That sort of equipment is more suited to sites like Alamy than MS. I wouldn't feel threatened by it in the slightest as the files are far too big and take up too much bandwidth to be even worth the time or effort.

But perfect for client work as we also use the Mamiya ZD.

It's not only 80 000$ of equipment...it's 80 000$ + about 50 000$ for all the people who work whit him too. I don't know if this is for a month or a year but this guy is one of the hundred in the world who have that much equipment and people behind him.

He is also probably one of the only one who is selling at microstock. Seem to not be a waste of time even if he is that much talented. However in my opinion, microstock will probably stay for the microphotographer even if there's huge monster whit hasselblad who can scan your brain and take pictures through the clothes...

But at the same time, microstock seem to want that when we take pictures of wildlife for example, we capture the animal, give him some soporific pills and take the picture whit 4 high power lights over white whit 3 superb ladies who are making faces for background. Have to think about the 3 days of photoshoping needed to make the file accepted.

Just kidding a bit here, but since I started 6 months ago (not very long), I was taking 20 min. to photoshop, now it's taking me between 45 min to 1 hour 1/4 to make sure the file have a chance to be accepted. Much harder now ,that's sure.

Gee suddenly my Canon 1Ds Mark II seems like an "Kodak insta-matic"

I see even Yuri gets rejections, certainly makes me feel better about the 40% rejections I get at IS!

Quote from: CCK on December 28, 2007, 23:01

I see even Yuri gets rejections, certainly makes me feel better about the 40% rejections I get at IS!

HA HA!  Yeah!!

However, now IStock can have no excuse for rejecting his Hassy photos for noise, pixelation, or artifacting, I think.  They'll have to come up with something more creative.  Perhaps "This photo is much too clear, sharp, and noise-free for our library."

How about "no camera can produce this clear photos, it must be computor generated"!

 Cropping images to squares for better search results is easily accomplished with the larger file size.

Can you explain that a bit more please? SY

Quote from: iofoto on December 29, 2007, 01:04

 Cropping images to squares for better search results is easily accomplished with the larger file size.

Can you explain that a bit more please? SY

Sure, the square image fills more of the space allotted for a thumbnail. A square thumbnail appears larger than a corresponding vertical or horizontal and attracts the customer's eye. A square crop doesn't work for every image and takes some extra effort- however, a square crop is a good technique for varying the look of your portfolio within the search results.

Ellen Boughn at Dreamstime blogged about composition and the merits of using a square frame - read it by going here.

I had some experiences with the 22MP Hasselblad digital back (the CF-22 linked to a Mamiya RZ 67 for the sake of precision) and the quality was outstanding.

I'm dubious just about one thing, alas the complete absence of digital noise.
There is some in the shadows using the CF-22, as neither Hasselblad can defy the laws of phisic.

22 MP (4080 x 5440 pixels) on a 36.7 x 49.0 mm sensor are not that much more spaced than in a Nikon D3 for example and 39 MP on the same sized sensor would lead to some more noise for sure. Probably they enhanced the cooling of the sensor as the CF-22 is very prone to heating (it is cooled by a fan to minimize the problem).

This tidbit of information just to keep you all from commiting crazy acts like selling your wife to grab this toy tomorrow 

Yep that's impressive.
He is doing RM as well, although i have never found wich image/agency. He kept it secret. 

Now could it be possible that he got his blad... free??? i mean he got so much exposure that i wouldn't be surprise that " Hasselblad" gives one in return for " advertisement"....... kind of sponsoring 

Happy new year 2008.......... now let me check my lottery tickets 

Here is the SS post that this thread is about. http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=30399&highlight=yuri+arcurs+check+cheque

Did he get the Hasselblad for free?: I can�t discus my sponsorship with Hasselblad in financial details because I am not allowed. Sorry. I will however say that I am very happy for the agreement�.very happy�.

To IOFoto: Try the new H3D-II-39 and not the H3D-39 and all your problems (�speeddial to hassy tech� etc.) will be over. The new Hasselblad back uses the exact same sensor as the older Phase one model, but it is streamlined with the Hasselblad housing and works without any problems at all. The old versions where a pain to work with and I have spent endless hours just restarting computers and trying to actually connect the camera to the computer. (Worked on a H2D-39, as you can see on my exif data on older files) The new version is much better; in fact I would say it�s a completely new experience.

Workflow: Yes it is a doubling or a �tripling� of workflow. The files are 250% percent bigger and the RAW files are 800-1000% percent larger then canons. However, simultaneously to switching to Hasselblad workflow, we upgraded our entire IT department. Four new quad macs, new server, new network and new laptops. The workflow is probably 250% bigger, but our total IT capacity experienced a must bigger facelift, so the total workflow is actually faster today. Loading and saving a 39mp Tiff file from our server into a workstation takes less then a second.

Real problems:
Size limitations both in mega pixel and in mega byte on microstock agencies are really a pain and becoming increasingly irritating.
Customers starting to download a full res, but when finding out that the full res is 20 or more mb he/she cancels the download and regrets. (this is mostly a problem on SS and StockXpert).
Memory allocation maximum in Photoshop due to being a 32bit software is really a problem.

Benefits:
Unmatched quality. Canon files look overfiltred and �pressed to the maximum� compared to Hasselblad files. Very clean and natural looking files with great skin tones. Skin tones are brown and not yellow or saturated looking.
Cropping space such as IOFoto mentioned. A very nice feature allowing us to crop almost completely as we wish and still have a high res image as end result.
The pictures we produce today will still be high res in five years or more from now.
No fringing removal.
No �canon jeggies� in hairlines and sharp files that needs blurring away.
No noise�none.
Better focus � Almost no files lost due to being out of focus.
High shutterspeeds with flash � up to 500/1 sec with no problem.
Easy uncompressed upload to Alamy, no need for upsizing.
Easy and functional direct shooting onto our servers.

well despite all our grumbling and complaining I don't think too many of us would turn down a Hassleblad offer