|
MicrostockGroup Sponsors
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Perry
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 14 ... 57
201
« on: April 18, 2013, 14:22 »
If i calculated correctly, a 200Ws Strobe should be around 4x as strong as an average Speedlight. is that round about right??? 
It's about right. Speedlights and studio strobes aren't directly comparable, all depends on reflectors and light beam angles and such, but I'd say speedlights are in the 50Ws... 80Ws area, depending on make and model. But using speedlights at full effects is quite painful with long recycling times and battery consumption, while the same done with mains operated strobes are very easy  Maybe a combination of one 200Ws unit and one 400Ws unit would be a perfect start? Just remember that when you are buying strobes, you are buying a "system", remember to choose wisely. Bowens has a decent range of accessories, and there is also a big market of 3rd party accessories. Don't buy strobes of an unknown brand, you will be sorry later. Have you looked at used gear? Well kept 5...10 year old units are completely usable but will cost only a fraction of the price of new ones.
202
« on: April 18, 2013, 13:46 »
I used to shoot with 2 x 200 Ws when I started. It's perfectly fine for objects, for fill lights and accents. But don't try to use them as main light for people. Not even for one, You mean 200Ws isn't enough for shooting one person? I have to disagree with you on this one. Of course it all depends on light modificator and distances, but I'd say you can shoot a person using a 1 meter softbox 2 meters away with 200Ws and 100 ISO and about f/8... disagree?
203
« on: April 18, 2013, 13:36 »
If you like to shoot images using big apertures, you should buy strobes that are adjustable to small effects. Those Bowens 400Ws go down 5 stops (25Ws....400Ws). The 200Ws version goes down to 12Ws. 25Ws is a plenty, propably like a speedlight on 1/4 or 1/2 effect. There is some difference between different brands and models. For example Elinchrom 300RX is 9Ws...300Ws and 600RX is 18Ws...600Ws. Cheaper Elinchroms are not as versatile. Profoto D1 500 goes from 7.8Ws to 500Ws, I'd like that You can always fake a smaller power setting by setting some ND filter gel in front of the flashes, but It's not as convenient as having a smaller power setting available. 200Ws is a plenty if you are used to small battery flashes and are using large-ish apertures and/or in a small room. But if you need to bounce light from the ceilings, use ISO 100 and f/16, then you need as much effect as possible, in worst cases thousands of wattseconds. I don't think you can go very wrong with either (Bowens 200Ws or 400Ws), just buy a set and you'll soon learn if your next strobes need to be smaller or bigger, you'll need to buy more strobes anyway soon (I have 12 units  )
204
« on: April 09, 2013, 05:13 »
I think in Microstock you do have to set production goals.
I did have some strict production goals earlier, but nowdays I don't. Strict production goals don't allow to make images with high production value and quality. To make 100 images and get $10 per image (=$1000) isn't as rewarding as to make 10 images and get $100 per image (=$1000), I have noticed. Working without strict production goals allows me to work on some more complex images that doesn't have as much competition. Of course I also do run-of-the-mill shoots, but they are only a part of my production. Don't get me wrong, I have some monthly production goals, just to make sure I produce at least something
205
« on: March 29, 2013, 04:56 »
Very nice, Veer, they seem to take care of their customers by offering refunds for files their client doesn't need or want anymore. That way they will get the customer return to them in their next project.
If someone wants to steal/pirate images, there are many easier ways than buying extended license images and asking for a refund.
Of course from a photographer's standpoint this sucks.
206
« on: March 18, 2013, 07:00 »
"If approved, these files will compete against each other for downloads thus diluting your sales"
They should include checkboxes: Do you care if your files compete against eachother? ( ) Yes ( ) No
207
« on: February 26, 2013, 01:24 »
I currently submit to four sites, and my royalties on iStock is twice the amount collected on the three other sites.
What are the sites you are submitting to?
208
« on: February 16, 2013, 08:53 »
There are as many talented amateur photographers with proper equipment and amazing images, as there are professional photographers that cant produce more then the average snapshot and have no clue about what they are doing. Pro and amateur says nothing these days. I have to disagree. If a pro photographer has managed to make a living for years, his/her images must have some qualities his/her customers want and need. Of course being a pro photographer 50% is photography and 50% business. But without the "business" there isn't photography. I personally don't know any full-time professional photographer that have been in the business for years and delivers only (bad) snapshots. Do you, really? There are plenty of good amateurs too, but they are free to shoot anything they want and only show the good images. A pro must always deliver, even if the subjects and conditions are far from ideal. I'm a pro. In my opinion 50% of my work sucks, 5% are good images and 45% are "OK". If I was an amateur I would have the freedom to show only the best 5%. Still, even my worst 50% have been "usable" images.
209
« on: February 09, 2013, 06:31 »
-- double post, sorry --
210
« on: February 09, 2013, 06:28 »
If only it was that easy! I have been at iStock for 8 years, I have a portfolio of 4000+ images and a weekly income of 4 figures. My income is rising too, not reaching what it was 2 years ago or so, but rising. I know from others experience that giving up exclusivity would mean an immediate large drop in income of up to 75%. Yes, I can definitely understand your side of the story too. Your main problem is that you should have quit exclusivity a long time ago, before you had become too dependent on microstock income (I quit exclusivity back in 2006). Of course thinking about the past doesn't help here...
211
« on: February 09, 2013, 05:54 »
Many people rely on their IS income to pay their rent and mortgage and feed their family. If my income from there was cut off with 30 days notice it would be a disaster
Then why do you insist to have your "all eggs in one basket" ? Why not want to secure your income and spread the risks if you are depending on microstock income?
212
« on: February 05, 2013, 18:47 »
The single most annoying thing is the poor sales. If I sold 10X more images (measured in $$$) I wouldn't care a bit about the small annoyances.
213
« on: February 03, 2013, 15:15 »
Min oon tehnyt tt ainoastaan "individualina", mutta tosiaan toiminimi kytss, voi olla eri asia kuin ky. Kirjanpitjn mukaan ei ole mitn ongelmaa niin kauan kun kaikki tulee firman tilille ja maksan verot Ehk kirjanpitjsi osaa auttaa tss asiassa?
214
« on: January 16, 2013, 17:54 »
Can you please post an example of a rejected image?
215
« on: January 14, 2013, 16:43 »
15) We are introducing a new tiered royalty system based on your sales...
16) We are introducing new products...
17) We are introducing new distribution partners...
216
« on: January 14, 2013, 07:47 »
What? You mean just shoot it in a pool? What sort of fun is that? 
I would have shot it in studio, but I would have known how to light it in a similar fashion without testing (I'm not very impressed by the results). I would have also shot it in medium format digital with a tilt lens, no need for 8x10" here. Renting a real pool would also have been an option, I have no clue why they would have wanted to shoot the image using a particular pool.
217
« on: January 14, 2013, 07:32 »
I think I could have made this shot in 10% of the time and 3% of money they used here.
218
« on: January 07, 2013, 16:14 »
I would upload to Veer
219
« on: January 04, 2013, 16:34 »
don't think they are more fancy than Sandisk
I just meant the "Elite Pro"-name, sounds kind of expensive, but aren't
220
« on: January 04, 2013, 13:54 »
I always format my card (using my camera). I haven't got any clue why this would be harmful to the card(?)
221
« on: January 04, 2013, 07:36 »
I have thought about quitting many times. Here is what has helped me:
- Have a break, don't do anything stock related in a month or so. Don't even plan any future shoots or check stats.
- Ramp up your photo quality, concepts/subjects and production speed. That way your sales will eventually get higher. More images with more demand and better quality will equal in more dollars. Of course the total amount of produced images is not necessary the key, but the faster you are to shoot and edit, the better hourly wage you get. Be your hardest critic, just to get the quality up. To get the quality up do what is necessary: study more, test shoot, buy equipment etc.
- The sites have already millions of images. I have found out that nowdays I get best sales from images that are somewhat hard to produce, may require special props, location, shooting skills and/or editing. Generic shots seem to get buried (there are of course some lucky exceptions).
222
« on: January 04, 2013, 07:06 »
In eight years I have had only one complete card failure (Sandisk). Nowdays I use Kingston Elite Pro cards - they have a fancy name, but are quite affordable and reliable, I have ten 16GB cards of various ages and speeds and zero failure.
Maybe it's me being old and been used to expensive film, but I think people are saving in wrong places. Many have a camera bag with $3000 worth of equipment, but they still think spending $300 for a set of memory cards is steep. In the good old days that would have been less than what a hobbyist would have spent in films and processing in just a year...
223
« on: January 04, 2013, 05:32 »
Cards are cheap nowdays... On a trip, I usually use one 16GB card for each day of the trip. In the evening I will change the cards (even if the card had much room left) and put the ready one in the hotel room's safe. Even if my camera bag was stolen, I still would have my images. And if one card fails, I lose only one day's photos.
I also try to delete as little images as possible, deleting images may cause fragmentation and make the card less salvable if something went wrong.
224
« on: December 31, 2012, 10:05 »
What happens in the middle of a paid shoot if the expensive lights fail? What does the customer think?
The real pro has at least one extra light. I have had a couple of Elinchroms (not expensive, I'd say they are mid-range) that have failed during shoot. When they have failed, I have just changed it to a working one and the shooting has continued. The customers think I am professional because I have been prepared to some minor failures. I also carry around an extra camera house, and when the shoot is very important and I already know what focal lens I will use I sometimes have even a spare lens in the same range.
It's not professional to have all the latest new and shiny gizmos. It's about getting the job done and making some usable images.
You can have an cheap extra light as well. This was not about being pro, but about cheap against expensive gear.
Well, it became about being pro after the word "customer" was brought to the conversation
225
« on: December 31, 2012, 07:49 »
The real expense of lighting equipment isn't the purchase price. It's more like: Expense = Purchase price - reparations - selling price.
If you buy crappy gear from a suspicious brand for $500, you can sell them for $100 or $0 (if they break)
If you buy better gear for $1000, you might sell them for $600 (if they break, they might be worth repairing, there are spare parts available etc.)
If you buy used better gear for $600, you might get $400 when you sell them
When you buy studio gear (especially strobes), you should think of it as buying a system. If you need light modifiers to some obscure system you might not find any. Or you don't find the thing you need. You would'n buy an obscure brand DSLR either if it had some strange bayonet and a lacking range of accessories?
I think buying used (good quality-) gear is a good option. If it's professional equipment with really light use, they will last very long. Hobbyists doesn't really know how much use good flashes can endure (I'm guessing some of my older Swiss made Elinchroms from 2005 have popped at least 100 000 times, with only one failure, and that was a minor one, replaced power switch). Just remember not to buy really old stuff, anything 2000-> should be good.
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 14 ... 57
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
