pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Zymm rejections  (Read 35477 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

zymmetricaldotcom

« Reply #75 on: December 30, 2008, 13:23 »
0
FD, I  have not (even though I would have liked to since you are a tech guy yourself and can understand what the heck I am talking about better than most) even had the time to reply to your post on our forum because this is a top priority and we are working all out on a fix.  It is a database issue and the problem is understood, it is a matter of plowing through the code and making the update.   Please don't spend time waiting for painfully slow loads, it will be fixed soon.


Milinz

« Reply #76 on: December 30, 2008, 15:20 »
0
Sorry guys,

I was busy with my regular workflow so I am a bit late with my answer on topic.

I see my post in this forum pushed quite a few big waves - hapilly not a tsunami ;-)

http://www.fotolia.com/id/7394209

Is rejected image downloaded on other agency by similar client group as zymmetrical has. Mostly byers from Germany and EU countries as I know.

On the image are not saussages or similar... That are cevapcici! If you don't know what is that, it is adviseable to see this link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C4%86evapi

To continue my reasons:

As you already said in our PM exchange before I've started to upload that you like small batches... I've uploaded 26 photos which are on-line on almost all agencies and have keyworded just 3 of them - I've put 4 images as batch on review with one intentionaly left unkeyworded...

Here is why I think your reviewers failed:

1. They've rejected simple, plain stock image of white wedding rose with gold shimmer on it and copy space on the left side.  Reason given for rejection is out of clear logic due to that there is not a single one similar image on other agencies except just that one which is mine. Maybe it is not a perfect shot but it is unique shot!

2 & 3. Composition rejection is quite understandable for many, but I beleive that your reviewers like more space around grilling cevapcici or better formed main subject on that grill. Maybe they would like to see something more creative as 'GRILL' word on that grill made of cevapcici or what? Again, it is plain simple doccu stock image of cevapcici on grill and nothing more... That image is for cook books and magazines - it is just about how cevapcici are grilled during grilling ;-) It is not masterpiece and that image has good composition!

4. Image rejected - WOW! They did something right! Sure, I hoped that image No.4 will be rejected due to that I did not made keywords right.
If with some mirracle they happen to accepted that image No. 4, my decision would be the same - I don't let my images to be represented by amateurs. Zymmetrical is not so much amateur agency and that is good.

After I saw that rejections, I've mailed my reasons and deleted all remaining photos I've had uploaded.

@Iriz: No dude... I have my ego burried long time ago... But, still there is no logic in this rejections! I really don't care if I don't get some images approved on some agencies, but my choice for first batch was selection of images for MID and TRADITIONAL stock agencies quality, composition and all other segments some image must have to be marketable there... Also, that images are not sellers on microstock agencies - they sell ONLY AS extended licences or ON-DEMAND and not a single one as subscription! Logic tells that something what is not selling on micros would sell on MID/TRADITIONAL or nowhere ;-) Since that images already have proved that they are marketable, I think zymmetrical reviewers have made a mistake of not knowing their terrain (or to say buyers and possible market) which I am not ready to forgive.

This is industry with army of people involved and some of us are long time profesionals or amateurs. My first job is CEO in marketing/advertising agency which means I should have some know-how ;-)
I use camera since 1978. Also, I do design from scratch and create illustrations since 1992. Many companies carry logos that I've made as well as they have complete corporate identity which I've created or have lead team which did the job. Wacom tablet and free hand drawing are my extra skills and I can draw anything I wish or you request! That is all about my ego ;-) I'd better say that I am aware of my capabilies and my knowledge and expirience than that my ego worked in this case.

So, I doubt I can learn composition better than that zymmetrical reviewer who did not liked my composition ;-) I shoot as I see something - there are very rare examples when I use crop to extend compositon on my images and that is mostly because I wanted it on square format from begining. It is all there when I press the camera shutter button. If they made some other explanation about that rejection I'd maybe stay with them - this way I feel I am too old for such young agency and don't have time to bother with such issues as composition by the taste of reviewer.

So, after thinking and rethinking... I will stick with other three mid-stock agencies where I contribute and they have quite more understanding for my creative works.

Happy New Year to all!

Milinz

« Reply #77 on: December 30, 2008, 16:05 »
0

Food stying shots are difficult, and meat shots the most difficult to make look truly appetizing, since they're not fresh and vibrant like fruits and veggies, or homey and enticing like soups or pasta dishes. Therefore, meat shots need a lot of work to make them look like anything other than what they are: flesh. These particular shots are not very well-composed: parts of the subjects are cut off, there is no interesting angle (often a must in food photography to keep it from looking like a take-out menu), and they're somewhat flat and just a bit dim. Take a look at food magazines to see how they style their shots, and at successful, stylish food photographers' portfolios online, learn from the best, and strive to become one of the best if food photography is what you really want to do.

I am still waiting for someone to present me with a business plan based around an agency that simply runs a script to approve files based on whether they exist on some other agencies inventory on the net.  I can have the script drawn up in a few hours, you just make the pitch. ;)         With the money saved kicking out those pesky Reviewers we can all take a nice south seas vacation.

As for this rejection reason, first your reviewer should see LIVE what is on the picture and then say that about 'flat', 'dim' and 'cut-off' - this is nothing except a pure ignorancy!
As for perception of particular reviewer - he should know that when something is grilling it could not look so much appetizing ;-) It was not served on portion as some 'trendy' image... But, you can check with Turks, Bosnians, Serbs, or Croats is this appetizing enough for them... I think it is because even I had buyers from Greece for this one ;-)

About your joke: Maybe you should kick some who think that know something they really don't have a clue about :-)

[edit] some typing errors handled
« Last Edit: December 30, 2008, 16:09 by Milinz »

« Reply #78 on: December 31, 2008, 00:39 »
0
It is a database issue and the problem is understood

It is always a database problem in cases of server load and scaling. I wouldn't like to be in your shoes ;-)
Quite unnoticed on the DT forums: a DT tech guy explained why they had to remove some features for the comfort of the contributor (like contributor's name) on the popup thumbs because of the additional load of it, and they preferred to have a snappier experience for the buyer.

On the ZYM forum I already questioned the practice of exporting the keywords database to the full submission overview page, per thumb. Every time you tick a box next to the thumb to be submitted, all keywords are presented in a table. Imagine the database load of doing that. You could do this on a separate "edit keywords" page for that thumb and keep the general submission page lean and clean. Volume uploaders in general have their keywords right and all that has to be done is attaching a MRF (and picking a category, which we all hate) et voil.

Good luck spending your New Year crawling through code ;-)

zymmetricaldotcom

« Reply #79 on: January 01, 2009, 14:08 »
0
As for this rejection reason, first your reviewer should see LIVE what is on the picture and then say that about 'flat', 'dim' and 'cut-off' - this is nothing except a pure ignorancy!
As for perception of particular reviewer - he should know that when something is grilling it could not look so much appetizing ;-) It was not served on portion as some 'trendy' image... But, you can check with Turks, Bosnians, Serbs, or Croats is this appetizing enough for them... I think it is because even I had buyers from Greece for this one ;-)

Ok new years behind (well still have a bit of a headache ouch) now back onto the theme of sausage aesthetics. ;)     I think the point is, there's no good or bad photo. It's just some pixels. Technical 'quality' in stock is related to market expectations - in our case, our core clientele are larger agencies who are prepared to spend more (in cases where they have dabbled in microstock already), or less (as opposed to using traditional RM). In either case, yes we do have more selective in submission selections. This means we need to accept only the photos that 'pop'.  If there is even a hint of violation of widely accepted technical standards, then we cannot accept.   

No one is questioning your experience as an Art Director, etc. I think we have established that Zymmetrical Reviewers do an excellent job as part of our overall business unit and while it's possible, it's pretty unlikely they make a rogue decision - we are constantly updating and reviewing ourselves to ensure the agencies growth path, which is steered by Editorial policies, is balanced. 

We will never turn down an offer to discuss rejections, as for example in this exchange with you we learned the sausages in your rejected pics are a local style that may appear to be overcooked or not so pretty in nature compared to how that food typically looks in North American culture, but that's how they are expected to be. Having this piece of info now, could influence reviews of that subject matter in the future (file under S for Sausages).    This unique factor does not however trump the other issues mentioned with the 2 rejected images. 

You say 'this is an image for cookbooks', has it actually been published and if so i'd love to see the context (or if you know where your other buyers used it).  I am not meaning that as a challenge i'm just genuinely curious as to your extreme faith in those 2 shots.


zymmetricaldotcom

« Reply #80 on: January 01, 2009, 14:12 »
0
p.s. Site slowdown problem was fixed, some rogue code related to the new site cosmetic makeover and not a general system design flaw- we are expanding rapidly and have the technical base to accommodate the future. Apologies for any frustrations experienced.

Milinz

« Reply #81 on: January 01, 2009, 20:16 »
0

Ok new years behind (well still have a bit of a headache ouch) now back onto the theme of sausage aesthetics. ;)     I think the point is, there's no good or bad photo. It's just some pixels. Technical 'quality' in stock is related to market expectations - in our case, our core clientele are larger agencies who are prepared to spend more (in cases where they have dabbled in microstock already), or less (as opposed to using traditional RM). In either case, yes we do have more selective in submission selections. This means we need to accept only the photos that 'pop'.  If there is even a hint of violation of widely accepted technical standards, then we cannot accept.   

No one is questioning your experience as an Art Director, etc. I think we have established that Zymmetrical Reviewers do an excellent job as part of our overall business unit and while it's possible, it's pretty unlikely they make a rogue decision - we are constantly updating and reviewing ourselves to ensure the agencies growth path, which is steered by Editorial policies, is balanced. 

We will never turn down an offer to discuss rejections, as for example in this exchange with you we learned the sausages in your rejected pics are a local style that may appear to be overcooked or not so pretty in nature compared to how that food typically looks in North American culture, but that's how they are expected to be. Having this piece of info now, could influence reviews of that subject matter in the future (file under S for Sausages).    This unique factor does not however trump the other issues mentioned with the 2 rejected images. 

You say 'this is an image for cookbooks', has it actually been published and if so i'd love to see the context (or if you know where your other buyers used it).  I am not meaning that as a challenge i'm just genuinely curious as to your extreme faith in those 2 shots.




Pixels? Do you have any reviewer there who knows what was dark room, film and photo paper? You know: that what looks like lab and you must first use some chemicals under red light bulb to see what you've taken on that film? All in photography is about light capture... After that comes all other segments as composition of subject and distance from it ;-)

I am sorry, but it seems that you don't beleive that image is pure example of cevapcici and published already and it is too funny to do so ;-)
I don't need to prove anything here except that same client group as zymmetrical clients downloaded it 3 times with Extended Licences from pointed site as visible in download mark on example. Also there are few (I've checked upon your question) on-line cook-books with recipes illustrated with that image ;-) It would not be under terms and conditions if I uncover extended licences from Fotolia, as well as I really don't have a clue for some other sites because they don't provide data about that to contributors.

But, to assure others here is web size downloaded from istockphoto published on German language site (Austira): http://www.ichkoche.at/Cevapcici-Kroatien/rezepte/detail/html/93283

By the way how would react some author if he put beautiful black lady photo on review and after rejection someone talk about model like that is a Cow or Monkey? Learn something: Read link about cevapcici (not saussages) I've provided to wikipedia in my essay :-)

Also, I am sure that your reviewers would even reject images of sarma, burek, pljeskavica and similar exotic cooking specialties because you don't have food reviewer who really know to shoot food and that one don't know that field at all!

[edit] ... this is shorter version ;-)
« Last Edit: January 01, 2009, 20:38 by Milinz »

zymmetricaldotcom

« Reply #82 on: January 02, 2009, 08:45 »
0
At any rate this particular discussion does not seem to be productive any more so I digress. Maybe we can work together on the illustration side of things where there is less room for debate over content selection.
« Last Edit: January 02, 2009, 11:04 by zymmetrical »

RT


« Reply #83 on: January 02, 2009, 11:51 »
0
But, to assure others here is web size downloaded from istockphoto published on German language site (Austira): http://www.ichkoche.at/Cevapcici-Kroatien/rezepte/detail/html/93283


Nothing personal but if this is the rejected shot you're referring to I think you should bow out gracefully.

Milinz

« Reply #84 on: January 02, 2009, 11:57 »
0
At any rate this particular discussion does not seem to be productive any more so I digress. Maybe we can work together on the illustration side of things where there is less room for debate over content selection.

Ok. Enough for photography...

Why would be less debate over content selection when illustration is in question? Why illustration has better acceptance rate than photos? Does it means that you don't have reviewers for illustrations or just that illustrations are more needed so you have lower standards for that?

Tuilay

« Reply #85 on: January 02, 2009, 12:01 »
0
But, to assure others here is web size downloaded from istockphoto published on German language site (Austira): http://www.ichkoche.at/Cevapcici-Kroatien/rezepte/detail/html/93283


Nothing personal but if this is the rejected shot you're referring to I think you should bow out gracefully.


2nd nomination here. It may have been published, but it's not a good stock photo at all. Sorry !
Got to go with Keith and his crew !   Time out for sure !

Milinz

« Reply #86 on: January 02, 2009, 12:08 »
0
But, to assure others here is web size downloaded from istockphoto published on German language site (Austira): http://www.ichkoche.at/Cevapcici-Kroatien/rezepte/detail/html/93283


Nothing personal but if this is the rejected shot you're referring to I think you should bow out gracefully.


Did you think on Phrasal Verb:
bow out which means To remove oneself; withdraw.

I did that... But, with removing all of my rest of uploaded photos from that site and making it a bit public here due to that they made it 'composition' rejection.

[edit] made my reply more clear.
« Last Edit: January 02, 2009, 12:11 by Milinz »

Milinz

« Reply #87 on: January 02, 2009, 12:16 »
0
But, to assure others here is web size downloaded from istockphoto published on German language site (Austira): http://www.ichkoche.at/Cevapcici-Kroatien/rezepte/detail/html/93283


Nothing personal but if this is the rejected shot you're referring to I think you should bow out gracefully.


2nd nomination here. It may have been published, but it's not a good stock photo at all. Sorry !
Got to go with Keith and his crew !   Time out for sure !


Thanks for your opinion - no need to express you are sorry... It is just a photo... When you say it is bad or good - that depends on market needs and downloads ;-)

Tuilay

« Reply #88 on: January 02, 2009, 12:23 »
0
Well then, no, I'm not sorry  ;)

btw who did you say was the site that approved, accepted and sold that image for you? and how much did you earn for that dl ?

Milinz

« Reply #89 on: January 02, 2009, 12:37 »
0
Well then, no, I'm not sorry  ;)

btw who did you say was the site that approved, accepted and sold that image for you? and how much did you earn for that dl ?


istock, shutterstock, fotolia, JUI, Fotosearch and almost all others including that image was even accepted on CRESTOCK while I was member there - beleive it or not!

That image earned something a bit more than $300 for 6 months on-line...

Imagine only how much it would earn if it is shoot like a 'good stock image' ;-)

To add one very interesting segment: You know that stock image for Europeans is quite different than for US customers as well as there is Asian market with its own taste.
So, from point of view of specific market this image was uploaded for it is good image. It is not 'fancy' image as I already said and that style will be something on plate or portion and table top shot which I have but not yet managed to process because of my workload is qute huge!
When we talk for giving some remarks to some image, I usually don't comment is it good or bad for stock because I never know what would sell before it is uploaded and on-line for some time. 'Good stock image' can be some image shoot by the book - and also some image completely opposite shoot than how book says it should be... Again, market is what buys that what is needed - not any other opinions!

[edit] added two pharagraphs.
« Last Edit: January 02, 2009, 12:53 by Milinz »

RT


« Reply #90 on: January 02, 2009, 13:01 »
0
Please take this the way it is meant I'm not trying to insult you.

The image is terrible, I doubt it's made you $300 in 6 months but if you say so all well and good.

But the reason it has 1 sale on iStock and 3 on Fotolia is not because it's a good stock image and has nothing to do with Europeans taste in photography to that of Americans, it is purely and simply because it is one of only five shots featuring that particular sausage on microstock sites, and the others seem to have other items on the grill.

Now this is good and bad, it's good because you may have cornered the market in something, but it might be bad because that might mean this particular subject doesn't sell.

Either way your image is not a good stock image no matter how you try and defend it and 4 sales in 6 months ain't worth shouting about, a good way to define the difference between a good and a bad stock image is ask yourself the question 'Could I have taken the same shot with my camera phone'. I'll let you decide the answer!

You happen to have a shot with little competition and a small demand, my advice is take the $300 buy some more sausages and shoot it better.

Milinz

« Reply #91 on: January 02, 2009, 14:45 »
0
Please take this the way it is meant I'm not trying to insult you.

The image is terrible, I doubt it's made you $300 in 6 months but if you say so all well and good.

But the reason it has 1 sale on iStock and 3 on Fotolia is not because it's a good stock image and has nothing to do with Europeans taste in photography to that of Americans, it is purely and simply because it is one of only five shots featuring that particular sausage on microstock sites, and the others seem to have other items on the grill.

Now this is good and bad, it's good because you may have cornered the market in something, but it might be bad because that might mean this particular subject doesn't sell.

Either way your image is not a good stock image no matter how you try and defend it and 4 sales in 6 months ain't worth shouting about, a good way to define the difference between a good and a bad stock image is ask yourself the question 'Could I have taken the same shot with my camera phone'. I'll let you decide the answer!

You happen to have a shot with little competition and a small demand, my advice is take the $300 buy some more sausages and shoot it better.

Haha! Good advice... I spent that and a little extra on Wacom Intuos 3 tablet... It is much better investment than cevapcici or remake of that image ;-)
Nevertheless, no - it couldn't be shot with cell phone even as you say 'so badly' as that image... Simple because it was shot on field and with tripod and with additional soft lights under very short time given to do whole restaurant series of over 50 images for catalogue. I am very glad you did not noticed that image was taken with additional lights - that means I did it well!

The way to rethink is that when you start upload to traditional stock agencies and mid-stock is traffic and buyers... When you make $300 from one image on traditional or mid-stock agency, you will be at least 6-12 months older! The micros are something different and there is mass-downloading... I have my images on micros, traditional and mid stock agencies all over... Traditional and mid stock agencies are something completely different as you will learn in the future if you already are not represented by some.
That what you have in your port on istock or me on Shutterstock (with both some not numerous exceptions from our portfolios) is really low potential for traditional and even mid stock agencies.

I am just trying to make some balance in how to shoot what for where... If you understand me... Microstock shot should be 'wow' or 'trendy' and mid / traditional should have all that plus something extra - or to be as you said special enough to be sold... So, cornering the market is one point where I've counted with zymmetrical for that submissions. Traditional / mid stock does not mean that one image will sell many, many times (but we all count on that), it is more about that image is carrying specific message or picture needed to illustrate something what is to be published and needed on the market - it is as simple as that.

So my 'terrible' stock image of cevapcici has its purpose in field where buyer need to show how it looks when that dish is prepared. Yes - no open fire: it is just glowing coal because it is the real illustration of how it is to be prepared.  If someone who knows cooking sees that you shot some grill with open fire - he will laugh because that is not how it should be done and that way crucial thing to know that any grill prepared on open fire is extremely cancerogenous!

... just my 2 cents...

So, $300 of income which you don't beleive is quite good achievement for 'so bad' image and I am glad that I made it.

Tuilay

« Reply #92 on: January 02, 2009, 16:06 »
0
... just my 2 cents...

So, $300 of income which you don't beleive is quite good achievement for 'so bad' image and I am glad that I made it.

OK OK.. you 've won me over. I am your biggest fan !
You are the epitome that one does not have to be a good photographer to be a successful stock photographer. Woo hoo !
Where do I submit my tuppence money order to join your fan club  ;)

Milinz

« Reply #93 on: January 02, 2009, 19:24 »
0
... just my 2 cents...

So, $300 of income which you don't beleive is quite good achievement for 'so bad' image and I am glad that I made it.

OK OK.. you 've won me over. I am your biggest fan !
You are the epitome that one does not have to be a good photographer to be a successful stock photographer. Woo hoo !
Where do I submit my tuppence money order to join your fan club  ;)

What makes a good photographer? Good photo or sellable photo? One photo sold for $10K after he died?
I think that some technicals must be met. But, in order to sell photo you just need such capture as someone needs to buy it to earn money.

On the other side of this story, I really can compete with cream photgraphers in most categories. The only jury I recognize is market - not people who have made some rules and stick to them like driving just on one side of roadway... In this time of market saturation, you sometimes must even drive through one way street in opposite direction to get on your destination and on time ;-) I hope this is something what you will not uderstand wrong.

Also, you can not call me as 'epitome' of not being good photographer because that is simply not true and you owe me apology.

I am as good as you or someone else who do stock... Also, I am not just a photographer - so, if you wish to be better photographer than me, you are welcome ;-) It is not point in being better photographer or illustrator from someone else... It is point in living from your images... If you do so, then you are good. If you are not living from your own work, then you are bad whatever you are.

To conclude this with one old clever sentence from Angela Monet that I and some of my old fellow photographers used in cases similar to yours:

"Those who danced were thought to be quite insane by those who couldn't hear the music."

Cheers dude!


RT


« Reply #94 on: January 02, 2009, 20:26 »
0
The way to rethink is that when you start upload to traditional stock agencies and mid-stock is traffic and buyers... When you make $300 from one image on traditional or mid-stock agency, you will be at least 6-12 months older! The micros are something different and there is mass-downloading... I have my images on micros, traditional and mid stock agencies all over... Traditional and mid stock agencies are something completely different as you will learn in the future if you already are not represented by some.

Well I've been submitting to macro sites for 6 years so I think I have an idea of what makes a good stock photo, one thing is true however and that is nobody can tell what will and won't sell.
However one thing I have learnt in all that time is what is a good well composed well lit photo, and what is a snapshot, are you really trying to tell me you used additional lighting and spent time composing that shot - come on as I said earlier bow out now you're just making yourself look silly.
By the way which macro agency is this shot on, it's not on Getty, Alamy, Jupiter, Corbis or Inmagine so where exactly did you make this illustrious $300 sale which incidentally is a not a big sale on macro.
As I said earlier there are hardly any shots of this 'cevapcici' sausage thing on any sites be it micro or macro and that and that alone is the only reason the photo has sold it is nothing to do with the technical quality of the shot.
I'm pleased for you that you're happy with the shot and the amount you say it has made, but your original argument was because it got rejected and you're trying to convince everyone it's a great shot which quite obviously it isn't, it's the type of shot that makes me think you were at a bbq with your camera and while standing in front of the grill you decided to take a quick picture, which you've then uploaded to a few sites and had a few sales.
A couple of years ago someone used their camera phone to take a photo of Beckham in a night club with another woman, they made a fortune from a small badly composed pixelated image, but that doesn't make them a good photographer and it was still a crap photo.
Good luck for the future.

Tuilay

« Reply #95 on: January 02, 2009, 22:58 »
0
To conclude this with one old clever sentence from Angela Monet that I and some of my old fellow photographers used in cases similar to yours:
"Those who danced were thought to be quite insane by those who couldn't hear the music."
Cheers dude!

Oh lucky you, Angela Monet was at your BBQ?  Or was she holding up the reflector? ;)

Milinz

« Reply #96 on: January 03, 2009, 04:53 »
0

Well I've been submitting to macro sites for 6 years so I think I have an idea of what makes a good stock photo, one thing is true however and that is nobody can tell what will and won't sell.
However one thing I have learnt in all that time is what is a good well composed well lit photo, and what is a snapshot, are you really trying to tell me you used additional lighting and spent time composing that shot - come on as I said earlier bow out now you're just making yourself look silly.
By the way which macro agency is this shot on, it's not on Getty, Alamy, Jupiter, Corbis or Inmagine so where exactly did you make this illustrious $300 sale which incidentally is a not a big sale on macro.
As I said earlier there are hardly any shots of this 'cevapcici' sausage thing on any sites be it micro or macro and that and that alone is the only reason the photo has sold it is nothing to do with the technical quality of the shot.
I'm pleased for you that you're happy with the shot and the amount you say it has made, but your original argument was because it got rejected and you're trying to convince everyone it's a great shot which quite obviously it isn't, it's the type of shot that makes me think you were at a bbq with your camera and while standing in front of the grill you decided to take a quick picture, which you've then uploaded to a few sites and had a few sales.
A couple of years ago someone used their camera phone to take a photo of Beckham in a night club with another woman, they made a fortune from a small badly composed pixelated image, but that doesn't make them a good photographer and it was still a crap photo.
Good luck for the future.


Composition was rejection reason. I never said it is perfect shot as well as only what this photo is about and that it is unique. Other of that you are asking where that image made money - I already said... It made money mostly as Extended Licence downloads spread via many agencies.

Quick snap you say? Lol!

ОК - you win... I will learn how to make 'good' photos... But, I think you will not start to like my images ;-)

Thanks for wishing me luck!

Best Regards,

Milinz

« Reply #97 on: January 03, 2009, 04:57 »
0
To conclude this with one old clever sentence from Angela Monet that I and some of my old fellow photographers used in cases similar to yours:
"Those who danced were thought to be quite insane by those who couldn't hear the music."
Cheers dude!

Oh lucky you, Angela Monet was at your BBQ?  Or was she holding up the reflector? ;)

What reflector? Did you read what your fellow dude wrote?

 ::)

Strobes with soft box are used here (2x600ws) to make such 'bad looking' photo...

Tuilay

« Reply #98 on: January 03, 2009, 07:50 »
0

What reflector? Did you read what your fellow dude wrote?

 ::)

Strobes with soft box are used here (2x600ws) to make such 'bad looking' photo...


WOW ! 2 x600ws !  Incredible !

Milinz

« Reply #99 on: January 03, 2009, 08:08 »
0


WOW ! 2 x600ws !  Incredible !

As I said... Find shadows in that as you call it 'snapshot' ;-) And you'll figure out how much lights was used as well as where they was positioned... But, since you don't see the obvious, I doubt you will see anything...

So, You do your images... I will do mine... And we'll see who will be where in say year or two time from now ;-)

Happy learning shooting to me ;-) Also, Happy learning observing to you ;-)



 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
2 Replies
4020 Views
Last post June 16, 2006, 23:58
by Quevaal
1 Replies
3499 Views
Last post December 11, 2006, 10:44
by leaf
15 Replies
6618 Views
Last post September 28, 2007, 08:46
by PaulieWalnuts
154 Replies
40881 Views
Last post August 26, 2008, 01:24
by Peter
26 Replies
10904 Views
Last post September 28, 2008, 09:42
by grp_photo

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle