|
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 - Pauws99
Pages: 1 ... 13 14 15 16 17 [18] 19 20 21 22 23 ... 195
426
« on: August 05, 2019, 11:15 »
Do they mean they are updating their policy or actually abiding by the policy they already have....for those that don't get "waved through" inspection 
427
« on: August 04, 2019, 01:51 »
Apparently you got into a business you didn't understand. Insulting people who are trying to explain things - not defending them - isn't helpful to anyone.
Bullseye again....always enjoy your posts ;-)
428
« on: August 01, 2019, 03:32 »
What would you rather have - free NHS and a small Government pension, or one million pounds in the bank?
The answer to that can only be given in hindsight, and the answer is going to be very different for somebody in perfect health and somebody who has been plagued with a long and costly illness. National Insurance... the clue is in the title!
Only if you think the only issue is your personal wealth.
429
« on: August 01, 2019, 02:55 »
This idea that the NHS is 'free' is complete and utter rubbish. It is paid for from National Insurance Contributions. Every worker has 11% deducted from salary in addition to income taxes. Employers pay extra. Yes, part of this money goes towards other benefits such as unemployment, national pensions etc. But a large part is to pay for the NHS.
Imagine someone earning a reasonable 50,000 per annum. They pay 5500 a year in National Insurance. A typical person works 40 years, so that's 220000 over a working life not adjusting for inflation etc.
Now imagine if that money was instead invested in an annual investment plan. Even at a modest 5% a year that money would grow to somewhere near to 1,000,000 - easily enough money for retirement and health.
What would you rather have - free NHS and a small Government pension, or one million pounds in the bank?
A free National Health Service thanks. The average wage is about 25k and I wouldn't throw the disabled and ill people who can't work under the bus as I'm OK. The NHS is free at the point of delivery no one says it doesn't cost anything.
200% agree.
If you were insuring for a wasteful private health service (all the extra people and fabric in the insurance company) you could easily spend more than 5500 pa, esp when you consider the other things NI pays for. Angela says the minimum is $400 dollars a month.
You can choose not to insure and run with the risk of getting ill, but it would be poor parenting to do that on behalf of a child.
Besides, what would I do with 1 million after I'm dead? And how is it if I buy travel insurance when I go to the States, I have to buy a minimum of $1 million health insurance? Oh yes, because health care is so expensive there.
If only NI did pay for all that 80% of NHS costs comes out of general taxation. The fact is Health Care is very expensive. Its really a matter of philosophy/politics whether you think its an individual or social responsibility.
430
« on: August 01, 2019, 02:03 »
This idea that the NHS is 'free' is complete and utter rubbish. It is paid for from National Insurance Contributions. Every worker has 11% deducted from salary in addition to income taxes. Employers pay extra. Yes, part of this money goes towards other benefits such as unemployment, national pensions etc. But a large part is to pay for the NHS.
Imagine someone earning a reasonable 50,000 per annum. They pay 5500 a year in National Insurance. A typical person works 40 years, so that's 220000 over a working life not adjusting for inflation etc.
Now imagine if that money was instead invested in an annual investment plan. Even at a modest 5% a year that money would grow to somewhere near to 1,000,000 - easily enough money for retirement and health.
What would you rather have - free NHS and a small Government pension, or one million pounds in the bank?
A free National Health Service thanks. The average wage is about 25k and I wouldn't throw the disabled and ill people who can't work under the bus as I'm OK. The NHS is free at the point of delivery no one says it doesn't cost anything.
431
« on: July 31, 2019, 13:50 »
No system is perfect one of the downsides of the NHS is people misusing the service for trivial issues...most people don't like it but would probably concede its a price worth paying
432
« on: July 31, 2019, 10:54 »
Hows that free health in the UK working?
Can't speak for the whole of the UK as I don't know, but here in Scotland it's fine, for now. All prescription medicines are free for everyone. (I don't think that's the case in England)
In May, my 90yo mum fell and broke her hip, which combined with several perviously smashed-up vertebrae in the spine due to osteoporosis has left her chairbound. However, after her op, she had 3+ weeks in hospital, then another 3+ weeks in a convalescent hospital with physio twice a day to help her get to 'chairbound'. Now she's home with 2 carers four times a day to help with personal needs and meals; she's had visits from social workers, occupational therapists, a district nurse and tomorrow physios, she's been given a hospital bed and stedy for home use - no complaints at all. My sister and I do her shopping and look after her house and garden, but basic shopping and housework would be provided if we weren't there to do that.
Long live the NHS. Boris and Trump had better keep their hands off it.
Indeed in England we pay for prescriptions. Its not perfect but its generally going pretty well. The WHO say this "The U.S. health system spends a higher portion of its gross domestic product than any other country but ranks 37 out of 191 countries according to its performance, the report finds. The United Kingdom, which spends just six percent of GDP on health services, ranks 18 th . Several small countries San Marino, Andorra, Malta and Singapore are rated close behind second- placed Italy."
433
« on: July 30, 2019, 02:22 »
"community" is the biggest lie
Tell that to the original IS groupies of Bruceee, and Lobo etc. There are still a few of them around on this forum ex-inspectors that were in with the cool people.
"were" its not a community now
434
« on: July 30, 2019, 01:37 »
I'd say, yes, it's a cost  The concept of "opportunity cost" is really interesting, though!
another name for it is net present value, used in finance https://www.investopedia.com/terms/n/npv.asp
for stock we each have to decide what our time is worth
Related but not the same thing NPV is a way of measuring the value of an investment taking into account interest rates (or cost of capital). ie if you give me 100 now its worth more than giving me, say 110 in 5 years as I could stick it in an interest bearing account and get more. Its a more sophisticated method than the "payback period" i.e If I spend $3000 on a camera how many years will it be before I earn it back (I wish). One of the difficulties in stock is knowing what the future value of our Port is. Personally I think anyone thinking it will fund their retirement for more than 5 years at best is being optimistic.
435
« on: July 29, 2019, 10:41 »
can somebody explain?
https://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/97747-my-quest-for-10000-images-before-the-end-of-2019/
first this puppet who believe to be a master of photography while he doesn't have a clue what is talking abut...7000 of snapshots repetition technically applying images...asomebody who earn probably 20 dollar month and claim to be a super expert...
Grossinger once admitted on the SS forum that when he had over 3000 photos in his port, he had made less than $100. I wouldn't exactly call that impressive for a port of that size.
this guy is a joke of nature...and those who admire hm have portfolio even more mediocre and probably not even manage to reach 10 dollar a months. those people probably suffer off solitude...they need those joke forum to fill their day because really i cannot understand spending time to earn a bunch of dollar and complaint that their 400 hundreds terrible photos don't sell everyday...another to follow is the desperate marbury king of doom and gloom thread,
sometimes i ask myself if they troll or really are surprised not to sell andy photos.
but the problem i m feeling ashamed to contribute to the same agency of those people. it's really depressing.
Take a look at his most recent post. I think hes beginning to realise the futility of what hes doing.
436
« on: July 29, 2019, 10:39 »
"community" is the biggest lie
437
« on: July 28, 2019, 14:01 »
Increasingly sites are not accepting this. You may also find in the future that sites you want to upload to won't. I would say its a sound investment to have a release for each shoot. Is it really that time consuming?
438
« on: July 28, 2019, 02:52 »
I got one for 18c last week they seem quite rare but they do happen.
"Note: If an image was purchased via a monthly subscription plan, your royalty rate will depend on your Contributor's Level. Royalty calculations are based on the price of the subscription plan and the number of downloads included in it. If a Buyer gets a discount on the purchase, the royalties received by the Contributor for the file will be based on the amount paid by the Buyer, incorporating the discount, and not the standard value of the file." In other words we can sell images for what we like and you take your share of the "hit".
I do sell reasonably consistently on DP but can't recall anything over about $3. I've had $40 before on Istock even.
439
« on: July 28, 2019, 02:07 »
Microstock went from somewhat profitable experiment to real business and back to somewhat profitable experiment. It still seems to be shrinking for me, so I'm not sure where the bottom is or the breaking point. I am curious where the experiment will end though.
For who?.....for contributors aiming for a serious return on their investment I can't see it remaining viable to upload new images for much longer. For those who have already got a decent collection I would expect income to tail off. For the small agencies I reckon they are dead on their feet already. For the likes of Shutterstock no doubt it will last longer until the penny drops for new entrants that they face a near impossible task.
440
« on: July 27, 2019, 14:09 »
For what its worth, my self-imposed rules for submitting are simple. If I think my clip is worth more than $0.60 ($3.00 is my all-time worst sale) ....I submit only to Pond5. I have hundreds of clips that are exclusive to Pond5. And for images, any agency that pays less than $0.30 doesn't get my submissions. That's why I work exclusively with Dreamstime, Deposit Photo and Shutterstock.
Deposit photos? I've had 16c before and overall the return there is only better than Big Stock and these days RF123. I look at the overall return focusing on the individual return is flawed logic in my view.
441
« on: July 27, 2019, 02:44 »
Actually its making me wonder whether I should ditch Shutterstock and look into Instagram. I'm not sure an overweight middle aged white bloke would be the right profile to be a major influencer though
442
« on: July 27, 2019, 02:39 »
I think you are on the right track...
Not even close.
She was trying to offer encouragement.
Martha... I completely understand that. Sometimes the truth needs to be said even if it is a bitter pill to swallow. There is a clear reason why none of their 700+ images sell.
haha, what's funny is that usually it's me being brutally honest. I was indeed trying to be encouraging, cos I remember what it like to be a newbie. We all started out shooting the easy, dumb stuff, it's part of the process.
Luckily a few years ago you could get away with that and earn enough to be encouraged. I don't think some one like me who is reasonably competent and not prepared to work 70 hrs a week could ever get off the ground now.
443
« on: July 27, 2019, 02:16 »
Am I the only one who throws up a little in my mouth every time I see one of SS "inspirational" posts?
Some interesting takeaways....
$800,000,000 paid to 550,000 contributors averages ~$1455 each. The slices keep shrinking especially if you aren't enterprise or offset.
All of their example images are from Offset.
Rafa Fernandez and Canvan images are using the same bicycle and backdrop
No your not but its par for the course in modern marketing speak. Among one of the many annoying things for me is the pretence that Shutterstock wants to be my friend. Its a business arrangement and as for the term "reach out" makes me want the sick bucket everytime.
444
« on: July 26, 2019, 05:09 »
I've had this sales disgrace today.
They say they sold it to WIX.
SS should make a decision, Is wix more important or are we the ones that make you money?
Wix are more important to shutterstock I'm afraid. They make money from buyers not us. Sad maybe but true. They have made that decision.
445
« on: July 25, 2019, 07:30 »
I think that in my country the babies don't have id card with picture. Hope that it work without picture.
In my country, we don't have ID cards, adults or children.
Honest?
https://www.citizencard.com/what-is-a-citizencard
But that's no problem, Big Brother is always watching: cameras that are in public control include more than 10,000 CCTV units installed by the police and some 60,000 more controlled by local authorities across Britain. The London Tube network alone has 13,000 cameras, with an average of 52 cameras per station. The study estimates that between 290,000 and 370,000 cameras are run by state schools.
But right, and the US has no official national ID either.
SS release Is Fine. Insert Photo in release
There you go, have a parent or guardian sign a model release. Include the model photo, and have a witness sign, all dated the same date. But no wording from the agency, or you might get refused. No agency wants a model release with another agencies name in it.
You can have one of those cards if you want but in the UK there is no legal requirement to have any id card. That card has no actual legal status and its advertising is quite dodgy. Most people get by with a driving licence or passport.
446
« on: July 25, 2019, 02:25 »
What a system! We'll be going the same way in the UK if the tory scum get their way.
Best leave politics out of it.Not great to call fellow photogs scum.
Hes not doing that
447
« on: July 23, 2019, 10:26 »
The explanation I think fits for the fellow from India is that India is a market where SS is still learning what will sell and what won't.
I think that it has only been fairly recently that very many people from India started contributing to SS and they are still hungry for anything.
I suspect that there is little demand in India for images and a very rapidly growing supply so its going to be hard to earn from "indian" focused images. Potentially its a big market and maybe someone who really understands it could do well.
448
« on: July 18, 2019, 11:03 »
Disney are very litigious Shutterstock are very risk averse so its likely that their rules have tightened. Whether legally they are in the right is academic - their site their rules.
449
« on: July 18, 2019, 07:30 »
how bout bigstock photo and creativemarket? anyone use that because there no need to approve after upload
for example my product which was rejected on envato recentle got sold in creativemarket
Big stock do review my last batch was reviewed in seconds though. I don't really no why I bother there though...hugely misplaced optimism or "I've started" so I'll finish stubborness?
450
« on: July 17, 2019, 15:57 »
Yes looking at trends upcoming news technology the next big thing looking through magazines newspapers all that stuff. If images are specialist/niche the directly approaching publishers etc. For arty type stuff maybe selling in your local store even art galleries etc etc. Also try and work out what sells by looking at site stats. I even sold a canvas hanging on my wall to a visitor. ;-). I only do this for fun. If I was looking to earn a full living I would look on myself as an "image creator" I think these days "stock photographer" is too narrow a focus to make a living for most.
" Cause even though in general it doesn't seem like a good or healthy idea to let oneself be measured by one's income". Its not the only measure but if you are in this as a business its essential otherwise its a hobby which it is for me. As I said though costs are vital too...I rarely see anyone talk here about this. For example I stopped shooting models in studios as although they did sell they didn't make a decent return.
Expenses, since you asked, I don't sell enough on Microstock to pay for the gas or hotel room for a weekend shooting at the races. I do make more on scenery or historic sites going and coming, than I do from sports photos.
I know this is kind of avoiding the true financial side, but I'd have all this gear, cameras and lenses, even if I never uploaded one stock photo. I can rationalize that expense which is actually ignoring that it's still a real expense? 
For someone who's in this for the money, the perspective is different. Every cost fee and expense is deducted from earnings to find real profit. I'm not doing this for recognition or an ego boost. That leaves hobby. I thinkproducing Microstock images costs me more than I get back.
Time... that's a cost of doing business? Editing, keywording, data, uploading, submitting. 
The cost of your time is really about "opportunity cost" what activity are you forgoing to do that work. If its lying in bed, writing on discussion boards ;-). Its zero. It may be negative if its avoiding on line gaming, visiting bars etc. Or the cost of giving up a career.
Pages: 1 ... 13 14 15 16 17 [18] 19 20 21 22 23 ... 195
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
