|
Personally I still use http://kleel.nfshost.com/oilu.html for linking to Flickr from any forum.
|
# ? Jul 13, 2010 07:08 |
|
|
# ? May 13, 2024 09:14 |
|
http://awkwardstockphotos.com/ This is pretty awesome.
|
# ? Jul 16, 2010 23:26 |
|
Those stock photos are hilarious. Anyways I'm at MBFW swim in Miami. It's really hot and humid. There's sand everywhere (and beautiful people, makes me feel short and squat).
|
# ? Jul 17, 2010 08:59 |
|
Haters gonna hate nonanone posted:Anyways I'm at MBFW swim in Miami. It's really hot and humid. There's sand everywhere (and beautiful people, makes me feel short and squat). Florida's summer is pretty brutal. I wouldn't worry about the people in Pompous Rhombus fucked around with this message at 14:41 on Jul 17, 2010 |
# ? Jul 17, 2010 14:39 |
|
Mannequin posted:I don't know how many of you guys know (or care) about this, but there's going to be a new TV show coming to Bravo early next year about photography. The details are a little sketchy, but it seems to follow the life of two pro-photographers in NYC. I posted this back in November. The series "Double Exposure" has been airing for a couple of weeks now but I guess it flew under the radar because it sucked so bad. Not really surprising considering it's from Bravo. Here's a clip of Marcus Klinko talking about his camera: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwUzU3Bfquo I was able to find one full episode on YouTube, doesn't seem to be up anywhere else. If you are bored and feel like killing some time, here is an episode where they photographed Naomi Campbell for the cover of American Photo magazine and Lady Gaga: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQFGwXnp4hs
|
# ? Jul 17, 2010 20:46 |
|
I thought I read on PDN that they were having massive legal/financial problems and that was why they did the show. Every photo industry related show is so terrible, now I know why people in the restaurant industry hates Top Chef.
|
# ? Jul 18, 2010 21:17 |
|
Yeah, the show is pretty terrible and after watching the episode I sort-of regretted posting it here. It seems like it's more of a drama between the photographer and his model-partner vs. a show about photography. They were in big financial problems according to the magazine article I read last year.
|
# ? Jul 18, 2010 23:00 |
|
My god, I just want to punch every single person in that video.
|
# ? Jul 19, 2010 03:05 |
|
Ken Rockwell has a camera covered in the skin of a mastodon penis. Your stupid willy mammoth tusk handle you had someone bolt onto your lovely elitist camera is gay.
|
# ? Jul 19, 2010 03:52 |
|
Has anyone watched the show "The Neistat Brothers" on HBO? It's basically a documentary series about these two brothers who make short films ala "Home Movies" style. They basically took a chance and spent their tax returns on some cameras and Imacs and never looked back like a decade ago. After that they just made short films, many of which have made it into festivals and finally HBO gave them a show. How the show works is each episode is based off 6 weeks which comprise their "Production cycle" 4 weeks of shooting and 2 weeks of editing. The show ends up with them talking about their short films, then showing them. It's really cool stuff staring people you'd actually want to be friends with, as opposed to that "Double Exposure" poo poo. Trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qD1wcVIGwGE I watched the first episode while I was bored doing some editing, and ended up putting the computer down and watching the whole thing because it was so interesting.
|
# ? Jul 19, 2010 08:37 |
|
brad industry posted:I thought I read on PDN that they were having massive legal/financial problems and that was why they did the show. Totally unrelated but I know a few chefs that love Iron Chef Japan ;D
|
# ? Jul 19, 2010 12:12 |
|
brad industry posted:I thought I read on PDN that they were having massive legal/financial problems and that was why they did the show. Umm... Yeah. I'm going to have to disagree... My girlfriend is a pastry chef, and watches top chef religiously. Most of her co-workers TiVo it too. When I was working in a kitchen a few years ago, all the line guys and the Sous Chef loved it. It's liked because of all the bullshit cooking shows on TV it's the most realistic. It's not as good as it was a few years ago, but it's still pretty drat good. Bonus points when some 'Kountry Kitchen' self-taught a-hole gets on there to "show these people that you don't have to be classically trained to be a good chef" and they get eliminated in the first episode - two seasons ago they had some arrogant student who hadn't even graduated culinary school and was eliminated before the first commercial break of the first episode. Yes, the B.S. challenges of 'create a dish that can be prepped for frozen dinners' is a ridiculous challenge, but the majority of it is way better than anything on Food Network. Oh and let's not forget the culinary industry has a lot of men and the bears just love them some Tom Calicio back to your regularly scheduled photography chat KennyG fucked around with this message at 21:01 on Jul 19, 2010 |
# ? Jul 19, 2010 20:58 |
|
I just bought a camera and a set of three lenses on eBay, and when they arrived they were all missing their lens caps... the buyers response when I asked why she hadn't mentioned they weren't included in the auction "Don't you think that's a little churlish of you? After all I didn't mention that there was no film in the camera" gently caress eBay
|
# ? Jul 19, 2010 21:46 |
|
Zegnar posted:I just bought a camera and a set of three lenses on eBay, and when they arrived they were all missing their lens caps... the buyers response when I asked why she hadn't mentioned they weren't included in the auction You have to assume the worst about anything on eBay; if you're not sure about something, ask questions (or if it's something that clarifying would significantly raise the value of the items in question, weigh the cost of asking versus taking a gamble). FWIW KEH does the same thing; if it doesn't explicitly state the lens caps are included, they're not. At any rate, those caps will probably set you back a grand total of $4 shipped from Hong Kong.
|
# ? Jul 19, 2010 21:51 |
|
I just bought an auto-focus lens for my D3s because I felt silly having all these focus points and never ever ever ever being able to do anything with them and oh god it's good i'm a little weak at the knees. It's only a 28m F/2.8. I'm never going to buy another big lens again, though. Only little primes for me. Unless I change my mind, and I'll have to hunt down this post and delete it so I don't look wishy-washy.
|
# ? Jul 20, 2010 01:16 |
|
Helmacron posted:I just bought an auto-focus lens for my D3s because I felt silly having all these focus points and never ever ever ever being able to do anything with them and oh god it's good i'm a little weak at the knees. It's only a 28m F/2.8. Too late. Preserved forever in quote form.
|
# ? Jul 20, 2010 02:00 |
|
Helmacron posted:I just bought an auto-focus lens for my D3s because I felt silly having all these focus points and never ever ever ever being able to do anything with them and oh god it's good i'm a little weak at the knees. It's only a 28m F/2.8. Wait, I'm so confused. You bought a $5000 body before buying a single AF lens? And isn't the 28mm 2.8 like one of the smallest lenses out there?
|
# ? Jul 20, 2010 03:07 |
|
WHAT ARE YOU CONFUSED ABOUT is it just the why of purchasing the camera or the lens or what I don't get it. It seems like you're fairly onto what I've done here. EDIT: Not calling the savviest bastard in the world but you seem pretty on top of my previous post. You seem to get it. EDIT2: You seem like a pretty cluey guy. EDIT3: Like from your post, I'm fairly content with the idea you understood my post. You know? Helmacron fucked around with this message at 03:24 on Jul 20, 2010 |
# ? Jul 20, 2010 03:22 |
|
Augmented Dickey posted:Wait, I'm so confused. You bought a $5000 body before buying a single AF lens? And isn't the 28mm 2.8 like one of the smallest lenses out there? Yeah what the gently caress. What about a D3s attracted you? It's like buying an ultimate offroad vehicle and putting the little donut spares on for tires.
|
# ? Jul 20, 2010 03:33 |
|
I like to think it's purchasing an excellent off-road vehicle and purchasing tires adequate for what you want to do, and not going out and getting enormous mud terrains so you vibrate stupid on the freeway, void your cheap insurance or pay for that insurance that makes your hackles rise because you're getting rear end hosed. And then, when you do go drive around in the bush, once every two months, you drive really timidly through puddles and you say to your passenger "oh no, oh no I'm not going to do that one, look how deep it is, I know I have a snorkel but that is just way to deep, yeah, that guy in the shittier car is going through it, but I'll go around, I don't need to go through things when I can go around" and then you get so hosed up the first night on schmirnoff and caffienated alcoholic drinks you can't function the next day, and you hang your head out the side flap of your tent and just vomit and retch until your stomach lining is coming out of your nose and your puke is fluro green. You manage to rouse yourself that night, and cook some dinner with your girlfriend, but you can't say much, can't even stand the sight of drink, and the next day you get up early and go home.
|
# ? Jul 20, 2010 04:33 |
|
Helmacron posted:I like to think it's purchasing an excellent off-road vehicle and purchasing tires adequate for what you want to do, and not going out and getting enormous mud terrains so you vibrate stupid on the freeway, void your cheap insurance or pay for that insurance that makes your hackles rise because you're getting rear end hosed. We need to party.
|
# ? Jul 20, 2010 05:02 |
|
Helmacron posted:I like to think it's purchasing an excellent off-road vehicle and purchasing tires adequate for what you want to do, and not going out and getting enormous mud terrains so you vibrate stupid on the freeway, void your cheap insurance or pay for that insurance that makes your hackles rise because you're getting rear end hosed. I don't know what's going on here but I want to take it home and give it a name.
|
# ? Jul 20, 2010 05:28 |
|
I would love to have a D3s to use with my manual focus primes.
|
# ? Jul 20, 2010 06:38 |
|
Reichstag posted:I would love to have a D3s to use with my manual focus primes. I can't disagree with this in the least.
|
# ? Jul 20, 2010 06:40 |
|
Helmacron posted:I like to think it's purchasing an excellent off-road vehicle and purchasing tires adequate for what you want to do, and not going out and getting enormous mud terrains so you vibrate stupid on the freeway, void your cheap insurance or pay for that insurance that makes your hackles rise because you're getting rear end hosed. Can we be friends? PM me?
|
# ? Jul 20, 2010 06:42 |
|
Heck, if attaching them didn't destroy the body (ancient pre-AI mount), I'd love to use my manual focus zooms!
|
# ? Jul 20, 2010 06:44 |
|
After that Phorumr script broke with the new Flickr page, I got tired of manually putting in the BBCode and copying over URLs, so I wrote a new one. Now, as a warning, I should tell you that this is horribly hacked together and may break at any moment. I do not really know JavaScript; I just pretend to and used the google extensively to look up functions. Here it is, go hog wild. If you use Chrome, click that poo poo and then click allow or yes or whatever at the bottom of your screen. If you use Firefox, click that poo poo and install it as a GreaseMonkey script (assuming you already have GreaseMonkey installed.) What this does: It puts a box under the description of the photo on the photo page containing bbcode like the following: {url=URL-of-your-photo-page}{img}URL-of-your-photo-at-the-size-shown-on-the-photo-page{/img}{/url} It does the same thing when you go to the All Sizes page. You can click on any of the sizes and it'll stay there under the photo. Hopefully this saves you time so you can post more pictures of your dogs and stuff. How it works: terribly. Here's the awful code code:
dakana fucked around with this message at 07:56 on Jul 20, 2010 |
# ? Jul 20, 2010 07:54 |
|
Helmacron posted:EDIT: Not calling the savviest bastard in the world but you seem pretty on top of my previous post. You seem to get it. Helmacron posted:You manage to rouse yourself that night, and cook some dinner with your girlfriend, but you can't say much, can't even stand the sight of drink, and the next day you get up early and go home.
|
# ? Jul 20, 2010 08:46 |
|
dakana posted:After that Phorumr script broke with the new Flickr page, I got tired of manually putting in the BBCode and copying over URLs, so I wrote a new one. You are the loving man, man.
|
# ? Jul 20, 2010 12:19 |
|
Reichstag posted:Heck, if attaching them didn't destroy the body (ancient pre-AI mount), I'd love to use my manual focus zooms! For real, what's up with that? I could never find a satisfying explanation.
|
# ? Jul 20, 2010 13:08 |
|
dakana posted:After that Phorumr script broke with the new Flickr page, I got tired of manually putting in the BBCode and copying over URLs, so I wrote a new one. Thank you so much, you're awesome.
|
# ? Jul 20, 2010 13:50 |
|
Manual focus rules, dudes.
|
# ? Jul 20, 2010 15:43 |
|
Interrupting Moss posted:Manual focus rules, dudes.
|
# ? Jul 20, 2010 16:05 |
Can you get a split prism screen for DSLRs?
|
|
# ? Jul 20, 2010 16:22 |
|
a foolish pianist posted:Can you get a split prism screen for DSLRs? Yes but don't bother if your camera doesn't support user-replaceable focusing screens (unless you want to send it out to a pro). It's ridiculously fiddly to get set up.
|
# ? Jul 20, 2010 17:02 |
|
BP caught photoshoping the oil spill "command" room. http://www.americablog.com/2010/07/bp-photoshops-fake-photo-of-command.html
|
# ? Jul 21, 2010 02:49 |
|
a foolish pianist posted:Can you get a split prism screen for DSLRs? Yes you can, they're expensive. Here's a good write-up on dpreview: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=31502753. I almost bought one from Brightscreen several months back but decided to use the money for something else.
|
# ? Jul 21, 2010 05:04 |
|
Oakland police are taking photos from flickr and publishing them, looking for looters. They haven't been asking permission to use the photos, but have been giving them to news organizations, who attribute the photos, "Provided by Oakland PD." Bradindustry had some shots of the riots as I recall. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/07/16/BA7P1EETMS.DTL http://thomashawk.com/2010/07/oakla...s.html#comments
|
# ? Jul 21, 2010 19:23 |
|
torgeaux posted:Oakland police are taking photos from flickr and publishing them, looking for looters. They haven't been asking permission to use the photos, but have been giving them to news organizations, who attribute the photos, "Provided by Oakland PD." Hope you registered your copyright. This sounds like a terrible exam question that my sadistic copyright professor would dream up. There is no 'emergency publication' protection in FairUse. One could argue that this would be a taking in violation of due process. It's going to get messy, I don't know what the rules are on California Sovereign Immunity and quite frankly don't feel like looking them up. The paper is playing with fire, publish them and you run afoul of copyright and risk serious statutory damages of up to ~$250k per image. Don't and you risk cutting off relationships with the police department. No win situation. All in all, I'm wouldn't be surprised if all of this hasn't been worked out behind the scenes where the paper has indemnity from the police department or the department has forged consent forms of the real copyright holders.
|
# ? Jul 21, 2010 20:54 |
|
|
# ? May 13, 2024 09:14 |
|
I wondered about that when I saw it. OPD just laid off 80 officers and I think they are just desperate for help (between highway shootouts with right-wing crazies, ghetto snipers, and other crazy poo poo that has been going on lately). Aren't the photos "evidence"?
|
# ? Jul 21, 2010 21:02 |