|
torgeaux posted:You should have then quoted this bit: This is easier than debunking claims from a political talk show.
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2010 14:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 22:21 |
|
|
Fists Up posted:For those who like gear porn check out Vincent LaForet's latest blog post. I'm definitely going to work towards getting into this poo poo right here.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2010 14:54
|
|
|
So, I was eating in a chinese restaurant yesterday and couldn't help but overhear the guy in the next booth talking about how he was looking for a photography assistant. Fortunately, I didn't interject and offer my services like my initial reaction was. Continuing to eavesdrop he sounded like a huuuuge douche. Apparently his ideal assistant (he was describing it to his dinner companion) is to be young (16 years old was perfect apparently), sexy, willing to carry heavy things, and female. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2010 15:34
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:So, I was eating in a chinese restaurant yesterday and couldn't help but overhear the guy in the next booth talking about how he was looking for a photography assistant. Fortunately, I didn't interject and offer my services like my initial reaction was. Don't worry, he'll wind up with 24, acne-ridden, 300 lbs, weak, and male.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2010 16:00
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:Continuing to eavesdrop he sounded like a huuuuge douche. Apparently his ideal assistant (he was describing it to his dinner companion) is to be young (16 years old was perfect apparently), sexy, willing to carry heavy things, and female. And the problem with this is....?
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2010 16:28
|
|
|
spog posted:And the problem with this is....? I am just disappointed that an apparently successful fashion photographer had to resort to hiring 16 year old girls as assistants to perv on.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2010 16:31
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:I am just disappointed that an apparently successful fashion photographer had to resort to hiring 16 year old girls as assistants to perv on. To be fair, most successful fashion models have a tendency to look like a bag of bones with all the sexual appeal of a coatrack. But to drift back to seriousness, I've always wondered about the disconnect between what is considered 'attractive' in the fashion world, compared the the glamour world.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2010 16:38
|
|
|
spog posted:To be fair, most successful fashion models have a tendency to look like a bag of bones with all the sexual appeal of a coatrack. Just think of the difference between the mindset of fashion designers and the editors of playboy, maxim etc.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2010 16:45
|
|
|
spog posted:To be fair, most successful fashion models have a tendency to look like a bag of bones with all the sexual appeal of a coatrack. I think it's primarily because it's what makes the clothes look best (thinner, taller frames), and fashion people tend to like more unique and striking faces rather than the same old same old. Also, a lot of the models look amazingly normal or even uglyish without all the intensive hair and makeup and clothes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2010 16:51
|
|
|
nonanone posted:I think it's primarily because it's what makes the clothes look best (thinner, taller frames), and fashion people tend to like more unique and striking faces rather than the same old same old. Also, a lot of the models look amazingly normal or even uglyish without all the intensive hair and makeup and clothes. You should start a fashion thread, nonanone.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2010 16:54
|
|
|
I've always thought of the clothes wearing the people.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2010 16:59
|
|
|
Sure, could do one...anything you'd like to hear about particular, keeping in mind that I'm not in the major cogs of the industry?
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2010 17:00
|
|
|
nonanone posted:Sure, could do one...anything you'd like to hear about particular, keeping in mind that I'm not in the major cogs of the industry? Just a place for discussion and pics would be good. I'm pretty sure we could sustain a thread without it disappearing too quickly. Your stuff is super good, and it'd be definitely interesting to hear more about your perspective in how you shoot, and what you look to shoot when taking fashion photographs. Also, I took some pics at London's fashion week and want a place to post them!
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2010 17:17
|
|
|
Dumbest. Idea. Ever. http://cloakbags.com/
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2010 19:03
|
|
|
torgeaux posted:Dumbest. Idea. Ever. haha, they use the wrong spelling of discreet in the urls too. In a similar vein I always am astonished by the shoot sac - http://shootsac.com/thebasicshootsac.aspx Paragon8 fucked around with this message at 19:11 on Feb 25, 2010 |
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2010 19:05
|
|
|
torgeaux posted:Dumbest. Idea. Ever. That's really terrible. What market do they expect to reach with something like this?
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2010 19:07
|
|
|
torgeaux posted:You should have then quoted this bit: Seems like he was willing to "adjust lighting" in film, but not digital. [/quote] My guess is, then, that he's talking about substantial manipulation, then, rather than global adjustments/dodge & burning.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2010 19:20
|
|
|
TsarAleksi posted:You should have then quoted this bit: My guess is, then, that he's talking about substantial manipulation, then, rather than global adjustments/dodge & burning. [/quote] You can get to a reasonable place, but you really do have to ignore what he actually says, including his conclusion that if you manipulate lighting you can't call it art. If he had said, you can't call it a photo, or "it's not reporting" or "it's not accurate" but "it's not art?"
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2010 19:38
|
|
|
torgeaux posted:My guess is, then, that he's talking about substantial manipulation, then, rather than global adjustments/dodge & burning. You can get to a reasonable place, but you really do have to ignore what he actually says, including his conclusion that if you manipulate lighting you can't call it art. If he had said, you can't call it a photo, or "it's not reporting" or "it's not accurate" but "it's not art?" [/quote] Yeah it seems like he's maybe gone a bit overboard with it-- and was probably choosing words very poorly.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2010 19:40
|
|
|
spog posted:To be fair, most successful fashion models have a tendency to look like a bag of bones with all the sexual appeal of a coatrack. That's the point though, it's about the clothes not the model or sex. The setting, styling, and model are just props that tell a story about the garments. TsarAleksi posted:Yeah it seems like he's maybe gone a bit overboard with it-- and was probably choosing words very poorly. All photojournalists have weird inconsistent absolutes about what is/isn't a photo or is/isn't manipulation. I understand it's part of doing their job, so when they say those things out loud I just pretend I didn't hear it 
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2010 20:44
|
|
|
http://xritephoto.com/ph_toolframe.aspx?action=coloriq i got 19  all of the ones i got wrong were in the middle
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2010 10:04
|
|
|
unixbeard posted:http://xritephoto.com/ph_toolframe.aspx?action=coloriq My eyes started to bug out near the end of the test. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2010 14:45
|
|
|
11, with problems in the darker blue and partially in the aqua areas.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2010 16:05
|
|
|
 
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2010 16:26
|
|
|
I'm color blind. I looked at the test and just froze. I'm not even going to try.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2010 16:37
|
|
|
8. Eyes start going funny after a while.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2010 16:42
|
|
|
That poo poo is hard, 23. I think I could have done better but I started to get bored and stop caring part way through.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2010 17:44
|
|
|
I got pretty lazy by the end so I was lucky to get 8 I think.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2010 18:29
|
|
|
8. I lost it with the blues which is right about when I started going cross-eyed. Oddly enough that seemed to help me with the rest of the test.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2010 20:44
|
|
|
I am far too lazy to take this again but I am fairly certain I got a near perfect (but i think perfect) score when I took this two years ago. On a CRT monitor
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2010 20:50
|
|
|
3 baby
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2010 08:03
|
|
|
Got a perfect score on the top bar, then got lazy and gave up.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2010 09:08
|
|
|
Interrupting Moss posted:I'm color blind. I don't want to empty quote, but I am Red/Green color blind and I did literally the same thing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2010 18:22
|
|
|
21 here  My eyes were going weird.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2010 21:17
|
|
|
I thought the second row was a bit off toward the middle, but I couldn't quite decide which was which. Documentation on my work monitors says "92% color gamut." I think I have an idea of where in the spectrum that remaining 8% is. Here's something that this reminded me of, from Feb 2010 Scientific American  I see the "impossible" greenish red when the two converge, how about you guys?
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2010 22:12
|
|
|
I see it, but it flashes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2010 22:17
|
|
|
GWBBQ posted:I thought the second row was a bit off toward the middle, but I couldn't quite decide which was which. Documentation on my work monitors says "92% color gamut." I think I have an idea of where in the spectrum that remaining 8% is. I see brown.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2010 06:03
|
|
|
crazy flashes than stable brown poop
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2010 06:21
|
|
|
JaundiceDave posted:I see brown. notlodar posted:crazy flashes then stable brown poop You're accidentally playing Quake instead.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2010 08:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 22:21 |
|
|
 34
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2010 18:54
|
|
