Quote from: averil on September 18, 2009, 08:30

I bought my first SLR camera in 1985, and that's when I consider myself to have become a serious amateur photographer. I bought books, downgraded my auto (Pentax MG I think) equipment to the venerable Pentax K1000  and learned the basics of photography. Field naturalists club, local camera club, landscape and nature photogrpaphy. Graduated from negative to tranny (slide film, for those who know me too well).

In 2003 I went digital (Pentax *ist D - never figured out how to say that), and mostly looked at my work on computer, with very occasional printing.  In 2007 I joined istock. So I've been working out how much money I've spent since then due to istock. Upgrades to K10D and K20D. I would probably have done only one of those if not for the XL size. Started shooting in studio - first hotlights and then some Bowens strobes. I don't think I would have done that if it wasn't where most of the action is at in stock. More recently, some class glass (Pentax Limited lenses).

I'll break even on my investment in stock (over and above being a serious amateur) when I reach gold on istock. 10,000 images, approx $20,000 in royalties. Interesting to note that, according to istockcharts.multimedia.de, only about 1,400 out of nearly 30,000 contributors are gold or above.

This has been an interesting discussion.

Just out of curiosity, based on your past year-to-year and projected performance, when do you expect to hit gold on iStock and be profitable?

Good question. I'm in a very formative phase at the moment. I'm working hard at reaching an adequate level of proficiency with Illustrator and with a 3D application to contribute those media. I could expand that to Flash content too if I wanted - I've done some basic Flash production and my developing illustration skills (plus my knowledge of scripting) could make that viable. As far as photography goes I've more than doubled my port in the past few months (being exclusive on istock helps that) and have had several BMEs although numbers are still not great.

So, it's all a bit of a melting pot. My ultimate aim is to pay my rent (approx $20,000 AUD) from microstock. If I put the expenses behind me (dons flack suit) I could be half way there in a year and achieve it by the end of the following year. I should be gold round about then. I could take a second job in my current profession (teaching), maybe by teaching night classes, but I really prefer to diversify my interests and meet different challenges. I get bored fairly easily.

I don't agree with the "I was taking pictures before anyway so my time isn't an expense" idea. Business is business and if you're making any money it's a business.

Yes, a lot of you at one point were probably spending very little time taking random snapshots and then not doing much with them. Maybe uploading to Flickr.

But now, in addition to buying a lot more stuff, you're spending a lot more time researching things to shoot, coming up with ideas, traveling to the locations, setting up lighting, picking keepers, post processing, keywording, uploading to multiple sites, checking sales stats, and on and on. 

I doubt any of you were doing all of that time consuming stuff before you started micro.

Does anybody really know what they make per hour doing this?

Your division of photographers into pros or happy snappers is very simplistic. Long before I joined mictostock I was a camera club member with an interest in nature and landscape photography. I travelled long distances to good locations, spent many many hours in the darkroom processing (B&W only, not color), mounting prints for club comps etc. Also pushing my creative boundaries. I also shot pics for the school where I worked - sports events, drama, music, formal balls, products from the woodworking and cooking classes, etc. This was mostly to learn to be a better photographer (and be somewhat useful as well). All for no pay because it was my abiding passion. I don't think I'm alone amongst microstockers.

Dudes, why keep trying to twist the meaning of financial terms to sidestep the reality that you are photography failures?

Break even point is a financial term that describes when expenses equal revenue. 

You bozos don't even calculate expenses correctly, why . do you bother with figuring out some imaginary break even point?  The biggest expense in stock is labor, not equipment. 

You dudes are losing money with every image you sell.  You have a higher chance of "breaking even" by sitting on your butts and spending no more time on microstock and just letting your images earn.

It's that simple really.

This is a very shallow analysis. Most businesses spend a few years not breaking even while they establish themselves. With a few exceptions (people who are already making a living from microstock) people on this forum are in the development stage. Your assumption that no one here will ever be doing any better, and is wasting their time, completely misses the point of forums like this. But then, maybe you're not intending to make a positive or rational contribution here, but have some other motive.

Thanks for the information.  As I stated, I rendered these images to 1440 x 1080 (based on HDTV display) which generated a certain image size for going to print from PS.

I can render to any size.  Normally my res is 300 dpi on anything that I expect to print.  With that said, shouldn't I be able to increase image size by going to 72 dpi?

No. If you print at 72 dpi you will get a bigger print than if you print at 300 dpi (for the same number of pixels), but that doesn't make the pixel dimensions any bigger. Forget dpi for digital files (unless you're actually printing them).

Oh come on __ this is supposed to be a microstock forum. If I want a 'joke of the day' I can get it anytime I like via the interweb. I don't need you to be my editor.

If you're looking for a social club where 'Nobby No-Mates' can gather or just want to talk meaningless drivel then the SS forums should be ideal.

Perhaps you didn't notice that this is th off-topic forum? Plonk.

ETA: I see you're ignored by 7 members now!! Not surprising.

I bought my first SLR camera in 1985, and that's when I consider myself to have become a serious amateur photographer. I bought books, downgraded my auto (Pentax MG I think) equipment to the venerable Pentax K1000  and learned the basics of photography. Field naturalists club, local camera club, landscape and nature photogrpaphy. Graduated from negative to tranny (slide film, for those who know me too well).

In 2003 I went digital (Pentax *ist D - never figured out how to say that), and mostly looked at my work on computer, with very occasional printing.  In 2007 I joined istock. So I've been working out how much money I've spent since then due to istock. Upgrades to K10D and K20D. I would probably have done only one of those if not for the XL size. Started shooting in studio - first hotlights and then some Bowens strobes. I don't think I would have done that if it wasn't where most of the action is at in stock. More recently, some class glass (Pentax Limited lenses).

I'll break even on my investment in stock (over and above being a serious amateur) when I reach gold on istock. 10,000 images, approx $20,000 in royalties. Interesting to note that, according to istockcharts.multimedia.de, only about 1,400 out of nearly 30,000 contributors are gold or above.

Quote from: sjlocke on September 11, 2009, 16:38

Sounds like a great system.  Working for free for 23 years to get the odd commissioned job.

One good thing about working for free is you will always have plenty of work

Hey Lisa, you can upload as much as you like to the stock sites too.

Quote from: averil on September 11, 2009, 16:26

See your previous post but one. Just because something went wrong once doesn't mean the business model is unworkable.

What business model? Working for free without a contract appears to be the norm.

It's called advertising Sean. She probably gets the odd commissioned job out of it.

Wilddingo is correct on this one. I was thinking (but didn't post earlier) that for us to can someone else's business model as unworkable when ours has come under so much criticism for the same reason seems a little sus. Looking at the istock contrib charts, only 4000 out of approx 30,000 contributors are silver or above. The rest are subsidising the agency by buying their own equipment and training. Of the 4000 how many are actually getting a good return on investment (time included)? Like most entertainment industries, the rewards can be great for the few who make it, which is what many of us are aiming for but relatively few will achieve.

Quote from: wins75 on March 09, 2009, 18:04

after all what's the point of knowing how to draw if you can't use illustrator if thats the accepted standard of software??

Good luck with that!

Everybody has a chance if they accept the challenge and work hard to overcome the obstacles it represents. But there is definitely no chance if you don't believe you will need to improve your drawing skills as well as learning the software.

After this statement, I think your chance on becoming a good vector artist is less than the possibility of you winning the lottery.

I think you're being a bit harsh here. Many traditional artists have a hard time learning to create art with digital media. Artists tend to be a bit inimical towards technology. I've been looking at a lot of books on drawing myself lately and they nearly all use traditional media. The very few that mention computers mention Photoshop. I've yet to see a book on drawing that teaches how to draw with a vector program. The many books on how to use Illustrator don't teach drawing skills, only how to use the tools.

i also think that my initial thread was misunderstood. I did not mean to get the latest software etc. I do firmly believe however in learning the system that would be accepted from the outset, after all what's the point of knowing how to draw if you can't use illustrator if thats the accepted standard of software?? or even becoming familiar with another software to start with if the output from it will not be accepted, might as well persist from the beginning with the correct thing even it it may seem daunting.

I strongly disagree with this. Vector illustration is more a state of mind, particularly if you use the pen tool a lot. You have to think differently about how to create an image. Learn it in one program (even in Photoshop) and transferring to another vector program should be like driving a different make of car. Sure, it takes a while to become really productive (all the tools, hotkeys etc) but don't get too hung up on any particular software.

I've had a look at Inkscape, installed Ghostscript which the manual says is needed for .ai export, but still .ai is not offered as a save option. Not sure what the problem is. My system is Intel x64 and this often has problems with 32 bit apps, mainly because file paths are not in the expected place.

Are you sure you need to export to .ai? I know tha istock only accepts vectors in eps format, compatible with Illustrator 8. Inkscape exports this format no worries. I don't know what other sites require for vectors but I would be surprised if any accepts only .ai files. Illustrator can import svg files, which are the native format for Inkscape, so given the difficulties I suggest you check that you really do need .ai format. I can't get it to work, and I found on the Inkscape developer forums recent comments that they are about to remove .ai export anyway. I know this isn't helpful but I can't see a real need for .ai files here.