|
Twenties Superstar posted:They were taken with an iPhone Yes, I read the article that accompanied the pictures. The comment was to illustrate that people who commented on the article with things like "ZOMG GREAT PIKUTRES!!!!!!!1111oneoeneone" were somehow able to look right past all that terrible noise and somehow assume the shots were done with something other than a pinhole camera on a phone.
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2010 19:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 23:42 |
|
|
Shmoogy posted:The last two people that asked me to take their pictures with their P&S had me fumbling around to actually take a god drat picture, making me look like a retard with an expensive camera. I had a group ask me to take their picture the day after I finished reading some posing guide. The snapshot probably took quite a while longer than they had anticipated. That's what you get for bothering unsuspecting tourists with your snapshot requests.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2010 21:38
|
|
|
http://www.engadget.com/2010/07/06/canon-wonder-camera-concept-promises-single-lens-perfection-vid/ Rockwell's going to poo poo his pants when this comes out
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2010 23:05
|
|
|
I probably will too
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2010 23:13
|
|
|
Rated PG-34 posted:http://www.engadget.com/2010/07/06/canon-wonder-camera-concept-promises-single-lens-perfection-vid/ According to the article I'll probably be in my 60s when it does, so the chances of me making GBS threads my pants anyway are probably higher.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2010 23:32
|
|
|
Rixatrix posted:Some guy asked me to take a picture of him and his girlfriend the other day. I was shown how to find The Button and after waiting for the couple to find their spot I proceeded to lift the camera to eye level to look through the viewfinder. I was confused for long enough for the guy who wanted his picture taken to come over and show me how to look at the LCD. Not one of my brighter moments, that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2010 23:44
|
|
|
Rated PG-34 posted:http://www.engadget.com/2010/07/06/canon-wonder-camera-concept-promises-single-lens-perfection-vid/ Dear Retards, Touch controls work great when you're looking at them. When you're looking at your camera's controls, you aren't looking at what you're supposed to be taking a picture of. This makes it hard to take pictures, which is the opposite of what a camera should do. Sincerely, Photographers
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2010 02:02
|
|
|
Rated PG-34 posted:http://www.engadget.com/2010/07/06/canon-wonder-camera-concept-promises-single-lens-perfection-vid/ Honestly, how much different is this a superzoom like the SX20? I know it's all for show, but I'd be way more impressed with a medium format sensor and F/1.4 zoom lenses.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2010 02:52
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8N0zq0q5s4
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2010 08:19
|
|
|
squidflakes posted:Yes, I read the article that accompanied the pictures. The comment was to illustrate that people who commented on the article with things like "ZOMG GREAT PIKUTRES!!!!!!!1111oneoeneone" were somehow able to look right past all that terrible noise and somehow assume the shots were done with something other than a pinhole camera on a phone. You realize there is quite a bit more to nice shots than a lack of noise? The shots are good. Generic pictures of hot women, yes, but the quality is nice, regardless of the small amount of noise.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2010 11:35
|
|
|
Rated PG-34 posted:Rockwell's going to poo poo his pants when this comes out As long as it doesn't look as retarded as that. I wouldn't be seen dead with it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2010 16:44
|
|
|
poopinmymouth posted:You realize there is quite a bit more to nice shots than a lack of noise? The shots are good. Generic pictures of hot women, yes, but the quality is nice, regardless of the small amount of noise. Yes, I realize that. My comment was more about the people in the comment section of that post who were amazed that such a picture could come from an iPhone. Personally, I don't see how you could mistake those images for ones produced by anything other than a pinhole camera, but a scant bit of reflection later and I understand that non-photographers, non-computer people, and people who don't sit around looking at commercial work in magazines probably aren't aware of the difference and maybe don't even give a poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2010 17:11
|
|
|
Dread Head posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8N0zq0q5s4 Everybody must watch this.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2010 17:27
|
|
|
Ringo R posted:Everybody must watch this. Yeah really, there is something horribly enjoyable about watching him flail about in the water hopelessly. Not that I derive pleasure from watching expensive equipment be totally destroyed. But God drat. A lil bit of situational awareness goes a long way, clearly. l33tc4k30fd00m fucked around with this message at 18:15 on Jul 8, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2010 18:13
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:Dear Retards, I have that same problem with shutter speed knobs on the top of the camera.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2010 19:41
|
|
|
Beastruction posted:I have that same problem with shutter speed knobs on the top of the camera. My Minolta SRT-201 has a bar at the bottom of the viewfinder that tells me what the shutter speed is. I guess the 70s were a time of innovation in this area.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2010 19:45
|
|
|
dakana posted:My Minolta SRT-201 has a bar at the bottom of the viewfinder that tells me what the shutter speed is. I guess the 70s were a time of innovation in this area. I like the Nikon FT's solution, it has a shutter speed ring around the lens mount, so you don't have to move your hand away from the other controls. The ring has a little tab to turn it with (it's too narrow to turn otherwise) so you can figure out how far the tab can go before it's too slow to shoot handheld.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2010 20:33
|
|
|
Ringo R posted:Everybody must watch this. I can watch people injure themselves all day but that's just cringe worthy. Poor camera gear. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2010 21:07
|
|
|
squidflakes posted:Personally, I don't see how you could mistake those images for ones produced by anything other than a pinhole camera In a low-res Youtube video I can't tell the difference.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2010 23:06
|
|
|
brad industry posted:In a low-res Youtube video I can't tell the difference. I didn't watch the video, I just looked at the stills.  
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2010 23:54
|
|
|
my friend just posted this on facebook. thought you uys would get a laugh too. http://www.break.com/index/that-doesnt-make-you-a-model-song.html
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2010 02:26
|
|
|
Dread Head posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8N0zq0q5s4 This is both terrible and great. I like watching his gear take a second dunking after he makes a feeble attempt to get up, confirming total destruction of his equipment. Even the speedlight goes in. Looks like the camera body stayed on after it was completely drenched. I wonder if any of the images on the card were salvageable. Anyway, this guy's an rear end for ruining a wedding.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2010 02:59
|
|
|
Mannequin posted:I wonder if any of the images on the card were salvageable. Anyway, this guy's an rear end for ruining a wedding. I couldn't tell what kind of camera that was, but don't the prosumer and up bodies have some level of basic splashproofing? Not even waterproofing, but maybe it was enough to keep the water from sloshing in and around the card area too badly. I'd be willing to bet that the card was OK. Unless it took some water while writing or something, then bye bye birdie.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2010 03:19
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:I couldn't tell what kind of camera that was, but don't the prosumer and up bodies have some level of basic splashproofing? Not even waterproofing, but maybe it was enough to keep the water from sloshing in and around the card area too badly. IIRC weatherproofing setups require a filter to be on the lens to work, which he probably didn't have on seeing how it's a wedding. So if nothing else the lenses were probably ruined. I'm also not sure that weatherproofed cameras are ok to be completely submerged like that, even for a short period of time.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2010 03:28
|
|
|
Yeah, he definitely flooded the mirror box. Hopefully it was a slow enough trickle that it didn't penetrate the shutter and instantly take out the card. As lovely as it is for the photographer, his first priority really should be to hope the photos are still intact. Hope he had a backup body that wasn't around his neck 
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2010 03:32
|
|
|
My SSD came in today, and I'm super happy with it (It's kind of a low end one speed wise, Kingston 64gb) I put all my lightroom catalog, cache, and images onto the drive, and things load instantaneously now on LR3. Not even joking, it's day and night difference, if you guys do paid work, you owe it to yourselves to make your workflow less irritating. If you're a hobbyist, and can spare the cash, it's a gigantic huge upgrade. It's like going from using a $400 Vista laptop w/ 1gb of ram and a Celeron or Pentium M or whatever to a desktop with a quad core, 16gb ram, and loving magic that makes things load instantly. I can't even imagine the people running Raid0 with Intel x25s or better.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2010 03:32
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:Yeah, he definitely flooded the mirror box. Hopefully it was a slow enough trickle that it didn't penetrate the shutter and instantly take out the card. I sent a card through the washer and dryer once. Worked like nothing ever happened. DO NOT TRY THIS AT HOME.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2010 03:58
|
|
|
rear end is my canvas posted:I sent a card through the washer and dryer once. Worked like nothing ever happened. Ditto. Wife sent both CF cards and SD cards through the wash and they worked fine after a nice regular cycle in the dryer.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2010 13:15
|
|
|
Flash memory is physically indestructible. They are starting to build planes out of the stuff.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2010 14:07
|
|
|
I read a blog once where they did all kinds of things to CF cards and they had a pretty hard time making them not work. They froze them, put them in beer, water, washer and dryer, ran over them with a car, baked them in the oven, etc. They were able to get the data off the cards in every instance.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2010 15:19
|
|
|
Whitezombi posted:I read a blog once where they did all kinds of things to CF cards and they had a pretty hard time making them not work. They froze them, put them in beer, water, washer and dryer, ran over them with a car, baked them in the oven, etc. They were able to get the data off the cards in every instance. Pretty much this, dry it out and you most likely get the data. The problem the photog might run into is if, like Martytoof said, the card got wet (or more specifically the contact terminals at the base shorted) while writing. Then the thing may still function but the data is likely corrupted to all hell. This thing is the top YouTube video over the past 24 hours. 1m hits in 1 day.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2010 17:17
|
|
|
KennyG posted:Pretty much this, dry it out and you most likely get the data. The problem the photog might run into is if, like Martytoof said, the card got wet (or more specifically the contact terminals at the base shorted) while writing. Then the thing may still function but the data is likely corrupted to all hell. I would expect the last image to be corrupted but everything else intact or easy to restore. Writing to flash requires correct timings, so random short circuits will most likely be ignored by the card.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2010 00:20
|
|
|
Saw this on a friend's Facebook today. Jamie Livingston shot a photo a day for 18 years until he died. Nearly every day from 1979 to 1997, chronicled via Polaroid. http://photooftheday.hughcrawford.com/
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2010 06:47
|
|
|
That last photo is depressing as gently caress..
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2010 07:14
|
|
|
Endstage cancer does that
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2010 14:59
|
|
|
Cross_ posted:I would expect the last image to be corrupted but everything else intact or easy to restore. Writing to flash requires correct timings, so random short circuits will most likely be ignored by the card. Let me rephrase, the filesystem could be corrupted to hell. The file system is relatively small (which is why you can format your card in about 4 seconds, but reading 32 GB of flash data could take several minutes or more. But, Yes, the data would still be there, mostly.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2010 18:09
|
|
|
KennyG posted:Let me rephrase, the filesystem could be corrupted to hell.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2010 00:53
|
|
|
pwn posted:Saw this on a friend's Facebook today. Jamie Livingston shot a photo a day for 18 years until he died. Nearly every day from 1979 to 1997, chronicled via Polaroid. drat that's raw as hell.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2010 02:36
|
|
|
How the hell do you grab phorum posts from the new flickr? I found the HTML but no [img][/img] links... anyone figure this out?
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2010 05:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 23:42 |
|
|
spf3million posted:How the hell do you grab phorum posts from the new flickr? I found the HTML but no [timg][/timg] links... anyone figure this out? So far Phorumr doesn't work with the new Flickr. I just reverted back to the old Flickr until the script gets updates.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2010 06:53
|
|