|
downtown_man posted:Holy Shhhit So I know a long time San Francisco photo assistant who was working for a photographer in the late 80s who owed him like $2000 or something for shoots he had worked. The photographer was broke and offered him a print that Ansel himself had given him back in the day instead of money, and he took it. I saw him at a bar a few months ago and he said he had gotten it appraised for $60k+ recently.
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2010 05:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 20:55 |
|
|
Alvination posted:I want to go to more garage sales. poo poo, that makes that mint-in-box Atari 2600 I got from a garage sale for $5 seem less of a great steal.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2010 06:05
|
|
|
brad industry posted:So I know a long time San Francisco photo assistant who was working for a photographer in the late 80s who owed him like $2000 or something for shoots he had worked. The photographer was broke and offered him a print that Ansel himself had given him back in the day instead of money, and he took it. I can't imagine doing that. I imagine selling my TV, computer, laptop etc. first. Esp. for just $2000 bucks.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2010 06:58
|
|
|
Well so much for the legitamacy of the Ansel Adams negatives found at a garage sale: http://blog.taragana.com/science/2010/07/27/lawyer-negatives-verified-as-ansel-adams-lost-work-but-photographers-heirs-skeptical-19425/ rcman50166 fucked around with this message at 19:27 on Jul 28, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2010 18:05
|
|
|
I doubt, even if the negatives are Adams', they're worth such an obscene amount of money for the reason given in the article and by his grandson: Negatives, especially the way Adams approached them, don't contain the photo. Without Adams doing the printing, it's simply not an Adams photos.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2010 18:25
|
|
|
rcman50166 posted:Well so much for the legitamacy of the Ansel Adams prints found at a garage sale: Old news. Plus I wouldn't exactly call "blog.taragana.com" a reputable news source.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2010 19:15
|
|
|
Bojanglesworth posted:Old news. Plus I wouldn't exactly call "blog.taragana.com" a reputable news source. Well it's not exactly the biggest news, so its hard to find if you're lazy like me. I saw the story on CNN during lunch. So I was just looking for the fastest result in google that had the information I was trying to share.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2010 19:31
|
|
|
rcman50166 posted:Well so much for the legitamacy of the Ansel Adams negatives found at a garage sale: I'm looking forward to the upcoming documentary "Who the $#%@ is Ansel Adams." The arguments against the authenticity ring pretty hollow to me. They make it sound like other person in California great depression was hauling a large format camera and some glass negative up to Yosemite every weekend. Linked Article posted:Turnage called that figure ridiculous because the value of Adams’ work is in his darkroom handcrafting of the prints, and said the negatives are next to worthless. "Pfffft. Negatives? All you have are negatives? Worthless I tell you. But I'm a nice guy so I'll go ahead and throw them away for you so you can go drown your sorrows."
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2010 21:57
|
|
|
BeastOfExmoor posted:
The point is basing the value of negatives on the price fetched by prints made by Adams himself is wrong. If they are authentic they are definitely not worthless, but hardly $200 000 000 either.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2010 22:23
|
|
|
Why the gently caress does the crop tool in Photoshop suck so bad when Lightroom's is absolutely awesome?
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2010 02:08
|
|
|
BeastOfExmoor posted:Why the gently caress does the crop tool in Photoshop suck so bad when Lightroom's is absolutely awesome? How can one crop too be far superior than another? I use both programs and I don't notice that one sucks incredibly bad...
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2010 02:18
|
|
|
Bojanglesworth posted:How can one crop too be far superior than another? I use both programs and I don't notice that one sucks incredibly bad...
fake edit: Ok, it apparently does do the first thing, it's just not very obvious.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2010 02:41
|
|
|
Have you tried holding down CTRL while dragging?
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2010 02:47
|
|
|
BeastOfExmoor posted:
It also lets you do the third thing if you drag the sides of the crop box after initially setting the crop and there is a whole other tool for rotating the entire scene.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2010 04:43
|
|
|
You can also hit F to change the screen mode and you can crop outside of the canvas.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2010 04:43
|
|
|
BeastOfExmoor posted:[*]Rotates the photo so that you're always seeing a level view (I find leveling horizons is much easier in Lightroom for this reason). In Photoshop, select the ruler and measure your desired horizon. There should be a button at the top of the screen that says "Straighten" now, or something like that. I don't have PS open in front of me. It's just one additional step. Granted it's not as intuitive as LR's.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2010 04:46
|
|
|
I wish I knew enough about Photoshop / Lightroom to start a tips/tricks thread. I'm still trying to learn keyboard shortcuts.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2010 06:17
|
|
|
Another great piece from Luminous Landscape  http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/trecking.shtml
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2010 08:03
|
|
|
robertdx posted:I wish I knew enough about Photoshop / Lightroom to start a tips/tricks thread. I'm still trying to learn keyboard shortcuts. The "Lightroom Queen" hasn't released her shortcut list for LR3 yet, but this is her one from LR2. http://www.lightroomqueen.com/lightroom/lightroom_shortcuts_win_20.pdf It's got a lot of nifty things that you might have never known about, so it's nice to glance at once or twice to try learning some new things.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2010 15:00
|
|
|
This is awesome. http://www.snagfilms.com/films/title/shooting_robert_king/ War Photographer documentary.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2010 17:25
|
|
|
spog posted:I'm not sure of the correct answer, cause I cannot understand the problem fully, but in this case, I would do a simple test: hey thanks, that seems like a good way to go about it. I just thought it was a little weird that a) LR was keeping copies around, and b) storing them in the Public folder, which could be shared with the wider internet depending on how things are set up. It looks like I can just remove them and no ill comes of it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2010 09:06
|
|
|
This is an interesting article on how DOF is a property of the magnification of the subject, NOT the focal length of the lens. The guy sets up a series of targets and keeps the main one at the same size at focal lengths from 400 all the way down to 17. The aperture remained constant and the result is that the DOF was identical in every shot. Of course you're still going to get more dramatic bokeh with a long lens because of distance compression, but the fact that DOF is magnification dependent is important to remember when composing shots. http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/dof2.shtml Article posted:In fact, if the subject image size remains the same, then at any given aperture all lenses will give the same depth of field.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2010 19:11
|
|
|
I love distance compression. It's such a mindfuck. I was messing around with it with a Canon S90 yesterday.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2010 19:25
|
|
|
HPL posted:I love distance compression. It's such a mindfuck. I was messing around with it with a Canon S90 yesterday. Steven Spielberg really blew a lot of minds when he did the dolly zoom on the beach in "Jaws". Such a great effect. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolly_zoom
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2010 19:55
|
|
|
McMadCow posted:This is an interesting article on how DOF is a property of the magnification of the subject, NOT the focal length of the lens. But the background at 17mm is a lot sharper than at 28mm. Seems like a "gotcha!" that relies on a technicality.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2010 20:07
|
|
|
Beastruction posted:But the background at 17mm is a lot sharper than at 28mm. It appears sharper because it's smaller. The point of the article is that if you zoomed in on that smaller object, it would be just as blurry as it is at 400mm when it's all embiggened.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2010 20:09
|
|
|
HPL posted:It appears sharper because it's smaller. The point of the article is that if you zoomed in on that smaller object, it would be just as blurry as it is at 400mm when it's all embiggened. Exactly. The DOF remained constant throughout all those shots regardless of the shape of the bokeh.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2010 20:12
|
|
|
McMadCow posted:Steven Spielberg really blew a lot of minds when he did the dolly zoom on the beach in "Jaws". Such a great effect. I had no idea that was how that effect was created. Thanks. Seems like it would be fantastically hard to get right/smooth.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2010 20:14
|
|
|
Hop Pocket posted:I had no idea that was how that effect was created. Thanks. Seems like it would be fantastically hard to get right/smooth. It's actually really easy to do if you run through it a few times. The first time I ever made a short on Super 8 (zombie movie, of course), we did a dolly zoom. Start zoomed in, walk towards the subject pulling wide so that the subject stays the same size. Instant exploding background!
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2010 20:17
|
|
|
I think the article is boss because of Gizmo, he's so cute.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2010 21:08
|
|
|
This is pretty rad: Stanford's Frankencamera  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vq-bWm6WpMo&feature=player_embedded Programmable API (Linux/C++), Realtime HDR, in-camera panoramic stitching, gyroscope, and all sorts of other nerdery. Dr. Cogwerks fucked around with this message at 21:27 on Jul 30, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2010 21:24
|
|
is go
|
HPL posted:It appears sharper because it's smaller. The point of the article is that if you zoomed in on that smaller object, it would be just as blurry as it is at 400mm when it's all embiggened. I guess I just don't see the use of thinking of depth of field in those terms. If you zoom in far enough anything will be blurry, but there's always an intended final size that determines what counts as sharp. If you blew up the 17mm shot until the background appeared as blurry as the others, you'd have to blow up the others to keep the subject the same size and there would still be a difference.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2010 21:32
|
|
|
Beastruction posted:I guess I just don't see the use of thinking of depth of field in those terms. If you zoom in far enough anything will be blurry, but there's always an intended final size that determines what counts as sharp. If you blew up the 17mm shot until the background appeared as blurry as the others, you'd have to blow up the others to keep the subject the same size and there would still be a difference. What you're talking about is why people generally go by "the longer the lens, the more shallow the DOF." Which obviously isn't technically true, but is still a perfectly good guidepost for practical purposes. The point of the article is to think of your DOF coming from the apparent magnification of the subject, not from the focal length of the lens you're using.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2010 21:40
|
|
|
Dr. Cogwerks posted:This is pretty rad: And hey! Two hot shoes!
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2010 22:02
|
|
|
McMadCow posted:It's actually really easy to do if you run through it a few times. The first time I ever made a short on Super 8 (zombie movie, of course), we did a dolly zoom. Start zoomed in, walk towards the subject pulling wide so that the subject stays the same size. Instant exploding background! Yeah I actually just tried this recently with my crappy $50 DIY dolly and it took like 2 tries to get it right/really smooth.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2010 22:43
|
|
|
When I was volunteering at a local public access cable channel, I found a cool little device that syncs the dolly motion with the zoom ring motor on the lens. You could set it for either direction so you could get background compression or expansion. That was at least two hours worth of entertainment.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2010 22:55
|
|
|
Its really awesome doing it looking down like in Vertigo. Works so well
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2010 00:00
|
|
|
downtown_man posted:Holy Shhhit Seems that they might not be his after all and Uncle Earl took them. http://www.petapixel.com/2010/07/29/ansel-adams-garage-sale-mystery-apparently-solved/
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2010 06:00
|
|
|
So I just visited about 8 used camera stores in Tokyo, Ginza and Shinjuku areas. All I wanted to buy was a Hasselblad/Carl Zeiss 38mm Biogon Fisheye and an Nikkor 8mm Fisheye. Not one of them had either. Although one of them had the 6mm Fisheye that I looked at the price of but refused to comprehend it after seeing the amount of zeroes. So I'm a little disappointed. Sure, they have everything from 16mm to 200 plus primes. And they have multiples of each. For example, I saw on the same shelf, 28mm F/1.8, F/2, F/2.8, F/3.5, then starting again with the 35mm and then 50mm and then 55mm, 6#mm and the jump to 85mm and running through all the possible F/stop values. All used but in great condition, all reasonably priced. Basically every lens you could imagine bar anything you want. And for Hasselblad, they had everything up from 50mm. I have a 40mm and I want a 38 fisheye, but both must be rarish. And they do have rare poo poo, I saw a Hasselblad mount zoom lens which I didn't think existed. It was huge. That is all.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2010 06:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 20:55 |
|
|
Does anyone have a link to the pro photographer's pimp direct mail piece, that had custom boxes and cigars and coffee mug stained postcards? I can't find it again and wanted to show someone.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2010 02:15
|
|