MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Show Posts

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 - Epsilonth

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5
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
Epsi, do you mean that page or others? http://subscribe.ru/group/na-zavalinke/7738098/

I just wrote second email to 500px about this all sharing. Found my images twice in few days...   >:(    >:(


I have all images uploaded watermarked, no way to be stolen.


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
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

Sean is there also offering His advice and doing a good Job helping out with his perspective.

I actually just got two rejections on a set.  One was missing a release, and the other, apparently, I missed a Nike logo on.  So, there are humans there, lol.

NO! They're no way humans. Their eyes are way too sharp too be human's :D.

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
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 needed
That seems like a lot of equipment and work for micro ... Hopefully you're being compensated enough to make it worth it.
Chinese lights are cheap! Saved time is worth IMHO.

32
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.

From your post "With that attitude you're not going very far", you were the one making that assumption about Pauly.  It is not anonymity that suggests not successful, it is silly posts.

The silly thing is 'a supposedly successful stocker guy' declared stock photography is not profitable. Contradiction right there.

As Mantis said in your new thread on same topic, profitable change over time.  Many successful microstockers struggle to remain profitable over long term due to factors out of our control, such as money grabs from agencies, and exponential growth in competition.

  But hey, you teach photography part time at a college, so you know everything.  Don't let reality stand in the way of your simplistic graphs and theories.

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?

You dont read much do you?  I already said I still make some profit on older images.  It is nearly impossible to profit on new ones for reasons repeated many times in these forums and in this thread.  Its not just me struggling, its most of the long term full timers.  And many are quitting and more will do so in coming months and years if agencies keep bleeding us dry. 

You seem to be assuming again that the anonymous person you talk to is not successful or have no clue.  Once again your wrong.

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.

From your post "With that attitude you're not going very far", you were the one making that assumption about Pauly.  It is not anonymity that suggests not successful, it is silly posts.

The silly thing is 'a supposedly successful stocker guy' declared stock photography is not profitable. Contradiction right there.

As Mantis said in your new thread on same topic, profitable change over time.  Many successful microstockers struggle to remain profitable over long term due to factors out of our control, such as money grabs from agencies, and exponential growth in competition.

  But hey, you teach photography part time at a college, so you know everything.  Don't let reality stand in the way of your simplistic graphs and theories.

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
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/cost per shoot do matter more.

I also forgot to mention. To find break-even period just equate to zero and solve for n.

36
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
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
These are sample portraiture cases. Most other cases shooting costs will be even lower except landscape.

39
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.

From your post "With that attitude you're not going very far", you were the one making that assumption about Pauly.  It is not anonymity that suggests not successful, it is silly posts.

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 »
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.

Even doing it part time is still work and for some people it probably works out to be $1-$2 per hour. Minimum wage here in the US is around $8 per hour. Maybe a part time job would be a better return on time and more money.

Just doing some loose math with 1,000 images. Minimum of 30 minutes each to shoot, edit, keyword and upload. That's 500 hours. Earning .10 cents per image per month equals $100 per month or $1,200 per year. That's $2.40 per hour. And I realize it's recurring revenue but images lose sales volume quickly. Mine peak after about six months and bottom out after about a year. You must keep producing new images otherwise income will dry up. And there are a lot of people doing much better than .10 PIPM but you would need to be doing 3x better just to earn minimum wage. And most minimum wage jobs don't require hundreds or thousands of dollars in costs for you to do the job.

Which goes back to my point of I wonder why some people spend a huge amount of time and money on this for very little return and probably no profit.
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.
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.

Oh boy. Yes I understand the concept of passive income. Regular income with little work. Technically if you submit 1 image and earn $1 dollar per year that's passive income. And submitting 10,000 images, quitting, and earning $1 per year would be passive income. Would it be profitable? No. 

Yes I understand not everybody lives in the US. All financial stats vary based on a lot of different conditions. $1 per hour in certain countries may be a good wage, but again, that's why I pointed out "here in the US" which you seem to be overlooking.

You need at least a camera which is going to be hundreds of dollars. And just because you have a phone or existing camera, in business, it's still a cost. And you're not going to make much, or any, money shooting things around your house or in your backyard. Unless your back yard has the Eiffel Tower or a modeling agency that offers free models.

Good luck with the stock market.
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.

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 »
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.

Even doing it part time is still work and for some people it probably works out to be $1-$2 per hour. Minimum wage here in the US is around $8 per hour. Maybe a part time job would be a better return on time and more money.

Just doing some loose math with 1,000 images. Minimum of 30 minutes each to shoot, edit, keyword and upload. That's 500 hours. Earning .10 cents per image per month equals $100 per month or $1,200 per year. That's $2.40 per hour. And I realize it's recurring revenue but images lose sales volume quickly. Mine peak after about six months and bottom out after about a year. You must keep producing new images otherwise income will dry up. And there are a lot of people doing much better than .10 PIPM but you would need to be doing 3x better just to earn minimum wage. And most minimum wage jobs don't require hundreds or thousands of dollars in costs for you to do the job.

Which goes back to my point of I wonder why some people spend a huge amount of time and money on this for very little return and probably no profit.
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.
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.

48
General Stock Discussion / Re: Is there a new king?
« on: July 09, 2014, 08:46 »
shutterstock?

49
At SS will perform well for 1-2 months then a sharp drop and then slow steady decline

50
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.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors