|
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 ... 70 71 72 73 74 [75] 76
1851
« on: March 03, 2009, 11:38 »
I love shooting with the long lenses! I've used the Canon 400 f/2.8 a number of times at football games as well as lugging the thing all across East Africa. They're heavy suckers but so worth the effort!
1852
« on: March 02, 2009, 19:59 »
That's a tough question to answer. I definitely feel lackluster about the process on a regular basis. My "day" job requires around 55 hours a week from me, paired with two awesome kids and a wife that likes my attention every now and then it's tricky to put much time into shooting on a regular basis.
What I do all the time though is keep an active file of shot ideas that I am constantly updating so that when I do get some time I can implement them. Up in Seattle the weather has been crappy for a while now so most of my stuff needed shot indoors with a few exceptions. Now that we're seeing some glimmer of hope that the sun may soon appear again I expect to get more motivated to get off my tail and do something when I can. I have a decent amount of decent ideas to make reality when I do.
Mat
1853
« on: March 02, 2009, 13:25 »
www.DanitaDelimont.com specializes in travel photography. The last time I spoke with her she was pretty much maxed out with photographers but if you have something really special and are constantly traveling it may work out for you. Mat
1854
« on: February 28, 2009, 19:41 »
It's funny you use the nickname "assface." That's what a lot of my online buddies call me at times though I choose to use my real name on my pics.
I do know that a lot of high end photographers whether stock, weddings, portraits, sports or others look down on the micro stock industry in general and claim selling images for pennies is beneath them and their professional integrity. I have no shame in it and proudly discuss my sales when hanging out with them. This almost always results in a lot of private questions from the same people publicly talking trash about it. Sometimes they wind up submitting some photo's to check it out but it is still considered their dirty little secret so they use an alias.
I can see how it can cheapen your brand in the perception of the public if selling your work for thousands. Because of that, I rarely discuss micro-stock on my blog as it's geared mainly towards wedding clients and wildlife print clients.
Mat
1855
« on: February 26, 2009, 18:57 »
Fair enough. It's always been broken down for me that the difference between a "Pro" and "Prosumer" camera is the weather seal and the material used to make the frame of the camera. My main body is a 1D Mark III which is considered a "pro" camera. Who really gives a fiddlers fart though about the title. Obviously the most important thing is the quality of the image and quite frankly, 5D's have been producing some of the highest quality images I've ever seen. Mat Mat, that link doesn't mean anything. I can put up a photo gear website and claim that 5d is the mother of all cameras and then i'll be a second ken rockwell (or chuck norris).
Canon splits cameras in the following categories:
Category 1: 1000d / 450d
Category 2: 40d / 50d
Category 3: 5d / 5d Mk2 (we're FF here)
Category 4: 1Ds.
There's also a category 3-2 or 3 and half what you preffer, for 1D Mk3.
The poll does not have sufficient ranks for all of the range. Therefore, the most appropiate for 5D is Professional Camera. A DSLR with full frame sensor is not a prosumer. That would be the 40d / 50d. Which no matter how many features they have will be always below 5D Mk1, image quality wise. Because they're APS-C. And that's the end of the story.
Features are nice, indeed. But I couldn't care less that my 5D doesn't have sensor cleaning and I need to use pecpads every month, while I'm getting brilliant, razor sharp details and superb colors out of it.
If there would be a "professional camera" that besides all competitors will also scratch your back and read your newspaper with angelina jolie's voice, - that will not put it in the next grade of this poll, to medium format stuff.
1856
« on: February 26, 2009, 17:29 »
1ds, 5d and 5d mk2 are professional dslrs. 40d / 30d is prosumer. 350d-450d entry level.
I hate to disagree with you Xalanx but I believe the 5D Mark II is a Prosumer camera. I'm pretty sure it needs to be weather proof with the more rugged body to be considered pro. I'm not sure whose site this is, but I did a quick Google search online to double check before I posted. This site has it listed in the Prosumer category http://www.vistek.ca/marketing/procentre/canon/slrcameras.aspx?t=Prosumer+DSLRsMat
1857
« on: February 26, 2009, 12:24 »
Kind of reminds me of the Fotolia forum right now 
1858
« on: February 22, 2009, 03:28 »
hm... still waiting...
Patrick H.
I'll send an email Patrick and let them know you are still waiting. Mat
1859
« on: February 20, 2009, 15:56 »
Hi Lisa,
I just got in touch with Chad and told him about your frustration. Hopefully it will be taken care of asap.
Mat
1860
« on: February 18, 2009, 18:58 »
This is a serious question...Why is it that the most negative, angry...borderline mean people not just here, but on all online forums have usernames that are anonymous and refuse to sign their posts?
I'd imagine it is because most of them are all to aware that places like Fotolia don't support freedom of speech, and many folks that read these forums are either management, reviewers or hold other non-paid posistions on sites which gives them the power to be vindictive to those that criticise their beloved agency. By posting as anonymous it gives people the ability to say how they feel without any recourse.
I am not an employee of Fotolia.
I must be honest I always thought you were by the way you reply to policy questions on the forum and lock threads that reflect badly on Fotolias reputation, but that's mainly due to Chad also being tagged as a moderator, maybe they could change his tag to 'management' so everyone would know that when he replies it means something more than just a personal opinion.
You make a fair point. I disagree, but also realize that perception is reality and if people have that fear or concern it makes sense. My point isn't really limited to this discussion or even photography for that matter. Since the internet has been in our lives, people feel a certain sense of bravado they don't normally have in the "real world." They feel safe and protected to let their dark side lash out. Kind of like the little old lady flipping someone the bird while driving a car. Hard to imagine her dropping an F-bomb to someone's face if walking down the sidewalk instead of driving. It's just human nature and I've always been bothered by it. As for the title in the forum...that is actually a great idea and I'm going to write to Chad right now to see if he can make that change. It would save a lot of confusion and misconceptions I'll bet. Believe it or not, I have moderated the forum all these years because I simply love the power and control of it all! Ha Ha, that's not even close but I'll bet some of you read that and gasped  I do it because I enjoy the forum, I care about the people that contribute to it and I care about Fotolia as a company. I believe that it is run by good people and I have always believed it has the greatest potential of all the sites for long term success. That is something I am proud to be a small part of. Even the people that are the most skeptical can't argue with the success of the company. Believe me, I know there have been communication Snafu's in the past. I was thrilled to read this announcement prior to the changes being made. I know for a fact that the upper management listens to and cares about the contributor's of Fotolia. I've now seen two posts by people skeptical at first that did the math and learned that if the changes would have been made before their recent sales were made they would have made more money. This is an increase in revenue! Mat
1861
« on: February 18, 2009, 17:59 »
This math only works if consumer behavior remains the same. I am afraid it will increase subscriptions - at which we will earn 0.32 credits for a download in size L. (plus: 34% of 5,00 is 1,70 not 1,85...). [/quote] Two solid points for sure. There is definitely the X-factor of whether or not a price increase will either push buyers elsewhere or drive them towards subscriptions. I think the latter isn't too big a concern. For buyers of multiple images that subscriptions make sense for I think they are already there. With so many really good options for them at pretty much all of the major sites I think that is what it is and this increase isn't going to be much a straw breaking the camels back. I do think it's a risk to push buyers to cheaper sites which goes back to my original post that as long as the bulk of photographers continue to upload all the exact same photo's to all the agencies it will drive prices down. I think I-stock was gutsy in making such a bold move to aggressively move photographers towards exclusivity and this move by Fotolia has an element of risk requiring courage as well. Ultimately, I really believe that no matter what site you upload to, if you do so exclusively and the majority of others do the same, we would all benefit greatly in the long run. I don't necessarily believe it's realistic but with I-stocks move and now Fotolia's it seems to be getting easier to make that decision. As for the other point...ugh, how embarrassing. You are right that 34% of $5 is $1.70. Thank you for the clarification. Would you believe me if I told you I did the math in my head?  Mat
1862
« on: February 18, 2009, 16:49 »
So this is the mistake...
The sentence in question is NOT posted by me... I'm not even able to use such "refined" language... Sorry...
If you go to the previous page and look for #55 you'll find that this particular sentence was posted by gostwych or what ever his or her name is...?
Thanks
Flemming
That was a mistake and I am very sorry Flemming! All those posts were coming at the same time I and I misread. Sorry. Mat
1863
« on: February 18, 2009, 16:40 »
This is a serious question...Why is it that the most negative, angry...borderline mean people not just here, but on all online forums have usernames that are anonymous and refuse to sign their posts? To me, that screams cowardice. I doubt very much that when most people write angry, aggressive posts in forums that they have the courage or lack of character to do the same thing when talking to a person face to face. It's always been that way, always will. It does bug me though. I can guarantee you one thing. You might think I am a corporate kiss-ass, a yes man, or you may think I am a prick. One thing is for sure, anything I write in here, on the FT forum, my blog or any other form of communication from me you can expect me to have the balls to say it to your face, good or bad. I am not an employee of Fotolia. I am a contributor with as much a vested interest in the success of that site as anyone else in this forum. I was reluctant for a long time to contribute to this forum. It is filled with some of the most talented, intelligent and articulate people in our industry and has a great deal to offer. I feel at times I can contribute to some of the posts as well. I don't want to pee in anyones fruitloops by any means but if you feel compelled to attack me personally, do not expect me to cower in a corner and shut up about it. Do not expect me to take you seriously either if you don't have the courage to even sign your name. Mat Hayward I now know who you are.
That sounds like a threat
I didn't put two and two together.
Clearly not because if you had you could have just clicked on his portfolio link which is under his comments here.
I never visit the Fotolia forum because of the way you moderate, you are a moderator and you are there to make sure people behave in a proper and respectful way, that does not mean you should lock threads because you don't like peoples opinions.
I also feel that as you've taken the role of being a moderator on Fotolia albeit for little or no pay that you should not take part in any topics there concerning contributor relations, your view of the matter is clearly biased.
There's a huge difference between being a moderator and acting like a corporate whipping boy, and no you don't know who I am but rest assured I'm no newbie.
1864
« on: February 18, 2009, 16:13 »
- our commission goes down by 3%
Wow. How exciting. Should we thank them? 
Yes, the commission is lower, but the cash in pocket is higher because they have raised the prices. Here is my math again. Someone else posted in the FT forum they did the math on their past 100 sales and found with the new rates they would come out on top. Can you dispute this math for a silver photographer?... 37%... 34%... Medium: $3.00 .....$1.11 $4.00.....$1.36 Large: $4.00 ........$1.48 $5.00 ....$1.85 X-Large: $5.00......$1.85 $6.00 ....$2.04 Total Exclusive Photographer.... 54% 51% Medium: $9.00 ..........$4.86 $12.00 ....$6.12 Large: $12.00 .......$6.68 $15.00 ....$7.65 X-Large: $15.00 ........$8.10 $18.00 .....$9.18
1865
« on: February 18, 2009, 16:10 »
I have nothing against you, and I really feel that yoy're reacting far too strongly here... I think that we decerve some ansvers and if you have misunderstod some underlying tone or mood, I deeply apologize... Please understand that I'm not a native english speeker and this might be refelcted in the way you "read between the lines" ?
So if you feel that I have offended you, I deeply apologize
........
I now know who you are. I didn't put two and two together. Please explain this sentence... And please read the posts again... I have not threttened you, nor have I sad anything bad about you, only questioned the concept of giving away images for free....
My very best regards
Flemming
"Ugh __ Hayward is such a disgusting little corporate creep."
I accept your apology Flemming. I have been down this road many times in the past. I also understand English is not your first language though I can't help but think calling someone a "disgusting little corporate creep" in any language is not considered a compliment. That being said, I've certainly been called worse and do appreciate your passion for the topic.
I don't think free photo's are going to have much of an impact one way or another. While there are undoubtedly some gems hidden in the unsold category, as I mentioned in the FT forum, looking through my files that haven't sold in two years I found quite a few stinkers. The acceptance criteria two years ago was greatly different than it is today. I don't see it as a threat.
Mat
1866
« on: February 18, 2009, 15:37 »
I have just been warned to stop persuing the issue about the free image garbage... So if any of you would like to take over, please do so 
It's right here...: http://eu.fotolia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?pid=181271#p181271
I now know who you are. I didn't put two and two together. While I appreciate the vested interest you have in the site with a grand total of 42 images uploaded, I do think you had gone a bit overboard with your posts and simply asked you to move on. You had received answers several times and felt compelled to continue with the rants. Not the most productive approach. Have a spectacular day! Mat
1867
« on: February 18, 2009, 15:31 »
Do you read the form at FT?
The moderator MAT, just wrote this...:
QUOTE!
Fotolia is reducing commissions by 5-10% not 3%.Hi guys,
Wow, did I pick the wrong day to sleep in or what? Maybe the right day?
As soon as I read the announcement I anticipated a lot of passion in the forum and was right.
Now I would suggest you look at if from a point of logic....
For the sake of argument I looked at the commission for a silver ranked photographer either totally non-exclusive or totally exclusive and in both cases, the photographer is making more money. Unfortunately, the photographer with partial exclusivity will take a hit. I understand why that has people worked up. For me, it is motivation to pull my photo's from the other sites I have tried as the exclusive commission here really does make it worth my while.
What I found doing some basic math if you are a non-exclusive, silver ranked photographer...
current commissions:
37%... 34%...
Medium: $3.00 .....$1.11 $4.00.....$1.36
Large: $4.00 ........$1.48 $5.00 ....$1.85
X-Large: $5.00......$1.85 $6.00 ....$2.04
Total Exclusive Photographer....
54% 51%
Medium: $9.00 ..........$4.86 $12.00 ....$6.12
Large: $12.00 .......$6.68 $15.00 ....$7.65
X-Large: $15.00 ........$8.10 $18.00 .....$9.18
It is more money for the photographers.
As far as the partial exclusive photographer is concerned, my personal belief has always been that it is in both the agencies and photographers best interest to submit exclusively. With photographers dumping their images everywhere anyone will accept them, the prices are driven down because the sites are competing to sell the exact same images. With exclusivity, the prices can go up and the demand for photographers amongst sites goes up as well. In order to recruit the best photographers, the benefits need to be the best. I don't see that happening overnight anywhere anytime soon but...to me, the benefits of submitting my work exclusively here far outweigh not doing so.
END QUOTE
... So guys... You're gonna get rich on this, not poor
funny he says about being exclusive yet he was on here a few weeks back asking about agencies and what to do with his rejections and from memory saying he may have made a mistake by not submitting the rejected images at least to other agencies.
It has always been a question for me. I have a few images at other sites...Snapvillage and Media Magnet that had very limited success. Shutterstock closed my account without warning because I moderate the Fotolia forum so that was out. I've always made a decent chunk of change at Fotolia. At least 4 figures per month for the past couple of years so I have chosen not to fix something not broken. Now, there is more incentive for me to submit only to Fotolia. I've already got the bulk of my time invested there so why not. The commission % is very high and now the $ amount will be higher with the increased price. I have always believed, and believe now more than ever with the popularity of micro increasing that photographers are shooting themselves in the foot in the big picture here but uploading all their images everywhere they can. That drives prices down. If you were to submit exclusively anywhere, that would increase the competition amongst sites to create better incentive for you to go there which would include higher prices and commissions. I stand by everything I have said. I've sent my letters to Snapvillage and Mediamagnet asking them to close my accounts and I look forward to an increase in pay. I realize this isn't the popular approach. Call me what you want, but loyalty is not something I will apologize to anyone for. All the best, Mat Hayward
1868
« on: February 11, 2009, 16:16 »
Hi Denis,
That is great news. Congratulations! I had a similar thing happen with Popular Photography magazine. Because redistributing your image violates the contract they need special permission from you to do so. In my case, they got permission from me beforehand then purchased the photo through Fotolia.
Hard to say if you should ask for more than a simple license sale. That's your call. My concern would be they would say forget it as I'm sure many other photogs would be happy to have their image used this way.
Mat
1869
« on: February 10, 2009, 16:53 »
I sharpen probably 99% of my images. I only shoot raw and at least one (though usually two) runs of the Unsharp mask does the trick. Granted, my work flow is not very practical...I do all my RAW conversions in Lightroom then open all images in PS for final tweaking which includes sharpening.
1870
« on: February 04, 2009, 20:02 »
Any trips you may have taken that resulted in photo's you are selling. I'm pumped to deduct a trip to Africa this year! Cell phone bills. Computer expenses. Blood pressure medication
1871
« on: February 04, 2009, 17:04 »
I think that is the main problem with the microstock industry as a whole. I am 100% positive that microstock and macrostock are going to be around for a long time to come but as the years go by I predict it will be more and more difficult to differentiate between the two. Obviously, everyone has the same goal...to make as much money as possible. Agencies and photographers alike. My opinion is that the agencies need to make it more appealing to the photographers to submit their images exclusively and attract buyers based on their portfolio's rather than their price point. If all the sites were offering different images they would have more flexibility to charge more which I am sure they would ultimately like to do. The Infinite collection on Fotolia is a good example of that. The photo's are exclusive, have not ever been sold for less and classify as a good mid-stock price and as far as I know they are pretty successful because buyers can't purchase them anywhere else. If the status quo remains the same at all these sites and photogs keep submitting the same exact images to them all, I'm afraid the prices are going to be driven down even further and there won't be any choice for photographers but to shrug and take it. Again, I'm not rooting for I-stock here. I have no images with them and no desire to add any. I do admire the risk they are taking by possibly alienating the majority of micro-stock photographers. I see the upside from their point of view more though. Instead of attracting buyers with the cheapest pics, they potentially will be attracting buyers with the most unique collection of images not available anywhere else. As it stands with the rest, they might as well all be the same exact site considering the databases are probably at least 75% identical. I'm just babbling on here, but it is something that's been on my mind a lot lately. I don't think photographer exclusivity is the way to go - at least from a photographers point of view. I know it works well for the agency (istock) that has it.
I think image exclusivity is okay for those that want to do it. I have exclusive images on a couple of sites. More on DT than Fotolia because I have seen a better return on my exclusive images there. Honestly, the few images I have uploaded exclusively to Fotolia have not done any business.
I am glad exclusivity is working out for you, but to me exclusivity doesn't make sense in a micro market. We make so little on individual sales. The only way to earn decent money in micro is to do volume, and having more outlets gives a lot more opportunity for volume.
While sales at Fotolia are decent, the only site where my portfolio does enough volume to justify exclusivity is Istock, and even they are only 30-40% of my sales in a given month.
To each their own, but IMO none of the micros has made exclusivity attractive enough to do it on more than an occasional per/image basis.
1872
« on: February 04, 2009, 15:46 »
So, with 6-7 sites all selling the same product if everyone stays on the same page hopefully we will keep moving forward maybe there will even be some consolidation of the big 6 down the road. Who knows.
End up like the big 5 in the Audio world.
(just an opinion)
I think that is probably the only real possibility to any positive change in the future though it seems very unlikely. If everyone raised the base price, customers would have no choice. If all but one or two raise their prices, those sites will be the most successful. It isn't realistic to expect photographers to offer an image for sale at only one site. It works for me because I can sell my photo's for more money and receive a higher commission. Again, I know I am in the minority. I've just been watching people react to the I-stock thing and wonder if there isn't something to it that will ultimately benefit all photographers. If only I-stock does it though, I think they are going to be in for a bumpy ride with so much killer competition out there.
1873
« on: February 04, 2009, 14:31 »
. If I put all my eggs in 1 basket then id feel like I have way to many images not used so prefer to spread them across many sites
That is an excellent point and that thought haunts me a bit I have to admit. I've had around 1,500 images rejected at FT and never did anything with them. If I were more organized I could have kept a folder of rejects to attempt at other sites. Hmmm
1874
« on: February 04, 2009, 14:18 »
Howdy Y'all, I'm sure this has come up many times in the past here so I apologize if it's a redundant thread. As some of you know, 99% of my stock images are exclusive to Fotolia. This works out for me personally for several reasons. I realize that I am in a very small minority in the general Microstock world because of this. I am curious if most of you simply upload all of your images to as many sites as possible (or at least the big 6) to get as much exposure as possible to your photo's or if you spread your portfolio around a bit with a few exclusives here, a couple more over there. Or if you upload a certain type of image at one site but not another. The reason I ask is that while I became instantly frustrated with I-stock the first and only time I tried to upload to them a long while back and I've read on numerous threads how frustrated people are in general with them, I can't help but think their plan to force exclusivity on photographers if it caught on with the other sites would ultimately benefit photographers. The primary complaint from serious photographers regarding Microstock is dominantly that the photo's are too cheap. The problem I see with this is that all of the agencies are in competition with each other not only for the same type of images, but for exactly the same images. If I'm a buyer and have the option of the same photo at multiple sites I am going to buy it where it is the cheapest. Why wouldn't I? If I am an agency, I see this and want to attract the most buyers so I'm going to sell my stuff the cheapest. Continuing to saturate the market with the same photo's everywhere seems to be counterproductive to progress in the industry though not doing so is a potential sacrifice to personal finances. As mentioned, I submit exclusively to Fotolia for multiple reasons and it pays off for me. I make low 4 figures every month with the higher commission rate and I frankly don't have the time to be uploading to other sites (not to mention the fact that Shutterstock closed my account because I am a moderator at FT ) So what do most of you do? Upload all images to all sites, some images to some sites, exclusive to some sites? Mat
1875
« on: February 03, 2009, 17:34 »
I just did a side by side with my laptop and PC and the difference is really remarkable. My bad for sure earlier, the exposure looks great as does the skin tone for that matter.
Again, sorry for the incorrect post. She's got a mole or blemish on her cheek that can't even see on my laptop.
Time to break out the Spyder calibrator I suppose.
Yours in embarrassment,
Mat
Pages: 1 ... 70 71 72 73 74 [75] 76
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
