could be "I don't have a big budget - so you will do this work for me at less than your normal rate". If that's the case, feel free to walk away. It's just as possible that he might be saying "I don't have a big budget - so I'll completely understand if you can't take on the project". Hard to tell from the first line of an email. E) Unless he is the "so you will do this work for me at less than your normal rate" guy, then what can it hurt to hear what he has to say? You're the expert, you know what works, the client might think he needs more than he does, or something different than what he thinks he needs. Speak to him, see what he's looking to achieve, maybe you can find a solution that solves the client's problem, but you still get your normal rate, or higher.
1656
« on: March 21, 2017, 01:47 »
Everyone understands what he's saying, they just don't understand how he's arrived at that conclusion. If there was an account with 1000 images, and 500 of them were deleted, and the remaining 500 made more than the 1000... then it would all be a bit clearer. It would be conclusive evidence that it is at least possible that the same thing could work for others.
That's not what's happened though, and that's what's confusing the issue. The 'however many' images were split into five accounts... let's say it was 1000 files total, and 200 files each (for the ease of math). What he's saying is that some of the people decided not to upload their full 200 images, and they're making more than they were when they had 200 images as part of the larger, original portfolio. He's also saying that some portfolios are making more than others.
I'm curious if the earnings were split equally before as well... or if it was broken down by files that belonged to the individual photographer? If it was broken down to files taken by the individuals, then that would make the evidence more compelling, as you knew exactly who was selling what before, and you know exactly who is selling what now. If it was just split between everyone, then some earnings are bound to go up, even if they upload less content.
1657
« on: March 20, 2017, 19:21 »
That's positively generous compared to some postings I've seen!
1658
« on: March 20, 2017, 18:14 »
So it takes you less time to animate a video than it does to shoot a video? I'd love to know your secret!
1659
« on: March 20, 2017, 16:17 »
Yeah, they can tell you what they need and you can tell them what it will cost, or they can tell you what their budget is and you can tell them what they can have.
Always wait to hear what the budget is as well before you ditch them... one person's big budget is another persons small budget, and vice versa.
1660
« on: March 20, 2017, 16:14 »
It takes you seven minutes to find a subject, shoot it, transfer the file to your computer, edit it, render it, upload it and keyword it. Are all your clips of your mouse, your computer and your keyboard?
1661
« on: March 20, 2017, 07:37 »
SS or any other agency takes microstock as a business and we photographers/designer take it as a art...
Speak for yourself!
1662
« on: March 20, 2017, 05:24 »
I've just had a crazy idea. Probably wouldn't be possible with today's technology, but all the elements of it are currently possible... so might work in the future.
At present, if you want an image of a lady, with blonde hair, sat at a table drinking a cup of coffee... you either have to draw/paint it, photograph it, or use computer graphics. What if you could have a program that will automatically generate a high resolution image with completely random colors for every single pixel. That would result in billions of quintillions of images or something, so not very feasible. 99.99999999999999% of those images would be completely unusable, but if you had every possible combination of colors in every possible combination of pixels... somewhere in there would be a pixel perfect picture of Bruce Willis riding a blue whale, Mars crashing into the Earth, and a blonde lady sat at a table drinking a cup of coffee.
So Google can recognise items, and faces and all that kind of jazz... so what if you had an element to the program that would automatically eliminate the results that don't contain recognisable objects or that don't contain a lady with blonde hair and coffee?
So the storage power, the processing power and the object recognition software aren't there yet, but say in 25, 50, 100 years It's not outside the realms of possibility that I could go into Photoshop CC 2067, go to 'file', 'generate new image' and enter the terms, "lady, blonde, table, coffee", and I'm presented with hundreds of photo-realistic images to choose from. You could then click on the green dress to say you like it, alt-click on her bag to say you don't like it... and you're presented with a a different bunch of hundreds of images to choose from.
Maybe a basic version of that is what these guys are doing with their gradient backgrounds. Maybe this is an old idea and I'm late to the party. Maybe everyone has had this thought at some point. Anyway, I should name the concept anyway, just in case, for my legacy and all that. Something classy, understated, elegant. How about "Robo-Image 3000XL Max"? Or Photorealistic Image Generation Software (PIGS).
1664
« on: March 20, 2017, 04:36 »
I've made one sale at $3.50 so far this year, and $70 last year. I agree the pricing difference is a bit weird... next tier up your HD content is increasing by less than 50%, but your 4K is increasing by over 100%? Something's not quite right there!
However, I think a 100% increase for 4K is about right. I appreciate it's four times the pixels, and the cost of cameras, storage, rendering, transferring and uploading are all more... but a 400% increase in price is a bit excessive.
I appreciate it's not the best example, and there would be economies of scale, especially with so much making up a movie which doesn't involve shooting and editing.... but if a producer presented a budget to the studio for $200m, and they say that they'd like them to shoot it in 8K instead of the 4K they usually go for, and the producer says the budget would then be $800m instead... they'd get laughed out of the office.
Sure, if you only sell one clip, then you need that increase to account for the increase in cost. But if you only sell it once, is it worth shooting it in the first place?
1665
« on: March 18, 2017, 06:14 »
True, but if you expand the header or whether the term is... you should see the sender and the email address. Changing the sender content is easy (so you could change it to [email protected]), anyone can do that when setting up their email.... but I wouldn't know how to change the actual email address though. I'm sure it's possible, but I'm guessing it's a bit harder, as I've never had a dodgy email from someone with an email address that looked genuine. Maybe @paypal-sales.org but never @paypal.com
1666
« on: March 18, 2017, 04:20 »
I just expand the header to see the full email address. If it says @PayPal.com then it's uaually all good. If it says [email protected] then I get slightly suspicious.
1667
« on: March 18, 2017, 03:38 »
Where would you draw the line though? If you have 1000 images and you get rid of 500, why not get rid of 999 and just keep your best one? Would sales of your one image increase enough to cover whatever sales you got on the other 999? I'd be very surprised!
So even if this deleting some of your portfolio theory did work, there would have to be some kind of sweet spot of what percentage of your portfolio to delete, which is going to vary considerably depending on the person and the portfolio. One persons worst 50% could be better than another persons best 50%.
But still, this all relies on sales of your remaining 50% to increase enough to compensate for the loss of the 50% that you've deleted, and I can't see that happening. Maybe a slight amount, if people look at your portfolio, see loads of great images and decide to start following you, or bookmark your page or something... but like others have said, people are usually looking for just one specific image or video... they're rarely browsing through portfolio after portfolio.
1668
« on: March 17, 2017, 08:46 »
Probably happened to a lot of people. Hopefully they'll active your account once you send over the deets. Keep us posted.
1669
« on: March 17, 2017, 03:41 »
Complete freedom of movement isn't working because millions of people will move from the poorer countries to the more wealthy ones.
A) The average GDP per person in Latvia (for example) is 2.6 times less than the UK. The average GDP per person in Luxembourg is 2.6 times more than the UK. So how come there are only 6,000 Brits in Luxembourg? I thought millions of people from the poor countries would be moving to the wealthier ones? B) Maybe they should erect a wall around London, so people won't move from the poorer counties to the more wealthy ones? Or is that ok, as they're not pesky foreigners? C) And? What if they do?
1670
« on: March 15, 2017, 20:35 »
If we add VAT we are going to loose 22% they will never pay even if they should.
I address my invoice to the main office of the company in NY-USA
VAT is added to the price, so you'd still get the same amount per sale. Sure, you might lose some buyers due to the increased price, but that may or may not be around the 22% mark. If you mean that Pond5 will never pay... well if they're charging VAT then they have to pay. There;s no guarantee they will, but as they'd get massive fines and blacklisted by the Irish government, I'd say it's more likely they'll pay then not. If you mean customers won't pay, then see above. Even if you're based in a country where you have to charge VAT on every sale, the general consensus when it comes to charging VAT for stock media... is that if the site in question hosts your images and handles downloads and payments, then they're the one that should be charging and remitting VAT.
1671
« on: March 14, 2017, 14:26 »
They're all out sipping gold-infused cocktails, on exotic beaches, in their swan-skin swimwear... as their assistants take a well earned break from retouching images to feed them grapes, and fan them with palm leaves. No time for mingling with the peasants on the forums!
1672
« on: March 12, 2017, 09:46 »
That's probably true, but I don't think any sites have a 'fair use' category for images and footage.
1673
« on: March 12, 2017, 07:47 »
One thing to note, as already stated... that's what NASA feel about it. Different stock sites might feel differently.
1674
« on: March 12, 2017, 07:46 »
Ahoy! All NASA images are in the public domain. The reasoning is that it's a publicly funded organization, so the public should have unrestricted access to that content. The only stipulations are that you can't use the NASA logo or any people in the images for commercial use. They would be editorial only.
So you can use NASA elements as composting assets, as part of a new composition that you sell as stock... you can even sell images and footage 'as is'. I saw an interview with the head of NASA's media content and he specifically stated that there was nothing wrong with selling NASA content on stock sites, even if it is content that people could source themselves for free.
Not sure about jets (I'm still working on jetstockfootage), but there you have it!
1675
« on: March 11, 2017, 10:17 »
Space - just had a quick browse through your clips, awesome work - some great stuff in there! Sorry off topic!
Cheers! Love me a bit of the old space stuff!
Pages: 1 ... 62 63 64 65 66 [67] 68 69 70 71 72 ... 98
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
