| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/05/2008 11:01:03 AM · #26 |
Where is the problem in self promotion? Is that not called marketing?
Anyway, congrats on your profits! Wish my stuff was good enough.
|
|
|
|
03/05/2008 11:01:03 AM · #27 |
Originally posted by 4score:
Did he ever say he was trying to generate ROI on his camera equipment? If he did, I missed that. |
Yes. Actually you did miss that. The title of the thread and the claim of a profit. His camera alone lists for 1899US. And for info purposes, no, I don't shoot stock. I just get amused when people confuse cash flow with profit. :) |
|
|
|
03/05/2008 11:17:29 AM · #28 |
Originally posted by Montereykiddo:
Hello all,
I've almost crossed the $1500 mark in my Shutterstock profits! Anyone can upload high quality stock shots of their own and make money as people download them. Here's the link:
//submit.shutterstock.com/?ref=2573
Here's a screenshot of my earnings!
Many people rag on the "penny" stock sites...but as you can see, there are profits to be made. Most of these images would be sitting on my hard drive...but instead they are making me some extra cash for my next lens :)
-Chris |
Originally posted by 4score:
... Did he ever say he was trying to generate ROI on his camera equipment? If he did, I missed that. There are millions of amateur photogs like the OP running around and not worrying about PROFIT, just leveraging their hobby for a little revenue generation. |
In the orig post, he called the money "profits".
That implies that he's accounted not only for the cost of his time but also other costs, such as the depreciation of his equipment (camera, computer etc.). |
|
|
|
03/05/2008 11:24:49 AM · #29 |
Originally posted by fir3bird:
Originally posted by 4score:
Did he ever say he was trying to generate ROI on his camera equipment? If he did, I missed that. |
Yes. Actually you did miss that. The title of the thread and the claim of a profit. His camera alone lists for 1899US. And for info purposes, no, I don't shoot stock. I just get amused when people confuse cash flow with profit. :) |
Who cares what his camera costs! He certainly doesn't have to justify he expenditures to you. It most certainly sounds like he's a photo-enthusiast who would most likely have the camera whether he was submitting to Shutterstock or not. If you have a hard time admitting that someone is profiting off a micro stock site, try it yourself and quit quibbling. His point was simply that he's found success in making a few dollars off of images that would otherwise be sitting on a hard drive. Simple. Someone sitting there with a few pictures also collecting dust might try the same thing. Simple. |
|
|
|
03/05/2008 11:38:16 AM · #30 |
well, congrats. I'd be thinking thats $1500 i wouldn't have had if i didn't upload them to shutterstock.
As for the PP - I do that as a matter of course on my best pictures anyway, so if I can make a bit of money on the side then it's cool. I can still hang it on my wall and if I can get money from it on the side then why not. |
|
|
|
03/05/2008 11:49:41 AM · #31 |
Wow, what a heated discussion...can I add my .02 Cdn?...
I am not a professional photographer, lack the training and equipment. But I'm an enthusiastic amateur and I like to take lots of shots, especially of funky antique/flea market finds, and then do my best pp on them. Then, why discard shots that are decent enough to pp, and if they may be an image someone wants, why shouldn't I make them available for sale?
After, so far 4 people out there have decided that one freaky 'isolated object' image of mine is worth buying...
*ducking out of line of fire* |
|
|
|
03/05/2008 12:01:38 PM · #32 |
Those pro-photog snobs can sit n whine all they want, free market is free market. I'm sure they did'nt boycott software like quickbooks when it started eating into accountants business. Nor did they boycott digital when it started to demolish film.
Not every photog will get into alamy so there's MS for us. And i can tell u that like eyewave most but not all of my equipment is paid for through Microstock.I only concentrate on one, shutterstock and every single day for me is a sale day. I'm learning from the practical hands on i get during my portrait, macro and straightup street shooting, but at least i profit immediately from it.
I can also tell u, its not the fancy stuff that sell as prints on DPC that are suitable for MS. It's the stuff i would consider not worth printing that sells like crazy. Stuff that would otherwise be sitting on my harddrive and stuff that i shoot to learn.
Almost every business is going to be affected by technology. So much so that in the future, the only real means of income "may" be for those in medicine, food and landlords.
Just a fact of life.
|
|
|
|
03/05/2008 12:23:13 PM · #33 |
What karmat said.
Most of the rubbish trotted out as arguments against microstock just doesn't fly, especially when
a) for many people selling via microstock their images are NOT suitable for macro stock sites. They are either too low in resolution or in quality. So it's not true that they would have made more on macro stock.
b) there is a perception that for each sale one makes in microstock one would surely have made that same sale on a macro stock site but been paid more. Of course, they wouldn't get anything near the number of sales on a macro stock site even with the same portfolio. It's very difficult to do a straight comparison as no one (intelligent) has the exact same portfolio on sale at both micro and macro stock sites but I'd postulate that, given equal quality/ resolution of images in such a portfolio, the average per image earning would be about the same. 1000 x $1 and 2 x $500 both come to $1000!
c) Tough luck if micro stock is changing the industry such that it's harder to make a living from it for a professional. Change happens. Sometimes entire industries/ professions disappear or change radically to the benefit of some and to the downfall of others. Deal with it.
|
|
|
|
03/05/2008 12:32:55 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by 4score:
Originally posted by fir3bird:
Originally posted by 4score:
Did he ever say he was trying to generate ROI on his camera equipment? If he did, I missed that. |
Yes. Actually you did miss that. The title of the thread and the claim of a profit. His camera alone lists for 1899US. And for info purposes, no, I don't shoot stock. I just get amused when people confuse cash flow with profit. :) |
Who cares what his camera costs! He certainly doesn't have to justify he expenditures to you. It most certainly sounds like he's a photo-enthusiast who would most likely have the camera whether he was submitting to Shutterstock or not. If you have a hard time admitting that someone is profiting off a micro stock site, try it yourself and quit quibbling. His point was simply that he's found success in making a few dollars off of images that would otherwise be sitting on a hard drive. Simple. Someone sitting there with a few pictures also collecting dust might try the same thing. Simple. |
I don't care what he's doing. If the OP feels good about it fine.
However, calling the proceeds from those sales "profit" is misleading and incorrect. |
|
|
|
03/05/2008 12:47:18 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by 4score:
Who cares what his camera costs! He certainly doesn't have to justify he expenditures to you. |
The OP knew exactly what he was doing when he titled the thread. He knew pretty much what some of the responses would be. So congratulations on being the best troll defender! :) LOL |
|
|
|
03/05/2008 01:04:22 PM · #36 |
Sad self-promotion for referrals income. This is not what this site is for.
|
|
|
|
03/05/2008 01:04:55 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by fir3bird:
Originally posted by 4score:
Who cares what his camera costs! He certainly doesn't have to justify he expenditures to you. |
The OP knew exactly what he was doing when he titled the thread. He knew pretty much what some of the responses would be. So congratulations on being the best troll defender! :) LOL |
Troll defender? That's a laugh! He makes a post about having success on Shutterstock and even has quite insightful thoughts about the changing landscape, and now he's a "troll"? LOL, I was wondering who would get the "call him a troll" prize...and you win! :) |
|
|
|
03/05/2008 01:12:51 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by 4score:
[quote=fir3bird] [quote=4score] Did he ever say he was trying to generate ROI on his camera equipment? If he did, I missed that. |
However, calling the proceeds from those sales "profit" is misleading and incorrect. |
Just curious....how do you know that it's not actually a PROFIT for him? He's given us the revenue side of the equation....should we demand that he open his books for us and show us his expenses? Once again, if he already owned the equipment because he has a hobby of photography (ie - he would own the equipment whether or not Shutterstock existed), then I would call that a profitable use of his photos which may otherwise be sitting on a hard drive. |
|
|
|
03/05/2008 01:13:04 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by samchad:
Sad self-promotion for referrals income. This is not what this site is for. |
As much as for self-promotion for any other business, I'd say. So let's all clean up our profile pages from external links to business websites and galleries. |
|
|
|
03/05/2008 01:18:29 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by eyewave:
Originally posted by samchad:
Sad self-promotion for referrals income. This is not what this site is for. |
As much as for self-promotion for any other business, I'd say. So let's all clean up our profile pages from external links to business websites and galleries. |
Not to mention forum signatures ;-) |
|
|
|
03/05/2008 01:25:42 PM · #41 |
I think he was excited about his income from online stock photography and wanted to share that with us! We should be happy for him! I think that some people really like stock photography, and if they have a shot that was easy to take, and all he had to do was upload it and label it, then he's not really worked very hard for all of that income that is adding up overtime. It's like an investment, you leave it sit for awhile and it will accumulate growth!
I am happy for him!
|
|
|
|
03/05/2008 01:34:57 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by 4score:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by 4score:
[quote=fir3bird] [quote=4score] Did he ever say he was trying to generate ROI on his camera equipment? If he did, I missed that. |
However, calling the proceeds from those sales "profit" is misleading and incorrect. |
Just curious....how do you know that it's not actually a PROFIT for him? He's given us the revenue side of the equation....should we demand that he open his books for us and show us his expenses? Once again, if he already owned the equipment because he has a hobby of photography (ie - he would own the equipment whether or not Shutterstock existed), then I would call that a profitable use of his photos which may otherwise be sitting on a hard drive. |
It's a hobby or a business, not both.
If it's a hobby and he's making some extra money, that's one thing. That extra money is NOT profit.
If it's a business, then all of those other costs have to be factored into any determination of profit. He can show us his balanace sheet or not, but he'll have to account for it to the IRS in any event if it's truly a business.
You can call it profit if you want. You can say that 2+2 = 17. In either case, that doesn't make it so. |
|
|
|
03/05/2008 01:36:43 PM · #43 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by 4score:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by 4score:
[quote=fir3bird] [quote=4score] Did he ever say he was trying to generate ROI on his camera equipment? If he did, I missed that. |
However, calling the proceeds from those sales "profit" is misleading and incorrect. |
Just curious....how do you know that it's not actually a PROFIT for him? He's given us the revenue side of the equation....should we demand that he open his books for us and show us his expenses? Once again, if he already owned the equipment because he has a hobby of photography (ie - he would own the equipment whether or not Shutterstock existed), then I would call that a profitable use of his photos which may otherwise be sitting on a hard drive. |
It's a hobby or a business, not both.
If it's a hobby and he's making some extra money, that's one thing. That extra money is NOT profit.
If it's a business, then all of those other costs have to be factored into any determination of profit. He can show us his balanace sheet or not, but he'll have to account for it to the IRS in any event if it's truly a business.
You can call it profit if you want. You can say that 2+2 = 17. In either case, that doesn't make it so. |
I really think you're getting needlessly caught up in semantics. It appears quite plain to me that he wanted to tell us he made some money and share his excitement and success. So what if some think his success is not as grand as his excitement shows? |
|
|
|
03/05/2008 01:45:40 PM · #44 |
Originally posted by eyewave:
Originally posted by samchad:
Sad self-promotion for referrals income. This is not what this site is for. |
As much as for self-promotion for any other business, I'd say. So let's all clean up our profile pages from external links to business websites and galleries. |
Yeah... DPC lost the no advertising a while ago....
|
|
|
|
03/05/2008 01:52:25 PM · #45 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
[quote=4score] [quote=Spazmo99] [quote=4score] [quote=fir3bird] [quote=4score]
It's a hobby or a business, not both.
If it's a hobby and he's making some extra money, that's one thing. That extra money is NOT profit.
If it's a business, then all of those other costs have to be factored into any determination of profit. He can show us his balanace sheet or not, but he'll have to account for it to the IRS in any event if it's truly a business.
You can call it profit if you want. You can say that 2+2 = 17. In either case, that doesn't make it so. |
Wow. call it whatever you like....he's just saying he made money easily through Shutterstock. Again...how do you know there ARE other costs to be factored in? The IRS just cares about net income. If he considers the equipment already "expensed" through his hobby over the years, then guess what...it's profit. He doesn't have to account to the IRS about his "balance sheet"!
|
|
|
|
03/05/2008 01:53:51 PM · #46 |
Originally posted by frisca:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by 4score:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by 4score:
[quote=fir3bird] [quote=4score] Did he ever say he was trying to generate ROI on his camera equipment? If he did, I missed that. |
However, calling the proceeds from those sales "profit" is misleading and incorrect. |
Just curious....how do you know that it's not actually a PROFIT for him? He's given us the revenue side of the equation....should we demand that he open his books for us and show us his expenses? Once again, if he already owned the equipment because he has a hobby of photography (ie - he would own the equipment whether or not Shutterstock existed), then I would call that a profitable use of his photos which may otherwise be sitting on a hard drive. |
It's a hobby or a business, not both.
If it's a hobby and he's making some extra money, that's one thing. That extra money is NOT profit.
If it's a business, then all of those other costs have to be factored into any determination of profit. He can show us his balanace sheet or not, but he'll have to account for it to the IRS in any event if it's truly a business.
You can call it profit if you want. You can say that 2+2 = 17. In either case, that doesn't make it so. |
I really think you're getting needlessly caught up in semantics. It appears quite plain to me that he wanted to tell us he made some money and share his excitement and success. So what if some think his success is not as grand as his excitement shows? |
I think the distinction is important, especially if someone were reading this thread considering photography from a business perspective.
There's a big difference between "Hey, I'm earning a few bucks with my hobby, you can too!" and "Hey, I'm making a profit with my camera." |
|
|
|
03/05/2008 01:57:54 PM · #47 |
Posting a single referrer link to Shutterstock (or whatever) has usually been allowed -- I've done it myself -- though I think it should be in the context of the discussion, and not the sole purpose of the posting. When I do it, I usually try to make it clear that, by following that particular link, I stand to make a small commission on their sales.
Perhaps this site's attitude is further revealed by the way Langdon set up referrals to DPC Prints; if you give people a link in the form your_username.dpcprints.com, not only will people see your print gallery first, but you will get a 25% commission on anything they buy (from anybody) during that session. |
|
|
|
03/05/2008 02:23:24 PM · #48 |
| Already made a couple bucks on Shuterstock today....covered the cost of my coffee before work! |
|
|
|
03/05/2008 02:26:16 PM · #49 |
| my photos are out of love of photography. each photo means something to me personally. If I were gonna sell that out it wouldn't be for a measly 25 cents. geez. On the other hand I don't think the photography industry is being damaged by this. If what some call "amateurs" go to these stock photo sites and over saturate the stock photo sites with their photos then so what. My wife works in marketing and when seeking photos very rarely was she able to find or use stock photos even from a more expensive, richer content site. I think that the photography industry is just evolving. I believe if anything is changing the industry more is technology. Its advancing so fast that a first time camera consumer can pick up a high quality digital slr and take decent photos and with a short time of practice and online investigating take "pretty good" photos. (My wife has used me when she doesnt want to pay their usall photographer who is more expensive) One can then even venture out in his network of friends and family earn a supplemental living with little training. tutorials and online forums such as this aide this. I think its all good that photography is spreading like wild fire. If someone is good it doesnt matter if there are many "photographers" the best will always rise to the top. and for the masses as myself that have a love of taking photos but dont need or want to make a living off of it but rather just like catching moments and sharing it with our friends and families. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 06/23/2025 07:11:49 PM EDT.
