Jump to content

Rudy Umans

Members
  • Content Count

    637
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Rudy Umans

  1. When we signed up we agreed to be a research guinea pig from time to time and I am pretty sure this is one of those times.

    Although I do think that the rating has nothing to with the quality of the image itself, but more with the salability of the image for the intended market, I am wondering if only the owner of that account/portfolio can see that or if it's public.

    Nevertheless, if it's public, I will immediately delete all my pictures minus one.

  2. 32 minutes ago, Doug McLean said:

    A lot of what is in Karl Taylor's video would apply:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IIm-SZHKOW4

    It is for photos, but you would need to replace the flashes with strong continuous light if shooting video.

    Either way, it is very informative and helpful for any sort of studio work.

    Yes. Nice video and it makes my case for the versatility of monolight style lights and softboxes / light modifiers

  3. not a video expert either, but I do a lot of studio work with vintage (pre-WWII) cameras with no electronics. So I have no choice than to use Continuous lights

    I bought a kit from GVM. These are 80 watt and daylight balanced. The Godox equivalent is 60W and more is better in this case. (They have stepless dimmers) These light also get a lot get better reviews than the Godox ones

    For my Flash photography I use Godox Bare bulb speed lights, which are fantastic. (not for video obviously)

    Instead of using the umbrellas, I purchased another (very nice btw) softbox from Neewer, which is exactly the same as the GVM one for $35.00 or so and I bought a snoot for the 4th light. The lights are Bowens compatible, so plenty of options

    I have it for a while now and I love it.  I think they are a lot more versatile than panels, which are very limited for general use, light direction control, light modifiers,  etc.. and it comes with some backgrounds and stand, which also comes in handy and you can't beat the price

    https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1513596-REG/gvm_p80s_4_fresnel_light.html

     

     

  4. 10 hours ago, Milo J said:

    Quantity of salt doesn't matter, you should know that by now. All about the quality of it. Has to be Himalayan Pink, mined by virgins and carried down the mountain by organically grass-fed alpacas, or there is no chance of selling any of it.

    Good thing there is an abundance of  alpacas and virgins in the Himalayans.......

    Anyway. all I know is I met my goal last year of 27, 368 with no salt at all, let alone that fancy smancy pink stuff, Who uses that in a fast food joint?

  5. 1 hour ago, chrisontour84 said:

    Hey there,

    hope you are well!

    I have gathered up a few portraits over the time and would like to sell them now, not here of course for 0,10$ per image though :)

    But I also do not want to be bound to just one website, so I am looking for non-exclusive Portrait stock sites which offers the best reward in terms of earnings.

    Do you have any recommendations for me?

     

    Thanks,

    Chris

    You are like going to a GM dealer to ask what Ford to buy because GM sucks

    I think you should ask your question on a more neutral site like MSG or something

  6. 11 hours ago, Milo J said:

    The forum has been extremely polite and ... well... quite bland .

    What do you mean "Bland"!! Obviously you have no idea what you are talking about! Learn how to cook and know how much salt to put on your own plate before you start accusing people for not putting any on theirs.!! And just so you know, according to Mihai (I think) you can only put max. 2.35 Mg. salt on your plate otherwise things might get too noisy! 

     

     

    How about that??  Still too bland? Not bland enough?

    Just another failed attempt trying to be funny. Sorry

  7. 2 hours ago, Mikko Palonkorpi said:

    I have/had plenty of images that are/were selling well and which were shot with first generation of Sony RX100 (it was made in Japan BTW and in my opinion lens was better/sharper than in my current RX100V). Short answer, it is enough for most subjects, but for portrait kind stuff etc. I would prefer better lens and proper camera body. I have Nikon D750 and its still great camera and not that expensive anymore. 

    Even though you are right about the D750 vs, the RX100, it is a little bit comparing apples with oranges unless you are able to put  your D750 complete with a 24-70 lens into your tight jeans pockets of course. 

     

  8. 1 hour ago, HodagMedia said:

    I never looked close at those. RX100 VII and I'll assume the RX100 II what a nice little super zoom, pocket camera. I've really liked newer Sony cameras for years now, but I'm already married to Canon. 😉

     

    I guess the main advantage of Sony's, incl. the RX100 series are the Zeiss lenses. Best lenses on the planet in my modest opinion. Some of their lens designs from over 110 years ago are still relevant today. Leica "R" lenses have the best bokeh in my experience, but they use the same Schott glass as Zeiss (Dr. Schott worked for Zeiss at the time)

  9. 8 hours ago, Linda Bestwick said:

    I'm sure @Rudy Umans has talked about this camera before, maybe he can chip in :) 

    Mine is an older mark 2 and that one is definitely good enough for stock. Many of the images in my port are from that camera.  I also sold 60 inch (1.5 meter) prints done by that little camera on FAA

    Having said that, the only thing with mine is noise above 1600 ISO and with very low light, but the noise is not bad and can easily be removed. I am pretty sure it is better under control than with your old DSLR

    The mk vii is the latest and the greatest and I am sure it s better than the mk ii and he only reason why I don't upgrade is because $1200.00 for a little pocket rocket is a lot of money. (and I have already 10 working film cameras that I use a lot and a DSLR and 4 lenses that I hardly use anymore)

  10. 22 minutes ago, oleschwander said:

    I used to open my iPad every morning and happily look at the sales and the writings at the forum. That pleasure is over.   

    Well......some of us still love you

     

    Having said that, I agree. The forums were most of the time fairly pleasant and open to a point they became addictive. At one point it was easier to quit smoking (25 years ago for me) than to quit the forums, but not anymore. The forum was called "Anything Goes" (for real), but they changed it into Anything Went

  11. 9 minutes ago, Thijs de Graaf said:

    The problem is that Alexander or another admin on the forum can no longer be asked for help.

    He is a good guy and he really tried.

    We went through a lot of nice and capable moderators over the years, but as soon as they became a little bit too cozy on the forums they all disappeared. Kate is still here, she is nice and she tries, but her hands are obviously tied and  it seems they picked her to be the bearer of bad news, err..... I mean new developments.

  12. 2 hours ago, Studio 2 said:

     The ability to log into the forum on my phone has now been lost for some strange reason.

    Same here. As a matter of fact, as soon as I try it locks my account (only on my phone) for 14 minutes. 

    I guess it's in line with their policy "You pay more, you get less"

  13. 1 hour ago, Charles Lewis said:

    They also have tutorials although I haven't started looking at them yet.

    I think that $34 is for a special hardcover printed workbook they came out with at one point, but sure, they have a slough of video and PDF tutorials and the normal help features from within the software

    I have that workbook and it has a lot of project samples about how to do something from beginning to end. However, that book came out with version 14 or 15 if I remember correctly and now they are at version 18 and a lot of functions have been improved upon in the meantime so you can probably do without

     

  14. On 2/10/2021 at 9:03 AM, HodagMedia said:

    So don't be annoyed, life is too short, and when you find the CF slot on that Graflex, tell me. I'm down to one Gerlach (Gundlach?) 8x10 rosewood camera that I've never taken a photo with. I wanted to try direct positive or using photo paper as a negative. Interesting lab experiments. Some day someone will make an 8x10 digital sensor and I'll be cooking again. Until then, nice dust collector on the shelf in the garage.

    Just sold a 4 x 5 Gundlach to somebody in Israel for about $350

    Remember  Direct positive paper has an ISO of 2-3

  15. 4 hours ago, HodagMedia said:

    The thought always comes to mind, and yes it's true. On the other hand, a fine craftsman with bent nails, a rusty saw and warped wood, can't reach his level of capability to produce what he can actually do. Anything creative or produced, is only as good as the weakest link. (this is an old saying about audio and HiFi too.)

    You have a 1938 digital camera. Wow far ahead of the times? How do you get the images off that pinhole camera, uploaded to the stock sites?

    Yes I have old cameras, they don't make film for most of them anymore, but I did used to shoot them for personal entertainment, develop and print in my dark room. (I have no darkroom anymore, but I saved everything. WHY? :wacko:)  Heck my 35mm cameras are just about antiques, good for one thing, the bookshelf display. And I'll remind others, some cameras that used Mercury batteries are obsolete, no more batteries make for them.

    What happens when they stop making CF cards? We have expensive, pretty, bookends.

    I actually get that question from time to time where I put the memory card. Especially with my 1948 Graflex for some reason. Sometimes it's funny, sometimes it's annoying Depending on my mood

    You will be amazed about all the film they still make today. Even odd sizes. Check out Freestyle in California or the Film Photography Project and others

    There is a company called WeinCell that makes Mercury replacement zinc/air batteries with the same size and voltage, but without the mercury. I have them for one of my light meters and they work fine and accurate, which could be an issue for light meters if the voltage is not correct

    For about $15 you can buy an SD to CF card adapter

    last but not least, keep your darkroom stuff, It isn't worth anything and since I "debunked" some of your excuses,  who knows, maybe one day......  :)

  16. 1 hour ago, HodagMedia said:

    Why should people with phones have all the fun?

    Well, My main walk around camera was manufactured in 1938. My favorite landscape camera is a 6 x17 medium/large format pinhole camera with auto nothing. Just a box with a tiny hole as you know, not even a viewfinder, and I have all the fun in the world. Much more so than with my fancy somewhat dated, but brand new compared to my other cameras, FF DSLR actually.

    I also have a phone that does RAW. Used it once that way and I think my also dated Sony RX100II has wifi. (would need to double check that)

    For digital, I might go Steve's route and throw in the hatchet  (or the Machete in my case since I live in Miami lol)

×
×
  • Create New...