Quote:
Originally Posted by plsureking
or if you don't have skills but start a 350+ post thread about how everybody else sucks.
|
I didn't say that. I said that if they were as good as I was, they should of been working in the market I worked in. Because it paid better.
The shooter shooting the stills for the golf isn't that good. Yes he got 362 images. but in reality it's only 100 tops as most of the poses are repeated over and over again.
70 frames and only 15-16 shots. He just shot the same thing over and over. The other problem is he seems to have shot a lot of landscape frames of portrait poses. The Dl is telling me it's going to take longer than the video. A waste of time to get 100 shots. Each 1 repeated 1-4 times.
The quality of the images looks fine for the Internet, will download a full image and see if it will print up. Magazines paid for $1,000 to $2,000 for a set like this non exclusive, so obviously had a lot of top shooters submitting for approval. An editor wouldn't look past the first few frames to reject. Because he didn't have the time.
It is 2 scenes not one, both the video and the set. On a quick look the quality of the images is great. The model is good and attractive. The quality of the shooting isn't, some bad framing.
But it's better than many sites I've seen.
Was it $700 for the 2 scenes?
This is towards the end of the scene, a different scene in my book
