|
pwn posted:What brand is CA-1011? The brand that doesn't infringe any trademarks. 
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2010 14:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 11:32 |
|
|
pseudonordic posted:The brand that doesn't infringe any trademarks. It seriously looks like someone just spilled a little white-out over the C A N O N on his pop-up flash too. It's great.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2010 14:58
|
|
|
ZoCrowes posted:Using the kit lens And a Rebel, apparently
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2010 17:20
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:And a Rebel, apparently Pffffft, he doesn't even have IS for God's sake! He's only got a Rebel XTi!
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2010 17:35
|
|
|
dunkman posted:I'm having a huge slugfest over in SA-Mart with the host of my photo gallery domain (Tfatf.com).
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2010 18:28
|
|
|
pseudonordic posted:Pffffft, he doesn't even have IS for God's sake! He's only got a Rebel XTi! Hey it's a tough economy right now. Even the Daily Planet has to make some cutbacks.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2010 20:04
|
|
|
spf3million posted:Wow that was quite the meltdown over there. It was a back and forth battle for a while with both sides striking blows and the audience getting into the action. Then out of nowhere, the avalanche hit in support of dunks and it was over before Hytek knew what hit him. Glad you got your domain back. I don't have it back just yet, I'm waiting for the transfer to go through. He can lock it back down at any moment until the transfer goes through. I do have a filled out document for the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection ready to mail in.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2010 20:22
|
|
|
DJExile posted:It seriously looks like someone just spilled a little white-out over the C A N O N on his pop-up flash too. It's great. Oh man, I should totally try painting bits and pieces over my XT's logo sometime and make it look like a cheap Chinese knockoff.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2010 00:03
|
|
|
Zack Arias is great - http://www.zarias.com/top-10-ways-to-become-a-professional-photographer/quote:#10 – Breathe! – I can’t tell you how important it is to constantly breathe when you are professional photographer. Not only does it help you make great photos but if you can keep breathing long enough after a photoshoot then you’ll be able to collect the check from the client. Try different kinds of breathing too! In through the nose and out the mouth. Or in and out of the mouth. Talk to your customers about how you like it in and out of the mouth.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2010 00:56
|
|
|
dunkman posted:I don't have it back just yet, I'm waiting for the transfer to go through. He can lock it back down at any moment until the transfer goes through. He is in CT? Where at? Edit : Fairfield county. Figures.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2010 11:57
|
|
|
There has been a flurry of interest in some work a good friend/colleague has recently published about meta-materials, the interest being in its potential cloaking properties. For your general interest: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11686303 Today we had a photographer from Reuters come down to take some shots. Really nice guy, he had with him a couple of well worn Canon 1D's with a 200-70mm, 70-28mm and 100mm macro. Interestingly enough he said that they were not allowed to do such things as taking out blemishes, scratches or any cloning, and if he did he'd lose his job. Only post processing that was allowed was what is achievable in a conventional darkroom.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2010 17:50
|
|
|
Spedman posted:There has been a flurry of interest in some work a good friend/colleague has recently published about meta-materials, the interest being in its potential cloaking properties. For your general interest: That is the standard for journalism and why when people are caught cloning in extra missiles or smoke it is a big deal.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2010 18:11
|
|
|
Spedman posted:achievable in a conventional darkroom Hate to quibble about wording, but people did some crazy poo poo before darkrooms. Composites and image manipulation existed from the day photography was invented. edit: Photojournalists have a whole set of ethics that they all need to stick to. AIIAZNSK8ER fucked around with this message at 18:16 on Nov 5, 2010 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2010 18:13
|
|
|
I think that is just an easy way to explain to people without going into details.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2010 18:24
|
|
|
Yea, you're right. Just about everyone I shoot will say, "you can photoshop X to make me look better right?" and I reply "photoshop actually has a tool called a magic wand". They laugh and I get a smile.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2010 18:28
|
|
|
Dread Head posted:I think that is just an easy way to explain to people without going into details. Yeah, basically. My editing for the paper involves crop, levels, maybe light color balance if I hosed something up in camera, maybe light dodge/burn, and sharpen. Nothing more.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2010 18:36
|
|
|
BobTheCow posted:Yeah, basically. So I couldn't use the little Spot Removal tool to remove a pimple or something? I took a journalism class as a gen. ed, and they mentioned something about transient, non relevant details could be removed, like pimples or blackheads or something, but you know, 28 year old TA students are the final authority on this stuff. Just curious. milquetoast child fucked around with this message at 19:53 on Nov 5, 2010 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2010 19:22
|
|
|
Hard to say really. I have never worked for a major publication for something like that but I am guessing no? It is a really tough call on where to draw the line or to decide what is a "non relevant" detail. An extra missile in a photo may be a minor detail for someone but a major one for someone else.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2010 20:10
|
|
|
Definitely not. If it's in the picture, it's in the picture. The only exception would be to remove obvious dust spots from your lovely sensor because your camera body's been beat to hell for five years in a shared closet full of assholes who don't care about beating up gear that doesn't really belong to them so why worry about silly details like caps. e: I should point out I'm by no means the final expert either, but I've studied journalism all through college, worked on the student paper for a few years, and am currently interning at the local mid-major daily paper.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2010 21:48
|
|
|
BobTheCow posted:Definitely not. If it's in the picture, it's in the picture. Yep. You're going to get your balls busted WIDE open if you do anything but the adjustments you mentioned in your previous post. PJ ethics are very, very strict.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2010 22:15
|
|
|
Photos have to tell the truth. If you take out a pimple, you are lying. You can argue all day about how merely taking a photo is manipulation, but that's a different beast. If you take out some power lines that were intersecting your subject's head or killing a really cool framing effect, you're lying. You can't do that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2010 22:45
|
|
|
dakana posted:Photos have to tell the truth. That's rich.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2010 22:53
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:That's rich. I'll take the bait. You're coming at this from a different perspective. After doing PJ for a few years and being surrounded by it, I think that I've got a pretty different point of view. With a news photograph (or even a features photograph), you absolutely manipulate the scene. I'll agree to that. You pick your angle, focal length, light, depth of field, etc. But the point is that in the photograph, everything that is portrayed is real. It happened, and if you were at that event, you would have seen the exact same thing is you were watching. That's the key here. You can mew mew mew at me about how the act of taking a photograph and controlling those variables manipulates what you're shooting, but I'm going to repeat until I'm blue in the face that editorial photographs have a responsibility to remain truthful to reality and portray what actually happened. Whether or not it conveys a different emotion, selects a different detail to focus on, is a subjective interpretation of the scene by the photographer and his/her biases is a different topic. The takeaway from all of this is the simple fact that everything in an editorial photograph is physically real. You choose how you capture it, sure, but it existed. If you take a photograph and then take out a pimple, you create a fiction in which that person does not have a pimple. edit: I probably should have specified when I made the quoted post that I was referring to an editorial photograph being used in a news publication. That's where the "truth" responsibility comes from. Under any other circumstance in which you're not using photographs to inform the public in a news publication, do whatever the hell you want and more power to you for doing it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2010 23:01
|
|
|
Don't know if this has come up yet. A Globe and Mail (large Canadian newspaper) staff photographer talks about what's in his camera bags. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/multimedia/camera-club/whats-in-our-staff-photographers-camera-bag/article1782714/
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2010 00:20
|
|
|
The Mamiya was a really nice touch 
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2010 00:24
|
|
|
dakana posted:Photos have to tell the truth. If you take out a pimple, you are lying. You can argue all day about how merely taking a photo is manipulation, but that's a different beast. If you take out some power lines that were intersecting your subject's head or killing a really cool framing effect, you're lying. You can't do that.  "When I lie, I am closer to the truth than documentary photography." - Tono Stano There is no way to impartially capture an event. Just in framing the picture you are leaving something out. There is always some context that is left out. Since you decide what gets left out you are in a sense manipulating the event.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2010 00:57
|
|
|
TheLastManStanding posted:There is no way to impartially capture an event. Just in framing the picture you are leaving something out. There is always some context that is left out. Since you decide what gets left out you are in a sense manipulating the event. I was just writing an artist statement for a gallery proposal and I got sick of describing my photos as cartographical insights into the data snow flurries of cryptologists out to conceal the mercatorial projection and mercurial flow of real world visual information and the conversion of 3D to the 2D map framework of our conceptual understanding. Now you've given me something else to throw verbosity at. Thankin' you, sir, thankin' you. I was very near running a warm bath, breaking apart my safety razors, and sinking into the abyss with a William Gibson novel.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2010 01:12
|
|
|
Helmacron posted:I was just writing an artist statement for a gallery proposal and I got sick of describing my photos as cartographical insights into the data snow flurries of cryptologists out to conceal the mercatorial projection and mercurial flow of real world visual information and the conversion of 3D to the 2D map framework of our conceptual understanding. The sky above his mother's basement was the color of a television tuned to a dead channel....
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2010 02:52
|
|
|
Hot Cops posted:Yep. You're going to get your balls busted WIDE open if you do anything but the adjustments you mentioned in your previous post. PJ ethics are very, very strict. Kind of ironic, given the general level of ethics of the rest of the journos.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2010 04:16
|
|
|
ease posted:He is in CT? Where at?
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2010 04:22
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:The Mamiya was a really nice touch Yeah that put a smile on my face too
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2010 19:34
|
|
|
GWBBQ posted:Right across town from me in Fairfield, I went to high school with him. Maybe this was all because he got desperate and was $36 short on his boat payment? (I know better than to pull Internet Detective poo poo and post it, but imagine the guy from the "I'm on a Boat" video with shorter hair. Half of his pictures are him out on his boat.) I got my domain back and had my credit card canceled and they're mailing me a new one so I never have to deal with this guy again. What a nightmare, I have no idea how he stayed in SA-Mart so long.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2010 21:33
|
|
|
Photojournalist ethics always seem really bizarre to me, but I understand why they do it that way and why a lot of them are really gung-ho about it. To say that a photograph is truthful is clearly not true, but they have to have some kind of standard to maintain at least a little bit of credibility. The biggest manipulation is of course when you make the choice to pursue one story or subject over another, seems kind of silly to worry about cloning pimples out at that point, but I get it. edit: I loved this project: http://www.stinkyjournalism.org/editordetail.php?id=399 quote:they had planned since 2008 to make a hoax as a protest against usual contest entries who Chauvin, one of the two students hoaxers told Le Figaro, typically 'seemed more like vacation photographs as opposed to photojournalism. The photographs depicted small children with big wet eyes in order to illustrate the misery abroad.' Journalism has it's own signifiers and language, and I think how that has evolved and how those images are used in service of larger agendas is really interesting. brad industry fucked around with this message at 22:40 on Nov 6, 2010 |
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2010 22:32
|
|
|
brad industry posted:http://www.stinkyjournalism.org/editordetail.php?id=399 If you follow the link to the link to chasejarvis blog, the fellow there prattles on less about how the way the photojournalistic ethics can be manipulated and more how ingenious it is to break a code of ethics, and the way they've done it makes him want to hire them for... for what? You can't hire them for photojournalism now, they've obviously shown they are liars. These guys have shattered their reputation as long as that code of ethics is in place. I don't know the truth, but Chase Jarvis calls it "subversive... creative... meta..." and I suspect it was more along the lines of this paraphrased dialogue: "i never win anything, and i always work so loving hard, im going to make up something this year" "hey, ill join you. how about like, pictures of us being homeless" "cool ha ha" "ha ha" "oh god we won" "what do we do" "we can't get away with it, we have to admit it" "sacre bleu" EDIT: gently caress, dunkman. Blur into the background, you didn't deserve your win and it was the ugliest 15 minutes of fame I've seen in a long time, and you keep pushing, ungraciously pushing. Who are you to be such a fool. Just blur, dunkman, and stop acting like a oval office. Helmacron fucked around with this message at 23:42 on Nov 6, 2010 |
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2010 23:35
|
|
|
brad industry posted:The biggest manipulation is of course when you make the choice to pursue one story or subject over another, seems kind of silly to worry about cloning pimples out at that point, but I get it. This is why photojournalism is never as "ethical" as its aggressive proponents make it out to be. You can't shoot every story and the ones that are shot get more weight over the ones that aren't.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2010 00:40
|
|
|
It says they were surprised they won that competition. It actually is really smart and subversive. Journalism has a visual language the same way bad HDR photography has it's own style and language. We all know exactly what he means when he says images of "children with big wet eyes". Journalists use visual codes that we understand to signify certain ideas - humanity, suffering, importance, human nobility, whatever. They faked those visual cues to draw attention to the language (I guess you could also call it 'manipulation') photojournalists use to communicate ideas and stories, and they faked those codes so successfully their little joke actually won.quote:and the way they've done it makes him want to hire them for... for what? I imagine a critique of journalistic style like this would be interesting to all kinds of people who hire photographers, although obviously not those that hire actual photojournalists for reporting. edit: I dunno if you want to read through all of this but there's a good critique in this slide lecture of a journalism image in the "Ideology" section http://www.uvm.edu/~tstreete/semiotics_and_ads/contents.html "The Photographic Message" essay by Roland Barthes also talks about meaning in photojournalism: http://www.aphotostudent.com/photo-readings/ brad industry fucked around with this message at 00:55 on Nov 7, 2010 |
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2010 00:49
|
|
|
I dunno, I don't think they screwed their futures as photojournalists. I'm thinking of an analogy to how banks and computer security companies like to hire hackers. If you can expose the weakness of a system, you can avoid some major hazards, and show your employer how to avoid those hazards. The fact they admitted to the hoax pretty much right away, rather than hiding it and risking getting found out, speaks well to their intelligence and creativity, as well as basic honesty, I think. Of course, I'm not a professional photographer nor journalist of any kind. Maybe this episode really does exclude them from photojournalism as a profession.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2010 01:18
|
|
|
brad industry posted:It says they were surprised they won that competition. It actually is really smart and subversive. Journalism has a visual language the same way bad HDR photography has it's own style and language. We all know exactly what he means when he says images of "children with big wet eyes". Journalists use visual codes that we understand to signify certain ideas - humanity, suffering, gratitude, whatever. They faked those visual cues to draw attention to the language (I guess you could also call it 'manipulation') photojournalists use to communicate ideas and stories, and they faked those codes so successfully their little joke actually won. You're right. What I was trying to say is whatever their noble intentions may be now, whatever merit can be pulled from this stunt, I very seriously doubt that was their intention from the beginning, I don't believe they set off to mock the integrity of photojournalism. From what I've seen of these contests, from what I think I know about people, from what I've read in this article, this is not how things like this start, this is the story you make up later to get out of trouble. And that's what bothers me, this misinterpretation of "art". Whether or not I'm right, and my strawman point is true (in regards to me guessing their intentions), they've faked humanity in a photograph, and they faked it well enough to win a contest. I'm not going to say faking such photographs is easy and anyone with photographic understanding can do it, and I'm not going to say they shouldn't go out and find something real to photograph. I am going to say that if someone poo poo on your front door step, that is a poo poo on your front door step. It can be construed as a message to get a bigger fence, to purchase a starving doberman, to sit on your porch with a shotgun. You take whatever you want from that, but in the beginning, someone poo poo on your front door step and now you need to clean it up. You shouldn't cover the shitter in glory because you wanted that new fence. I personally don't feel like these guys deserve such a congratulating tone for sticking one to the establishment.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2010 01:18
|
|
|
I think maybe you are missing the point of what they did, without the misrepresentation it's not as effective of a critique. Read that stuff I linked, I don't know whether they read Barthes in PJ school but it is definitely something that art students like these would be familiar with. I don't see how the work or how they reacted to winning indicates it was anything but what they say it is (or how they would get in trouble - is the ghost of Ansel Adams going to ground them?). I guess it doesn't really matter to me either way because what they say they did is way more interesting to talk about than some tired "modern art is bullshit to trick you" discussion. An elaborate cover up where they reveal their own hoax just seems unlikely for a project that conceptually works so well... brad industry fucked around with this message at 01:53 on Nov 7, 2010 |
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2010 01:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 11:32 |
|
|
Here's a story about how one little digital alteration caused a set of photos to be disqualifed at this years World Press Photo. They're pretty serious about these sorts of changes. Even require entries to include the original RAW files: http://www.petapixel.com/2010/03/03/world-press-photo-disqualifies-winner/
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2010 06:22
|
|
