PC means personal computer (a Mac is a personal computer too)
the difference is between a PC running Windows versus Mac OS

 

Of course you are correct, but you also know that everybody understand PC=Windows comupter and Mac=MacOS X computer.

And you know that the meaning of a word may evolve along with its usage: common usage of "PC" nowadays is for "PC running windows".

My computer at home is a Mac since 1989 and I'm a software engineer and work 8h a day on a PC since 1990.

I cannot tell you exactly why, but overall I would never purchase a PC at home: I just love the "Mac way" of doing things a lot more than the "PC way".

If you really want to decide based on facts, you should avoid to listen to remarks on Macs coming from PC guys: there are too much false ideas (e.g. the one button mouse, hardware compatibility issues or the not enough softwares myths)  

Remember: most Mac users use PC too while most PC users don't know Mac at all.

Ask any Mac user what he thinks about his computer (IMPORTANT: without entering into the Mac vs PC war because then everybody will defend his choice) and then do the same with PC users. I bet 90% of Mac users will tell you they are VERY happy and have a great pleasure using their computer, which is not the case for PC users.

Mac users are most of the time very enthusiastic. Now answer this question: why this difference?

You should try to borrow a Mac or purchase a Mac-mini and play with it for 1 week or so: the first days you will only see the difference with a PC which may be annoying first... and then you will understand  

I would say that you will get no good reason to choose Canon over Nikon or Nikon over Canon: both brands are a good and safe choice and whatever you choose you will have everything you need to do excellent photos.

I've always been a Canon guy but I cannot give you any good reason for that choice... may be I prefer the look of Canon bodies? But this is not a good reason

This is thus a strange situation where you have to choose with no good arguments to help you... but whatever you choose, you win 

When investing in new equipment, it's important to know that maybe 90% of the good image, is directly dependent on the LENS!

I would have said 90% is directly dependant on the photograph 

No doubt, the Canon 24-70 f:2.8 IS the BEST! - Regardless what the reviews of the Sigma or the Tamron lenses say!

I have indeed read a lot of reviews before and I knew that the Canon was the best... but also 3x more expensive.

The Sigma lenses has a reputation for being quite good and quite consistent in quality, these days. Sigma offers low price and "professional" lenses. Please read reviews carefully - and go for the expensive line...

It is the reason why I was considering the Sigma 24-70 too.

So.. this is not to scare you away, but the overall message is this.  There is NO such thing as a CHEAP professional quality lens! 

I agree more or less, but there are cheaper yet very good lenses which are worth considering (e.g. the Canon 50mm 1.8 ).

Later on, you'll proporly regret not investing just a little more in the lens..

It's the reason why as I wrote in my previous message I've ordered the Canon 24-70 

Thanks for your input!

Thank you Araminta. You have plenty of great isolation shots in your portfolio. Were they done with hot shoe flash units?

What I am worried about is that if I go this route with the 430EX's and 580EX, then in the future if I start trying larger projects such as groups of people, I will have to start from scratch buying equipment.

I am not going to buy anything until I get my payouts for the month of December, so I have a bit of time to decide.

Thank you very much for the input.

Thanks!

I've just purchased "serious" lighting material... most of my isolations until now have been done with basic continuous halogen lights (or are 3D images) 

But I don't miss the 2500W and 35�C and I'm very happy with my 4 hot shoe flashes now!

If you expect to shoot larger groups of people later, you don't have to buy everything from scratch I think: you can add one, then two studio flash units and still use the hot shoe flashes (e.g. as a fill light).

And if you go now with a basic studio kit with low power studio flash, you may still need to purchase more powerful units if you really need to shoot large groups anyway.

What I like a lot with hot shoe flashes is that you won't hesitate to take with you your lighting equipment wherever you are and you do not need any power supply if you have enough spare AA batteries.

There is a difference between using a 3d character in a scene, and duplicating the pose, position and camera angle, which is what this seems to be.

I had someone almost exactly duplicate one of my 3d images on iStock, and I was able to have it removed.  This is one reason I don't do a lot of 3d anymore.

I agree, this is probably plagiarism in this case. But removing a portfolio should not depend on how many degrees you have between the subject and the camera or the color of the character.

Microstock sites do encourage plagiarism somehow by telling contributors to have a look at the "most downloaded" list to know what sell and I would say this is part of the business.

This is a "gray zone" and it is quite difficult to define a limit between what is acceptable and what is not.

EF 28-105 f3.5-4.5 USM II is not bad lens at all.

The Sigma 18-200 f3-5-6.3 is not a bad lens either, and I have it already 

I really want a lens which give me something new for studio / indoor / portrait photography and a fast high quality 24-70 would better fit my needs IMHO.

But thanks for your input!

Thanks for your advices!

I was not considering Tamron indeed and I will have a look at the 17-50, but I think a 24-70 would better fit my needs here especially as I already have a 10-20.

And I agree, as picture quality is more important for me than built quality, the Sigma 24-70 is probably a better quality/price lens than the Canon 24-70 as 1/3 the price would require the Canon to be 3x better than the Sigma which it is not I guess.

And as soon as I don't know what to do with my extra money, I will purchase a Canon 5D Mark II with the Canon 24-70 and a Canon 70-200/2.8 

Quote from: araminta on December 04, 2008, 17:23

Silhouettes are quite often young and sexy women in various studio poses: do you really think that ALL vector artists which have hundreds of different silhouettes in their portfolio are also photographers and hire so many different models to shoot only references for their vector tracing and do not try to also produce stock photos which would sell a lot?

Why do you think taking a shot of your girlfriend or mate and vectorizing it is so impossible. After all, while looking at silhouette, you don't know if that person is young, sexy, if there was proper light or proper studio conditions. You see only outline.

Outlines can be more or less sexy I would say 

And please, read me carefully: I never say it is impossible to vectorize your girlfriend. But have a look at the link I give as an illustration: those vector artists should have dozens of different girlfriends as well as dozen of different (boy)friends (for businessman silhouettes) and have enough time to shoot all those peoples in so many different poses and then trace them all... which is definitively POSSIBLE.

Getting reference images from google search is also very possible and a lot easier.

I just think that SOME (not ALL) vector artists choose the easiest way even if it is also the forbidden way.

Do you think that this is not possible?

My point is that getting this material for silhouettes is easy and fast, and it's very easy to believe that these guys with tons of silhouettes have their own source material to work from. If they are uploading to istock, they have to have it. I'm a bit surprised that everyone wants to call these guys thieves without having any reason to doubt the legitimacy of their work.

Of course you are correct: it is easy to believe that many vector artists use their own references for silhouettes.

But this thread concern one vector artist who trace some vegetables from copyrighted photos: everybody call him a thief  because it was obvious that he use photos from another artist as references. It was a mistake, but if you look at his portfolio (which has been disabled at StockXpert now), he has only a few stolen images amongs many quite nice vectors.

When reading this thread, I was just surprised how easy it was to call somebody a thief because he has used a few copyrighted references while it is quite obvious to me that some "silhouette artists" do the same.

And if IS now require the source to be given when uploading traced vectors it may be because they have the same opinion.

It may be the reason why a search on IS with the keywords "silhouette women group vector" return 115 images while the same search on SS return 4000 results 

Why is it so unbelievable that someone would shoot photos just as reference material? Maybe some people have good shots of people walking in profile, suitable for a nice silhouette, but the rest of the photo isn't suitable for stock? Or the overall size of the image is too small for stock?

You you read at my post carefully, you will see that I never said that all vector artists are thefts. I'm quite sure that most actually shoot photos as references. But I also suspect that some don't.

Silhouettes are quite often young and sexy women in various studio poses: do you really think that ALL vector artists which have hundreds of different silhouettes in their portfolio are also photographers and hire so many different models to shoot only references for their vector tracing and do not try to also produce stock photos which would sell a lot?

I have some doubt, but I may indeed be wrong.

Concerning your vectors, I don't understand why you take my remark for yourself as you have only one or two silhouette in your portfolio 

So I passed the test and started uploading pics and the 1st one was rejected :

I though DPI were not important

 "Hi, I really like this, but we would need it in 300dpi. We will be taking smaller files later on, but not quite yet. Be great to see it in a larger size!"

Thank you,

The moodboard team

WOW... they seems not to understand what dpi are and that dpi is not related to the file size