|
evil_bunnY posted:Repeat after me: Am I under arrest or am I free to go, offissah? seriously one of the most important things to know
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2010 00:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 23:29 |
|
|
squidflakes posted:The H-hole office near the airport or the one in Midtown? Neither, I think. Unmarked high rise near the Sam Houston Tollway. I mostly wanted to point out that if I was a terrorist looking for a soft target I would be be shooting from a moving car or from a couple hundred yards away with a 600mm lens, but I thought that might not go well.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2010 06:09
|
|
|
I know it sounds like an insane point of view, but whenever this topic comes up, I always get to thinking about it all again and I know, I absolutely know that I would prefer to live in a world where photography is illegal. In some ways, I realize it will stifle creativity, but we have such an incredibly glut of it right now (I believe). And I realize it would be almost unenforceble. On the spot fines for all toting cameras, sure. And there will be criminal acts by law enforcement officials because there is no one out there documenting. And of course, Nikon will die, and Canon will die. And tamronsigma and so on. And I suppose the idea, this idea of mine, is born from jealousy and chagrin of all these cameras around me all the time. And because I will be one of the few who would continue to pursue outside photography. But really try and see it. A world where cameras are banned everywhere but your own home. Wouldn't you want to see those outside images? Like, wouldn't the mundane suddenly be a little bit amazing. And I've been harassed, I've been kicked out of train stations, cafes, malls, cinemas. I've been kicked out of all of them. I've had people try to charge me to take photos of things. I understand the pain. I'm not ignorant. If there was a way, I would ban photography and I would make the photographer as reviled as the graffitist or worse. Link us with terrorism, link us with pedophilia, link us with cancer, link us with atheism and the absence of soul. Thank you.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2010 06:57
|
|
|
I took a panorama of a record-breaking crowd last year at one of our women's basketball games. We ran it the next day in our paper. I got an e-mail from the head coach asking for a copy of it because she liked it, so I sent one. Today, I found my panorama displayed on the university's athletics website under an article about season tickets with the credit reading "Courtesy: Toledo Athletics" Aw hell naw. Politely-worded e-mail, sent! 
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2010 07:43
|
|
|
Helmacron posted:I think that trying to work on 1,470dpi images may have made your mind go a bit funny. Maybe you should sit down and rest for a while? Open a window and get some fresh air.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2010 07:55
|
|
|
Quick question, I have a few product images going up on a website, I want to be using sRGB for maximum compatability, right?
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2010 14:08
|
|
|
Pantsmaster Bill posted:Quick question, I have a few product images going up on a website, I want to be using sRGB for maximum compatability, right? Yes.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2010 14:51
|
|
|
Actually you might want to use Wide Gamut RGB color space, as the word 'wide' means it's pretty wide and it will be compatible with a wide arrange of profiles...
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2010 17:59
|
|
|
^ That's not what 'wide' means in that context. Anyone have any recommendations for blogs that feature commercial/editorial photography? Big or small. Things along the lines of Burstoid, Fubiz, Boooooom, Flak, etc.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2010 20:11
|
|
|
brad industry posted:^ That's not what 'wide' means in that context. designyoutrust has some cool stuff at times.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2010 20:26
|
|
|
brad industry posted:^ That's not what 'wide' means in that context. I like https://www.touchpuppet.com but that's skewed a little more towards fashion, but there's some great editorials.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2010 21:08
|
|
|
brad industry posted:Anyone have any recommendations for blogs that feature commercial/editorial photography? Big or small. Things along the lines of Burstoid, Fubiz, Boooooom, Flak, etc.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2010 22:00
|
|
|
http://abduzeedo.com/tags/photography Is this the sorta thing you're looking for?
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2010 05:02
|
|
|
A circa 1908 Wollensak 35mm F5.0 Cine-Velostigmat hand cranked cinema camera lens mounted on a 5DmkII. http://www.cinema5d.com/viewtopic.php?p=133996
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2010 11:48
|
|
|
http://www.dentsulondon.com/blog/2010/09/14/light-painting/ Ok, so this is super creative. Stop motion animation with lightpainting done by an ipad in 3d Space, you gotta watch it to make sense.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2010 16:35
|
|
|
AnotherFreakboy posted:A circa 1908 Wollensak 35mm F5.0 Cine-Velostigmat hand cranked cinema camera lens mounted on a 5DmkII. I go to camera club stuff sometimes in Melbourne and there's a guy there who brings like, reverse connected voightlander on a D90 and so on. They invariably take awful photos and I don't quite see the point. But hobbies are hobbies.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2010 01:30
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:Repeat after me: Am I under arrest or am I free to go, offissah? lol enjoy trying this in houston and getting several teeth knocked out
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2010 01:36
|
|
|
Edit: Wrong thread
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2010 01:37
|
|
|
Helmacron posted:I know it sounds like an insane point of view, but whenever this topic comes up, I always get to thinking about it all again and I know, I absolutely know that I would prefer to live in a world where photography is illegal.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2010 23:15
|
|
|
Other than the M9 this is the first digital camera in a long time I would consider carrying around: http://dpreview.com/news/1009/10091910fujifilmx100.asp
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2010 23:26
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:Other than the M9 this is the first digital camera in a long time I would consider carrying around: http://dpreview.com/news/1009/10091910fujifilmx100.asp scanned that all the way through hoping to see 'four thirds' and nearly shat when I saw APS-C. Biiiig sensor in a compact. I want one, but I do suspect that fixed focal length = horrible flop. Sigma already tried this.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2010 23:34
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:Other than the M9 this is the first digital camera in a long time I would consider carrying around: http://dpreview.com/news/1009/10091910fujifilmx100.asp Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu ordering this
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2010 23:35
|
|
|
Compact with a 35mm equiv f/2, from Fuji, who, despite not being a main digital player, has got to know what they are doing (the s series dSLRs are amazing), is going to be amazing. If it had manual focus it would be perfection. Please don't let it cost a mint.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2010 23:44
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:Compact with a 35mm equiv f/2, from Fuji, who, despite not being a main digital player, has got to know what they are doing (the s series dSLRs are amazing), is going to be amazing. If it had manual focus it would be perfection. Please don't let it cost a mint. That ring on the lens is probably focus, since it's a prime? It is very very beautiful; the integrated ND filter is also a very clever idea which should become standard. I wonder if it is polarisation based, or something like smart glass Zegnar fucked around with this message at 23:51 on Sep 19, 2010 |
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2010 23:47
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:Compact with a 35mm equiv f/2, from Fuji, who, despite not being a main digital player, has got to know what they are doing (the s series dSLRs are amazing), is going to be amazing. If it had manual focus it would be perfection. Please don't let it cost a mint. Does this one have that crazy sensor technology that gives the Fuji DSLRs the highest dynamic range of all the other ones? If this one keeps crazy dynamic range that's even better. I just don't see this thing *NOT* selling like proverbial hotcakes, unless, like you said, it costs a mint. Anything less than a grand and I predict this is going to be every serious photographer's 2nd camera.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2010 23:47
|
|
|
Zegnar posted:That ring on the lens is probably focus, since it's a prime? Optical viewfinder without a rangefinder means it'd be zone focus, wouldn't it? The lens ring is for selecting aperture I assume.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2010 23:51
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:Optical viewfinder without a rangefinder means it'd be zone focus, wouldn't it? The lens ring is for selecting aperture I assume. Well, you could use the EVF for actual focusing, especially if it did that magnify focus area by 10x when moving the focus ring (if that is what it is). Would be awesome to have the EVF turn on only when turning the zoom and having it magnify the center to confirm focus, then go back to off so you are using the optical viewfinder for all other than focusing. Sucks it's not out till 2011
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2010 23:54
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:Optical viewfinder without a rangefinder means it'd be zone focus, wouldn't it? The lens ring is for selecting aperture I assume. Could do it with the digital viewfinder. It's pretty clear in this photo that the 'focus' ring is distinct from the aperture ring, separated by a thin sliver (with the red line on). Could just be a multi purpose dial though. 
Zegnar fucked around with this message at 23:59 on Sep 19, 2010 |
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2010 23:57
|
|
|
Zegnar posted:Could do it with the digital viewfinder. It's pretty clear in this photo that the 'focus' ring is distinct from the aperture ring, separated by a thin sliver (with the red line on). Could just be a multi purpose dial though. also quote:While traditionalists prefer the clear, sharp view of an ‘optical’ finder, modern electronic displays, giving data like shutter speed, aperture, white balance, exposure correction and sensitivity can aid the photographer tremendously. The new Hybrid Viewfinder on the FinePix X100 aims to give the user the ‘best of both worlds.’ I know reviews tend to have over the top specification lists, but this whole list takes it to a new level. quote:Optimization of the angle-of-incidence in conjunction with the specially developed lens maximizes light gathering efficiency extending to the perimeter of the sensor for a sharper image with exceptional clarity 
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2010 00:40
|
|
|
TheLastManStanding posted:This statement is retarded. My 'traditional' optical 'viewfinder' showed me 'aperture', shutter speed, 'expo'sure', had a split prism, and is bigger, brighter, and more awesome than any new camera I've ever looked through. How can some laggy display beat that? If they had made this camera in the traditional SLR style I would actually have been interested. Your optical viewfinder is 3" across?
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2010 00:46
|
|
|
Wow, I guess I'll stop lumping Fuji into the "who the gently caress buys that poo poo" category. I wonder what pricing will be.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2010 00:55
|
|
|
TheLastManStanding posted:This statement is retarded. My 'traditional' optical 'viewfinder' showed me 'aperture', shutter speed, 'expo'sure', had a split prism, and is bigger, brighter, and more awesome than any new camera I've ever looked through. How can some laggy display beat that? If they had made this camera in the traditional SLR style I would actually have been interested. Is a split prism the cat's eye thing? Because I always hated that thing. All to often, the problem with tradition is that as we move forward, it becomes regression. And there's always someone out there who forgot to update and still thinks it's the best thing out there.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2010 00:57
|
|
|
Helmacron posted:Is a split prism the cat's eye thing? Because I always hated that thing. All to often, the problem with tradition is that as we move forward, it becomes regression. And there's always someone out there who forgot to update and still thinks it's the best thing out there. It's about the right tool for the job. Shooting sports with a telephoto I'd go for even a cheap autofocus every time. Landscapes with a wide open wide angle, I'd rather have a larger viewfinder and a longer focus screw on the lens (and yes, a split prism)
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2010 01:12
|
|
|
Beastruction posted:Your optical viewfinder is 3" across? Beastruction posted:Is a split prism the cat's eye thing? Because I always hated that thing. All to often, the problem with tradition is that as we move forward, it becomes regression. And there's always someone out there who forgot to update and still thinks it's the best thing out there.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2010 01:12
|
|
|
TheLastManStanding posted:There is no manual focus. It says in the link it's all contrast based AF. Those dpreview grids are pretty inconsistent, but usually focus refers to type of autofocus available (ie contrast detect or phase detect). Here is an example of a bridge camera with (not very good) manual focus listed as simply 'Focus:autofocus'. I am not expecting actual geared autofocus but I wouldn't give up hope of decent focus-by-wire (as seen on many decent pro lenses) on this basis.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2010 01:21
|
|
|
Oh, actually, I just got my Olympus OM10 out and fiddled with it and I can see how it's pretty aight. Apologies. I can see how it's good for film cameras. I don't think it makes sense on digital, especially if you're landscaping it up. I heart zoom in liveview, it was the most exciting thing when I realized my D700 had that feature. EDIT: What I really want now, in professional digital cameras (and surely this could be some sort of firmware update), is the ability to watch the progression of a bulb exposure on the LCD back. Anybody else?
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2010 01:28
|
|
|
Helmacron posted:the ability to watch the progression of a bulb exposure on the LCD back. Anybody else? I'd be down for this and some 
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2010 04:40
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:Other than the M9 this is the first digital camera in a long time I would consider carrying around: http://dpreview.com/news/1009/10091910fujifilmx100.asp Goddammit why are they releasing so many new cameras that I want.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2010 06:26
|
|
|
If the X100 can do rangefinder-style manual focusing along with AF, that would be so loving cool. I'm just scared about the price now. If they can keep it under $1000, I'm seriously going to be thinking about getting one. It's like a digital Contax T2.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2010 06:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 23:29 |
|
|
Helmacron posted:Oh, actually, I just got my Olympus OM10 out and fiddled with it and I can see how it's pretty aight. Apologies. I can see how it's good for film cameras. I don't think it makes sense on digital, especially if you're landscaping it up. I heart zoom in liveview, it was the most exciting thing when I realized my D700 had that feature. Little late to this show but I will bet you 100 e-bucks that the printer hosed up her numbers and actually wants that file at 1440 dpi as it's one of the highest default resolutions supported by large format printers. You can almost assuredly get away with 720 as I'm pretty sure there's no surface capable of supporting that high a res unless you're Gursky and you're making C-Prints.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2010 12:07
|
|