No worries, Ralf.

Discussing workflows is perfectly fine.

But there is difference between discussing workflows and chestbeating yourself with an absurd (for microstock) $348/hour earnings, only because you have fun doing your work.

And all this, to impress some who will be will  be willing to pay for his get-rich-quick course.
But since this hasn't happened here, yet: "In dubio pro reo" 

Thank you Zero for your reply.

However, I still do not understand the aggressiveness in the discussion.

As I understand it, the agitation is the $348/hour. Of course, that in itself is very lurid and attention grabbing. But Doug was also fair enough to explain how the total came about.

I can relate to all of this in that I am in the same situation and my bill looks similar.

Professionally, I do something completely different full time.
Stock photography is purely a hobby for me. High quality cameras and other equipment were already in place. The photography itself I do not see as work, but as relaxation from my actual job. During this time I could have also watched TV, read a book or done something else.
So for me, this is also not working time, but relaxing leisure. It's the same with image post-processing. 

Without it being my intention at the beginning, I now regularly earn money with it.

From this personal point of view, which is also ultimately Doug's, I find the absolute numbers presented - leaving aside the hourly wage - very impressive. 
At least for a hobby. And that's how I understood Doug's explanations here.

Quote from: Zero Talent on July 04, 2023, 13:22

.

You are losing the discussion here Zero by a mile. C'mon get up and fight

No worries, the dot was just me noticing that I misspelled Ralf's name, and clicking the wrong button to fix it. 

Quote from: RalfLiebhold on July 04, 2023, 13:47

Quote from: Zero Talent on July 04, 2023, 11:48

No worries, Ralf.

Discussing workflows is perfectly fine.

But there is difference between discussing workflows and chestbeating yourself with an absurd (for microstock) $348/hour earnings, only because you have fun doing your work.

And all this, to impress some who will be will  be willing to pay for his get-rich-quick course.
But since this hasn't happened here, yet: "In dubio pro reo" 

Thank you Zero for your reply.

However, I still do not understand the aggressiveness in the discussion.

As I understand it, the agitation is the $348/hour. Of course, that in itself is very lurid and attention grabbing. But Doug was also fair enough to explain how the total came about.

I can relate to all of this in that I am in the same situation and my bill looks similar.

Professionally, I do something completely different full time.
Stock photography is purely a hobby for me. High quality cameras and other equipment were already in place. The photography itself I do not see as work, but as relaxation from my actual job. During this time I could have also watched TV, read a book or done something else.
So for me, this is also not working time, but relaxing leisure. It's the same with image post-processing. 

Without it being my intention at the beginning, I now regularly earn money with it.

From this personal point of view, which is also ultimately Doug's, I find the absolute numbers presented - leaving aside the hourly wage - very impressive. 
At least for a hobby. And that's how I understood Doug's explanations here.

I also do something else full time.

But if you understand the "Jensen logic", which wrongly claims that he is making $348/hour, because he only accounts for the time spent keywording, then you also must agree that those who have fun shooting (while doing something else full time, like us) AND also have fun keywording, must be making ♾️/hour.

Presenting his absolute numbers while leaving out his $348/hour silly falacy should be perfectly fine.
 

Thank you, now I have finally understood your argumentation.

But Doug's hourly wage is still not wrong, he just defined the conditions differently than you or others and explained it the same way.
Now I can go to sleep calmly 

Quote from: Zero Talent on July 04, 2023, 14:35

Quote from: RalfLiebhold on July 04, 2023, 13:47

Quote from: Zero Talent on July 04, 2023, 11:48

No worries, Ralf.

Discussing workflows is perfectly fine.

But there is difference between discussing workflows and chestbeating yourself with an absurd (for microstock) $348/hour earnings, only because you have fun doing your work.

And all this, to impress some who will be will  be willing to pay for his get-rich-quick course.
But since this hasn't happened here, yet: "In dubio pro reo" 

Thank you Zero for your reply.

However, I still do not understand the aggressiveness in the discussion.

As I understand it, the agitation is the $348/hour. Of course, that in itself is very lurid and attention grabbing. But Doug was also fair enough to explain how the total came about.

I can relate to all of this in that I am in the same situation and my bill looks similar.

Professionally, I do something completely different full time.
Stock photography is purely a hobby for me. High quality cameras and other equipment were already in place. The photography itself I do not see as work, but as relaxation from my actual job. During this time I could have also watched TV, read a book or done something else.
So for me, this is also not working time, but relaxing leisure. It's the same with image post-processing. 

Without it being my intention at the beginning, I now regularly earn money with it.

From this personal point of view, which is also ultimately Doug's, I find the absolute numbers presented - leaving aside the hourly wage - very impressive. 
At least for a hobby. And that's how I understood Doug's explanations here.

I also do something else full time.

But if you understand the "Jensen logic", which wrongly claims that he is making $348/hour, because he only accounts for the time spent keywording, then you also must agree that those who have fun shooting (while doing something else full time, like us) AND also have fun keywording, must be making ♾️/hour.

Presenting his absolute numbers while leaving out his $348/hour silly falacy should be perfectly fine.
 

Thank you, now I have finally understood your argumentation.

But Doug's hourly wage is still not wrong, he just defined the conditions differently than you or others and explained it the same way.
Now I can go to sleep calmly 

The point is, the vast majority of stock video contributors agree that his calculation of $348/hr is BS because we the professionals always calculate business expenses into account.  And the way he was acting like arrogant bully on Shutterstock forum, everybody remembers that not so favorably.  I have many enemies who dislikes me on forums, but he does too it seems.  And since he already made those "Get rich quick with stock video" tutorial videos, he had to advertise "$348/hr" when in reality probably majority of people who try doing stock videos end up making less than minimum wage especially since Shutterstock started the video subs in 2020.

The point is, the vast majority of stock video contributors agree that his calculation of $348/hr is BS because we the professionals always calculate business expenses into account.  And the way he was acting like arrogant bully on Shutterstock forum, everybody remembers that not so favorably.  I have many enemies who dislikes me on forums, but he does too it seems.  And since he already made those "Get rich quick with stock video" tutorial videos, he had to advertise "$348/hr" when in reality probably majority of people who try doing stock videos end up making less than minimum wage especially since Shutterstock started the video subs in 2020.

You're a liar.  I challenge you to document a single time where I said stock was a way to "get rich quick".  Just the opposite!!!!  I tell people it takes hard work and a lot of time to build a portfolio that probably won't even pay anything back for months or years.  I liken it to planting seeds and waiting for the harvest to come in.  My message is that you can increase your odds of having a profitable "harvest" if you choose the right type kinds of seeds to plant, where to plant them, how to fertilize them, and more importantly how to drastically reduce the time and effort you put into your "farming".   But no, it is not a scheme to get rich quick.  And i have never said anything but that.

Oh Zero, you are persistent. At no point did I say that I agree with Jensen's hourly wage or find it correct, but that it should not be called wrong under the given arguments.
Possible that these nuances only come out in my language.

I'm sorry Ralf, we must have a language problem, indeed.

If something is not correct, then it is wrong.

"Wrong" and "correct" are antonyms.

Quote from: Wilm on July 04, 2023, 05:58

At least, that's how I see it with calculating the hourly rate. And stand by my statement that a calculation of 5 minutes per file is unrealistic from my point of view.

Yes, it might be unrealistic from your point of view because you do things differently than me. Obviously, you are welcome to do things anyway you want to, but that doesn't mean I can't do what I say I can do.  I can't free-climb Half Dome in three hours or run a 100 meter dash under 10 seconds, but that doesn't mean other people can't do it.

Yes, I really can process 12 clip per hour (edit, grade, export, generate metadata, and upload) without batting an eye.   Actually it is closer to three minutes, but I like to be conservative and say 5 minutes.   How can I do it? Because I have a workflow and system in place that allows me to do it.  And through my online master class and in-person workshops, I have taught hundreds of other people to use the exact same  methods to speed up their workflow too.     Here's a secret:   The less time I spend creating my content, the more money I earn per hour of my time.  It is that simple.  If someone can cut their time to create content in half, they have instantly doubled their hourly income.  It is as simple as that.

Some contributors are like a cobbler working in their little home workshop to create a perfect pair of shoes by hand.  While other people, like myself have more of an assembly line approach where speed and efficiency are king.  You might be building a house with a pocket full of nails and a hammer, while I'm using a high-powered nail gun to get the same job done faster.  You might be an author banging away on a manual typewriter, while I'm cruising along with a word processor to get the same work done in a fraction of the time. 

Why is it that people can't understand that workflow, and the tools we use, actually matter to the bottom line? And that someone else may have a better way of getting the job done.

May I ask what software you use to edit, grade, export, and upload?

May I ask how you generate and manage your vast library metadata, and how you use are able to use older metadate to automate the creation of metadata for new clips?

May I ask how you shoot your footage and what tools you use onboard your camera, and during ingest, that will make you more efficient in post?

Doug,
we've been through this too. At the time, you insisted that there was no money to be made with pictures, only with videos. From that discussion, you must remember that I don't offer videos. So I can't answer the last part of your question.

My average earnings per image are about $125, but that can't be compared to you because I've been around a lot longer than you.

As for the hourly rate, I come up with different numbers because I calculate it differently than you do. We've been through this too, but the amount of time per image varies a lot for me. My lucky shot made me an hourly wage of about $8,000. But I also have many images that have had tens of hours go into them that have not made me a dollar.

However I calculate it, I've never managed 5 minutes per picture.

The least amount of time, on average, is in the photos. Depending on the subject, just pressing the shutter where I was. Or setting up a tripod, making sure the lighting is right, shooting for maybe 30 minutes, post-processing, tagging, uploading, saving data...that was a bit more time.

The vectors took more time on average because I often made sketches beforehand.

And most of the time went into 3D renderings.

My calculated hourly wage is in any case significantly lower than yours. Considerably lower! Because the images didn�t fall from the sky - I had to create them. This time of creating them was fun. But this time still is part of my calculation. And that is the main difference to your calculation.

I upload jpg files including IPTC data. When uploading to AS it still takes some extra time to take care of the most important keywords (which usually costs some more minutes).

This thread is an embarassment and so pre-pubescent.

Quote from: Zero Talent on July 04, 2023, 15:15

Again, if you agree that Jensen's hourly earnings are correct, then you must also agree that mine are also correct, when I say ♾️/hour.

But Ralf, I think you could do better, if you would remember your Latin, because both claims are absurd.

Sweet dreams!
 

Dougs calculations can make sense under certain conditions.

Let's say you are taking pictures or videos just as a hobby and are just returning from a cruise to Anarctica and Patagonia where you took a lot of great pictures of penguins, albatrosses, orcas, icebergs, mountains and whatnot.

Now someone tells you that you can earn money by offering those pictures at agencies on the Internet.

Then you can try to calculate whether the money you can earn is worth your time to process, keyword and upload the pictures. You don't have to take into account the time it took to take pictures, because you already have the pictures and you will probably never earn enough to cover the costs of your trip anyway.

If you are doing this as a business, you cannot calculate that way, though. Even if you enjoy every aspect of the work, even the keywording. Because the day has only so many hours and even you enjoy yourself the whole time you need to make a certain amount of money per hour to cover your expanses and the cost of living. Otherwise, you cannot do it as a business, at least not without other sources of money.

Exactly right.  You have summed up my position very well. I don't understand why it gets people pissed off if I don't include my time shooting.  Who wants to punch a clock?

Well, it looks like the UFOs have finally arrived, transported us back in time and landed us back in the old Shutterstock forum. The never-ending argument, Doug's hourly rate calculation. 

Welcome to MSG, Doug.

Sure thing.

Then my ♾️/hour stands correct, since almost all my photos and videos are made while on vacation, or on trips paid by my company, thus I had zero production costs.
And since I also enjoy keywording, not just shooting and processing, then I also have zero keywording costs.

This makes my hourly rate ♾️/hour

Well, I guess you can see it that way. I would question, though, whether it makes sense for you to calculate an hourly rate at all, since in your case, you seem to be enjoying windfall profits for basically doing nothing, similar to winning the lottery. You would not usually calculate an hourly rate for that either.

Anyway, happy to report that today I had my best-ever sale at micros which coincidentally was at SS and not Alamy or Robert Harding.

Probably just got lucky here but there appears to be some life left in this industry.

Probably just got lucky here but there appears to be some life left in this industry.

Congrats Alex, but probably the wrong thread! lol