|
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 - MatHayward
Pages: 1 ... 60 61 62 63 64 [65] 66 67 68 69 70 ... 76
1601
« on: September 26, 2011, 08:58 »
I uploaded and submitted quite a few images yesterday and did not have any issues.
Mat
1602
« on: September 26, 2011, 08:57 »
That was crazy! I've never seen a hack like that before. Leaf, I can only imagine how much stress you've been under. Good job getting it back up and running!
Mat
1603
« on: September 23, 2011, 00:01 »
Speaking of addictive, these forums are ruining me.
They should be banned by the government!
1604
« on: September 22, 2011, 16:54 »
. how are you going to tax internet gambling when all these sites operate outside of usa?
Do we really need such easy access to it from our homes?
I think it would be amazing if individual states ran internet poker sites. The revenue could go to schools or maybe help fund the prisons loaded with people arrested for smoking marijuana. Do we need to access gambling from sleazy, dark casinos filled with shady characters? They are everywhere in Washington. Don't get me wrong, there are beautiful, lush Vegas-like casinos ran by Indian tribes too but the most common casino here is very sketchy. I would much rather hang out with a cup of coffee in my pj's and play a few sit-n-go tournaments than worry about getting stabbed in the neck by a twitchy crackhead.
1605
« on: September 22, 2011, 13:32 »
gambling, while fun and addicting, ruins lives. nuff said
"nuff said" That is an ignorant statement. Gambling certainly can ruin lives. Watch the (awesome) movie Owning Mahoney. There is an example for sure. That being said, many things can ruin lives. Lets ban alcohol! Heck, lets ban cars..when used improperly they too can ruin lives. I don't need the government telling me what I should or shouldn't be doing. Gambling isn't going away. Why not tax it and put the (billions) money towards help programs for those that are unable to control their impulsive behavior.
1606
« on: September 22, 2011, 11:56 »
Wow! What a tremendous opportunity for some lucky photographers! This could potentially change the lives of people in a serious way.
Yuri, you've got the resources, the vision and the stones to make bold moves ...more power to you! I've got a wife, kids, mortgage, etc. Otherwise, I would be first in line!
We can all sit back and say we're content with being a one man army till we're blue in the face. I will say this; if I could figure out a way to jump ahead a few steps and earn millions of dollars as a photographer I would not hesitate for one fraction of an instant to employ an army of assistants to help me along the way.
Good luck!
Mat
1607
« on: September 22, 2011, 11:31 »
I am sick about this to be honest. I've played on Full Tilt Poker since it's early beginning. I've played with most of those big time guys online and some of them in cash tournaments. I read somewhere that Howard Lederer cashed out with $42,000,000.00 and Chris Ferguson with $87,500,000.00 before bailing!
Sadly for me I live in the state of Washington where thanks to our insightful Governor <sarcasm> playing internet poker is a felony with consequences equivalent to felons exchanging child pornography. As a result, access to Full Tilt has been blocked by the Government here for some time now. They have been holding a chunk of my money for well over a year now.
Online poker is a multi-billion dollar industry. Why states are not tapping into it is beyond me. We've got small, hole-in-the-wall dive casinos on practically every corner and the Indian Casinos are thriving because of the restrictions the state has. I truly believe we could solve many of our debt problems by simply giving people what they want.
1608
« on: September 18, 2011, 19:21 »
Sigh.
Yet another thread that started out interesting and informative turns into a rant mechanism for insecure photographers incapable of believing some experienced photographers might actually know something they don't.
Mat
1609
« on: September 16, 2011, 19:32 »
I use the Photovision Calibration Target ( http://www.photovisionvideo.com/) every time I set up my studio strobes (Elinchrome D Lights) and create a custom white balance. Every 30 minutes or so (or more frequently if I'm changing things up) I re-calibrate. Usually I find some slight deviations in the color temperature that I attribute to ambient light. Changing the WB in camera saves me a major headache in post because I find it real tricky to get it just right in Lightroom when I use auto mode. I was talking to a light tech for a stage about this just yesterday and he told me that with his Tungsten lights they are almost never the same. The older they get the more they deviate. Obviously we are talking about strobes and not hot lights but all the same it was a fact I thought was worth noting. Mat
1610
« on: September 16, 2011, 11:51 »
I believe that the number of sales in relation to the number of views increases the "popularity" and probably the relevance ranking and boosts the image location in the search.
In other words, a photo that has been viewed 100 times and purchased 50 times would show better than an image viewed 1,000 times and purchased 50 times.
1611
« on: September 15, 2011, 12:26 »
From what I understand the Tsunami in Japan destroyed a lot of Canon's manufacturing capabilities and has set them behind on production. They apparently had suffered injuries at the Utsunomiya plant.
Nikon had also been affected (Sendai Plant) and both were shut down indefinitely.
When I was asking about 5D Mark III rumors at my camera store I was told not to hold my breath and that they were working to get caught up on production of existing gear.
I just hope that everyone has had a full recovery from their injuries. The devastation of that earthquake overwhelms me still.
Mat
1612
« on: September 02, 2011, 16:48 »
This is funny.
1613
« on: August 30, 2011, 18:19 »
I'm in the same boat as you. Trying to get caught up and learn the nuances of other sites. I've been exclusive to FT for years and have recently made the switch to upload elsewhere. I've decided for the time being to keep IS at the bottom of my list. I have a grand total of 4 images uploaded there. The upload process is beyond laughable, they require their model release and no others will be allowed as far as I can tell. The commission rates are offensive. It is just an unpleasant experience all the way around. When (if) I get caught up at FT, SS, and DT I may give it a shot but for me personally, I don't have the time or patience to deal with IS.
Mat
1614
« on: August 19, 2011, 23:24 »
The survey may well be Rebecca's first initiative to test the water before she decides how to run the business.
I think you are right. Also it could be used as a tool to gauge her success a year from now if they choose to send out the same survey and compare the results. I wonder if they are reading the comments and cringing or reading the comments and laughing.
1615
« on: August 16, 2011, 14:20 »
Thanks for the congrats! Yes I know about the option of doubling my prices, and I already doubled them for 10 or 15 images. I think in the end I'll only do it for unique photos, and not for the ones where a customer gets 100.000 hits after typing his keyword(s) 
I really think you should re-consider this approach. Doubling your prices will nearly double your revenue. You may lose a few sales but the dollar amount increase will more than make up for it. If you write to support they can do a mass price change for you so you don't have to do the tedious process of changing each individual shot. Mat
1616
« on: August 16, 2011, 12:33 »
1617
« on: August 15, 2011, 23:45 »
So ... you have a 400 2.8. 
Sigh... I just thought a I wanted that 400 5.6. Now, that sucks.
It was rented Warren. I wish I owned one. I spent a couple of weeks lugging one around through East Africa and found it's a heavy sob. Not an everyday shooting lens by any stretch of the imagination.
1618
« on: August 15, 2011, 23:44 »
BTW- Motley Crue- The NY Dolls?- Are they still alive? Did they come in riding their wheelchairs? They were old when I was shooting,and that's a long time gone...
LOL, the New York Dolls definitely looked like they've been rode hard and put away wet. Motley Crue looked better than ever. Though I'm not entirely convinced Mick Mars was actually alive onstage. Backstage, Vince was strutting around like a peacock with the full on look of "All the chicks want to do me and all the guys want to be me." It was awesome. The girls looked like they traveled through time from 1984 to 2011. It was very nostalgic. I can't say I wasn't entertained.
1619
« on: August 15, 2011, 23:41 »
Your original post said nothing about being there for an 'assignment'.
You are right, my bad. Communication isn't always my strong suit 
1620
« on: August 15, 2011, 18:49 »
Mat,
These are very nice. Great job.
Thank you very much Mantis.
1621
« on: August 15, 2011, 17:07 »
So, you're fine with putting professional band photographers out of work?
Basically, they get a bunch of people to come in with nice cameras, shoot for free, and they get perpetual rights to do with the images what they want? Good deal for them.
Actually Sean, I am a professional band photographer and no, I don't think agreeing to the terms they set forth in order for me to fulfill my assignment posed any risk to jeopardizing the career of other shooters. I wasn't shooting for Motley Crue, I was assigned to the shoot. It's just a bummer that I can't use them for anything other than my original assignment. Many of my colleagues opted to not even apply for the pass having heard the nightmare stories from shooters at previous shows. They have their own photographers (including the bass player) so I'll be shocked if they do ever use any of my work. I made the most of the situation though and I am still very glad to have had the opportunity to shoot the show. http://www.verbicidemagazine.com/2011/08/15/photo-gallery-motley-crue-poison-and-new-york-dolls-in-tacoma-wa-81211/www.haywardphoto.blogspot.comMat
1622
« on: August 15, 2011, 13:14 »
Last Friday I was excited to shoot Motley Crue, Poison and the New York Dolls at the Tacoma Dome. It was a moderately frustrating experience though as they kept us in a holding pen near security for the majority of the night. We were allowed to shoot the first 2 songs (standard is 3) and were only allowed to stand in front of the sound board about 125 yards away from the stage, on the floor behind all the jumping and screaming fans with floor seating.
I knew it was going to be soundboard shooting so I brought a Canon 400mm f/2.8L IS which if you have ever shot with you know is a heavy SOB! Trying to lift that above the heads of thousands of fans...not easy.
They had us sign a contract that essentially gives them the rights to use my pics for whatever reason they want. That was totally cool with me, I would love it if Motley Crue used one of my pics for their web site or whatever. Just for the cool factor you know?
Then it said I agree not to license the materials (or shall not exploit any of the materials) without the written consent of Motley Crue.
I wrote and asked if I could submit to Alamy and Shutterstock and heard back almost immediately...no friggin way! That got me worried about what they meant by exploiting the materials so I wrote back to ask about Facebook and my personal blog. They said that was fine as long as I didn't sell the pics.
I shoot a lot of concerts, the only other band that made me sign a contract similar to this was X-Japan. Theirs was even scarier. I sure hope this isn't a trend that takes off with all the bigger bands.
Mat
1623
« on: August 10, 2011, 23:36 »
Wow Collis, great post! Thanks for the information. I'm going to check your site out tonight when I get home.
Good luck,
Mat
1624
« on: August 10, 2011, 17:24 »
NOTE THIS: The extended license price changes with the size. So, the extended license is only $5 for small files, and goes up to $35.
$5!
This seems to me to be a very scary precedent. I get why a new site would want to low-ball prices to recruit new buyers but if it's successful this will be a bad trendsetting price point for the entire industry. Nobody will benefit from this in the long run including Photodune in my opinion. Collis, can you elaborate a bit on the mindset behind the decision to charge such a small amount for extended licenses? Thanks, Mat
1625
« on: August 09, 2011, 19:23 »
Anyway, the above scenario doesn't matter because this person is anononymous. I won't know how many is his port and I won't know if they're poorly composed or not. This person may have submitted 17 beautiful shots of which 17 were approved. They might be not be new to photography but new to microstock. They may be new to it all but still have some good advice. They may have had advice given to them by someone else and are sharing it here. They may have read something interesting somewhere that I missed. They may have had an experience with an agent that concerns me in some way. The number of images in their port should have no impact on the words they wrote. If they come here offering good advice that makes sense or throws us some suggestion that we haven't heard before, should we disregard it and not think about it just because we don't know the number of images in their port? Does the number of images in his port make what he wrote any more or less valid? What he wrote is either valid or it isn't, it's either relevant or it isnt, it's either interesting or it isn't, it's either important or it isn't... it has no correlation to his port size... or the size of anything else 
You are right. That is a strong point and I agree. This has <mostly> been an interesting debate and I think some of you have made your points well. I suppose having read all this I should chalk it up to a pet peeve rather than a legit beef for me. I still think that it's bad manners to have a discussion/debate with someone and not be willing to at least sign your first name. That being said, in the grand scheme of things...who really cares? Have a good one, Mat
Pages: 1 ... 60 61 62 63 64 [65] 66 67 68 69 70 ... 76
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
