I just canned my FB account. What is really bad is you have to keep it in a deactivated state for 2 weeks before they actually delete it. Like you somehow need a cooling off period in case you really don't mean it. I had enough of watching some "friend" play Farmville.

LOL yeah we have those apps blocked on all our FB accounts. They annoy the crap out of me. I have one personal FB account that I could live without but I'd die without the business ones.

FB is an evil Big Brother system .. I created a new account last year to keep for personal use and before I even added a single friend FB suggested 3 non-immediate relatives that I had no clue were on facebook. It was a tad bit creepy. LOL

Quote from: Xalanx on May 14, 2010, 18:39

Actually MOST of the non-profits organisations have solid funding.

Please quote sources when making emphatic statements like above.

emphatic  ... heh ... I thought he guilelessly enumerated a proverbial statistic .. don't be so lethargic 

that question will vary based on everyones current income level. somebody working at McDonalds or going to school and only working part-time will say hell yeah !!!! others would look at $200 a day as an insult .. some just wouldn't care either way. a lot of lifestyle comes into play too .. how high-maintenance are you? $200 a day might not cut it.

Quote from: Randy McKown on May 10, 2010, 15:21

I've commented before on my business model being structured to use microstock primarily as a means of creating expenses to deduct from my actual studio.

This is pure genius .  Maybe I should open a studio to create expenses to deduct from my microstock business...

You really should open a studio I think you'd do awesome at it .. just stay away from my side of the state line LOL 

You can apply the same thinking to all areas of photography. When I shoot HS Seniors I put the kid first for the first part of the experience .. I grab their attention with images the like, music they like, and other fun stuff. The 2nd part is the sales presentation and that's where I put the parent first .. Big slideshows with images the parent likes, sappy music the parent likes and other psychological stimuli that forces the parent into tears ... Put a parent in tears and they will be quick to throw down a bigger wad of cash. .. You have to think like the buyer .. what do they want? How do you dominate their attention? What forces them to whip out the credit card without thinking twice? ... Same principles apply to stock .. or weddings .. or whatever you're doing

Let me get this straight:

For the record: I have never shot with a ring flash before and I have the following question.

When you take the set-up like in the youtube video posted by Leaf above and you're approx. 12-15 feet away from the model using a flash that has a 15 inch diameter with a hole in the middle, don't you always get nearly the same result as shooting with a regular flash?

My point is, that at this distance, how is it possible for the light (being such a "small" light source) to illumante the model any different than using a speed light mounted on the top of the camera?

Of course the speed light is even a smaller light source but that could be compensated with some MacGyver tricks or using one of those inflatable "softboxes" for the speedlight in order to diffuse it some more/create a larger light source.

I originally though that a ring flash only really shows its characteristics when shooting close-ups and where you can actually see that distinct ring reflection in the eyes or (sun)glasses of the model.

Other than that I wonder how the ring flash makes this shoot or this kind of lighting so special when we consider the distance to the model and the relative size of the light source.

Can anyone chime in on this?

The main thing to keep in mind about this vid is that this guy is making a comparison of a strong light source unit vs. a weak light modifier being bumped to a ridiculous ISO .. kinda a stupid comparison IMO. He's also using the ringflash in the "new trendy" way of using it .. I'm a fashion photographer who stands over a dozen feet back from my client and makes comments about needing to be able to fire a shot every 2 seconds (lame) .. at least he did mention the fact of using it as a fill for full length fashion portraiture because that's the only time it makes sense to use one in that situation. And yeah you're right it makes much more sense to use them in macro work .. after all they were designed specifically for dentists to be able to produce evenly lit flat light images of their patients chompers. You also nailed it on it being used to create the catchlight.

All stock aside ... Ring lighting for portrait clients is much more profitable if done using a continuous light source for maybe 1-3% of the session. A couple fast headshots to show off the catchlights then move on to other things. You can assume a guaranteed sale on a ringlight shot 95% of the time .. but normally only on 1 pose .. so you make it a headshot, fire a couple off and continue on to other things that will produce more sales.

I just don't get why this guy decided to compare this type of flash from such a big distance

Just look at the guys portfolio .. he primarily takes snapshots of celebrities. LOL ... A good lesson that backs up the fact that modern photography is about marketing & location ... everything photography comes in a distant 2nd .. or 3rd .. or hell who knows anymore.

Sorry to disagree with Randy on this one, but I have used white lighting strobes on the beach on several occasions. Just bring a couple of Vagabond II battery packs, some high output beauty dishes and a reflector/diffusion screen & you are good to go. Oh, and it helps to bring an assistant along as well

I was talking about portability and efficiency not just if it could be done or not. A power source and any studio lighting would be fine for something like a beach session because the portability demands are pretty close to just being in the studio anyway. When you start shooting complex locations that offer the diversity of 30-60 unique backgrounds for a single client .. then the standard studio setups do nothing but slow you down which means less final images, less sales, less money, a lot of hassle and an assistant who is just ready to pack it up and go back home. LOL

most common business mistake is to go for big toys that you don't need. 2 100w lights will be more than sufficient .. even if you later move into larger subjects like people. Air cushioned stands are a very wise choice .. doesn't provide functional benefits but it's a great insurance policy to prevent damages. For 99% still life a couple 2'x3' boxes will work in most cases .. full body people will require a larger box at least 4' .. 6' is better .. especially for outfits were skin tone in both legs & upper body needs to equalize. Trigger systems need to be either expensive battery or cheap in-line powered. Cheap battery units tend to miss-fire and create additional expense for batteries. In-Line powered receivers tend to never missfire, never be an inconvenience and never create additional expense.
Look at the price of replacement tubes before buying if you are going to be giving them heavy use. Trendy name brands can often cost you $150 just to replace the tube once it burns out .. Cheaper lights that don't spend their money marketing themselves to have a cool name will cost you maybe $15-25 to replace the tube.

Become a Veer Marketplace contributor, today!
"Did we mention that you can make trillions of dollars by selling your images on Veer Marketplace? That number might be a bit high, but once your images are up on the web site, the sky�s the limit."

LMAO .. yeah right .. ok I'm gonna sign up with them finally just because that made me laugh.

As a follow-up, I was told that I had too many images incorporating my little wooden men as human-stand-ins (regardless of concepts), and that I needed to diversify into other areas. 

So, in summary, I'm in the same boat of being able to use one prop for only one image ... good grief.  Not very realistic, but apparently this is their reality.  I feel sorry for the poor chap that has to cross-reference everyone's files to see if they've submitted any photo with that particular prop.  I try not to use similar names for files (object+date), but maybe I should start naming them via concept instead of subject.

Just looking at the last couple hundred uploads you made on DT it looks like 60-70% of them used the little wooden man. I don't think you are wrong in wanting to make the most of your props in order to increase your profits from an individual expense .. it's a very smart thing to do. However, with DT's new policy your uploads of it are extremely obvious (and basically they are tired of seeing the same prop over and over and over. I would try mixing it up more .. just let those wooden guys sit back on your drive for awhile and upload other things .. then once your little wooden families have been away on vacation have a couple pop in for a surprise visit. In the meantime .. they can sell on other sites. 

Quote from: mantonino on April 19, 2010, 19:10

Quote from: click_click on April 19, 2010, 19:02

I know that he has an account at Alamy but have no idea what pseudonyms he is using. I'm sure he is not so willing to show his RM stuff to a lot of people.

Form Advertising.

http://www.alamy.com/search-results.asp?qt=+form+advertising&submitsearch=Search&st=0&go=1&a=-1&archive=1&size=0xFF&CreativeOn=1&lic=6&lic=1&mr=0&pr=0

and shoosh, both are RF portfolios.

shoosh .. isn't that the name used when all his RF images was uploaded to Alamy as RM and then when people started talking about him trying to pull a sneaky it was changed to RF and noted that an error was made by some third world country uploading company LOL .. Form Advertising sounds like another sweat shop distributer to me.

Does seem kinda odd that he isn't tooting his own horn on where his RM stuff can be viewed.  Why would somebody who had already placed years of getting their name out to build a brand name not better that brand name by saying ok we're bumping things up a notch and here it is. You wouldn't start over from scratch .. goes against business logic .. except in situations where a business runs themselves into the ground and creates a bad name for themselves or if they want to introduce a cheaper lower quality product line .. that's when you brand from scratch .. not the case with Yuri going to RM. So going from uploading 1000+ images a month on a micro level to saying I'm shooting 80% RM but not providing a reference ... isn't that like saying I have a MONSTER portfolio of higher quality images available as RM .. but I'm not going to market it or use my established name to draw any attention to it in order to increase the income stream from the highly profitable images.

Seems extremely odd .. just my opinion.