>>>>Start making a log book because mileage can turn into a $10-20K deduction at the end of the year without even trying hard.
mileage deduction is about $.55 for business use, so you have to book around 20,000 miles to claim $10k - seems like you'd need to rtry a LITTLE.  plus, such a high number may trigger some questions from the IRS;   eg, if you take a picture a day on your daily 100 mile commute, you arent allowed to take deduction for all those miles, since there were other uses involved
 any deduction must be the primary purpose of the activity

steve

comparisons can give you a rough estimate, but even looking at yearly data all you can extrapolate is a rough trend - last year was the depth of the recession, this year has seen improvements, but that doesnt help to project what the next 12 mo will bring.

comparing results, slowdowns to others is again only roughly useful, since portfolios vary so much -- eg, my images sell slowly, but steadily and i dont see annual slowdowns [almost 4 years in MS now]. 

s

Quote from: louoates on June 25, 2010, 07:37

Best bet is to learn from all rejections and resubmit the same one from time to time in hopes of getting a better reviewer.

Personally I never resubmit the rejected image. If they don't like it...what is the point of resubmitting?
Also if you want to learn from the rejection why do you resubmit the same one?

depends on the reason - i've been submitting India images of tribal markets and dawn on the ganges - mostly all editorial and accepted by SS; then a submission comes back with tthe same sort of images [very different shots], and they're rejected as being not editorial or not newsworthy.  these i definitely resubmit as they usually get accepted by the next reviewer.

for editorial in particular, there are many poorly trained reviewers who think the only editorial is breaking news

s

on track for 4th BME after slow mar/apr  ss rebounding after 2 bad months; all others about avg, except 3 sales on yay

s

Does Zoonar use the term "RM" for this "one-time-use RF"?  Because this can be confusing for people who are used to the common RM terms and therefore do not expect the image will be also sold as RF.  RM generally implies we can guarantee the image has not been used in a specific condition.

Nothing against the "one-time-use RF" concept - on the contrary, this is what microstock should be about, IMHO - but I think the expression "RM" should not be used out of its common meaning.

RM originally did not mean exclusive; like RF also, usage varies, there's no legal definition

s

Quote from: cascoly on June 18, 2010, 21:32

Quote from: Anglee on June 17, 2010, 20:45

Cascoly and Anonymous,

Alex advises that you do not delete rejected photos that you might want to appeal, as we maintain a history of which reviewer rejected which image. Hence, you can just tell us which filename is affected, we will do the rest.


Many thanks,
Anglee

1. who are you?  why are you speaking for Alex?  common courtesy dictates a 'new member' who WORKS for an agency should identify themselves, and not start leaving  msgs with no indication of your connections

2. why are YOU telling us this rather than Alex?  Alexeady stated he AGREES with his reviewers ridiculous mass rejections

Hi Cascoly,

I'm one of the online marketing executives in 123RF.com. I liaise with Alex directly thus I'll get all the updated information regarding the issues that you're facing now and responded to you as needed.


Cheers,
Anglee

 

i dont have any upl problems - i have problems with reviewers rejecting en masse with ridiculous reasons - and alex said he agreed wiyth those reivews, so good luck in getting any progess

steve

Cascoly and Anonymous,

Alex advises that you do not delete rejected photos that you might want to appeal, as we maintain a history of which reviewer rejected which image. Hence, you can just tell us which filename is affected, we will do the rest.


Many thanks,
Anglee

1. who are you?  why are you speaking for Alex?  common courtesy dictates a 'new member' who WORKS for an agency should identify themselves, and not start leaving  msgs with no indication of your connections

2. why are YOU telling us this rather than Alex?  Alexeady stated he AGREES with his reviewers ridiculous mass rejections

But before that, it is only fair that I hear both sides of the story. And I did, I personally went through the rejections and to simply put it, I have to agree with their decision.

However, at 123RF.com we do hear out our contributors and give them an avenue for appeal if you wrote to [email protected], I understand that the contributors have been using this avenue too. Therefore, after re-reviewing the images, we also have concluded that they would continue to be rejected for purely technical reasons.

If you feel that other stock agencies have accepted your photo when we rejected them, please feel free to quote our image filename and provide us a link to the other stock agency to strengthen your appeal to us.

really? you agreed that 90+% OF IMAGES REJECTED IS A GOOD THING?  your reviewers could at least have the courtesy to give a REAL rejection reason.

NO WAY AM I GOING TO BOTHER SHoWING YOU OTHER SITES THAT ACCEPTED & sold THESE SAME IMAGES - if your reviewers can't do their jobs why should i do it for you?  i'd rather spend more time upl'ing to sites that actually SELL images.  for MONTHS now, entire batches of RF images get rejected for technical rerasons, while editorial shots from the SAME shoot, often NEARLY THE SAME shot, get accepted at 90%+ -- THAT'S JUST PLAIN SILLY.

why do i even bother submitting anymore? i really dont know - i do get a few pennies a month, and the submit process is simple and quick, otherwise i'd be done

steve

[quote
I guess I need to learn how to use CS5.  I have no idea how to even begin to improve the colors on the green sands beach pic.  I personally believe that is a nice pic (even if not done correctly) - where else on earth do you see green sand?

As for the hydrangeas - well I know everybody says all the easy ones have been done already
[/quote]

you dont need CS5 - PS elements does most of what you need for adjustments - lighten cloudy day pictures, then increase saturation and SS will like them

re flowers - my latest were an afterthought on my way home, thru the UW campus after shooting a street fair; lighting was just right and rhodie blooms at their peak; some have even sold!

s

Maybe I miss understand you, but I don't agree with your calculation.

say I pay $15

for something that earns $1 i.e P/E = 15

1st year $1 then $0.50 the next year and so on Companies have a P/E ratio of around 15 because they generally increase earnings over time. (at least plan to)
 We're talking about something here where it is very unlikely to increase earnings. (without adding to the portfolio etc.)

that's why PE isnt a useful concept for non-stockmarket - it's a snapshot stat that helps people decide whether to invest or not.  the earnings is what the company gives out as dividends -- so the PE of 100 can be fine if it's a tech stock that's increasing in prce - you're not buying it for the underlying value.   the contrarian style of stock buying would look for low PE as a hdege - if the stock doesnt go up, at least you have a good dividend.

f

15 x earning is way to high, companies that are valued that high are much more deversified than a portfolio of microstock photos.

Maybe microstockgroup could branch out into portfolio auctions  

basic facts: PE is the price to earnings ratio , so a PE of 15 means the price is 15x current earnings -- the higher the ratio the RISKIER the stock. [in the dot com bubble PEs of 50 or more were common] in the case of Getty it has NOTHING to do with the RPI - it would be an indication of getty's worth to investors, and has NO direct connection to the size of getty's portfolio

s

I don't agree that the sites would be competing with customers. The sites would not be creating images or accepting/rejecting them. The images have already been accepted and are selling irrespective of who owns the image. It would be a service to photographers who could rely on a site to purchase the images at some predetermined price should they wish to sell through change in interest, retirement, death, etc.

but again, why invest capital in old images when you can get same product for free and only have to pay AFTER the sale is made;  maybe they'd have to decrease the rejects for a few wks on "too similar", 'already got enuf a thus'  but there's no financial reason to tie up yur own capital when others are begging you to take a % of ther sales.  there are very few portfolios that couldnt be replaced quickly.  the only way this might work is if the buy price were so low that the company was assured a profit in a very short time

s

I think it would be a terrific idea for a site to acquire images from those who wish to sell their images outright...or from the estate of those who have died. Mainly because the site would know exactly the "present value" of those images over the next few years and they could easily construct a payment schedule with X amount down and Y per month for Z months. What I'm really saying is that they could get the images for a very low investment in up-front money or time. I see this as a potential major profit center for them.

that's exactly the model  agencies want to avoid -- they'd be paying best guess projected price for all images -- there's liitle to gain  - not all images will meet expected returns, and many will only show a  small % profit.  why tie up all that cash when they can leverage their investment 100-fold by selling other people's images on consignment?  it's the photographer who takes the risks now -- spending to create a portfolio with hope that there will be an adequate return.

s