|
brad industry posted:What did you shoot for the explosion? It was a can of spraypaint. The key was to have a flame near it to ignite the stuff once it came bursting out. I didn't realize how big the fireball was going to be the first time  But we got it right the second time  Man, I really want to go back down there now.
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2010 10:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 11:48 |
|
|
dakana posted:It was a can of spraypaint. The key was to have a flame near it to ignite the stuff once it came bursting out. I prefer the first photo for being a massive wall of flame. The second one isn't quite so impressive.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2010 12:45
|
|
|
Mannequin posted:I really want an F6. Bad. I don't want to buy it used, I want it new, but I am nowhere even remotely close to being able to afford it. I am also petrified they are going to discontinue it soon. I think I'm going to have to get a second job or just a better first job... the problem is I don't really have any marketable skills anymore besides photography, but I can't pursue that because I don't have the balls. I wish I didn't like camera stuff so much. Why couldn't I have liked baseball or basketball? You just pick up the ball and play, you don't need $2,300 cameras.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2010 14:03
|
|
|
What does an F6 do so well that makes it cost as much new as a D700?
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2010 17:29
|
|
|
It's not worth it. At all. It has matrix metering and i-TTL on a film body, and that's the only thing that sets it apart. If you have a particular film that you love shooting and think it could benefit from those features, it's the body for you. ...pretty niche, hence the insane price.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2010 17:34
|
|
|
Beastruction posted:What does an F6 do so well that makes it cost as much new as a D700? I am not really sure, my guess would be production numbers but who knows.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2010 18:56
|
|
|
Beastruction posted:What does an F6 do so well that makes it cost as much new as a D700?
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2010 18:59
|
|
|
I'm pissed. I just bought a wide-angle Vivitar lens off eBay for a photo project on my K1000. It arrived broken beyond any point of being usable. The focus ring is so tight it won't turn, the aperture doesn't work very well, and the base with the mount came unscrewed. I got my money back, but I just wanted to use the drat thing, you know? The seller didn't want it back, so I guess it's a free sacrificial lens for me to try repairing. Anyone done any lens repair before?
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2010 01:17
|
|
|
fartzilla posted:The seller didn't want it back I don't think that's how eBay is supposed to work. edit: Oh unless you mean he refunded your money and just said "don't bother sending it back".
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2010 01:21
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:I don't think that's how eBay is supposed to work. Yeah, that's what happened. I always wondered why sellers were so willing to do that because I could just be an rear end in a top hat looking for a free lens, but it wasn't very expensive anyway so it's probably not worth the trouble for them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2010 01:23
|
|
|
Er, sorry I completely skimmed the part where you said "I got my money back"  Lenses are complicated designs, but there's a method to the madness. I don't have any personal experience other than tightening a few screws in my old 70-200 f/4 K-mount lens, but it was pretty logical once I got inside.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2010 01:27
|
|
|
Just noticed this gem in my D1 manual:
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2010 02:49
|
|
|
Augmented Dickey posted:Just noticed this gem in my D1 manual: The sad thing is someone must have done this sometime in the past bad enough that it warranted a complaint to Nikon.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2010 03:02
|
|
|
 Lens bracelets. http://photojojo.com/store/awesomeness/lens-bracelets/
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2010 03:22
|
|
|
Dread Head posted:
I would buy an 85mm or a 135mm faster than ISO6400. Not my best material not my worst.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2010 03:59
|
|
|
Dread Head posted:
Let me guess, if you want one with a red ring, it costs 3x as much?
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2010 04:07
|
|
|
Interrupting Moss posted:It's not worth it. At all. It has matrix metering and i-TTL on a film body, and that's the only thing that sets it apart. If you have a particular film that you love shooting and think it could benefit from those features, it's the body for you. It's overpriced but it's got some good features. It takes every lens ever made by Nikon, including pre-AI lenses. The only ones it won't take are the older invasive fisheyes, or the rangefinder lenses made for the SP/S2/S3. The main downside to the camera from my perspective is that its Aperture Priority setting maxes out at 32s (vs. 15 minutes like some of the older film cameras - a useful feature for exposing correctly/automatically at night). It's also incredibly tough and durable, like the D3, but not completely over-sized. Max shutter speed is 1/8,000. If you look around you won't find this combination of features from any other film camera from Nikon. pwn posted:I don't get you on this. Not buying a used F6, returning that one Nikkor because of a cosmetic ding, is this compulsion explainable? Lord knows I have esoteric hobbies, but SNL DVDs are like $20 each, $40 tops for the rarest stuff. Used F6's, unless in really poor condition, are still horribly expensive. Factor in that I don't trust bodies from KEH due to the US/Gray Market thing, it's worth buying new to me. Otherwise, I would probably get it used if I knew it was legit and in good shape. The 50mm lens was not really a bargain in its condition, so I had to return it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2010 04:44
|
|
|
Augmented Dickey posted:Just noticed this gem in my D1 manual:
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2010 17:11
|
|
|
dakana posted:I didn't realize how big the fireball was going to be the first time And that bracelet thing reminds me to buy some generic black silicone ones to cover up the my red ring 
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2010 19:39
|
|
|
So a full page picture of my grandparents (father's side, both now passed on) was featured in a 1986 National Geographic about the coast of Maine. They're standing in front of their summer hotel on it's 100th anniversary, arm in arm, toasting the anniversary with a large crowd of people in the background doing the same. We have two copies of the issue, and a copy of the picture is hanging at the hotel, but is obviously pretty old. I'm looking in to buying fresh copies of the picture for my father and aunt for christmas. I just looked at the nat geo form, and they cost $25 for an 8x10 and they all come watermarked with a nat geo logo. I quote: quote:ALL prints come with the “NGS” copyright / logo in the corner of the print. It is understood by you that these What the gently caress? I want a piece of family history (the copy we have currently is not watermarked), unsullied by your loving tacky watermark. Is that too much to ask?
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2010 01:33
|
|
|
Do you really expect to be able to pay $25 for an unwatermarked 8x10? Regardless of whether or not you own the rights to that photo probably you're going to want to talk to a person at National Geographic about it and not complain about the form people send in when they want to get a copy of Giraffe Baby and Afghan Girl to hang up in there office.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2010 01:41
|
|
|
Awkward Davies posted:
just use content aware fill
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2010 01:41
|
|
|
Twenties Superstar posted:Do you really expect to be able to pay $25 for an unwatermarked 8x10? Regardless of whether or not you own the rights to that photo probably you're going to want to talk to a person at National Geographic about it and not complain about the form people send in when they want to get a copy of Giraffe Baby and Afghan Girl to hang up in there office. Good point Paragon8 posted:just use content aware fill Also a possibility
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2010 01:42
|
|
|
Post it here, I'm sure I or someone else could take out a watermark pretty easily.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2010 03:29
|
|
|
Post it in GBS, that way you'll get some cool lens flairs to replace the watermark (and, probably, somebody's face). Plus, you know, LASER EYES! You want a boring picture, or a bad-rear end picture?
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2010 04:46
|
|
|
You mean 1985. If you are willing to pay and can show that they are your relatives, then I'm sure you could call up NG and ask them for a good un-watermarked print.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2010 05:27
|
|
|
Samsung to 'out-sell' Canon and Nikon by 2015AP posted:Samsung chiefs have told AP that the company is determined to secure the number one spot in the mirror-less micro system camera market by 2012, and to be the best selling camera brand overall by 2015. Doesn't sound exactly easy, but maybe plausible. Seems Samsung's strategy so far has been to flood the compact market with colorful models with just small differences, and the NX system seems to be aimed at teenagers whose parents pay for the camera.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2010 11:21
|
|
|
DanTheFryingPan posted:Samsung to 'out-sell' Canon and Nikon by 2015 It's easy to outsell Canon and Nikon in the mirrorless market when they haven't even entered it yet. They need to worry about beating Sony or Panasonic first.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2010 13:54
|
|
|
You should call NG and demand the negatives for free. It is your family members souls they stole by taking that photo after all.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2010 18:25
|
|
|
kefkafloyd posted:It's easy to outsell Canon and Nikon in the mirrorless market when they haven't even entered it yet.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2010 03:36
|
|
|
spf3million posted:Do point and shoot's fall into this category? I don't really know, but I always thought Canon dominated the P&S world. Could be because that's all I've ever really owned though. 'We are passionate about making a success of the NX system,' JW Kim said, 'and we are certain that the APS-C sensor will dominate the compact system camera market. It won't be long before compact system camera sales exceed those of DSLRs, and then Samsung will be the best selling camera brand' It's a little unclear, but I guess they use the phrase 'compact system camera' to mean 'mirrorless cameras with removable lenses' rather than 'P&S' Which makes more sense, I guess.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2010 04:06
|
|
|
Shot in the dark: any of you fine folks live in Portland, Maine, or near enough that you can find a copy (or two?) of the Portland Press Herald? I have between one and three photos running in tomorrow's (Monday, Nov. 21) issue that may get some good play that I'd like to have for my portfolio. However I live in Virginia soooooooooo... help? I can Paypal you $10 or something for your trouble (and postage).
BobTheCow fucked around with this message at 05:37 on Nov 22, 2010 |
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2010 05:34
|
|
|
BobTheCow posted:Shot in the dark: any of you fine folks live in Portland, Maine, or near enough that you can find a copy (or two?) of the Portland Press Herald? I have between one and three photos running in tomorrow's (Monday, Nov. 21) issue that may get some good play that I'd like to have for my portfolio. However I live in Virginia soooooooooo... help? I can Paypal you $10 or something for your trouble (and postage). My wife's dad works in Portland, I'll ask if he can get me one.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2010 11:37
|
|
|
kefkafloyd posted:It's easy to outsell Canon and Nikon in the mirrorless market when they haven't even entered it yet. Sony needs to hurry and release an actual lens line for the NEX cameras. I want to buy one, but neither lens out is for me.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2010 12:00
|
|
|
Does anyone happen to have a link to the thread where woot fatigue (?) detailed his workflow for getting those amazing interior shots? I'd love to have a crack at trying it out myself. edit: never mind, I've found it! an actual cat irl fucked around with this message at 13:24 on Nov 22, 2010 |
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2010 12:59
|
|
|
Wooten posted:My wife's dad works in Portland, I'll ask if he can get me one. Thanks so much! Looks like I got some decent front page play, now I'm curious as to what I've got running in Sports: http://www.newseum.org/todaysfrontpages/hr.asp?fpVname=ME_PPH&ref_pge=lst
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2010 15:06
|
|
|
moron posted:Does anyone happen to have a link to the thread where woot fatigue (?) detailed his workflow for getting those amazing interior shots? I'd love to have a crack at trying it out myself. Wow. Did he ever get around to posting part II? It isn't in that thread.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2010 15:48
|
|
|
mr. mephistopheles posted:Wow. Did he ever get around to posting part II? It isn't in that thread. Not as far as I'm aware. I'd love to see a part II though....the first part was fascinating. I'm definitely going to try my hand at it this week. It'll almost certainly look absolutely terrible, but it'll be interesting none the less.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2010 16:16
|
|
|
moron posted:Not as far as I'm aware. I'd love to see a part II though....the first part was fascinating. Same here. You should post what you come up with.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2010 16:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 11:48 |
|
|
kefkafloyd posted:It's easy to outsell Canon and Nikon in the mirrorless market when they haven't even entered it yet. That's exactly what I was thinking, what the hell? I guess they will meet their goal pretty easily and it'll look good on a stock report or something. Marketing hype is glorious stuff.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2010 16:58
|
|
