|
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 ... 61 62 63 64 65 [66] 67 68 69 70 71 ... 76
1626
« on: August 09, 2011, 18:36 »
As much as I love to talk about myself I find it interesting that I am singled out here. I am expressing my opinion just like the rest of you. That being said Mr. or Mrs. Trousers I will respond to your friendly post..... are you the Fotolia forum moderator?
Yes. I am a contributing photographer that helps moderate the forum. I am not an employee of Fotolia. This has been discussed to death in this forum and others.
I find it hard to take criticism or anonymity seriously if it comes from someone linked to an organisation that likes to hunt out people's identities and punish them if they criticise it somewhere on the net.
"Likes to hunt out peoples identities and punish them." ? Hmmm..again, not gonna go there.
It's like NATO criticising Gadaffi's army for not coming out in the open so it can be blown up with the minimum inconvenience.
Really? I think you are overestimating the importance of this discussion.
If someone wants to be a cheerleader for such an organisation, it is hardly surprising if he/she wants to publish his real name so his chums can see what a good job he is doing for them, is it?
I didn't realize I was a cheerleader. As I mentioned, I am a contributing photographer with a strongly vested interest in the success of this industry. I publish my real name because I don't say anything in this forum or another that I wouldn't say on the record either in person or online. In my opinion, as discussed I think it lacks integrity to provide a sort of false bravado if you will when hiding behind the cloak of anonymity on the internet. I can assure you that if you spoke directly with every employee of Fotolia past or present you would not find one person that says I pointed out anything I have said or done in this forum or another and asked for praise or acknowledgment of any kind. If I had to guess there are more times than others because of my perceived relationship they would probably prefer me to simply shut . up. For that matter, my wife feels the same way about me sometimes. Heck, so does pretty much everyone I've ever met....hard to imagine eh?
A named cheerleader who might be looking for preferential treatment seems no more credible to me than an anonymous critic who wants to avoid persecution. In both cases there is the possibility of information being distorted to serve a hidden agenda.
To me, I perceive this personal. A classic example of anonymous posting false bravado. Preferential treatment has always been thrown at me in an accusatory tone. I can assure you that I have not and do not receive preferential treatment at Fotolia. Take a look at my portfolio. Pick a random photo or a hundred of them. Then, go to the database and search for them. Tell me about my preferential treatment after you do this please.
I'm not aware of members hiding behind anonymity to "criticise the work of other photographers". Where are the threads launching attacks on the artistic ability of particular people? I can't remember any.
You are right, I was generalizing and I don't have a specific link in mind to back my statement. I stand corrected.
Or do you count the owners of Fotolia as photographers and their slashing of artists' commissions as being their "work"?
Oh brother.
Does that make it all better for you now? Everyone is clearly entitled to their opinion. It just so happens to turn out in this case that mine is right and yours is wrong.  Have a great day!
1627
« on: August 09, 2011, 14:50 »
What if that anonymous poster spoke the truth in his posts. Something like...."I've invested nearly a hundred dollars in camera gear and spent nearly 5 full hours shooting, editing, uploading and keywording. This system sucks!" compared to an actual photographer that has a genuine vested interest in the success of the microstock industry.
If that is the case then you have a truly open mind. Me? I guess I'm a pessimist by default then. By default I assume the anonymous poster falls in the category of contributor that has invested little or no time or money in this industry.
Mat
That assumption may appear logical, but I know several of the anonymous posters identities and they are top tier sellers who have been doing this for quite a few years.
Any poster who says something like: "I've invested nearly a hundred dollars in camera gear and spent nearly 5 full hours shooting, editing, uploading and keywording. This system sucks!" is clearly an idiot. Doesn't matter if they are posting anonymously or under a scan of their driver's license.
Same thing goes for posts that are reasonable, knowledgeable, and make total sense. Whether I know who the poster is or not, I can judge their veracity based on the logic (or lack) of what they are saying.
Totally agree , Lisafx ( whoever you are  )
As for Matt Hayward, I notice he sidestepped the points made by Joanne about FT.
I have no interest in going there. It isn't my place to do so. Mat
1628
« on: August 09, 2011, 13:20 »
I don't care if they have a portfolio of 200,000 or just 100. What difference does it make to the validity of an opinion?
Really? I think that it makes a great difference in the validity of an opinion. Are you telling me that you hold the anonymous poster with a portfolio of 17 poorly composed, improperly lit photos in the same regard as a photographer like Yuri? I'm not talking about their qualities as a human being. I'm talking about the validity of their opinion on a subject related to photography and the Microstock industry. What if that anonymous poster spoke the truth in his posts. Something like...."I've invested nearly a hundred dollars in camera gear and spent nearly 5 full hours shooting, editing, uploading and keywording. This system sucks!" compared to an actual photographer that has a genuine vested interest in the success of the microstock industry. If that is the case then you have a truly open mind. Me? I guess I'm a pessimist by default then. By default I assume the anonymous poster falls in the category of contributor that has invested little or no time or money in this industry. Mat
1629
« on: August 09, 2011, 11:47 »
Thank you for adding validity to one of my points regarding personal attacks by cowardly anonymous posters Mr. Trousers. I have one question for you. Say we were at a Photoshop seminar in Las Vegas and we were introduced to each other by a mutual friend. You knew who I was but I didn't know you. Do you suppose you would talk to/about me in the same way with that the mutual acquaintance that introduced us? If not, then you sir (or ma'am) are a coward. I would say 95% of the most interesting and important threads in this forum get derailed by anonymous posters looking to stir the pot or make themselves feel important. It can be very frustrating. Mat Were/are you the Fotolia forum moderator? I find it hard to take criticism or anonymity seriously if it comes from someone linked to an organisation that likes to hunt out people's identities and punish them if they criticise it somewhere on the net. It's like NATO criticising Gadaffi's army for not coming out in the open so it can be blown up with the minimum inconvenience.
If someone wants to be a cheerleader for such an organisation, it is hardly surprising if he/she wants to publish his real name so his chums can see what a good job he is doing for them, is it?
A named cheerleader who might be looking for preferential treatment seems no more credible to me than an anonymous critic who wants to avoid persecution. In both cases there is the possibility of information being distorted to serve a hidden agenda.
I'm not aware of members hiding behind anonymity to "criticise the work of other photographers". Where are the threads launching attacks on the artistic ability of particular people? I can't remember any. Or do you count the owners of Fotolia as photographers and their slashing of artists' commissions as being their "work"?
2. Do you think less of the posts of people who are anonymous?
It's very difficult for me to take anyone seriously who isn't even willing to sign their name. It seems the anonymous feel empowered to provoke and make personal attacks. It's very difficult for me to respect that.
If you feel confident enough to criticize the work of other photographers it should be a requirement to show your own work. Some of the most vocal, controversial members of this forum I have very serious doubts about whether they have even one photograph available for sale at even one site.
Mat Hayward
Seattle, WA
425-422-0006
www.MatHaywardPhoto.com
www.MHWildlife.com
www.HaywardPhoto.blogspot.com
www.facebook.com/mat.hayward
1631
« on: August 08, 2011, 23:04 »
2. Do you think less of the posts of people who are anonymous?
It's very difficult for me to take anyone seriously who isn't even willing to sign their name. It seems the anonymous feel empowered to provoke and make personal attacks. It's very difficult for me to respect that. If you feel confident enough to criticize the work of other photographers it should be a requirement to show your own work. Some of the most vocal, controversial members of this forum I have very serious doubts about whether they have even one photograph available for sale at even one site. Mat Hayward Seattle, WA 425-422-0006 www.MatHaywardPhoto.comwww.MHWildlife.comwww.HaywardPhoto.blogspot.comwww.facebook.com/mat.hayward
1632
« on: August 07, 2011, 17:18 »
Matt,
As you've got a quick answer to your thread, I'd like to ask after selling the benefits of exclusivity at Fotolia so hard what's caused the change ?
Reduced sales activity at fotolia ? Rejections ?
Fotolia is only about 4% of my earnings.
It was time to dip my toes in the water at other sites to see what I've been missing out on. Still a big fan of Fotolia, always will be. Mat
1633
« on: August 06, 2011, 17:50 »
We all started somewhere. Some are still there but pretending they are somewhere else. It doesn't matter. All you have to do is shoot better than your competition and you will succeed.
In a wedding photography forum I used to belong to it was a constant complaint from many, many photographers about the "Uncle Bob" shooters that would show up and <gasp> take pictures at a wedding. Myself and others whom I respect a great deal always maintained the attitude that if Uncle Bob is shooting better than you the paid photographer then perhaps you shouldn't be the paid photographer.
As for the education = credibility as a photographer angle there is so much information on the internet now that if you were serious about educating yourself in photography you could easily do it for free online. The movie Goodwill Hunting comes to mind.
That's my .02 anyway.
Mat
1634
« on: August 06, 2011, 11:04 »
I am working hard to build up my portfolio on other sites right now.
Sorry for hijacking this thread but this is so incredible. Mat, are you saying you are no more exclusive FT contributor?
Oh, that one slipped right by me. Is this true Mat?
It is true but we probably shouldn't discuss it here. I mentioned it a bit in this thread... http://www.microstockgroup.com/shutterstock-com/ss-editorial-pricing/Sorry for the hijack! Mat
1635
« on: August 05, 2011, 12:30 »
I put a lot of thought into this.
The first thing I would do would be to increase commissions back to 20%. Then I would turn it into a communist regime and pool everyone's portfolios into one giant port and divvy the royalties evenly among all the contributors... just to stick it up all exclusives who have been gloating during a time when all the poor independents had their souls crushed.
I finally figured out who you are and why you are anonymous: Barack Obama! I think IS is one of..nope, scratch that..it is THE most frustrating site out there. I am working hard to build up my portfolio on other sites right now. I am so disgusted with not only the commission rate offered at IS but the uploading process that it boggles my mind that anyone would even consider putting forth any effort there. I can't help but think that the uploads have slowed considerably at IS in recent months. I would really look hard at those numbers to determine if I were going to be falling behind the market pretty quickly as far as new, relevant content is concerned. It would result in a short term loss more than likely but I would seriously consider increasing the commission and easing the upload process to motivate new image contribution. Otherwise, in the long term I think they will do some irreparable damage. Who knows though..if I really had the job, I'd probably cut the commissions to 5% just to see if people still uploaded Mat
1636
« on: July 27, 2011, 23:26 »
I think Click Click is very right. 6 images in months tells me that you aren't taking this very seriously. There are millions and millions of images you are competing against so your 6 are a fraction of a fraction and so even being seen is a long shot.
As for your other question, looking at the 6 images you have I think you have greater sales potential with your illustrations. Your photos aren't bad though.
Good luck,
Mat
1637
« on: July 23, 2011, 18:49 »
Lisa, thanks very much! No, my wife never sees me but as you can imagine she prefers it that way That was a joke for those of you that don't speak sarcasm. It is a challenge being a restaurant Manager has hours that are not for everyone so I choose not to sleep. It takes a real effort as everyone knows to continue to shoot and upload. I've not done many weddings the last couple of years so that's freed up a lot of time I didn't have. Luis...If I could somehow spell out the sound of a raspberry with my tongue sticking out at you I would! Yes, my images are reviewed and I am sad to report I have had thousands of images rejected. Somewhere around 3,500 I think. I don't know the reviewers, they don't know me. All my isolations are done in camera so you are right, they don't all have the crisp white painted look many best sellers have. It's a work in progress and I am constantly trying to evolve my style and technique to improve. I need to get a few more lights to really have it the way I want. I've actually been shooting on black a lot lately too. Plus, if you are referring to the gym photos in my most recent, those were taken in a gym against a gray wall. They weren't supposed to be white. I appreciate the feedback from all (but mostly from Lisa). Mat
1638
« on: July 23, 2011, 17:48 »
I think it is probably fair to assume that most people who are busy earning their full time living in microstock can't be bothered to spend time yapping on LL with a bunch of dinosaurs who are hostile to the concept
I believe you have hit the nail on the head here Lisa. More action, less talk probably helps accomplish greater results.
1639
« on: July 23, 2011, 17:44 »
Or it could help being a staff member for a (non specified) stock agency to have a serious boost.... ahum...
Patrick.
You got that right Patrick, that would be great!
1640
« on: July 23, 2011, 17:43 »
That wishful-thinking mantra about an endlessly growing market is total nonsense. It reminds me of communist propaganda speeches about their countries economies outdoing it's previous year's performance two times every new year... face it: the # buyers is very limited indeed, while the # new pics that can be produced is unlimited. You basically expect a couple of graphic artists with workstations to spawn every time you press the exposure button. Dude, it's bullschitt : )
You should probably consider giving up then. Seriously, what is the point of even being here if that is what you truly believe? Good luck, Mat
1641
« on: July 23, 2011, 16:19 »
Even as an exclusive I had the right to upload editorial. I've had images up on Alamy for the better part of a year now with no success so I'm broadening my horizons as I've been shooting a lot of concerts lately (visit my blog www.haywardphoto.blogspot.com to see some if you are interested.) That being said, I have started to upload at other sites. Shutterstock was nice enough to let me re-open my account. I've been pretty happy with the immediate results. I'm also very impressed with their uploading process. Intuitive and user friendly. I'm finding some good results at Dreamstime and I've got a handful of pics up on 123rf too. I'm finding 123rf a bit confusing and need to sit down and spend some real focused time to figure it out. I gave I-Stock a chance but the upload process is the most frustrating thing I have encountered and their rejection results are exasperating. A very unpleasant process that I don't have the time or patience to waste on (at least for now). Mat
1642
« on: July 23, 2011, 16:13 »
You can rant all you want but it's inevitable that this business model will eat itself for the photographers.
That's the spirit! I have never been able to wrap my mind around this type of hypocrisy. If that is how you feel, why are you participating? This subject has been covered so many times in so many ways but the root remains true. The need for current, high quality photographs will not go away. As the internet world continues to grow exponentially so does the need for relevant photographs. What will happen in my opinion is that the cream will rise to the top and the days of mediocre photography will end soon. Lazy/passive photographers that only upload a couple hundred images every couple of years will struggle hard to find any success and will drop out. Mat
1643
« on: July 23, 2011, 15:01 »
Thanks guys. I'm going to upload a few to see how it goes.
1644
« on: July 23, 2011, 14:00 »
Do images submitted for Editorial use to Shutterstock fall under the same payout structure as RF photos there?
Thanks,
Mat
1645
« on: July 23, 2011, 11:16 »
Actually, more and more photographers are dying because of the microstock competition, and because professional magazines are buying low cost and bad quality pictures instead of high quality and high price pictures.
That's the request of UPP: kill the RF licence to avoid the death of the photographers and the declining quality of the photography.
This is both ridiculous and offensive. I am a professional photographer and with free will I submit my images to be sold Royalty Free. What an arrogant and ignorant claim that Microstock is resulting in declining quality. I know the subject of Micro vs. Macro has been beaten to death so I won't go on but man that gets my blood boiling. Mat
1646
« on: July 21, 2011, 12:09 »
Thanks for that. The explanation in the blog looks much better than this back-and-forth in the forum. You have an uphill battle with some of these guys I'm afraid. Good luck, Mat I read that you said there are other blog posts and threads but would you mind either sharing direct links or re-explaining what happened.
Our official statements and explanations:
http://blog.pixmac.com/2274/explanation-of-technical-error/
http://blog.pixmac.com/2394/explanation-of-single-purchase/
Has this happened with other sites you have been partnered with in the past?
Just one.
1647
« on: July 21, 2011, 11:13 »
So I have apparently been living under a rock for a little while now as this thread is the first I've heard of this. I read that you said there are other blog posts and threads but would you mind either sharing direct links or re-explaining what happened.
Reading this thread I am speculating that your site received low resolution images from Dreamstime for free to display to potential buyers. I'm now guessing based on the tone of this thread that you sold those lo-resolution files and did not report the sales to Dreamstime and as a result did not pay the photographers for the sales.
I have some questions:
Is that accurate? If not, what happened?
How are the lost sales being tracked and corrected? Is there an independent auditor involved to ensure fair and accurate results?
Has this happened with other sites you have been partnered with in the past?
Thanks,
Mat
1648
« on: July 09, 2011, 13:04 »
That might be the stupidest thing I have ever seen in my life.
1649
« on: July 07, 2011, 12:40 »
So because you have your name displayed and an icon of some guy being stomped on his head, your opinion on this subject is valid and mine isn't?
YES
Your name, real or not real, means nothing to me.
IT SHOULD
You're still someone I don't know... don't want to know.
MY FEELINGS ARE HURT BY THIS STATEMENT. I'M REALLY AN INTERESTING PERSON.
This isn't a question about photography really,
YES IT IS.
this is an ethical question about kids
NO IT ISN'T.
and anyone can have an opinion on it.
NO THEY CAN'T.
If I typed "hypothetical"
YOU DID.
it's because it's none of your business whether I have kids or not.
YES IT IS.
I have an anonymous ID here but most people know my portfolio and that's all they need to know.
I DON'T. WILL YOU POST A LINK PLEASE. I AM GENUINELY CURIOUS.
I use a different name because I don't want my buyers typing in my username in google only to find a bunch of spew that comes out of this forum... I'd rather they find my images.
IF I WERE MAKING POSTS AS RIDICULOUS AND IGNORANT AS YOURS I WOULD FEEL THE SAME WAY.
I personally find it not only horrible that people put up photos of their kids on the net in general but when they do it to make money out of it,
SHOULD I PUT PHOTOS OF MY KIDS ON THE NET AND NOT MAKE MONEY OUT OF IT? I DO THAT ON FACEBOOK. MY MOM LOVES TO SEE PHOTOS OF HER GRANDCHILDREN. WE JUST DON'T GET DOWN TO SEE HER NEARLY AS OFTEN AS WE SHOULD.
I find it disgusting... sorry but I do,
I FIND STEPPING ON SLUGS WITH MY BARE FEET DISGUSTING. THIS HAPPENED OVER THE FOURTH OF JULY WHEN WE WERE CAMPING (YES I TOOK PICTURES OF MY KIDS AND WILL BE SELLING THEM!) STILL NOT OVER THE SLUG INCIDENT. THAT IS REALLY DISGUSTING!
and I'm not alone on this.
YES YOU ARE.
Outside of the photography community, you'll find this feeling is common.
I WASN'T AWARE THERE WAS ANYONE OUTSIDE THE PHOTOGRAPHY COMMUNITY. YOU CAN'T GO TO THE GROCERY STORE WITHOUT SEEING AN AD FEATURING A CHILD SELLING AN ICE CREAM SANDWICH OR A BRAND OF PEANUT BUTTER.
You can justify it all you like
THANK YOU.
... a confidence booster? Come off it, if it's for that reason, snap a pic and put it in a photo album.
OK.
Must you sell it?
IF APPROVED..YES, I MUST.
You're doing it for profit, not to benefit your child.
I CAN'T DO BOTH?
If you can't even admit that, then your opinion is worthless to me as much as mine is to you.
THAT IS SAD.
At least I'm not lying to myself as you are.
I'M NOT LYING TO MYSELF. WELL, I DO LIKE TO THINK IF I GREW MY HAIR OUT IT WOULD BE THICKER THAN IT PROBABLY WOULD BE. PLUS I STILL KEEP JEANS IN MY CLOSET ABOUT 4 SIZES TOO SMALL THINKING THAT I'LL FIT INTO THEM AGAIN.
Also there is no correlation between privacy and confidence.
YES THERE IS.
I'm private as hell on the net and confident and open as hell in person.
NO YOU AREN'T.
The internet is a crappy place full of psychos.
THE INTERNET IS A WONDERFUL PLACE FULL OF PSYCHOS.
Do you really need to be convinced of this?
NO THANK YOU.
Yet you subject your own children to it... for a lousy bloody dollar.. or worse, a subscription payment of $0.30.
I MADE MORE THAN THIRTY CENTS OFF PICTURES OF MY KIDS THIS MONTH ALREADY IF YOU CAN BELIEVE THAT!
Great parenting!
THANK YOU.
This is a forum.
YOU ARE CORRECT.
If you don't like my opinion,
I DON'T.
stiff crap.
IS THAT KIND OF LIKE SAYING "TOUGH crap" ONLY BRITISH?
Get over it
OVER IT.
1650
« on: July 07, 2011, 10:41 »
So you are anonymous and childless yet you feel we should take your opinions seriously on this matter?
You think a photo of a child making a goofy expression will scar him or her for life? I happen to believe that childhood molds a person and helps create who they will be as an adult. If you weren't encouraged to be silly as a kid it's possible you could end up a private person and feel compelled to post anonymously in forums and express opinions on subjects that don't apply to you at all. I do not want that for my kids.
Instead, I set up photo shoots and encourage them to let loose and not be self conscious. I see it increase their self confidence. They take great pride in giving just the right pose for me and they do a pretty good job of it too.
The opinion of parents of "hypothetical" children really don't hold a lot of weight with me when it comes to how I raise my own children.
Mat
Pages: 1 ... 61 62 63 64 65 [66] 67 68 69 70 71 ... 76
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
