Thanks for the info.  Too bad I've got some great shots up there for 12 months of exclusivity.

Sadly enough, the only market for lenses like this are the most unscrupulous of the paparazzi. It must be brutal to be a celebrity ...

30+ lbs seems a bit too heavy to lug around for paparazzi.

How about sports shooters?  Sports Illustrated has a pair of these babies, I understand.  I think NASA also has one for Shuttle launches.   And don't forget the occasional billionaire hobbyist - like the owner of Oakley.

More MP really help in that I can crop more, and can downsize if I end up with artifacting or something like that.

I agree the extra income from larger size sales doesn't come close to paying for the difference in price.

Quote from: Waldo4 on February 25, 2008, 10:53

Prestige -> 70-200 (It has the white paint and red stripe, generally a pro, but the 70-200 is more obvious and attractive to a theif).

Here's a factoid for ya - if what I read on the Internet last week is true.  The big Canon lenses are white because the typical user will sit in the sun for extended lengths of time shooting sports or wildlife.  The white reflects light = cooler lens.  Apparently things can get pretty hot inside all the black equipment and cause damage to circuits, etc.  You can buy still black Canon lenses, but they are usually specialty order and more $$$.

The justification for having a cooler tele lens is because the Tele L's use fluorite glass lenses.  Those are softer than standard glass, and deform more due to heat variations. 

But it sure is a great marketing campaign, as you can always tell L's at a sporting event.

Combination of LightRoom and MS Access.

After a shoot in LR, I'm give star ratings
* = trash
** = personal keeper
*** = submit for stock

After processing, *** become **** - at which point I have a JPEG in my stock folder.

I just arrange by dates - 2 folders per year (probably break it down by quarter soon). 

Once I've uploaded an image, I put it into my Access database
I have a duplicate set of fields for each stock site, with image ID numbe r(if there is one, then I've uploaded it, if not, I haven't uploaded it yet).  I've got a checkbox for accepted, and a notes to why it was rejected and if I will bother resubmitting).

I'm pretty happy with the editorial submissions.  I just put up a bunch of Chinese New Year parade shots, and one's sold
http://www.dreamstime.com/chinese-new-year-parade-1-image4265042

Great for travel pics.

I like how DT lets you select specific files for exclusivity.

I put up a lot of editorial stuff on SS, and when they get rejected, they're set as exclusive on DT (usually rejected, but some make it through).

Unless the TOS has changed this, I thought SS gave $0.03 per sale from a referred photographer indefinately.

Thanks for the advice.

Up until recently, the only place for me to put up editorials was SS with some newsworthy stuff up onto Scoopt/Getty (no sales on Scoopt).  Now I'm on Alamy and DS has opened up editorials.  So it's been a little bit a dillema.

Quote from: Mormegil on February 15, 2008, 14:18

Here's where it gets tricky.  You might think, I bought $2100 lens this year, while I made $2100, so you expect that you netted $0.  No you didn't.  You need to depreciate your equipment.  Photography equipment depreciates over 7 years, so that's a $2100/7 or $300 a year you can deduct as a loss.  So you really made $2100 - $300 or $1800 a year.

There are also options to depreciate all in one year, but I'm not sure how that goes.  It's a bad idea if you're making a profit every year, so I don't generally do that.

I write off all my purchases each year under that part of the code.   I don't know why you'd want to worry about tracking those things over time.

2 reasons.

TurboTax makes it easy.

If I deducted my big ticket purchases (couple of L lenses and a 5D), then I would have taken a loss that year, and made a big profit the next.  So I wanted to equalize my earnings, so I wouldn't have a big tax hit the next year.

Sadly or happily, almost half my SS income comes from referrals.

But hey, can't complain about 4 figures.

I'm no tax professional, so don't take what I say as law.  I'll just mention what I've done.

AFAIK, having a business license is up to the city or county you live in.  As far as Federal taxes go, you can either claim you're running a business (likely a sole proprietorship) or a hobby with income.

If it's a hobby, then you can't claim a loss.  If it's a business, you can claim a loss for the first 2 or 3 years or so.  After that, I think the IRS figures you really doing this as a hobby, and you may get in trouble.

Luckally, from the first year, I've been making a profit, so I've been claiming that I'm running a business (which I am).

That means fill out the Schedule C.  I've been using TurboTax, and have been pretty happy.

So how it works is, you put in your business expenses, including supplies and equipment, travel, etc.  And you put in your income.  If your income exceeds your expenses, you owe money on that income.  If your expenses exceed your income, then you took a loss, and that comes off your taxable earnings, I believe.  So I don't think it's an itemized deduction, but I could be wrong, as I've always made a profit.

Here's where it gets tricky.  You might think, I bought $2100 lens this year, while I made $2100, so you expect that you netted $0.  No you didn't.  You need to depreciate your equipment.  Photography equipment depreciates over 7 years, so that's a $2100/7 or $300 a year you can deduct as a loss.  So you really made $2100 - $300 or $1800 a year.

There are also options to depreciate all in one year, but I'm not sure how that goes.  It's a bad idea if you're making a profit every year, so I don't generally do that.

Hope this helps.


Also, DreamsTime sent me a 1099.  So far, that's just DS and SS.