Zach Matthews
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Here’s what you do.
(1) Follow Morsie’s advice; get the camera in a warm, well-lit and very dry area.
Shane –
There is a whole world of semi-parasitic magazine placement “services” who sell subscriptions on behalf of magazine clients.
Andrew,
Check out one of these simple galleries from Airtight, they might just work for you:
Bill –
You probably know this but the VPS line was very close to the RPL; that’s my understanding anyway.
Shane –
No idea on the AEG film but I did ask some folks who know Ben and Travis well what the deal was with Eastern Rises.
Hey guys –
I have avoided stating my baldfaced opinion about this because I have a lot of respect for everyone here and I know some of you won’t care to hear it. But I think Tosh is getting there, so here it is:
This is a simple problem of supply and demand. In 2000, the supply of quality images was small (due to the technical curve and expense of film photography), and the demand was high (due to flush stock markets, and the over-saturation of the outdoor media market thanks to rich dudes buying or creating new fishing, hunting, and outdoor magazines). If you came up as a professional photographer in 1990-1995, by 2000 you would have been in the catbird seat as far as revenue streams go.
Today the reverse is true. The media markets have crashed with the stock markets. Multiple magazines have gone out of business (Wild on the Fly, Warmwater Fly Fishing, Saltwater Fly Fishing), while others are too closely tied to newspaper holdings and are facing bankruptcy. Two of the remaining major three fly fishing magazines have dropped their independent audits in the last two years. In other words, the market has rapidly and catastrophically contracted, limiting demand.
Meanwhile, digital photography has cut the expense of being a photographer by up to 80%, while educating amateurs who can put thousands of rounds through their cameras at no cost. I have taken over 100,000 exposures since purchasing my first DSLR about 5 years ago. That would have been impossible with film unless I was a millionaire. Unless you’re mentally subnormal, you can’t help but learn something about how to use a camera with that much opportunity to experiment. Consequently, the number of photographers able to supply a fair number of publishable images has rapidly increased, inflating supply.
Are my photos as good as Tosh’s or David Anderson’s? Hell no. Moreover, my consistency is terrible compared to them. But the average article only runs with three or four images. And I can certainly produce three or four publishable images to accompany any given story.
Put simply: magazines have shrunk, shrinking demand, while photography has grown, increasing supply. This is basic Adam Smith economics: the price you pay for a photo has dwindled almost to nothing.
I asked a friend who is in charge of picking photos for a manufacturer’s catalog to review this thread. His comment was “I don’t need to pay a professional photographer when so many of our pro staffers can take capable images. They have an incentive to help us sell product.” In essence, he has a team of house photographers who do not get paid by the image.
This is where you’re probably going to get mad at me. I think the party’s over. I wish it wasn’t, but I am just saying what I see. Trying to hold the line by demanding more money for your images is just going to get your story killed completely. Many catalogs don’t need to pay professionals, and those that do, like Cabelas or Orvis, can use house photographers who do not get paid by the image. The problem of free images out there isn’t going to work itself out; it’s going to get worse. Photo-industry standards for pricing are self-serving and are frankly laughable in the face of the market. Most photographers have no idea how much trouble their magazine clients are in. The money just isn’t there.
I do not believe it is possible to become a professional outdoor photographer alone, not any more. People like the afore-mentioned Tibor Nemeth can stay afloat because they are genuine artists using genuine artists’ tools (thousands upon thousands of dollar cameras, film, with paid staffs). Listen to Tosh; he was as established as anyone could get.
Michael –
I have a sample that the manufacturer sent to me. I just opened it up. It contains a large bobber looking thingie that is apparently intended to unhook fish. It has three pre-threaded, well, threader-thingies that each have two flies on them. None of the flies have hooks. They appear to be a well-tied straight-shank version of a standard Hare’s Ear, a Pheasant Tail, and a Mysis Shrimp. Then I have three of what I would call micro-circle hooks.
Then I have a nicely printed set of instructions that leave me with some basic questions. Presumably I am still trying to hook fish here; I thought initially this was just a fish-tagging hookless system. Based on the diagrams it looks like the hook and the fly are attached separately, a la an Alaskan bead rig (which I’m fine with). What I don’t get is whether the fly is intended to slide out of the way like a bead? Or stay static on the leader, and if so, how far from the hook should it be? Ok, I see in the fine print it should be five inches from the hook. Wow. It better slide or they’re giving me a lot of credit on the size of fish I’m expected to catch. How do I set the hook (standard circle hook no-set or straight set?)
I’m frankly kind of mystified. I like the bead rig concept because it would probably lead to more fish being hooked in the side of the mouth, which improves survivability. Unfortunately it may improve survivability by resulting in fewer fish being hooked and caught. This looks like the kind of thing you’d need a shop hand to show you how to set up to me – I am not confident that I can figure it out based on the literature.
Michael did someone come by your shop and give y’all some more detailed explanation?
Mike –
He does address that a bit; he talks about adding ‘micro-weight’ to the blank via ‘what you hang on it.’