|
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 - robhainer
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... 18
126
« on: November 25, 2014, 16:59 »
I'm thinking I can handle any tax changes coming out of this, either by claiming them back internally or being covered by existing treaties (England) to pay zero at source.
What makes my blood really boil is the fact their bean counter toadies have finally figured out a way to hang on to their cash flow for as long as possible - by delaying payment to me for as long as possible.
No different from SS they always payout once per month.
On the 7th !!!!
They say by the 15th, do they always pay out on the 7th?
They have for the past four years since I've been submitting there. The only exceptions being when the 7th falls on weekend or holiday, then it comes sooner.
127
« on: November 23, 2014, 07:44 »
For us who did not get lazy and slack off, but have been uploading our max ability week after week for years and keep at it, but still see sales and income dropping, any suggestions? A bit simple to say just produce more and watch the money roll in at this late stage in the game.
I don't know your port. I would suggest trying some new things outside your comfort zone. I went back and reprocessed some images to give them the Instagram look, and they started selling better than the ones with normal processing.
128
« on: November 22, 2014, 08:05 »
Laurin is right. If you treat it like a normal job, follow trends and upload new content every day, you will see sales growth. If you try to coast by on old best sellers, you will be disappointed. It's been like that for a couple of years now.
129
« on: November 19, 2014, 09:25 »
In the U.S. it is important to set up an LLC S corporation so you can take your earnings as a stock distribution from your company instead of self-employment salary, otherwise you have to pay a self-employment tax of 15 percent for social security and medicare on top of tax you pay for income.
At the same time, you don't pay corporate taxes because you pass through all the income to your personal return.
All the rich doctors, lawyers and investment bankers do it. So can photographers.
130
« on: November 08, 2014, 12:49 »
I have no problem providing this information. It doesn't go against what Shutterstock prohibits. It's not specific enough.
I could probably figure it out all time, but it would be too much work to be worth the effort. It would be easier if the Facebook and Single Image sales weren't mixed in.
I did October. After subtracting Single Image and Facebook sales, my average was $18.15. The highest sale for me was $108 and the lowest was $2.70.
The highest I've gotten ever was $150 earlier this year.
131
« on: November 01, 2014, 22:53 »
BME on both Shutterstock and Fotolia, and I didn't really add much. Can't complain.
132
« on: November 01, 2014, 15:45 »
I take trips few times a year. i just was in asia now and i have beautiful pictures that i take. my question is travel photos popular? if i post, should i bother tag with the name of place? do people look for name of place? or just say "girl play with dog on sea" or something that describe pictures? sunset in australia or sunset on great ocean road?
Everyone takes vacations and shoots pictures and thinks their images are beautiful. It's unlikely that trying to sell them as stock will be worth the effort, as people already in the area, and professional photographers have likely already spent lots of time and money creating salable works from the area.
Cityscapes and popular tourist spots actually sell pretty well. Even editorials of landmarks sell pretty well. Enough to make it worth the time to shoot those kinds of things when you're already there anyway.
133
« on: October 14, 2014, 10:36 »
The question isn't if a camera is good enough for stock. The question is if your image is good enough for stock. All cameras have their limitations, and as long as you stay within those, you can get good enough images out of most of them.
I don't know how the G2 compares to the G3 but with the latter I had images accepted at Shutterstock and Fotolia. But it is quite aggressive in noise reduction, so I have to avoid large areas with a single color when I shoot for stock.
That's what I noticed. Images look a little smushy from noise reduction. Wonder if there is a raw app?
134
« on: October 14, 2014, 08:55 »
I have the same phone. I would never try to do a stock photo with it.
135
« on: October 14, 2014, 08:19 »
better watch out, you might get attacked here on this fickle forum for submitting to ft
People need to learn to disagree without being disagreeable. I had people contact me to say they agreed with me but are afraid to post because they will get flamed. It's OK to not share the same views. That's what makes the world go round.
136
« on: October 13, 2014, 21:44 »
I'm feeling nice and cooperative, Gostwyck; I'll send you a self-adressed stamped envelope for the first month.
137
« on: October 13, 2014, 20:58 »
If being stupid means making more money, then I'll take it and smile.
I'll tell you what. Send me a check for $250 every month, and I'll drop FT just like you want me to. Put your money where your insults are.
And I'm not sure where you get 3 percent from. DPC sells a licence for a dollar and I get 29 cents. That's 29 percent. You know, Shutterstock undercuts itself with cheaper packages at Bigstock, and it pays less because it's almost impossible to get top tier there. Same principle, but nobody seems to be upset about that.
138
« on: October 13, 2014, 17:59 »
Dallas, the only thing that counts is whether u make money there . if u do, what others say is not important. also, if everyone hates fotolia...means less ppl submit their work to them. if that means u earn more there, who cares?
In virtual world of anonimity on forums- yes, you are right. But, in real world, in your town, in your neighborhood, among your friends and people you live with - do you really live this way? Not caring about anybody, just going for money?
I know you don't. It's just that these internet world made us tell stupidities.
I'm not going to give up income just because my neighbor says it would br good for him. And I'm not anonymous. I would tell you the same thing to your face.
Nobody's asked you, or anyone, to give up income only because it's good for them. We've boycotted DPC because it's good for everyone. You included.
It's not good for me. I'm an adult, and I know what's best for me. FT accounts for about 10 percent of my monthly stock income.
139
« on: October 13, 2014, 11:29 »
Dallas, the only thing that counts is whether u make money there . if u do, what others say is not important. also, if everyone hates fotolia...means less ppl submit their work to them. if that means u earn more there, who cares?
In virtual world of anonimity on forums- yes, you are right. But, in real world, in your town, in your neighborhood, among your friends and people you live with - do you really live this way? Not caring about anybody, just going for money?
I know you don't. It's just that these internet world made us tell stupidities.
I'm not going to give up income just because my neighbor says it would br good for him. And I'm not anonymous. I would tell you the same thing to your face.
140
« on: October 12, 2014, 08:26 »
Maybe. I'm not sure what you're expecting me to say. I'm just trying to answer a question.
141
« on: October 12, 2014, 08:01 »
Funny thing is that I get more credit sales on FT now than I did before DPC. Boycott has little to do with that.
142
« on: October 11, 2014, 14:52 »
Well, all negativity and bias aside, I'd like to know some hard facts:
1) Does DPC butcher sales on other sites?
2) Is DPC garnering enough sales to make it worthwile?
3) Will DPC actually destroy the market as we know it with a race to the bottom?
I'm not opted in, but as for question 1: I'm not seeing any decline in sales on other sites since the existence of DPC, and even if there would be a decline, it's hard to tell if it's because of
DPC.
Therefore, I think the answer to question 3 is 'no'.
That leaves question 2 unanswered. Perhaps opted-in contributors could shine some light on this?
All I can tell you is my earnings on FT went back up after I opted back in to DPC. My earnings on other sites weren't affected. Being on DPC is a net positive for me.
143
« on: October 08, 2014, 18:32 »
I personally find this thread very interesting. For me it helps me understand where I stand with my type of portfolio and upload patterns......
how does the poll help you when type of portfolio and upload patterns are PRECISELY the information missing in the poll?
I am not talking about the poll alone, I talk about this thread in general. From the poll I see the spread of RPIs - that is helpful already - is RPI spread from 0.00 to 1.00USD, or to 3-4 $ USD, or to 10 USD. Also, being in the business for some time it helps me guestimate which ports perform better and which don't (for some contributors I can just look it up based on the info they posted in this thread). I know this information is not statistically accurate - but my information is now better than it was before the thread was opened - hence, helpful thread.
But again, a 12month average RPI would be even more helpful. 
That would be way too much trouble to figure out. I'd have to go back to see how many images I had online each month.
144
« on: October 07, 2014, 11:10 »
Well, except you have my info but I don't have yours because I don't know your port or how many images you have online.
145
« on: October 07, 2014, 10:42 »
I just don't think breaking it down that way is all that meaningful. If I was more careful and only uploaded images that I thought were sure sellers, only placed safe bets according to your analogy, my RPI would rise but I would never know what I missed by taking some risks.
I guess what I'm saying is that I believe we should stretch out, photograph what turns us on and not be a slave to a stat like RPI.
146
« on: October 07, 2014, 08:26 »
Pete, your RPI for your top 10 images would be how much those 10 images earned last month alone, divided by 10. So if you made $140 on those 10 images last month, your RPI on those images would be $14.
In other words, you earned $14 per image for a total of $140 in September.
147
« on: October 07, 2014, 07:30 »
54 cents. Last month was kinda crappy until the last week.
You're telling me that last month your portfolio of 2157 images actually generated $1165 at SS alone? Really? And that was "kinda crappy"?
Until the last week when I got 2 ELs in the final few days. Yes. Lowest earnings month on Shutterstock this year. I don't see what's unusual about it. There are a lot of people who are better photographers than me and earn a lot more.
148
« on: October 06, 2014, 20:36 »
My BME was probably close to 70 cents. I'm not sure how many images I had online at the time. I'm basing that on 100 fewer images or so in my port. My normal month is probably closer to 60 cents. I really don't pay much attention to RPI. I could delete 1,000 nonsellers and then my RPI would go way up. And I do have at least 1,000 nonsellers, if not more. I keep them because they might pop up with an EL or something, and I don't even remember I made the image.
149
« on: October 06, 2014, 18:51 »
54 cents. Last month was kinda crappy until the last week.
150
« on: October 05, 2014, 12:21 »
Why did you shoot them at the first place? If you are microstock shooter and if you are not willing to sell them at microstock? You could just skip that job.
I know, it was a risk that will maybe pay off. But, me, I'm not for risky jobs anymore.
I shot them because it was a one-time offer that won't come again, and I am a photographer before I am a microstocker. While I have my niche primarily on micro, I have about 10x the photos that I haven't decided yet what to do with. I will likely just offer them on my own website.
Maybe try 500px prime. At least you get $175 for nonexclusive.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... 18
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
