|
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 - adijr
26
« on: June 10, 2011, 19:23 »
dont see the point of this topic but my biggest was 40$ and lowest 7 (cents)
What do you mean the point? I'd just like to get an impression on what $$ people are making on the biggest sale. Seems to be in the 200s$ right now. I'm very surprised to see a 0.07c sale. Wow
27
« on: June 10, 2011, 10:30 »
Out of curiosity, what's your single best income ... download? No exceptions (i.e. include any type of sale) I guess we can also include lowest  I'll start: highest - 55.20$ 720p vetta video sale lowest - 0.19$ xsmall pic (I think) Although I have a v small port.
28
« on: May 06, 2011, 11:27 »
11125 th. I guess I should upload my 21st image at some point soon.
Thanks for the thread, it's quite informative. It's a little misleading if you went exclusive though, since your sales (at least mine) go down a little despite the $$$ going up.
29
« on: January 27, 2011, 13:30 »
Can you imagine submitting 100 shots to iStock at five or ten a week, whatever the limit is, getting 70 rejections and then piling up a dozen 15c sales over three of four months from the 30 that get through? Why anyone would bother doing that is beyond me.
It's more like 'who' than 'why'. Young folk with lots of time. Depending of your definition of a developed world, there's 1billion+ people in that world, with DSLRs becoming incredibly accessible, and with smaller devices becoming incredibly more powerful (Total sales are at around 100M/year!, with 10M being DSLRs - http://www.dpreview.com/news/1001/10012606cipa2009.asp). And more people will learn about stock. So in the end I'm seeing this as there being a huge influx of images for people who are not expecting huge income, but are maybe content with a few extra bucks - and the problem is filtering those images, not why to shoot them. That's at least my view, I could be wrong.
30
« on: January 27, 2011, 13:03 »
"Jack of all trades (master of none?)" in a business office. Small enough company that I can have my hands in a lot of areas... product planning, events, design, etc... never boring. I actually enjoy it.
Microstock a well-paying hobby, working on it a few hours at night... at least for now.
This sounds very nice, the "never boring" part is fantastic. Repetitive work is often what brings people down in the long run. I keep hoping to experiment with different 'trades' at some point in my life.
31
« on: January 27, 2011, 11:59 »
Out of curiosity We probably have a diverse group of people? I'll start: I'm a graduate student in CS.
32
« on: January 27, 2011, 11:52 »
Hmmmm... is there a boondoggle going on here; everyone flaunting their revenue while avoiding the deducts?
$3K a month isn't a lot when it costs you $3.5K to produce it. 
I find it quite hard to separate hobby from 'production cost'. if I want to buy a random little camera accessory that I don't really plan to use for stock photos but rather for fun/family, and then later I decide to sell a picture that I did using that accessory, is that part of my production cost? Maybe this doesn't apply to all you pros, but for me it's a difficult computation. I find that in reality my production cost is pretty much just my time, as most other things I bought I would have bought regardless of whether I was microstocking or not.
33
« on: January 26, 2011, 23:02 »
I'm so confused... so 1000 images or 1??? My port is around 15 images and 5 vids (+- something). So around 20 files, and only at IS. Really, it's more like 15 files, cuz some are similar. This is a (fun) side project. I made $ 300 only in November of 2010 (I usually average way below that). My return per image was lowest In March ($1.7) and highest in Novemeber ($17.5). I don't make anywhere near what the people in this thread make, obviously, but maybe then I'm just another example to add to your statistic.
34
« on: January 14, 2011, 13:00 »
Quite funny Forgive me for trying to be productive, but I find that we are always doing some step unproductively and someone can correct us. Not quite like this, but for example i've only recently learned of ctrl+L in firefox (I usually got a new tab [ctrl+t] just to avoid using the mouse to get to the address bar). Many people i know that consider themselves efficient still type "www." and ".com", which have shortcuts since the late 90s. Maybe we should all share some shortcuts and tricks links
35
« on: January 13, 2011, 15:16 »
probably useless, but: - Started year port with 13 photos/vids, ended with 20.
- Became IS exclusive in Sept.
- 364 dloads total, 1146.38 income
- not counting SS and other income as it adds up to a miniscule amount by comparison (under $50 probably) Good luck in MMXI all!
36
« on: December 14, 2010, 16:29 »
It applies to me, but I have a very small port. My top month is 300$ &chds=0,325.5)
37
« on: December 13, 2010, 20:29 »
Here is the case against government, it rests on logic and not on statistics.
IMO, 'logic' is a very dangerous word. It is very poorly defined, and in many cases one person's logic is another person's horror. One can define it in the mathematical sense, or in a psychological sense, or w/e, but most often I see people equating logic to their common sense, and you can see how it falls downhill from there. I love logic, how I learned it, which is within a science regime. But I feel like in a general conversational setting, saying "Logically, X is true" does not make it so. Most often, it doesn't match my definition of logic anyway. Although I disagree with many of your opinions, I'm happy to argue peacefully. However, I find it awkward that you are so against giving me some figures/sources/stats. Defining the government solely on violence seems a bit reaching. In fact, I'm quite confused over which government you are now talking about. I am quite certain that if I stated on my tax return that I do not agree with a certain chunk of the money, there won't be a violence threat. In fact, there won't be a prison sentence (unless I am attempting fraud). In fact, even a fee won't be immediate. This is, at least, in Canada, and it's only based on my experience and my friends'. I claim not to know what is the case in the US or others, nor do I plan to test it out in either country. However, stating the the governments will essentially say "Let us help you ... or we'll kill you." is the sort of thing where I'd need more than your opinion for. The thing that scares me mostly is that you're omitting giving any sources even when you state strong facts ("With the possible exception ... there is NO country right now that I am aware of who provides welfare, medicare, government pensions, etc. and who can balance their budget. "). Which countries are you aware of? How are you getting to this conclusion (numbers?)? Are they balancing their budget any worse than other country? Last I heard, the US budget isn't doing too well ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_United_States_federal_budget, 1.3 Trillion def). I understand your motivation for politicians to limit their planning of the future, but there can be arguments against (such as people proposing/protesting about future planning). I'm not saying you're wrong, but simple that having that argument does not make you right. The statements like "That is the only horizon that matters to any politician. Every "social program" is in fact a pyramid scheme." is where I'd appreciate some sources/stats as backup. I understand you can get occational examples and that systems have holes - but examples do not prove absolutes (this is why statistics are much more important that case studies). If you dig a bit into the origins and future of every other social welfare program - such as Canada's Biggest Sacred Cow (medicare) you will find the same, scummy, political opportunism and the same, hopeless financial dead-end. That is why I say that government welfare programs are not just a little bit corrupt and inefficient, but they are inherently corrupt. It is an irrational fantasy to believe that politicians can create or sustain wealth in a country by collecting money under threat of violence and redistributing it to their political supporters so that they can win the next election.
You write well - very strong and articulate words with nice punchlines, very estetic. But you have to show evidence behind your statements. Without it, we are just arguing about who can write more eloquently or convincingly without reference to the truth. I think turth has gotten lost along the way, and given way to strong opinion. I hoped to see why people are happy to keep more money in their pocket in balance against social programs. Not trusting the government is a good start, but we need evidence of strong misbehaviour with sources. Your sentence "It is an irrational fantasy to believe that politicians can create or sustain wealth in a country by collecting money under threat of violence and redistributing it to their political supporters so that they can win the next election." may wow the reader, but other than you expressing that this is how you feel (as a conclusion to your opinion post), and making it sound very sensationalist, there is no substance to it. Discussion is fine, strong and absolute statements, especially those based solely on opinion, are not. I don't think I wish to argue against you, so please don't take it that way. It seems I've got my answer insofar as your opinion, anyway; and it seems that I have alot more reading to do until I can understand everything people are talking about. To the board: I apologize for propagating this. I wished to find out how people rationalize their taxes here, not argue about the "corrupt irrational fantasy" that is Canada, which I was using as an example. I suggest we get back to microstocking.
39
« on: December 12, 2010, 23:40 »
Hi adjir,
Thanks so much for posting this info. What fantastic results! Definitely made me much more positive about my decision! Unfortunately, I have to wait until next Feb to go exclusive due to lock ins with other agencies, but very much looking forward to it now. Thanks again! Keep up the good work!
'pleasure, Good luck with your decision/caring it out.!
40
« on: December 12, 2010, 18:17 »
I am a canadian living in the US as a student. Canadian taxes are skyhigh compared to here. Most people I know in Canada and with whom I've at least mentioned finances are quite content to pay their taxes, even those taxed at 50%.
I am really curious why (some?) people are sooo eager to not pay taxes here in the US. In my mind, the equation was very simple, more taxes = more social programs, infrastructure, etc. (of course, assuming no excess of corruption)
...
Excess of corruption? All of these social programs are inherently corrupt. The famous Canadian health system (using Ontario as an example) has maybe 80% of its funding skimmed out of the system by bureaucratic "overhead" which is about what you would expect of any government monopoly. I have some inside knowledge of this because of a friend inside the system who had access to a confidential audit. And the system is corrupt. You won't read much about this in the papers or see it on TV but when it comes to getting jumped up in the queue for hard-to-get medical services (like MRIs) there a lot of favoritism, bribes and extortion going on. Not out-and-out cash bribes AFAIK, but more like people getting bumped up in the queue if they are a crony of a politician, or getting an immediate upgrade to their hospital care if they threaten a politician that they will complain to the press and expose the crappiness of the system. That's for medical care. For the awarding and paying out of government contracts, I'm sorry to tell you that there is a lot of blatant corruption going on, as in envelopes of cash changing hands. A little bit of this came out over the sponsorship scandal, but some ex-government employees told me some stories indicating that sponsor-gate was not the exception to how government contracting works, but the norm.
I believe that there is not a single province in Canada which can balance its budget right now (with the possible exception of Alberta) and the federal government is running an all-time-record deficit. The money is disappearing into the pockets of the politicians, their cronies who have government contracts, and the unionized bureaucrats. Meanwhile, the infrastructure is crumbling. The highways and major roads of Ontario are so full of cracks and potholes, you'd think you were in a third-world country. In Quebec the highway bridges have been literally collapsing because of lack of maintenance.
Government monopolies don't work - that's why in Canada the health care is rationed and people are dying on waiting lists for operations, and in North Korea the food is rationed and people die of malnutrition. The reason why monopolies don't work is that the people who run the monopolies have no competition and therefore can abuse the system and make it as expensive as they want, and they will not lose their "customers".
This system, the one in North America, Europe, Japan and Australia is probably not going to last much longer. Foreigners are not going to keep lending money to these governments forever, so that they can skim all the cream off the top and then offer crappy "social services" to the sheep. The tax base is already crumbling because all kinds of businesses, big and small, are being pinched because their customers are getting poorer and taxes and regulations are getting more onerous (see 1099).
You can do what you want with your own money, but I don't think that it will help anyone (least of all yourself) if you pay any more into this mess than you have to.
I don't disagree that most governments have some corruption, but I think for the sort of facts you're posting you need some references (and I mean statistics, studies, etc back up by some scientific plan, not an article from FoxNews). I've heard all too many times about the long lines and people dying because they can't get a surgery, but very little in terms of proper numbers. I can definitely understand how overhead goes up due to strong unions, misuse of money and so on. But to go from that to saying that all these systems will collapse, especially without numbers, might be overdoing it. And this of course is a completely different discussion from the one that decides just who is allowed to have medical access in each system. I'd also like to see some numbers about this Canadian crumbling infrastructure you mention. This differs from my personal experience, but of course my experience might be particularly lucky. Stating monopolies don't work in the sense you did sort of argues against government in general, since by definition government is a monopoly. By your logic, they can just pass whatever laws they want, since there is no competition, and they won't lose their customers. If this is indeed the problem, we are all doomed. Oh, and let's not put Canada and North Korea to prove the same point, shall we? So let me sum it up for myself. If you state facts (and quite strong conclusions), some sources would be awesome. Also, what do people who have low amounts of money do? There are many students who are on loans, many people starting a new life, many immigrants, many people who lose their ** in floods, many microstockers entering the business. I'm willing to allow some of my tax money go to needless jobs and unions if the rest goes to build a nice infrastructure. It's not all rosy and nice, but I think it works decently enough. But maybe being a student I'm still too naive... Anyway, please note that if i woke the beast, i'm happy to stop posting on the subject. I don't mean for this discussion to go into arguments, I'm literally trying to understand a different line of thinking.
41
« on: December 12, 2010, 01:21 »
OK, I'm not much of a typist so I tend to say things in as brief a way as possible.
Of course we have more in common than language.... but our governments work much differently.
People generally don't mind paying taxes when they see services that they can use being implemented with that tax money.
It just does not work that way in the US.
OK, maybe we give less in reported aid per capita... but that is on top of all the military spending.
Frankly is would take volumes of books to explain the where all the tax dollars are going... pay-offs to corrupt third world regimes, monetary & military hardware support for out allies, etc, etc.
My late father worked for the CIA for a few years, based out of Turkey.
I learned some things about how the world really works from him.
Trust me, its a messy game we play.
I also held a federal government job for a few years in the 1980s.
I had a good up close and personal look at how it works.
Mostly it doesn't work.
Scads of people are employed whose only real job is trying to figure out how they can justify their positions!
Its ludicrous. Anyone that has worked for the US Federal government, will understandably be miffed about how our tax dollars are (mis)spent.
The US taxation system is broken. There are large loopholes for the very, very wealthy, while the middle class gets raped.
Aha, okai. Thank you for the explanation. I DO believe you when you describe your world view, i just didn't understand what you meant. So to understand the a v o from the earlier messages you meant in terms of how well the government spends its money. I can understand that. So, really, you think the main reason people want to pay low taxes is because of a lack of trust of government's ability to do something useful with them? And other countries that do better spending (No country is perfect and let's not say that Canada or whoever else does not waste some money, but lets say less) do so because ...? Simple better people? Better transparency? More protests? Just wondering.
42
« on: December 12, 2010, 00:30 »
Canada has a socialist system. Socialized medical, heavily subsided transportation systems, etc, etc.
Its an apples vs oranges argument.
Could you explain a little more why it's an apples vs oranges argument question? In the items you gave as an example, it sounds to me like a choice of what to do with money. A side point - I looked up some data, and you are indeed right the US seems to be a very strong aid-giving country, but this also has to do with size. Per capita, US seems to me below many others, including Canada. This is not to say US is not giving enough - again, I'm sure you can easily argue the opposite. Yet you can see why I'm confused about you saying this is apples vs Oranges. src: http://www.globalissues.org/article/35/foreign-aid-development-assistance#ForeignAidNumbersinChartsandGraphsAlso I wouldn't go as far as saying that the only thing we have in common is English  I mean, come on, we also tend to launch equally strong microstock business at least.
43
« on: December 11, 2010, 21:26 »
Like I said, I'm just a visitor to stock and the US, but I'm wondering why people value the stuff tax money (is supposed to) pay for a lot less than 'money in your pocket'. Or is that you don't trust the government to pay for the right stuff?
I wish I could explain it to you, but it baffles me too. I think a big part of the problem is Americans don't see our tax money being spent on programs that benefit us. We don't have universal, single payer healthcare, we don't have much in the way of a social safety net, our infrastructure has been crumbling for a few decades, etc. Meanwhile we are growing broke fighting unwinable wars all over the globe. On top of that, we are constantly propagandized that paying taxes is evil, and social programs are money wasted supporting lazy worthless people.
Not all Americans think that way, but those of us who don't are generally shouted down by the others. If you don't believe it, watch what happens in this thread after my post
"If you don't believe it...". On the contrary, this was exactly my impression, but I'm eager to hear people's actual opinions and answers - maybe they can tell me why they think how they do. I've met quite a few people so far whose parents have voted republican since the 60s or 70s, and they're respecting that regardless of how things change. (I'm not bashing on republicans here this is just the case study of people I've met. It may well be that way with other parties). It's a confusing mind set.
44
« on: December 11, 2010, 21:07 »
I am a canadian living in the US as a student. Canadian taxes are skyhigh compared to here. Most people I know in Canada and with whom I've at least mentioned finances are quite content to pay their taxes, even those taxed at 50%.
I am really curious why (some?) people are sooo eager to not pay taxes here in the US. In my mind, the equation was very simple, more taxes = more social programs, infrastructure, etc. (of course, assuming no excess of corruption). Even if I don't always agree with how the money is being spent, wanting the money back in my pocket is *not* the right choice, IMO. Coming from Downtown Toronto (5.5 million people in the GTA) to Boston there's a large difference in infrastructure, cleanliness and social programs, and from what I understand Massachusetts is one of more social systems around.
Like I said, I'm just a visitor to stock and the US, but I'm wondering why people value the stuff tax money (is supposed to) pay for a lot less than 'money in your pocket'. Or is that you don't trust the government to pay for the right stuff?
45
« on: December 11, 2010, 20:45 »
Interesting __ thanks for that. I've just been checking my stat's for the first 10 days of December on both IS & SS and comparing them to the same period last year. Income at Istockphoto is 30% down compared to last December but at Shutterstock it is 30% up. The figures for each year are almost identical but simply reversed between agencies. Weird.
Your post made me curious so I checked the same stats. In my case, both agencies are down from the same 10 days last year. Down 17% for Istock and down 12% for Shutterstock. Now I'm depressed 
Apologies for the original stats link eventually leading to some people being depressed. Look on the bright side, you're still making (loads of?) money! The reason i brought up compare is because they (and alexa, and so on) can give us a slightly better/different idea of what the buyers are doing (I'm assuming buyer traffic is much higher than contributor traffic. I could be wrong). Looking at your specific numbers is usually way too specific, as it depends on endless factors (e.g. even if you added only 10 pics this year, if they were the top selling santa pictures of 2010, that might change your income dramatically). Anyway, it's an interesting (graph on alexa) other statistic - but I find it somewhat confusing as it shows the graphs as a reach percentage.
46
« on: December 11, 2010, 15:31 »
It might take another year or two but I reckon SS will eventually emerge as the dominant microstock agency. Who do you trust the most to win out in the end __ Jon Oringer, serial entrepreneur and founder of SS, or Kelly Thompson, COO of an H&F subsidiary?
Color me unexcited at the thought of a subscription model dominating the market.
I'm mostly an outside viewer in this circuit, but here's my opinion of istock's most worrisome trend: http://siteanalytics.compete.com/istockphoto.com+shutterstock.com/#Of course the price model is different and so on, but if that trend continues for a long time, almost none of the details will matter. In the end, I think these statistics will dominate any discussion about current details. Anyway, carry on...
47
« on: December 10, 2010, 22:35 »
First of all, hooray for you!
I was in a similar decision-situation in september- most of my income was coming from istock anyway. I became exclusive in September (my port is a whopping 18 files though. I know, I'm such a noob). Anyway, the result was a nice bump in earnings! For reference, the highest bar on the Graph (Nov 2010) is ~300$. Good luck with your decision!
P.s. I have a whopping 2682 credits . I'm not attempting to make the 12,500 mark
Pretty impressive sales performance. 18 files with 400 sales in a little over a year. This debunks any argument that you need to hit some magic number of uploads before starting to make sales.
Yea I'm quite happy with it. I love doing this but I don't really have time, (I am a grad student right now) so the files go up very slow. Nonetheless, despite the numerous rejections and slow throughput pace, I think iStock is doing quite well for me so far. We'll see how it goes in the future. Keep up the good work everyone!
48
« on: December 10, 2010, 17:19 »
I made $358 at Istock in November (Not a BME, but close, BME was actually October - $423) which represents about 60% of my income across 5 agencies (IS,SS,DT,FT,CS,DP)
I have had fairly steady growth at IS this year, having increased my port from 250 to 580 images.
As IS represents such a large chunk of my income, I am strongly considering going exclusive next year and have already dropped BS and Veer.
I am a little concerned now however as quite few people seem to be experiencing a drop in IS income. Just wondering if any IS exclusives are seeing this trend also?
You have a lovely portfolio and with a bit more growth should see steady income from IS. What you need to look at before deciding on exclusive status is what your redeemed credits might be for 2011 (which will set your 2012 royalty rate). Vetta, Agency and XXXL sizes all help boost those numbers and thus your royalty.
When I switched from independent to exclusive I was gold and thus went from 20% to 35%. This year has been excellent for me - partly the doubling of exclusive prices on XS, partly portfolio growth, partly price increase. Before the September announcements, I think I'd have said to wait until you could get to gold to go exclusive, but with the drop in IS income you'll see in January if you don't go exclusive (you'd drop to 16%?) and the percentage of your income from IS, taking the 25% and the huge risk might be a reasonable bet for you.
Thanks again everyone for the compliments! 
Hi js,
Thanks for the advice. Everyone is so helpful here! I hope I can return the favour sometime in the future!
Regarding the royalty rate, I am currently on 11433 credits (as of December 8th), so I am uploading like crazy in the hopes that I can squeeze out the last 1067 credits before the end of December which would make the move to exclusive much more attractive.
Unfortunately, my camera (D3) does not quite produce XXXL unless I res the files up which I am reluctant to do for fear of rejection! So I may need to invest in a D3x to get the larger file sizes.
First of all, hooray for you! I was in a similar decision-situation in september- most of my income was coming from istock anyway. I became exclusive in September (my port is a whopping 18 files though. I know, I'm such a noob). Anyway, the result was a nice bump in earnings! For reference, the highest bar on the Graph (Nov 2010) is ~300$. Good luck with your decision! P.s. I have a whopping 2682 credits . I'm not attempting to make the 12,500 mark
49
« on: November 14, 2010, 00:22 »
...and a couple of weeks later i caught some time to work on this. I tried to improve the image overall while taking into account what you all said. It's pretty much a different image now... Does this have a chance at getting in? http://depo.fotozygous.com/stock/gct_wm.jpgThank you for all your feedback again, adijr
50
« on: October 30, 2010, 14:17 »
Thanks for all your feedback so far!
To address some comments
the reason for the whiteish border was just a design to go with the winter theme. It's no problem to take it out, I just thought it looked allright.
I guess I should have called this 'raster' instead of cg... to me cg stands for computer graphics, and is a pretty general term. It was not done in photoshop or any other such program, so I didn't even think that they could be interpreted as PS brushes, very interesting!
I could move the tree more to the right, no problem, I had left that much text on the right for text, etc. I thought of that too when I got the rejection, though I'm certainly not sure.
So on to the more worrisome issue: that istock doesn't like rasters or that this would have been good for IS some time ago but not now: so, if I say follow all the advice (move tree, take out vignetting, improve shape of tree, and maybe whatever other people have to say), is it still likely not to get in?
Thank you very much for your time, and have a good weekend!
-adijr
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
