26
General Stock Discussion / Re: Claiming Back USA Withholding Tax
« on: December 01, 2014, 13:33 »
It's different in each country. Consult your tax lawyer? Here I think I can claim 40% back. Up to 60,000THB. Never bothered with it.
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. 26
General Stock Discussion / Re: Claiming Back USA Withholding Tax« on: December 01, 2014, 13:33 »
It's different in each country. Consult your tax lawyer? Here I think I can claim 40% back. Up to 60,000THB. Never bothered with it.
27
General Stock Discussion / Re: 500px any luck selling there something?« on: November 30, 2014, 14:53 »Epsi, do you mean that page or others? http://subscribe.ru/group/na-zavalinke/7738098/ Just tried. You've to manually watermark on the main 500px. On prime, there's really weak watermark on top left corner. Thieves will steal but it's easier to make lawsuits if watermarks are not easily removed i.e. many big one in the middle! definitely not corners. 28
General Stock Discussion / Re: 500px any luck selling there something?« on: November 30, 2014, 13:17 »
Do they have automatic watermarks now? My images are shared, then stolen. If I send them all DMCAs it would take months.
29
Shutterstock.com / Re: Shutterstock acceptance rate« on: October 21, 2014, 09:04 »Put them on the critique forum. Maybe we can help you understand the issue. be warned though...Have thick skin, good thing is we don't bite.....That hard. LOL NO! They're no way humans. Their eyes are way too sharp too be human's . 30
Newbie Discussion / Re: How to improve new photo ratio?« on: October 20, 2014, 16:54 »
I know a guy who made 80,000 images in just a bit more that a year. He's amazing but possible.
31
General Photography Discussion / Re: Isolating photos, the right way« on: October 20, 2014, 16:22 »Chinese lights are cheap! Saved time is worth IMHO.i shoot isolated with 3 to 5 lights...one behind, one under for isolation.... and others to give shape to the object (left, right, up)...taslucient background is neededThat seems like a lot of equipment and work for micro ... Hopefully you're being compensated enough to make it worth it. 32
General Stock Discussion / Re: Profitable? Are you operating at a loss?« on: July 27, 2014, 09:44 »You lost me at Profit=n/2..... It's sum of arithmetic sequence, sum of your income. Basically, 2+(2+2)+(2+2+2). Which does not exactly model stock income as mantis mentioned. Not accurate but it is suffice to see where it is needed to cut corners. What really does will look like this with added negative log term which is a bit harder. Also, I'm too lazy to go calculate log term. 33
General Stock Discussion / Re: Profitable?« on: July 27, 2014, 09:27 »I love it when you guys assume anyone anonymous not successful. If you insist you cannot produce profitable new contents you should quit and enjoy what you already have then? Go do something else photography related.Stock earning will go downhill then stay pretty constant. Things always change. Stop complaining and find ways to adapt. Without analysis and pretty graphs you'll be walking blind into minefield. 34
General Stock Discussion / Re: Profitable?« on: July 27, 2014, 09:09 »I love it when you guys assume anyone anonymous not successful. I can make more difficult analysis but I'm sure you'll not understand. What's your point? If you so insist you're struggling why don't you just quit? 35
General Stock Discussion / Re: Profitable? Are you operating at a loss?« on: July 27, 2014, 08:18 »I just want to point point out that break-even works more reliably with static data, or a snapshot in time. I am not refuting your well done example, but want to point out that royalties keep going down and expenses keep going up (equipment, etc). Break even is a moving target. This is to say that calculating break-even in one moment in time could prove shorter than a later point in time, especially when more agencies like DP and FT keep cutting income. 36
General Stock Discussion / Re: Profitable? Are you operating at a loss?« on: July 27, 2014, 08:18 »I just want to point point out that break-even works more reliably with static data, or a snapshot in time. I am not refuting your well done example, but want to point out that royalties keep going down and expenses keep going up (equipment, etc). Break even is a moving target. This is to say that calculating break-even in one moment in time could prove shorter than a later point in time, especially when more agencies like DP and FT keep cutting income. I agree. You seem well used to financial analysis than I. I have data on port with no upload at all for 2 years. The graph is in inverse log shape. Adding - log term might make the equation closer to reality or might make it way off. Another interesting thing is that camera cost doesn't even matter much. Cost of living and cost per shooting session do matter more. I also forgot to mention. To find break-even period just equate to zero and solve for n. 37
General Stock Discussion / Re: Profitable? Are you operating at a loss?« on: July 27, 2014, 02:17 »
There are two ways to profit more. Cut costs(get free or low cost models) or more income(product better images).
In conclusion, if you're just enthusiast you'll clearly profit. If you're full time and can control costs/produce selling images. You'll also profit easily. Cost of living is also a major factor. It is likely that you cannot be full time in countries like Japan. 38
General Stock Discussion / Re: Profitable? Are you operating at a loss?« on: July 27, 2014, 02:04 »
These are sample portraiture cases. Most other cases shooting costs will be even lower except landscape.
39
General Stock Discussion / Profitable? Are you operating at a loss?« on: July 27, 2014, 01:56 »
I teach occasionally at a university's photo club. This is part of teaching material. just plug in your numbers and you'll see your result.
*this is a very simplified version of break even analysis. *earning vs time is more of logarithmic function. I assume arithmetic in this case to make it simple. 40
General Stock Discussion / Re: Profitable?« on: July 26, 2014, 23:15 »I love it when you guys assume anyone anonymous not successful. The silly thing is 'a supposedly successful stocker guy' declared stock photography is not profitable. Contradiction right there. 41
General Stock Discussion / Re: Profitable?« on: July 26, 2014, 22:31 »
I love it when you guys assume anyone anonymous not successful.
42
General Stock Discussion / Re: Profitable?« on: July 26, 2014, 12:29 »
It kinda gotten out of topic now. To sum up. My point is: This is passive income.that recurring cost is almost non existent It will be profitable no matter what. Unless what you shoot is really expensive to produce or your image is really amateurish.
The question should be when it will break even and turn profit. You need to do a break-even analysis. Basically time when (initial cost fixed cost variable cost) - all income = 0. Will It be in days?weeks? Months? You wouldn't want to be dead before that! With this really simple method you will know where you need to keep the cost down. 43
General Stock Discussion / Re: Profitable?« on: July 26, 2014, 11:54 »With that attitude you're not going very far. Trust me, there's a lot to shoot 'in house' if you have some creativity. You can get models for 'free' if you're good enough. I do portraiture and weddings so models are willing to pose in exchange of images.1. You don't understand the concept of passive income. Sells do dry out but after a while remain constant. I have seen a port of 500ish with no upload for years.It's passive income once you're done. Forget about it for a few months,bam! new lenses, new camera bodies. If you're not doing it full time, that is. Camera gears are investments. Just like buying stock and earning dividends. It's almost one time investment. In our case gears, time, production cost are 'investment'. Earning is comparable to dividends. After break-even it's profit. For faster break-even the only thing that can be easily sacrificed is production cost. This will lower image quality. I started with just 400D now I use 5D3(which I realised I don't really need for stock. Too bad I shoot weddings too) that's something. Stock photography can be profitable. There are already many people doing full time. It's the method you need to find by yourself to make it as profitable as possible. The question is: do you really want to sell mediocre images for pennies for the rest of your life? 44
General Stock Discussion / Re: Profitable?« on: July 26, 2014, 08:36 »1. You don't understand the concept of passive income. Sells do dry out but after a while remain constant. I have seen a port of 500ish with no upload for years.It's passive income once you're done. Forget about it for a few months,bam! new lenses, new camera bodies. If you're not doing it full time, that is. 2. Not everybody lives in the USofA. Which do you enjoy more? minimum wage job? photography? 3. You actually don't need hundreds of thousand dollars to stock. (Although I did spend hundreds Ks myself. I found out later that I only need a normal zoom) One of the key to success is to keep the production cost low. Income increases with number/quality of image, not linearly but almost. Stockphotography is similar to buying stock in stock market. You invest only once. 45
General Stock Discussion / Re: Profitable?« on: July 26, 2014, 07:05 »
It's passive income once you're done. Forget about it for a few months,bam! new lenses, new camera bodies. If you're not doing it full time, that is.
46
General Stock Discussion / Re: Anyone using GH4 for stock« on: July 22, 2014, 10:58 »
Tried it at a store. It's even snappier than my X-T1. Donno about the quality though.. but any modern camera will mostly do fine at low iso.
47
Newbie Discussion / Re: yaymicro and pixta« on: July 15, 2014, 10:12 »
Pixta buyers are Japanese so you need Japanese images. If you don't have that, forget it.
49
Newbie Discussion / Re: 2000 images. No more Uploads. Sales numbers go up or down in the next months?« on: July 07, 2014, 10:23 »
At SS will perform well for 1-2 months then a sharp drop and then slow steady decline
50
MicrostockSubmitter / Re: Help translating StockSubmitter and get free subscription!« on: July 01, 2014, 17:30 »
I looked at the automatic translation. You can get away with that. Weird translation here and there but it's pretty accurate.
I recalled now! I used to use the software when I had a windows box. I really liked it back then. |
|