|
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 - yingyang0
Pages: 1 ... 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 18 19 ... 30
326
« on: January 04, 2008, 13:02 »
Wow, almost makes me want to change citizenships, except I'd have to learn a new language (British  ). As for the student loan people a print out of your payouts should work. It works for the IRS (tax collectors in the US). The other way you could use is bank account statements showing payouts from paypal, or money broker receipts. If you take payments by check, which is what I do, then you can keep the check stubs or even make copies of the check for your records. @Sharpshot - if that's true then that's amazing. No bank in the US would ever offer such a service at such a loss with just the hope they stay with the bank. In fact, any executive at a US bank that tried to offer such a service would get fired soon afterward. I'm not saying it's a bad idea, it's just not something that would happen in the US. Instead we offer sub-prime loans to people that don't understand what they're getting into and then get into deep financial trouble.
327
« on: January 04, 2008, 11:54 »
I think this type of student loan, where you pay back through income tax, is interest free.
Really? I'm american so this would be very new to me. Do you mean by "through income tax" that they only use income tax to pay of your loan or do they add an addition deduction from your wages (garnishment)? When I looked at the British student loan website it said that the loans did charge interest but that interest was indexed to inflation.
328
« on: January 04, 2008, 11:50 »
I've had one too and haven't advertised at all.
The reason I think this is happening is because of google image search. Google image search typically returns results for iStock at the results. People will click on your image which will generate a referral and want to buy images, when they buy the credits you get credit for the link from google image search.
329
« on: January 04, 2008, 11:03 »
I have tried it. to paint over one still have to be very precise (manually) at the borders/edges.
vphoto
I'm sorry, but that's where we disagree. It took me a long time to try the pen tool with the curves on the mushroom package and IS still rejected it, whereas a 1 minute process with the masker was accepted. Of course it takes more time with harder images but so far both vphoto and ale1969 haven't shown examples of where they used the pen tool for hair. Fluid mask has lots and lots of examples of it being used for hair.
330
« on: January 04, 2008, 10:42 »
I have just downloaded a free 14 day trial version. Well, it requires to use a brush, but I am not an artist. my drawing skill are bad, on the other had Penn tool is much easier since the cures are done
automatically and not by your hand. For artists, yes, Fluid Mask probably better, for others use Pen tool.
vhpoto
You use the brush to select areas, no painting or drawing skills are required! How can someone offer a review before trying it? I say this because I am the world's worst painter (maybe for the exception of jackson pollock).
331
« on: January 04, 2008, 10:24 »
Well I'll give you my impression. It's great for more simple isolation. I've tried to get the mushroom image below accepted once before and had it rejected. I used fluid mask and they accepted it (since I'm exclusive It takes a couple hours for accept/reject decisions). That being said I've found that for more difficult images, examples would be people with hair or animals, there is a steeper learning curve and I haven't mastered it yet. I like it, but since I have little to no skills in photoshop a plug-in that is easy to use and is as simple as color by number this one appealed to me. The auto feathering is a huge plus. The isolation below took 1 minute from raw to finished jpg. The original was shot on white but had a harsh shadow. Here is why I got it. I wanted to do some isolations but I don't have the skills to in photoshop to do them. For me microstock is just a hobby so financial considerations don't really come into play (cost vs. benefit analysis isn't in my equation). I have huge time constraints for photography so a tool like this is worth it to me. Hopefully I'll have time this weekend to study the tutorials and learn to do the more tricky isolations. 
332
« on: January 04, 2008, 03:30 »
Yinyang, if you look again, you will see my maths accounts for SS keeping the whole $199.
You are doing very well on IS, our average is 77 cents 
Linda
You're right, I just look at it a different way. As for my average, I think it's because the images that do sell in my portfolio are mainly those that would be best suited for the whole image use rather than just as part of a compilation. I've noticed that my isolated shots sell smaller versions more often. In other words I'm sacrificing quantity. I think I might actual start selling lots of isolated shots now that I got fluid mask for Christmas. I'm not a photographer by trade, nor am I good at photoshop. I got into micro on a whim because a client had me investigating it, but I'm going to make a push this year to get an actual portfolio.
333
« on: January 03, 2008, 23:52 »
Yuri may have a point as to how many DL SS customers make, but his arithmetic is wrong.
A subscription costs $199 for one month.
For that, you can DL up to 750 images.
Let's say you take Yuri's lowest guess, 15%.
That means you DL 112 images in a month.
$199 /112 = $1.78 per image, NOT $5/$6.
Here's the problem with your math Linda. SS keeps the $199 period. So any non-used downloads becomes retained earnings that would otherwise be distributions to contributors. It's the difference between the subscription model and the pay as you go model. To compare IS (the lowest percentage payer for non-exclusives) and SS you have to consider that if they were equal SS would have to distribute 20% of it's subscription income to the contributors (i.e. $38.8 per subscription). If people are in fact downloading 112 images per subscription then contributors should be getting $0.346 per download. The fact that they're not tells you that SS pays less than even IS. Also, we know for a fact that people don't download anywhere close to the amount allowed per subscription from many reasons. One is that if they did then the brake even payout for SS would be $.26 per download (not including expenses). Also, it's a daily limit rather than a total monthly limit at SS set at 25/day. Since most people don't work on weekends and most of the clients at SS are real business clients and not mom&pop operations, 8 days per month or 200 downloads aren't used just because of the weekends. I don't think Yuri's guess is low, I think it's right on. P.S. my average per download at IS (adjusted to exclude exclusive bonus) is now $.96.
334
« on: January 03, 2008, 12:35 »
I don't know about the UK but in the US you have to pay taxes on income earned abroad and I find the discussion about swiss bank accounts distasteful. I'd suggest no one else give advise to someone looking to avoid taxes and be a bad debtor.
"There are only two certainties in life, death and taxes."
If you're willing to pay taxes l(i.e. stop your illegally activity) then the way you would prove how much you earn is to either keep the check stubs if you get checks or if you use paypal then print off your payment history on iStock. As least in the US, the only income you have to pay taxes on is the "realized" income, i.e. you are actually paid and not just money in your iStock account.
P.S. Just because your debt is indexed to inflation doesn't mean you want to put off paying it! Pay off any credit card debt you have first, but then you should pay your student debt. Remember that it is not an interest free loan and the interest compounds on the principle.
335
« on: January 03, 2008, 02:14 »
You're applying for vector right? I ask because even though I love your non-vector art iStock general doesn't accept them even once you're accepted. Given your talent I'd apply to be a vector contributor.
336
« on: January 03, 2008, 02:06 »
Leaving my crazy teenage girlishness aside for the moment, I would characterise [sic]what I was doing in that post as providing feedback for LO rather than complaining.
I'm glad to see that was a stylized exercise in creative writing. I'm also glad to see this thread brought out the heavy hitters (yuri and sjlocke). Though I'm still trying to figure out why the zymmetrical guy decided to post in a thread that had nothing to do with zymm. What yuri said about SS's subscription based model confirmed my suspicions that contributors there get paid a worse percentage than most thought. My question for the heavy hitters and others is whether you believe the IS price increase will yield diminishing marginal returns. In other words will the percentage price increase cause an equal revenue increase, a smaller revenue increase, or will revenue possibly go down?
337
« on: January 01, 2008, 21:12 »
Why can't you buy from the US?
because of high customs tax,and unfortunately I can't afford to travel to the US either.
Do you have any American friends? I know I've shipped things for friends I went to college with. They bought them online shipped them to me, then I shipped the things to them. By marking it as a gift they avoided the VAT.
338
« on: January 01, 2008, 18:43 »
I am so disappointed,because I have been waiting to buy a 5d and a 70-200 f4 IS but I was expecting a price cut after xmas (at least on 5D)
today I checked it was just the opposite as canon's cash back deal was over and as a result now prices 100(pounds) higher for each item (I am talking about UK prices)
anyone heard of a new cash back deal coming soon?or price cut
I wish I could buy from the US:(
Why can't you buy from the US?
339
« on: January 01, 2008, 16:00 »
This designer posted a link to her own blog on the LO Forum, in it she refers to LO as her new boyfriend and "I am really glad to have found you, especially since my *insult removed* of an ex-boyfriend, iStock, has raised prices for the new year. (The cycle of abuse just never ends over there, Im telling you.) I am so done with that, and so ready for a new gig with you."
http://sabrinadent.com/?p=166.
It's a nice little read from a designer - it's also good to know that IS pisses off designers as well as us.
That blog read like a diary of a crazy teenage girl. Notice that she was mainly complaining about LO in the blog.
340
« on: January 01, 2008, 14:36 »
To come full circle with this thread, I have indeed officially requested my account be closed at iStock.
I'm curious. You're upset about the 80/20 split yet you're still on SS? The subscription model is by far the worst business model for photographers, especially if you're worried about the value given to your photos. I completely understand being upset about the 80/20 split, but I don't see how people can be upset about that and yet be ok with only making .25-.30 per license at another place. Especially since the size of the photo downloaded doesn't change your royalty. My biggest problem with the industry is the number of prints per license. I hated seeing one of my image used in a major ad campaign and realizing that it didn't go over the allowed usages. $1.56 for use in a major ad campaign makes me want to cry.
341
« on: December 30, 2007, 18:49 »
Now if we could just do something about the carpet baggers always trying to sell us something!
This thread has used more colorful language than I've seen in a long time. "carpet bagger". Haven't heard that one in years (then again haven't been been in the south for years).
342
« on: December 21, 2007, 16:49 »
I just thought it was a funny situation... hmmm maybe I should send a MR for the cockroach. He is under 18.
You sure he's under 18 in cockroach years? He looks like an adult to me.
343
« on: December 20, 2007, 21:49 »
I had a great start at IS - something like 30% of November's earnings in the first week only, higher than normal sales per day - I was excited! Now things have slowed down, and in all sites. It's not a disaster, but even extrapolating current numbers (which are likely to slow down at the end of the month) this doesn't look like a good month.
Regards,
Adelaide
Exact same for me. First week in December was best week ever by far, then dropped off.
344
« on: December 13, 2007, 14:10 »
Because most buyers and sellers are American. Majority rules.
sadly,what you say makes sense.
But apart from buyers everyone else would benefit from such a conversion,I wish it was possible.
Most sellers are Americans too. I'd also like to point out the US$dollar is starting to bottom. If the companies switch now it would be one of the stupidest moves ever.
345
« on: December 12, 2007, 23:43 »
I already did. IS.
346
« on: December 11, 2007, 13:48 »
I've both bought and sold stuff on ebay and I've never had a bad experience.
347
« on: December 10, 2007, 10:52 »
That's how SS works, you upload a lot, you get a lot of sales. Stop uploading and you will get a big decline.
Exactly. SS's search highly favors newer images so you have to upload constantly to see increasing revenue. At IS it is not as drastic but you will still see decreasing revenue if you don't upload because the growing collection dilutes your share of the collection, which translates into a dilution of your earnings.
348
« on: December 10, 2007, 00:01 »
A big collection costs more to operate than a tiny collection. Ultimately - the more images in a collection, the more people who have to be employed to maintain it. The more successful a site the more it costs to run.
I predict that some sites won't survive 2008 - they won't get their next round of funding. The credit crisis will affect their ability to find new investment. I'd be thinking first about the 2nd and 3rd tier sites. But ultimately there will probably only be room in the market for 2 or 3 viable large RF stock collections. At the most.
iStock will do really well. Being, already, way ahead of the game. And I agree with the people who say that ultimately iStock will be folded into Getty as the de-facto RF brand.
I see a few problems here. 1) The microstock sites have increasing economies of scale. The more images in the collection, the less it cost to maintain it (per image). 2) The "credit crisis" isn't an investment capital crisis. There is still lots of liquidity in the business loan and investment market. 3) The "only room for 2 or three" assertion I believe is completely off the mark. The only time you see 2 to 3 big players in a market is when there are significant barriers to entry. There are few barriers to entry in the microstock market. That's what Getty has failed miserably to understand here and why I wouldn't touch Getty stock with a ten foot poll. I do agree that Getty's plan is to fold iStock into their business eventually as the RF brand, but I think that's a huge mistake. They've raised prices at iStock over the last year and a half enough to drive a lot of their original clients to others photo sources. $32.50 for a vector is getting to be prohibitively expensive for the mom and pop operations (the target market for iStock). By increasing prices so much, and adding corporate accounts, it is clear that they're positioning themselves for larger clients and effectively cannibalizing their own Getty.com customer base.
349
« on: December 08, 2007, 01:47 »
I think you should go to the tattoo parlor and have them tattoo a random sequence of letters and digits on your arm (or butt), then use that as your password.  To be serious, why do you think you need another bank account or that it would make you more secure? Adding more complexity (a new account) tends to detract from security rather than adding to it. If you're paranoid enough to be willing to go through the trouble of having multiple bank accounts then you should consider just having them send payments via check. That way your bank account and paypal isn't linked and you are much more secure. However, the butt tattoo would make you more like 007.
350
« on: December 07, 2007, 23:56 »
As a marker leader IS won't loose market share because of the increase.
Your statement assumes that there are barriers to entry into the market. Basic economics. As the first-in company raises prices it is confronted by newcomers, expanding competitors, or both. A load of new capacity starts to come on line. As the level of customer demand hasn't changed much, there is now more competition for the same business. Either prices fall or, each producer sells fewer units. In both cases, profits decline, and market value drops with them. The only competitive advantage (barrier to entry) that I can see on the side of IS is its exclusive contributors. I personally don't think that is enough (and I'm exclusive). As for Getty stock, I shorted it in the being of April and it turned out to be a great investment. It's near its 5 year low and I still can't bring myself to buy it because it is still a little over priced.
Pages: 1 ... 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 18 19 ... 30
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
