|
Ric posted:I'd be happy (short term) to do some free assisting for Vincent Laforet too! sweet, thanks so much! (PS: wave is pretty confusing and nonlinear)
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2009 21:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 22:55 |
|
|
http://tampa.craigslist.org/hil/pho/1500915983.htmlquote:Hasselblad 500 ELX - $2500 (South Tampa) 
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2009 21:52
|
|
|
Over the Thanksgiving holiday weekend, I watched a pretty cool show called "Picture This" on the Ovation channel. It was the exact type of show I had in mind a few years back - a Project Runway imitation, (or Top Chef if you will), but with photographers instead of clothing designers or chefs. It was a British reality series. The contestants seemed pretty green, I was overall disappointed in the level of work, but it was still a lot of fun to watch. It's also very British, which makes it doubly entertaining. I can't find any of the episodes online yet, but Ovation has posted some previews. Here's the preview from Episode 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hke-WrD0voA If you can catch it on TV, you definitely should check it out. Edit: Oh hey, look! Some inventive young connoisseur posted the full series on YouTube, how convenient. Playlists here or individual links below: Episode 1 - Part 1 - Part 2 - Part 3 - Part 4 - Part 5 Episode 2 - Part 1 - Part 2 - Part 3 - Part 4 - Part 5 Episode 3 (finale) - Part 1 - Part 2 - Part 3 - Part 4 - Part 5 Mannequin fucked around with this message at 06:39 on Dec 9, 2009 |
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2009 03:13
|
|
|
looks dorky enough to make it worth a jack, will chuck it on tonight ...
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2009 06:08
|
|
|
This is strangely addictive to watch. I think the british accents make it extra fun 
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2009 06:48
|
|
|
Mannequin posted:Picture this This is great! It's definitely painful at times, but some of the work is impressive and it's fun- though I can't imagine enjoying that much if I weren't a photographer. Is it very successful?
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2009 07:26
|
|
|
Mannequin posted:"Picture This"  Just had time to watch the preview but it looks like someone I kinda know is one of the contestants! Will report back once I've seen more. Thanks for the links 
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2009 12:49
|
|
|
Argh, why did I start watching this at 11pm? Thanks! edit: ugh, this Aron guy is a douchebag "OOOH I'M CONTROVERSIAL" - by the time they got to Brighton he was bordering on self parody. psylent fucked around with this message at 13:33 on Dec 9, 2009 |
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2009 13:25
|
|
|
Augmented Dickey posted:Anyone have a 3ft UV filter handy?
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2009 21:21
|
|
|
wickles posted:Only $45k: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=180438980987 I don't know why anyone would buy that in this day and age, don't they have SLR adapters for telescopes now?
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2009 19:00
|
|
|
Augmented Dickey posted:I don't know why anyone would buy that in this day and age, don't they have SLR adapters for telescopes now?
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2009 20:37
|
|
|
Augmented Dickey posted:I don't know why anyone would buy that in this day and age, don't they have SLR adapters for telescopes now? Which I'm sure would be lovely wide open at F/22
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2009 21:25
|
|
|
FasterThanLight posted:I don't know anything at all about telescopes, but browsing around a little bit, I couldn't find a telescope for sale that is quite this long - closest I could find was around 3000mm and $15k. So I guess you could think of it as a $45k telescope with a built-in FD mount! Yeah, I think with telescopes the idea is more about light gathering capabilities than it is about focal length. IIRC, the eyepiece is where most of the magnification happens.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2009 23:09
|
|
|
Mannequin posted:Over the Thanksgiving holiday weekend, I watched a pretty cool show called "Picture This" on the Ovation channel. I hardly watch tv but they seem to often run pretty cool photography related stuff. I watched a pretty cool documentary about jazz photographer William Claxton a few months ago on that channel.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2009 06:12
|
|
|
Mannequin posted:Picture This Surprisingly interesting. I remember complaining to my girlfriend about how I'd love to watch a photography reality show similar to Project Runway, where the contestants are all already skilled. I guess my wish came true because I'm actually enjoying this. There's also some sort of satisfaction in watching this and thinking "I can do this too.." EDIT: I just watched the first episode and they didn't kick Aron out.  At least Ed's still on. His quip about him not reading fashion magazines actually did make me laugh.
Fragrag fucked around with this message at 21:50 on Dec 12, 2009 |
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2009 21:15
|
|
|
Boston.com has their "Pictures of 2009" up, and they are phenomenal. http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2009/12/2009_in_photos_part_1_of_3.html
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2009 05:00
|
|
|
What are the ethics behind letting your ex-girlfriend use one of your photos for free in the magazine she works for?
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2009 18:25
|
|
|
notlodar posted:What are the ethics behind letting your ex-girlfriend use one of your photos for free in the magazine she works for? Unless you still get ex-sex then don't do it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2009 18:32
|
|
|
Haggins posted:Unless you still get ex-sex then don't do it. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2009 18:41
|
|
|
notlodar posted:I probably could, but I'm sorta kinda involved with someone at the moment, so it would be wrong. She also lives in another country I'm not seeing the problem here.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2009 19:55
|
|
|
notlodar posted:I probably could, but I'm sorta kinda involved with someone at the moment, so it would be wrong. She also lives in another country That's known as 'an Ace in the hole' You see.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2009 20:03
|
|
|
notlodar posted:What are the ethics behind letting your ex-girlfriend use one of your photos for free in the magazine she works for? Does the magazine make a profit?
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2009 20:11
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:Does the magazine make a profit? is this how confession booths are like?
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2009 20:28
|
|
|
notlodar posted:Yeah. Nah at this point I'd be sliding the little glory hole cover open  I tend to be okay with giving stuff away to non-profits/school reports/etc, but if they're making money off the image I think the photographer deserves a cut.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2009 20:35
|
|
|
I agree, if the magazine is making a profit off of their publication, then you should be entitled to some sort of compensation for your photo.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2009 22:52
|
|
|
quote:Trying to keep it short: I sold my first DSLR (Rebel XT) to my buddy from Florida who happens to be a skydive instructor. He used it mounted on his helmet to shoot skydivers in a free fall. The mounting plate detached when he opened his chute and both cameras (photo + video) took a fall from approximately 3000 ft. Amazingly, the Rebel survived the fall and my friend is still using it to this very day. It has a crack in the plastic body and the kit lens is a little jerky when zooming, but functional. I'd like to know if there is a similar story or something close to this but I doubt. It might me a world record indeed (for the height of a camera drop which survived). Kudos to canon!
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2009 23:09
|
|
|
It must have been that UV protector he had on there
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2009 23:48
|
|
|
Verman posted:I agree, if the magazine is making a profit off of their publication, then you should be entitled to some sort of compensation for your photo. Obligatory link to "Pay the Writer"
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2009 23:58
|
|
|
DJExile posted:Boston.com has their "Pictures of 2009" up, and they are phenomenal. Thanks for that link, all 3 parts in that series are really just superb. I feel bad for that photographer in #20 (part 1), especially after finding this gallery of his work and seeing that he's an absolutely amazing photojournalist. Pretty hardcore taking photos on his emergency stretcher though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2009 01:51
|
|
|
Verman posted:I agree, if the magazine is making a profit off of their publication, then you should be entitled to some sort of compensation for your photo. Even if they're not making a profit, you are still entitled to some kind of compensation.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2009 02:35
|
|
|
brad industry posted:Even if they're not making a profit, you are still entitled to some kind of compensation. You can use it for your portfolio 
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2009 02:51
|
|
|
It'll be good exposure. We'll have lots of paying assignments in the future if this works out. You'll get a great tearsheet.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2009 02:53
|
|
|
brad industry posted:It'll be good exposure. indeedGet the money.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2009 03:06
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:Obligatory link to "Pay the Writer" Dorkroom: Do you think you're entitled to be paid every time someone makes money off your work? If so, why? Sub-question: Would you find it fair to send the maker of your camera a portion of the profits every time you make money with it?
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2009 03:11
|
|
|
pwn posted:When he whines about how the boom operator gets paid, he glosses over that they don't get paid every time someone buys the DVD. They do the work once and get paid once. It's pretty hilarious how people in the arts think one instance of their work should be paid for over and over and over again into perpetuity. Yes, yes you are, unless you grant someone an unlimited license, in which case they are paying more in order to not have to pay each time (this is what you are doing with you camera, in a sense, especially when you pay more for a unit designed to be used by working professionals. But that's a stupid comparison because service/creative work and manufacturing of objects are totally different and unrelated markets). But the way that the creative market works is that you get paid with consideration to how much money the client is going to make from your work. If it's worth a lot to them, then they should pay you an amount that reflects this importance.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2009 03:22
|
|
|
TsarAleksi posted:Yes, yes you are, unless you grant someone an unlimited license, in which case they are paying more in order to not have to pay each time (this is what you are doing with you camera, in a sense, especially when you pay more for a unit designed to be used by working professionals. But that's a stupid comparison because service/creative work and manufacturing of objects are totally different and unrelated markets). But the way that the creative market works is that you get paid with consideration to how much money the client is going to make from your work. If it's worth a lot to them, then they should pay you an amount that reflects this importance.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2009 03:27
|
|
|
ge cafe posted:When he whines about how the boom operator gets paid, he glosses over that they don't get paid every time someone buys the DVD. They do the work once and get paid once. This is stupid, as are you for thinking it's a good comparison. The boom operator is pretty much a vehicle for someone else's creative work - the sound designer, the actors who are speaking, and whatever else. His artistic contribution consists of 'ensure sound is heard and keep boom out of shot'. If I were doing that, I wouldn't expect a continuing revenue stream from it. I can understand how this might be a comfortable justification if a photographer is either too timid or too inexperienced to demand decent payment and/or a decent license for their work. That isn't the case for everyone, though. It also kind of bones actual photographers when someone running around with a D40 and kit lens or something is giving full copyright to someone else for fifty dollars. SoundMonkey fucked around with this message at 03:41 on Dec 17, 2009 |
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2009 03:28
|
|
|
Isn't it crazy how people can invest money in stocks and continue to make more and more money off their investment with out doing any more work???
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2009 03:33
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:Nah at this point I'd be sliding the little glory hole cover open Verman posted:I agree, if the magazine is making a profit off of their publication, then you should be entitled to some sort of compensation for your photo. brad industry posted:Even if they're not making a profit, you are still entitled to some kind of compensation. brad industry posted:It'll be good exposure. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2009 03:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 22:55 |
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:This is stupid, as are you for thinking it's a good comparison.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2009 03:39
|
|