Quote from: Yuri_Arcurs on February 22, 2009, 20:45
To be honest. This is not great lighting. Easy o make: Lots of overhead diffused light and a white floor! There you go

Thanks for honesty Yuri.
You are a wise man... which is not easy while being a superstar

Amazing video. You can see in the info that it took 30 hours to complete it.

Oh same old bulls.it everytime... "Shutterstock does this Shutterstock does that. Oh subs are bad..."

I know what Shutterstock does: They made me thousands of dollars... and I am very grateful to them. Istock fanboys have to pay me a lot of money in order to convince me...

Get a life. Get paid. Don't waste your time in meaningless discussions...

Yes exactly. I've never meant to "devalue" microstock. At the end of the day we would all like to be "best sellers" if we could.

Being a "best seller" is a very hard job...

Quote from: RT on January 16, 2009, 20:16
I see this thread has turned personal about whether or not you like Yuri's style of photography, I don't think it's fair to select another persons images and pull them apart if they didn't start the thread.

Whether you like that style of photography is subjective, and I imagine the reason Yuri hasn't stepped in and said something is that he probably doesn't give a t**s what anybody here thinks, and quite rightly so.

I think you are being unfair (to me at least:) There is nothing to discuss about Yuri's talents. He IS the number one microstocker: There is nothing to argue about it but the subject is not that.

We were simply talking about lighting. That's all...

The fact that some mediocre images sell well (including mines and yours and Yuri's) does not make them "good images". You may be right about my "definitive" judgment about the first post and I am ready to apologize if needed but even if you think with Yuri's or microstock standards these samples are not well chosen. I saw many images by Yuri and these are far from being his best (I am almost sure he would agree)

Quote from: nexusseven on January 16, 2009, 16:43
This is called "flat lighting" in many books and the lack of shadows (or say the total elimination of shadows) is generally considered responsible for the lack of depth, texture and form in an image. Even first grade Film Tv or Photography students know this.

You are correct to say "generally", but as you are also a microstocker with many isolations in your portfolio I guess you know that microstock buyers do not look for the same kind of photo as art galleries.

I like myself macro a lot and I've done some nice macro shots I think, but my milk box on white which is just a mediocre piece of art do sell 100x more than my nice macro. Would you tell me to stop shooting milk boxes and go with macro instead?

If I am not mistaken the poster said "these are great lighting examples"... but they simply are NOT. This has nothing to do with my portfolio or yours.

About my portfolio (I wouldn't like to discuss it in an open forum but anyway!) I think I have a very mediocre portfolio BUT then again it sells well (from my point of view for sure).

Thanks for clarification and more constructive attitude btw...

best.

Quote from: araminta on January 16, 2009, 10:48

Quote from: nexusseven on January 16, 2009, 00:23
These are very mediocre lighting examples. Are you sure you want to achieve this effect?


Huh...

We are in the microstock business and this is the kind of lighting buyers want.

But I'm interested in knowing the difference you see between Yuri's "mediocre" lighting and your supposedly a lot better lighting you use for your isolations.

I didn't like the tone of your comment. I did not say "my" lighting is better than anyone (includes Yuri). Your remark is hostile and counter productive but then again I will try to explain my argument.

This is called "flat lighting" in many books and the lack of shadows (or say the total elimination of shadows) is generally considered responsible for the lack of depth, texture and form in an image. Even first grade Film Tv or Photography students know this.

And the lack of these elements generally creates an ineffective image (I say "generally")

Best.

These are very mediocre lighting examples. Are you sure you want to achieve this effect?

I totally agree. I stopped uploading to istock since october. It just doesn't worth the effort... Shutterstock makes 5 times more and much easy to upload.

I think Istock wants only exclusive contributors in the long run.

I make consistently four times more than what I do on Istock... Shutterstock is much better for me but exclusivity in Istock is different I guess...

They are not "spoiled children" because they want "unfiltered" images. They are so because they are TOTALLY inconsistent about what they want.

I totally agree and I seriously hate their review mentality. What . does "overfiltered from its original appearence" mean?

What is "original appearance"... How do they define it?

They are like spoiled children.

I think my post was incomplete but I never said I have a solution for vectors. I was referring to photography and my solution still stands for it. Anyway no agency would go for it because it would decrease their income and increase traffic.

PS: By the way selling vectors for .25 never looked like a good idea to me

Yes. because vectors ARE actually some kind of RAW...

Please correct me if I am wrong but there is a simple way to prevent images from being stolen: Agency should require RAW file for every image but not put it online for sale.

I don't know if it's possible to replicate RAW from jpegs but if not, this would be the only solution. But then again I think agencies don't care enough about theft. They earn the same amount so probably they don't care...