|
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]
1851
« 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
1852
« 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
1853
« 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
1854
« 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
1855
« 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
1856
« 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.
1857
« 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
1858
« 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.
1859
« 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.
1860
« 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
1861
« 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
1862
« 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
1863
« on: February 03, 2009, 17:17 »
It looks a touch hot on her cheek, hand and her collar on this monitor. I'm on an uncalibrated laptop though so given the other feedback, it is clearly me and the computer. Sorry about that.
Mat
1864
« on: February 03, 2009, 11:23 »
Skin tone looks pretty OK to me. I always use a custom white balance for this type of shot to make sure I get it right. If I had to throw a critique in, I'm not crazy about the light on her left cheek (image right) it looks just a tad hot but that could have been the look you were going for. It doesn't appear blown out, it's just my personal preference to dial it down from that look a little bit.
1866
« on: January 31, 2009, 15:38 »
I should have added this to my original post and pretended it was my own line I think Joe McNally's said this, but I could be wrong about that.... he said he uses "available light" exclusively. Fortunately for him, he said he usually has many strobes/speedlights "available" to him in addition to ambient light at any given time.
1867
« on: January 31, 2009, 13:54 »
I prefer direct flash right in the face or overhead sunlight in the peak of the afternoon. The less details or harsher the shadows the better!
Just kidding of course. I don't care how I get perfect light as long as it is just that...perfect. When shooting outdoors I usually use a combination of available light and between 1 and 3 battery powered flashes, usually with shoot through umbrella(s) or soft box to diffuse the light. Sometimes, when it's that perfect time of day, no external source of light at all.
In the studio..OK, the downstairs of my house with seamless white or a backdrop I'll use whatever I've got to get the light the way I want it. Sometimes just hot lights (Lowell Tota's), sometimes studio stobes (Elinchrome D), sometimes Canon Speedlights (550's, 580) and more often than not a combination of lights. I am not scared to used mixed lights and have used the hotlights and stobes with cto gels along with a custom white balance set using Ed Pierce's wb target which works amazingly well no matter how different the temperature in light is many times (wow! was that a run-on sentence or what?).
I guess in a nutshell my answer is...it depends...depends on the situation, the look I want to achieve in my photographs and the light that is available to me at the time. One of the advantages to living in the Seattle area is that it's almost always gray outside which makes light that I love available on a regular basis.
Mat
1868
« on: January 31, 2009, 12:24 »
I use a Sekonic L-358 and it works pretty great for studio work. It saves a lot of time from going the chimp, check, change route You need to buy an additional chip for around $50 (B&H price) to trigger Pocket Wizards though.
1869
« on: January 30, 2009, 14:20 »
As Avava mentioned, most of the food photographed isn't edible. I run a restaurant and have had "food artists" come out and prepare plates for photographs to be used in our ads. There really is an art to it. They use Crisco instead of ice cream, artificially shine dishes with all sorts of techniques and the end result always looks better than the real thing. I'm sure there are books on it somewhere, if you are serious about it I would invest some of your free time (must be nice ) and really study the art. Good luck! Mat
1870
« on: January 30, 2009, 13:20 »
I was at the ASMP meeting AVAVA spoke at last week..by the way..great job dude, you stole the show, and not just because you were the loudest He referred to a point I would like to also make..no matter how many thousands, millions, billions or trillions of photographers and wannabe photographers scramble to upload as many photo's as they can, if you know what people are buying and can shoot those photo's better than anyone else you will make more money. Simple as that. Focus on constantly improving your portfolio and no matter how many people you are up against, you will succeed. A trend I often see is people making excuses and justifying their lack of success by laying blame on external factors completely out of their control..the economy, too many other photographers, etc. I watch a lot of the portfolio's of the loudest people and find that there aren't many new images being uploaded. You cannot sit on your tail and expect the work you have done in the past to carry you into the future. You have to constantly work, learn and evolve or you will fail. That's my .02 anyway...it's only worth about .007 but what the heck. Mat
1871
« on: January 29, 2009, 12:54 »
I have been hearing the same thing from other photographers. They are either perfect or they are constantly giving these error messages. I'm sure they will fix it shortly and most are probably perfect. Just the same, I promised I wouldn't repeat history and buy a camera within 6 months of its release. The other thing really tempting to me is the video aspect of the camera. I've never been a video guy but incorporating it into shoots does open a lot of creative doors. Thanks for the welcome Lisa! Mat
FWIW I have tested two copies of the 5D II (through an ordering/delivery screw up - I'll spare you the details) and both were perfect.
Surprised the daylights out of me, as I normally expect problems with canon cameras during first 6 months of production run. But I could find no flaws with them at all.
OTOH, my 5D Mk II went back to Canon yesterday - persistent Err 20
I've never had to send a camera back to them before, but apparently there are a number of others with problems with Err 20 and Err 30, so they have some quality control issues. Other than that, what a gorgeous camera
1872
« on: January 29, 2009, 12:23 »
I shoot in low light situations all the time and was thrilled when I got my Mark III because ISO 1600 had about the same noise as ISO 400 on my 20D's and is very usable for stock. I use ISO 3200 at times but only in extreme cases. I'm amazed at the quality of this image at ISO 6400. It must have been a seriously dark room to need to bump it up that high. I am seriously tempted to get the 5D Mark II after the bugs are worked out (a lesson I learned when buying the Mark III immediately after its release) I can only imagine what cameras will be like in 10 years!
1873
« on: January 29, 2009, 11:52 »
I had a conversation with a guy from Getty the other day that said this is very much a real thing. There are so many impressive images posted by photographers simply making cool images for the fun of it and not realizing their potential to earn big $. I would flip out if someone from Getty wrote to recruit me! Not likely to happen, especially since I almost never upload images on Flickr.
1874
« on: January 29, 2009, 11:46 »
This is an interesting thread. I haven't posted here before but I've really enjoyed reading a lot of interesting thoughts and opinions here. I'm surprised at the feedback he's getting from this encouraging blog post. There are a whole heck of a lot of misconceptions about microstock all over the place right now. My opinion is that the more information out there the better.
As for sharing information, tips, tricks and advice...who here or anywhere in the photography industry wouldn't be where they are today without picking up some advice from others. Who here reads the blogs from Chase Jarvis? Joe McNally? How about Strobist? These guys all offer tons of tips, advice and information without getting much in return. To me, that's what makes photography such a unique way to make a living...the sense of community you find all over the world.
Mat
1875
« on: October 10, 2008, 10:37 »
If you are truly serious about Wedding Photography then the information you receive on DWF for your annual fee will more than pay for itself. I've been a member for around 5 years and I've found it to be an unending resource of great information from most of the industries leaders. I'm not nearly as active there as I used to be as I belong to another wedding photographer forum that is more like DWF used to be with high end shooters but fewer people in general. Because the DWF is so massive now it's a bit impersonal. The discounts I receive because I'm a member have paid for my membership every year. Especially the Prodpi discount. One weddings print discount covers my cost As for the free ones, you get what you pay for. I would not recommend you jump into wedding photography head first. It's one thing to shoot your friends and family for free. It's another thing entirely to ask for thousands of dollars for your work. The expectations are a bit higher and not being good with your strobes is not an acceptable explanation for why moments get missed. My best advice would be to find a reputable pro in your area and ask/beg/bribe him or her to let you carry their lights around for some weddings free of charge. Maybe even 2nd shoot. There is a heck of a lot more than taking pictures involved with wedding photography. Mat Hayward www.mathaywardphoto.comwww.mhwildlife.comwww.haywardphoto.blogspot.com
Pages: 1 ... 70 71 72 73 74 [75]
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
