|
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 ... 63 64 65 66 67 [68] 69 70 71 72 73 ... 76
1676
« on: February 15, 2011, 00:16 »
Good photography Matt! considering the dark and harsh lighting.
Thanks!
1677
« on: February 14, 2011, 14:47 »
Cool, one of my favorite bands..
Me too!
1678
« on: February 14, 2011, 13:30 »
I've been shooting quite a few concerts this past several months but yesterday was a cool enough show I felt compelled to share. I was asked to shoot a private Social Distortion show hosted by a local radio station for contest winners. I am a fan so I was seriously stoked to be hanging out backstage with these guys, not to mention being in the club for a 10 song sound check with just me and less than a handful of others. If interested you can see the pics here.... http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=287616&id=784688706&l=15a413a4abHere is the video where you can see my bald white head bobbing around the stage  http://bcove.me/mokbrlrjHave a good one! Mat
1679
« on: February 13, 2011, 14:11 »
US$8 for a 50 credit sale is not speculation.
right
If you are a non-exclusive Bronze ranked photographer dealing in American Dollars and you sell an EL for 50 credits you should receive $11.50. What am I missing here?
1680
« on: February 13, 2011, 14:07 »
US$8 for a 50 credit sale is not speculation.
How are you learning what currency the credits are purchased with?
1681
« on: February 13, 2011, 13:44 »
1. Cost of buyers credits, probably more than 1 or $
Never mind my last post, I see now that you are speculating. Good luck, Mat
1682
« on: February 13, 2011, 13:42 »
You are only getting a 16% commission? I don't see where even the lowest rank, non-exclusive photographers receive that low a payout. You are bronze so you should have received 23%. I would call support and ask why that is because it doesn't sound right. I receive $54 on my $100 EL sales fyi and it doesn't deviate so maybe there is a glitch with your account. Mat 50 credits, my part is 8$
1. Cost of buyers credits, probably more than 1 or $
2. My part is now less in percentage
3. 1$=1 only for Fotolia
1683
« on: February 01, 2011, 12:12 »
This was my poorest month since December 2008.
It was my lowest month since December of 2008 as well. January of 2010 was a stellar month so I was hoping for more of the same. Today has been a good day however so I'm hoping that trend continues for Feb. Good luck all, Mat
1684
« on: January 31, 2011, 18:32 »
Didn't Fotolia and Dreamstime put the price of credits up at the same time as each commission cut? I would think (possibly in error) that would invalidate the arguments of all they can do is compete on is price?
I'm not sure of the answer to that question. It's been a while since the price structure changed at FT. I know very little about Dreamstime or their price structure. I do know that the prices at FT for exclusives were lowered in December in order to maintain a competitive edge against the competition. Non-exclusives were already at a minimum for the same reason as far as I know.
Mat
1685
« on: January 31, 2011, 00:14 »
being loyal didn't help anyone from getting screwed (with the exception of a few at the very top).
I'm still getting 54% commissions on sales ranging from $3 to $30. If you think I'm at the very top you have a skewed vision of where the top is.
You can't seriously blame the photographers for these sites lowering commissions when exclusives are seeing cuts too.
Yes I can. Buyers aren't stupid. They know they can get the same pics at all the sites. They have the luxury of shopping for the lowest prices. That is what they make their buying decision on so the sites must fight to be the cheapest.
Do you really think when sites have millions of images there is anyway for a particular agency to have unique images!
That's my point exactly. They don't have unique images. They have the exact same images because 99% of the photographers in the Microstock industry uploaded all the same pics to every site that would accept them.
1686
« on: January 30, 2011, 14:14 »
Kickin it off in Seattle! Yeah! I'll be there for sure.
Mat
1687
« on: January 27, 2011, 11:18 »
Because of my exclusivity I can set my prices higher so more % on more $ makes me still happy. I though, from another thread, that you had exclusive images, not that you were exclusive.
Your avatar made me think of FT and IS.
Nope, I am an exclusive photographer. All of my RF images are on FT. I have some editorial RM images up on Alamy as an experiment that is sadly not doing well as of right now. Mat
1688
« on: January 27, 2011, 01:24 »
Yes, I am. I still receive a 54% commission on my sales. Because of my exclusivity I can set my prices higher so more % on more $ makes me still happy. I can appreciate the frustration of those that were impacted by the recent changes. I have some strong opinions that are <big shocker> not very popular with the majority of microstock photographers but I believe the low prices and the low commissions are a direct reflection of the lack of any loyalty by photographers with the desire to spam the market with images everywhere that will take them. If photogs picked their horse and stuck with it then the sites would be competing to get the best photographers. As it is, they all have most of you and as a result buyers have the luxury of choosing a site based on price structure rather than the quality of the images. They can get the exact same images pretty much everywhere! As a result, the sites then must cannibalize each other to attract the buyers along with an increase in spending to recruit buyers they have to squeeze more out of contributors while charging less. It's logical but it sucks none the less. I don't foresee any drastic changes to the mindset of the masses here any time soon to change that so I can't help but think it's only going to get worse in the industry  Especially for non-exclusives. Good luck all, Mat I have to throw in my .02 on the latest Microstock controversy here. It's no secret that a lot of people have felt burned by FT on changes made in the past but in my opinion most, if not all the changes made had been done so with the sole intent of increasing business which ultimately had a benefit to us all. So many people have asked me on many different occasions why I am exclusive to Fotolia. I received a call from a guy just the other day trying to recruit me to upload to his company. I told him I was exclusive and he said "Oh, I thought you were a Fotolia guy...not I-Stock." That made me chuckle and realize how few people are exclusive to FT like myself. Reading about the I-Stock Changes got me to thinking about why that is so I thought this seemed like as good a time as any to explain my choice...
are you still happy with fotolia after the latest updates? 
1689
« on: January 20, 2011, 16:59 »
I'm here, I just don't think it's appropriate for me to chime in as I am still receiving a 54% commission on my sales. I can and do totally understand your frustration however as the cut in maximum prices for me in December had a significant impact on my income. I honestly would have considered going non-exclusive had IS not made the changes they did, I cannot comprehend receiving 15% at IS though, no matter how many more buyers they have. The timing of this FT change is a head-scratcher but I can honestly say I personally feel I've been treated very fair by FT. Sadly, there is just no perfect scenario anywhere for anyone in this industry that I can see right now. Mat Remember Fotolia advertising as the fair treatment agency when iS announced their rate cut. They didn't mention cutting rates two weeks after iS did back then. What effing hypocrisy! Not that it surprises me. Fotolia was where the pay cutting all began.
I remember it well. In fact it was the first thing I thought of when I heard FT cut commissions. Isn't this the point where May Hayward shows up to tell us about how great FT is, and how we should be exclusive with them?
^^^ Hahaha..
I was thinking the same thing.. He's pretty quiet.. As well as in the FT forum.. Gues he's at a loss for words at this point, there's only so far you can go to try to play people for stupid, and try to sugar coat sh&%$..
1690
« on: January 17, 2011, 15:59 »
I just recently ventured out and uploaded some of my editorial RM stuff there in hopes of it turning into something good. I've got a number of images left to keyword (the story of my life) but I'm hopeful. These couple hundred pics have been up for a week or so with just 7 views total so I'm not holding my breath. You can view stats for the entire site including the top search terms to get an idea of what buyers are after which is a great tool though it looks like there is not a ton of activity on the site at all. I'm going to keep trying as I've got nothing better to do with my editorial stuff at the moment.
Mat
1691
« on: January 15, 2011, 14:19 »
My #'s are down pretty significantly this month but that has more to do with the price decrease than anything else. I'm finding my rank is improving however so that tells me it's just a soft start to the year.
With just 33 images in your portfolio I am not sure how much action you can realistically expect even in the best of circumstances.
Get busy!
Mat
1692
« on: January 07, 2011, 12:46 »
I spoke with a Canon Rep a couple weeks ago and asked what he thought. He said if there was something in the works that no one would know about it as their confidentiality agreements are off the charts if they really want to keep a secret. He speculated that it would be a while before it's upgraded as the 5DMarkII is still flying off the shelves as fast as they can deliver them.
1693
« on: December 31, 2010, 00:18 »
Up until recently my answer would be an emphatic yes. Tack sharp images very much acceptable for stock. As mentioned before my lens is now declining in quality and it's more noticeable with the extender on. I'm not sure if this is a common issue or not but hopefully the new version of the lens has it corrected if so. Many people have expressed surprise that I like the 2X converter over the 1.4X. I hate losing the two stops of light but the distance makes the difference for me. It's an awesome lens and I would say half my portfolio or more was shot with it. Mat - I was just looking into picking up a 70-200mm f/2.8 IS and also a 2x VII extender. Or maybe the new 2x VIII. How much does the extender affect the sharpness? Are shots still acceptable for stock?
1694
« on: December 30, 2010, 19:22 »
I should also mention that the softer images are a fairly new phenomenon with my lens. I've had it for several years now and it used to be my bread and butter. Only recently it's started to become less reliable.
1695
« on: December 30, 2010, 19:21 »
I do use the 2X converter with my 70-200 f/2.8L IS and lately I've been finding my images shot at 400mm f/5.6 are getting softer and softer. As I mentioned before, some of the fittings are getting loose so I need to take it in to the shop for a repair. When I get it back if I find the same results I will be trading in my version I for a version II. It'll cost me a thousand bucks for the upgrade but I need to be able to trust that my images will be sharp when it counts.
Mat
1696
« on: December 30, 2010, 13:56 »
You have to be kidding. Shooting at f2.8 (or wider) is virtually useless for 98% of shots (especially for stock) because the DoF is so abysmally short. You might get the eyes in focus but the nose certainly won't be on any sort of portrait.
Weird. I guess I need to re-think my entire strategy on how to take a photograph. All this time I thought I was at least moderately competent. Turns out I've been a complete boob this entire time. Thanks for finally bringing it to my attention Gostwyck. Mat
1697
« on: December 28, 2010, 19:56 »
That is definitely not an option for me. I would say I should 85% of my images at f/2.8 as inevitably I am always shooting in dark scenarios be it candlelit wedding receptions or concerts. I shoot most of my wildlife wide open to to get the shutter speed up there. I am going to take my existing lens to the shop next week and see if it gets a bit sharper for me. If not, upgrade here I come. Mat I spoke to Canon only the other day. I did upgrade but frankly, I wonder if it was worth it? See, this is it; the 70-200/2.8.IS, is optically identical to the non-IS, as is the 70-200/F4L to this IS version of F4.
All the lens-groupings, constellations, etc are identical, the question is, IS or non IS. My upgrade 70-200/2.8.ISII, is only slightly better in stabilizing not optical-quality.
My old 70-200/F4L, is optically just as good. Question is ofcourse, do you need the IS or not.
Even my Canon rep said, yep! its expensive, just for an IS motor. In any event, all of them are better then my Nikon version.
Seems we fell into the same conclusions. I downgraded from the f/2.8 IS/USM to the f/4 non-IS version of the 70-200. Leftover money bought more toys, and the cute little lens is every bit as good as the Big Brother. Never regretted the change, once I started shooting and saw the images, the weight reduction, size reduction, cost reduction and no loss in image quality. Doesn't need a tripod collar and hand-held it's very manageable. Not that the big honkin one was a problem, just less of an issue.
Yes, I don't use IS and don't shoot low light. For some people it may be necessary, but on an average day, I'm very happy!
1698
« on: December 27, 2010, 14:55 »
I didn't get it, anyone have a link to share or could you forward me the email? [email protected]Thanks! Mat
1699
« on: December 22, 2010, 13:29 »
I would NEVER hire a guy who describes his wife as a "super hot babe". Guys may get it, but to a lot of women it is very off-putting. And women are the ones who hire the wedding photographer most of the time. It's great that you love your wife, but "married a smart, beautiful woman" would be a lot more appealing to a female audience, not to mention just more respectful.
Great observation Lisa, thanks! I'll change it. I only put it in there because Lea gets mad at me for featuring pretty women on my site that aren't her I am a bit of pig though, so maybe I should leave it as it could be false advertising to come off as sweet and sensitive
1700
« on: December 22, 2010, 12:16 »
No, that isn't relevant to me as my approval ratio is pretty high (no preferential treatment I can guarantee without a doubt) and I have other sources of income through photography. I already have the 70-200 f/2.8L IS and there is no doubt that I am in desperate need of the help that the image stabilizer offers. I'm just wondering if I fork over another thousand bucks after selling my current lens for the new version if I will notice any difference in quality.
Time will tell, I've pretty much talked myself into it.
Have a good one,
Mat
Pages: 1 ... 63 64 65 66 67 [68] 69 70 71 72 73 ... 76
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
