Author Topic: Yuri Arcurs First Public Statement (Read 146126 times)

Yuri_Arcurs · « **Reply #175 on:** July 25, 2013, 17:52 »

Quote from: gostwyck on July 25, 2013, 17:46

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on July 25, 2013, 17:34
"I have some prototypes of Nokia phones that we are testing in the excess of 40+ mpixel. Even if downsized to 46mb uncompressed tif (8bit, or 16mpixel) they produce better quality than any DSLR. Hardly any fringing. Trust me. Now if you combine that info with the huge amount of apps available to further enhance your images, we are looking at a real game changer"

No, you aren't. It isn't the camera. It's the planning. It's the talent. It's the releases. It's the trust. A bunch of editorial phone snaps from the crowd isn't going to change commercial stock. And the size of the sensor isn't going to change the success rate of crowd journalism sites.

And apparently the tiny lens on these $600 phones is MUCH better than any $2k L lens? It must be for the quality to be "better than any DSLR". What utter nonsense.

Well you will see for yourself. I understand your standpoint but you will bite your words in two years from now. It's not about the optics you see, it is about the size of the optics relative to the sensor size, at which camera phones have a clear advantage.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #176 on:** July 25, 2013, 17:54 »

Quote from: Yuri_Arcurs on July 25, 2013, 17:29

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on July 25, 2013, 17:20
Quote from: Yuri_Arcurs on July 25, 2013, 17:06
Ok. You got me a bit upset. I posted my phone number just a few post's ago. Please call me and I will get the "photoshop trainee" on the call and we can ask him directly what he thought of my handling of the situation. If you really want to call me, let's do exactly that. Call me!

There's no need, Yuri. It really doesn't matter to me and I'm perfectly happy to accept it if you say that in-house you are kind and considerate to your staff.
My issue was nothing at all to do with your handling of your staff, it was about your own attitude and a phone call is not going to make a difference to that however charming you may be.
I see things in you that are very common in extremely successful people but which I happen not to admire. Lots of other people do admire them. I think we just have a totally different view of life and what is important.

Yes we do. And I think the secondary gain from disrespecting the "successful" serves a much deeper satisfaction for you than what you are willing to put on the line if talking to me in person. You stereotype me, and even when I offer a direct honest conversation "there is no need". You need my stereotype more than you need good arguments.

"Stereotype" is the wrong word. "Preconceptions" might be better. And, of course, they might be wrong. But a 10 minute phone call isn't going to prove anything. It would be pointless. I tend to see your enthusiasm for a chat as public relations rather than having anything substantial to it. And while you may care if I have given a hit to your ego or your public image, why should I be desperate to pursue the issue privately?

I'm not surprised that you have concluded that I get satisfaction from "disrespecting successful" since the idea that I am jealous of your phenomental success (and it is phenomenal) massages your ego. But how come I have never said a word against Sean Locke or Hidesy or Lisa Young or any of the other superstars of stock? Aren't I meant to be jealous of them, too? I mean, I hate success, don't I? Because I'm such a failure? Yet I have never, ever, copied anything like one of your pictures - which is where success is meant to lie.

The reality is that we have different aspirations. There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy, as someone once wrote in "The Danish Play".

grsphoto · « **Reply #177 on:** July 25, 2013, 17:55 »

I have seen this question Twice...but still no answer.....

Quote from: Monty-m-gue on July 25, 2013, 17:28

Hi Yuri,
I asked a question a while back in this thread but I think it got swallowed in a wave of vitriol. I wonder if you could tell us if you've been given any assurances that Istock will improve their inadequate it infrastructure? Their IT systems seem to be on the border of collapse, for example. This may well be due to the priorities of previous CEO's - but what does the future hold there? Anything you can share with us?

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #178 on:** July 25, 2013, 17:55 »

Quote from: topol on July 25, 2013, 17:31

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on July 25, 2013, 17:29
Quote from: topol on July 25, 2013, 17:27
Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on July 25, 2013, 16:29
Quote from: topol on July 25, 2013, 16:13
You mentioning the obscure reflection on some obscure group shot is almost as bad as him inserting the SS graph.

It wasn't his picture that bothered me. It was the way he handled the issue when someone pointed it out. For me, that was symptomatic of the way he handled his business and - enormously successful though he may be - it is not an approach I can admire. But then, I'm not "professional", which probably explains it.

(P.S. - Gunter one thing I would not blame a Dane for is his English spelling... my Danish is err ...)

You are bickering him like some estranged wife, and he does the same with Shutterstock.

And what exactly are you doing? Are you his wing-man or something?

having some fun watching it.

Welcome!

Petr Toman · « **Reply #179 on:** July 25, 2013, 17:56 »

The technology is moving fast, and don't get me wrong, I love technology and the progress, but the mobile talks just remind me those fake Nokia ads

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatches/globalpost-blogs/weird-wide-web/nokia-apology-fake-lumia-920-smartphone-ad

http://www.theverge.com/2012/9/6/3297878/nokias-pureview-still-photos-also-include-fakes

Monty-m-gue · « **Reply #180 on:** July 25, 2013, 18:01 »

Quote from: grsphoto on July 25, 2013, 17:55

I have seen this question Twice...but still no answer.....

Quote from: Monty-m-gue on July 25, 2013, 17:28
Hi Yuri,
I asked a question a while back in this thread but I think it got swallowed in a wave of vitriol. I wonder if you could tell us if you've been given any assurances that Istock will improve their inadequate it infrastructure? Their IT systems seem to be on the border of collapse, for example. This may well be due to the priorities of previous CEO's - but what does the future hold there? Anything you can share with us?

Well, I think if we don't get a reply after the fourth showing we can assume that Yuri has had no assurances from istock and that the site will soon fall apart at the seams...

Yuri_Arcurs · « **Reply #181 on:** July 25, 2013, 18:05 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on July 25, 2013, 17:54

Quote from: Yuri_Arcurs on July 25, 2013, 17:29
Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on July 25, 2013, 17:20
Quote from: Yuri_Arcurs on July 25, 2013, 17:06
Ok. You got me a bit upset. I posted my phone number just a few post's ago. Please call me and I will get the "photoshop trainee" on the call and we can ask him directly what he thought of my handling of the situation. If you really want to call me, let's do exactly that. Call me!

There's no need, Yuri. It really doesn't matter to me and I'm perfectly happy to accept it if you say that in-house you are kind and considerate to your staff.
My issue was nothing at all to do with your handling of your staff, it was about your own attitude and a phone call is not going to make a difference to that however charming you may be.
I see things in you that are very common in extremely successful people but which I happen not to admire. Lots of other people do admire them. I think we just have a totally different view of life and what is important.

Yes we do. And I think the secondary gain from disrespecting the "successful" serves a much deeper satisfaction for you than what you are willing to put on the line if talking to me in person. You stereotype me, and even when I offer a direct honest conversation "there is no need". You need my stereotype more than you need good arguments.

"Stereotype" is the wrong word. "Preconceptions" might be better. And, of course, they might be wrong. But a 10 minute phone call isn't going to prove anything. It would be pointless. I tend to see your enthusiasm for a chat as public relations rather than having anything substantial to it. And while you may care if I have given a hit to your ego or your public image, why should I be desperate to pursue the issue privately?

I'm not surprised that you have concluded that I get satisfaction from "disrespecting successful" since the idea that I am jealous of your phenomental success (and it is phenomenal) massages your ego. But how come I have never said a word against Sean Locke or Hidesy or Lisa Young or any of the other superstars of stock? Aren't I meant to be jealous of them, too? I mean, I hate success, don't I? Because I'm such a failure? Yet I have never, ever, copied anything like one of your pictures - which is where success is meant to lie.

The reality is that we have different aspirations. There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy, as someone once wrote in "The Danish Play".

I wont continue our discussion after this. I feel a bit sorry for you having seen your last post. I wish you the best "BaldricksTrousers" and hope for your success, but I have my full name in these post's and I could be talking to anybody. I even put my phone number here so you could call me. We are in different worlds "BaldricksTrousers". I want to resolve and get somewhere, you want to stay anonymous and throw hand grenades. Not my style.

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #182 on:** July 25, 2013, 18:07 »

Yuri, my questions:

So if micro is declining what segment of people do you see as having the greatest opportunity for being successful at mobile and in general with stock?

- General public mobile phone users?
- Microstockers who embrace mobile?
- Traditional macro people who embrace mobile?
- Other?

And given all of this seems to be tied to Getty is there any advantage to being an existing Getty contributor?

Yuri_Arcurs · « **Reply #183 on:** July 25, 2013, 18:08 »

Quote from: Monty-m-gue on July 25, 2013, 18:01

Quote from: grsphoto on July 25, 2013, 17:55
I have seen this question Twice...but still no answer.....

Quote from: Monty-m-gue on July 25, 2013, 17:28
Hi Yuri,
I asked a question a while back in this thread but I think it got swallowed in a wave of vitriol. I wonder if you could tell us if you've been given any assurances that Istock will improve their inadequate it infrastructure? Their IT systems seem to be on the border of collapse, for example. This may well be due to the priorities of previous CEO's - but what does the future hold there? Anything you can share with us?

Well, I think if we don't get a reply after the fourth showing we can assume that Yuri has had no assurances from istock and that the site will soon fall apart at the seams...

A lot of things are going on on that front. Istock is in high gear in terms of improving their site.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #184 on:** July 25, 2013, 18:09 »

[q

Quote from: Yuri_Arcurs on July 25, 2013, 18:05

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on July 25, 2013, 17:54
Quote from: Yuri_Arcurs on July 25, 2013, 17:29
Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on July 25, 2013, 17:20
Quote from: Yuri_Arcurs on July 25, 2013, 17:06
Ok. You got me a bit upset. I posted my phone number just a few post's ago. Please call me and I will get the "photoshop trainee" on the call and we can ask him directly what he thought of my handling of the situation. If you really want to call me, let's do exactly that. Call me!

There's no need, Yuri. It really doesn't matter to me and I'm perfectly happy to accept it if you say that in-house you are kind and considerate to your staff.
My issue was nothing at all to do with your handling of your staff, it was about your own attitude and a phone call is not going to make a difference to that however charming you may be.
I see things in you that are very common in extremely successful people but which I happen not to admire. Lots of other people do admire them. I think we just have a totally different view of life and what is important.

Yes we do. And I think the secondary gain from disrespecting the "successful" serves a much deeper satisfaction for you than what you are willing to put on the line if talking to me in person. You stereotype me, and even when I offer a direct honest conversation "there is no need". You need my stereotype more than you need good arguments.

"Stereotype" is the wrong word. "Preconceptions" might be better. And, of course, they might be wrong. But a 10 minute phone call isn't going to prove anything. It would be pointless. I tend to see your enthusiasm for a chat as public relations rather than having anything substantial to it. And while you may care if I have given a hit to your ego or your public image, why should I be desperate to pursue the issue privately?

I'm not surprised that you have concluded that I get satisfaction from "disrespecting successful" since the idea that I am jealous of your phenomental success (and it is phenomenal) massages your ego. But how come I have never said a word against Sean Locke or Hidesy or Lisa Young or any of the other superstars of stock? Aren't I meant to be jealous of them, too? I mean, I hate success, don't I? Because I'm such a failure? Yet I have never, ever, copied anything like one of your pictures - which is where success is meant to lie.

The reality is that we have different aspirations. There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy, as someone once wrote in "The Danish Play".

I wont continue our discussion after this. I feel a bit sorry for you having seen your last post. I wish you the best "BaldricksTrousers" and hope for your success, but I have my full name in these post's and I could be talking to anybody. I even put my phone number here so you could call me. We are in different worlds "BaldricksTrousers". I want to resolve and get somewhere, you want to stay anonymous and throw hand grenades. Not my style.

Oh, my name is Paul Cowan and you should be able to see that through the links to my portfolio that are published here. People who are active on the forums have known who I am for a long time

But you are right that the conversation is pointless. I really don't know why you "feel a bit sorry for me". No need, I assure you.

gostwyck · « **Reply #185 on:** July 25, 2013, 18:12 »

Quote from: Yuri_Arcurs on July 25, 2013, 17:52

Quote from: gostwyck on July 25, 2013, 17:46
Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on July 25, 2013, 17:34
"I have some prototypes of Nokia phones that we are testing in the excess of 40+ mpixel. Even if downsized to 46mb uncompressed tif (8bit, or 16mpixel) they produce better quality than any DSLR. Hardly any fringing. Trust me. Now if you combine that info with the huge amount of apps available to further enhance your images, we are looking at a real game changer"

No, you aren't. It isn't the camera. It's the planning. It's the talent. It's the releases. It's the trust. A bunch of editorial phone snaps from the crowd isn't going to change commercial stock. And the size of the sensor isn't going to change the success rate of crowd journalism sites.

And apparently the tiny lens on these $600 phones is MUCH better than any $2k L lens? It must be for the quality to be "better than any DSLR". What utter nonsense.

Well you will see for yourself. I understand your standpoint but you will bite your words in two years from now. It's not about the optics you see, it is about the size of the optics relative to the sensor size, at which camera phones have a clear advantage.

Firstly quality is determined by the sensor, but modern DSLR sensors are so sensitive, that they can already show the flaws in even the best quality glass. The more light that is gathered (determined by the size of the lens) the more detail that can be seen and resolved by the sensor. That's basic physics. You'll be telling us next that they'll be removing those big astronomical telescopes on top of mountains and replacing them with your little camera phones.

loop · « **Reply #186 on:** July 25, 2013, 18:27 »

Two good things Yuri has done: 1. Not supporting anymore the disastrous (in my humble opinion) cheap subscription model, true origin of many of our troubles. For me, subs it's not micro, but "nano-stock". 2. Putting his images at PeopleImages at respectable prices.

About Scoopt... I don't think it really will work, the same that I don't thing that Connect will, but that is just again mi hunch. I've been wrong imn the past and I will be in the future.

I wont't say nothing on the rest. Just say that I'm taking abback seeing the change of attitude of many of you towards Yuri... it seems, mostly by the fact that he has gone exclusive at IS.

ShadySue · « **Reply #187 on:** July 25, 2013, 18:43 »

Quote from: loop on July 25, 2013, 18:27

Just say that I'm taking abback seeing the change of attitude of many of you towards Yuri... it seems, mostly by the fact that he has gone exclusive at IS.

While still having 'a few' photos at a rival company. By an employee's oversight, allegedly. So that'll be pseudo-exclusive.

shotupdave · « **Reply #188 on:** July 25, 2013, 18:43 »

Quote from: Yuri_Arcurs on July 25, 2013, 17:52

Quote from: gostwyck on July 25, 2013, 17:46
Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on July 25, 2013, 17:34
"I have some prototypes of Nokia phones that we are testing in the excess of 40+ mpixel. Even if downsized to 46mb uncompressed tif (8bit, or 16mpixel) they produce better quality than any DSLR. Hardly any fringing. Trust me. Now if you combine that info with the huge amount of apps available to further enhance your images, we are looking at a real game changer"

No, you aren't. It isn't the camera. It's the planning. It's the talent. It's the releases. It's the trust. A bunch of editorial phone snaps from the crowd isn't going to change commercial stock. And the size of the sensor isn't going to change the success rate of crowd journalism sites.

And apparently the tiny lens on these $600 phones is MUCH better than any $2k L lens? It must be for the quality to be "better than any DSLR". What utter nonsense.

Well you will see for yourself. I understand your standpoint but you will bite your words in two years from now. It's not about the optics you see, it is about the size of the optics relative to the sensor size, at which camera phones have a clear advantage.

Everything is about the optics, no matter what size sensor you have, if it has bad optics quality will suffer.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #189 on:** July 25, 2013, 18:46 »

Thanks for the call, Yuri. And. yes. maybe I am too trenchant sometimes. But I still think you screwed up.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #190 on:** July 25, 2013, 18:55 »

Quote from: shotupdave on July 25, 2013, 18:43

Everything is about the optics, no matter what size sensor you have, if it has bad optics quality will suffer.

From what Yuri just told me, I deduce that the argument is that the quality of modern optics is so high that the small size doesn't matter and the lens size relative to the sensor size reduces aberrations giving a clearer picture.

I would need to see this to believe it - but we all know that the quality of DSLRs and top end lenses vastly exceeds what is really needed for 99% of stock pictures.

Isn't it generally the case that the smaller the lens the easier it is to make it to a high quality? Large lenses have generally had worse resolution that has been made up for by the size of the film/sensor they project on to.

But there are still the issues of pixel pitch. aperture and diffraction.

ShadySue · « **Reply #191 on:** July 25, 2013, 18:55 »

Quote from: shotupdave on July 25, 2013, 18:43

Quote from: Yuri_Arcurs on July 25, 2013, 17:52
Quote from: gostwyck on July 25, 2013, 17:46
Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on July 25, 2013, 17:34
"I have some prototypes of Nokia phones that we are testing in the excess of 40+ mpixel. Even if downsized to 46mb uncompressed tif (8bit, or 16mpixel) they produce better quality than any DSLR. Hardly any fringing. Trust me. Now if you combine that info with the huge amount of apps available to further enhance your images, we are looking at a real game changer"

No, you aren't. It isn't the camera. It's the planning. It's the talent. It's the releases. It's the trust. A bunch of editorial phone snaps from the crowd isn't going to change commercial stock. And the size of the sensor isn't going to change the success rate of crowd journalism sites.

And apparently the tiny lens on these $600 phones is MUCH better than any $2k L lens? It must be for the quality to be "better than any DSLR". What utter nonsense.

Well you will see for yourself. I understand your standpoint but you will bite your words in two years from now. It's not about the optics you see, it is about the size of the optics relative to the sensor size, at which camera phones have a clear advantage.

Everything is about the optics, no matter what size sensor you have, if it has bad optics quality will suffer.

I was a very late adopter to digital, so I'm not bashing mobile phones at this stage. I think they are very limited in what they can do, but I'm impressed at the quality my already-ancient Galaxy S2 can produce, if the light is good. In less than optimal light, like the flat light we usually get here, it's challenged. But technology moves on.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #192 on:** July 25, 2013, 18:55 »

Quote from: Yuri_Arcurs on July 25, 2013, 18:05

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on July 25, 2013, 17:54
Quote from: Yuri_Arcurs on July 25, 2013, 17:29
Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on July 25, 2013, 17:20
Quote from: Yuri_Arcurs on July 25, 2013, 17:06
Ok. You got me a bit upset. I posted my phone number just a few post's ago. Please call me and I will get the "photoshop trainee" on the call and we can ask him directly what he thought of my handling of the situation. If you really want to call me, let's do exactly that. Call me!

There's no need, Yuri. It really doesn't matter to me and I'm perfectly happy to accept it if you say that in-house you are kind and considerate to your staff.
My issue was nothing at all to do with your handling of your staff, it was about your own attitude and a phone call is not going to make a difference to that however charming you may be.
I see things in you that are very common in extremely successful people but which I happen not to admire. Lots of other people do admire them. I think we just have a totally different view of life and what is important.

Yes we do. And I think the secondary gain from disrespecting the "successful" serves a much deeper satisfaction for you than what you are willing to put on the line if talking to me in person. You stereotype me, and even when I offer a direct honest conversation "there is no need". You need my stereotype more than you need good arguments.

"Stereotype" is the wrong word. "Preconceptions" might be better. And, of course, they might be wrong. But a 10 minute phone call isn't going to prove anything. It would be pointless. I tend to see your enthusiasm for a chat as public relations rather than having anything substantial to it. And while you may care if I have given a hit to your ego or your public image, why should I be desperate to pursue the issue privately?

I'm not surprised that you have concluded that I get satisfaction from "disrespecting successful" since the idea that I am jealous of your phenomental success (and it is phenomenal) massages your ego. But how come I have never said a word against Sean Locke or Hidesy or Lisa Young or any of the other superstars of stock? Aren't I meant to be jealous of them, too? I mean, I hate success, don't I? Because I'm such a failure? Yet I have never, ever, copied anything like one of your pictures - which is where success is meant to lie.

The reality is that we have different aspirations. There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy, as someone once wrote in "The Danish Play".

I wont continue our discussion after this. I feel a bit sorry for you having seen your last post. I wish you the best "BaldricksTrousers" and hope for your success, but I have my full name in these post's and I could be talking to anybody. I even put my phone number here so you could call me. We are in different worlds "BaldricksTrousers". I want to resolve and get somewhere, you want to stay anonymous and throw hand grenades. Not my style.

actually your style is trowing grenades, since I saw you the first time here (yep a rare occasion) I understood what was your purpose every single time, pretty much to distract all competition (which you don't have of course because you are number 1 according to all your profiles at agencies and also having the most downloaded models, cats and birds) while you carried on doing your thing which was very right at that time but deeply wrong at this exact moment

not knowing who is BT even after 5 or 6 posts directed at you today shows the lack of community concern you have, the only thing that matters to you is that we know you

Pixart · « **Reply #193 on:** July 25, 2013, 18:57 »

Wow. I've tried and tried to find the old quote I want, but I can't locate it. It was about new ideas. At first people reject, they throw pitchforks, then they relax their opinion maybe dip their toe in the waters, and finally they accept and embrace the new idea. Trust me... the real quote was actually quite good, if it comes to me I'll post it. Good for Yuri for making bold moves. Every time I hear the word Getty/Istock/partner program I cringe a little though - I hope you are truly their partner and not their property.

I do believe their is a huge market for cellphone images, but I also believe that only the agency will profit from it. Am I just rejecting change - but I can't see a cell phone photographer making a steady living with this style of photography. A cell photo has a huge value to a newspaper, but little commercial value other than their authentic/grungy/instant appeal. I do design work for regular people, birth announcements, championship banners, photo books etc. and I am appalled by the cell photos they send to me. They are spending 100 bucks on birth announcements, but I wouldn't even show the photos to my blind aunt, let alone mail out 200 copies. It is just terrible that I have said that about my customers because obviously they don't think any thing is wrong with the quality - so it's my problem, not theirs. I would love to have a 40mp cell phone camera, but hopefully it can also override backlighting and the other issues that cause main probs.

Let's have this conversation again in 5 years and see where we are at!

gostwyck · « **Reply #194 on:** July 25, 2013, 18:59 »

Quote from: loop on July 25, 2013, 18:27

Two good things Yuri has done: 1. Not supporting anymore the disastrous (in my humble opinion) cheap subscription model, true origin of many of our troubles. For me, subs it's not micro, but "nano-stock".

What do you mean Yuri is "not supporting anymore the disastrous (in my humble opinion) cheap subscription model"?

In case you're not aware, right now he has over 35K images available to subscribers at DT __ that's 10x more than I do!

Yuri has been doing microstock for about 8 years now and, in that time, literally nobody on the planet has sold more images at sub prices than he has. If you consider subs 'damaging' then nobody has been more damaging to the industry than he has. I've sold close to 400K licenses since I started but I'm sure it would probably take me well over 100+ more years to achieve the same level of damage that he has done.

It seems strange that you are giving him credit for supposedly not selling subs (when actually he is) and when he's also been selling subs for 100% of his time in the industry. Even if Yuri stopped selling subs tomorrow then that would be the first DAY in 8 years that he has not done so. Kind of like crediting an alcoholic for giving up the booze when he's still swigging away.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #195 on:** July 25, 2013, 19:02 »

Quote from: Pixart on July 25, 2013, 18:57

Let's have this conversation again in 5 years and see where we are at!

that is easy, we will be "talking" to the man who owns the biggest corporation in Europe

Yuri_Arcurs · « **Reply #196 on:** July 25, 2013, 19:04 »

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on July 25, 2013, 18:07

Yuri, my questions:

So if micro is declining what segment of people do you see as having the greatest opportunity for being successful at mobile and in general with stock?

- General public mobile phone users?
- Microstockers who embrace mobile?
- Traditional macro people who embrace mobile?
- Other?

And given all of this seems to be tied to Getty is there any advantage to being an existing Getty contributor?

Us. We are. We will do excellent in the mobile arena. But it is back to "no photoshop" and shooting as is. Which is fun!

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #197 on:** July 25, 2013, 19:04 »

Quote from: gostwyck on July 25, 2013, 18:59

I've sold close to 400K licenses since I started

Aside: You're more than 30% ahead of me you bogger. So I guess you won that long-ago race hands down!

OK, back to the topic, people.

(edited for maths error - honestly - it's very late here!)

Yuri_Arcurs · « **Reply #198 on:** July 25, 2013, 19:05 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on July 25, 2013, 18:46

Thanks for the call, Yuri. And. yes. maybe I am too trenchant sometimes. But I still think you screwed up.

Yes. Good call Paul. Send me your email so I can send you that high res test shots from the upcoming mobile phones. Msg me.

gostwyck · « **Reply #199 on:** July 25, 2013, 19:06 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on July 25, 2013, 18:55

... but we all know that the quality of DSLRs and top end lenses vastly exceeds what is really needed for 99% of stock pictures.

That's not in question but I still don't believe that a phone manufacturer's cheap sensor/lens combo will compare favourably with a quality DSLR & L glass __ which was what Yuri said. I have no doubt that it could easily be 'good enough' for most stock though.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Yuri Arcurs First Public Statement (Read 146126 times)

Yuri_Arcurs

BaldricksTrousers

grsphoto

BaldricksTrousers

Petr Toman

Monty-m-gue

Yuri_Arcurs

PaulieWalnuts

Yuri_Arcurs

BaldricksTrousers

gostwyck

loop

ShadySue

shotupdave

BaldricksTrousers

BaldricksTrousers

ShadySue

luissantos84

Pixart

gostwyck

luissantos84

Yuri_Arcurs

BaldricksTrousers

Yuri_Arcurs

gostwyck

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors