|
psylent posted:I shoot the occasional wedding and have met up with wedding photographers at networking events. I've been told by a couple of female wedding photographers that they won't work with male photographers. What's the thinking behind that?
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2011 03:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 13:23 |
|
|
rockamiclikeavandal posted:What's the thinking behind that? they probably had a bad experience with a male photographer being a dick to them and decided to apply that to all male photographers.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2011 03:05
|
|
|
rockamiclikeavandal posted:What's the thinking behind that?
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2011 03:28
|
|
|
poopinmymouth posted:It's not fun to me either, but since we're on the topic... I would like to know from someone other than him if that kind of stuff does make you uncomfortable. Commenting on women's looks, joking or otherwise, is touchy because of how much women have to face every day in society, and can quickly make the dorkroom feel like an unsafe space. On the other hand there's a pretty obvious difference between stating attractiveness and straight-up objectification, and some DR posters can't seem to tell.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2011 16:30
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:No. I'm straight and I think dudes can be attractive. I think the "y, y, y, n" poo poo, which I can't imagine means anything other than "would I gently caress you?" was probably what put it over the line. That said I do a lot of theater work and get hit on by gay dudes all day and I want to say that if it bothers you, you probably have your own hang-ups about your sexuality that you need to deal with, but at the same time, that sort of behavior from a man commenting on women is creepy as gently caress and so I don't know if it should just get a free pass. There is a difference between saying "you look good" and "I would have sex with you" and that's where it gets uncomfortable. Really, though, worst derail ever. As to the gender issues, I don't blame women at all for not wanting to work with male photographers. Half the guys I've met personally, who are pretty much all amateurs, are creepy and awkward and are usually only interested in women in any way if they are posing in skimpy outfits. I've seen enough of them to personally consider that to be the standard and I don't have a problem with the blanket statement. I'm sure on the professional level a lot of guys are dismissive cocks when it comes to female photographers as well. mr. mephistopheles fucked around with this message at 18:00 on Jan 24, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2011 17:58
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:It was suggested recently in the pictures-of-pets thread that we (people who like to pretend to know a thing or two about taking a picture) could volunteer at local animal shelters to provide photos of animals available for adoption. A bit of googling demonstrates that this does indeed occur, though not particularly often. I do this. I volunteer at the Humane Society of Greater Dayton. Before I went up to school my freshman year of college, I sent them an e-mail explaining that I was a photographer who was interested in volunteering to take photos of the pets they had for adoption so that they'd have good photos on their adoption listings website. They had me come in and talk with them, and they explained that with the volume of pets they processed on a weekly basis, that ideally they'd need someone coming in twice a week. I wasn't able to commit that amount of time, so we decided that I'd come in as often as I could, but that I would also give a workshop to their regular volunteers that came in often so that these non-photographers would be able to take better photos of their animals. Also, they asked me to come up with a proposal for some equipment for them -- I was planning on getting them a few used SLRs, bounce flashes, and 50 1.8s or 35 f/2s. Unfortunately, they had a ringworm outbreak followed by a parvo outbreak, and by the time they had everything cleaned up, the summer was over and I was up at school. When I came home for the summer after my freshman year, I went back to volunteer with them again, and found out that while I was at school, another photographer stepped up and volunteered as I did. They were able to recruit two others as well and set up a rotation so that a photographer was coming in twice a week. I joined, my brother joined, and a few others joined on too so that we had a monthly rotation schedule, and adoption rates and website impressions were going up. I had to take myself out of the rotation when I went back up to school, but when I get back home for the summer I'll be volunteering again. Like someone else said, it really becomes a logistical question rather than a photographic one. Usually, I bring a friend to help me "wrangle". For cats and small animals, we use one of the "bonding rooms" they have and just bounce flash. Dogs can be brought outside, which has the added benefit of giving them exercise. You need a method of matching what pets you took pictures of with the names or ID numbers of the pets -- I use the voice memo function on my camera, but others just write down a description of the pet, or the file number range next to the pet's name on a sheet of paper. Honestly, I could go all out and bring in white seamless, 3-4 strobes, and set up a studio somewhere, but the set up time wouldn't be worth it. Honestly, getting clean, attractive photos of the pets is fine. If you slightly miss focus, no one will notice. If the background is a little busy, no one will notice. For the sheer volume of animals that a lot of shelters process, it becomes more of a streamlined process where you go in with bounce flash and get what you get. That's not to say the photos are bad -- they're just not perfect. If resources allowed for a semipermanent studio to be set up at the shelter, that would be awesome. The problem is that the resources don't exist, and you have to make do and get through the queue of new pets needing homes. dakana fucked around with this message at 19:30 on Jan 24, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2011 19:26
|
|
|
dakana posted:Like someone else said, it really becomes a logistical question rather than a photographic one. Usually, I bring a friend to help me "wrangle". For cats and small animals, we use one of the "bonding rooms" they have and just bounce flash. Dogs can be brought outside, which has the added benefit of giving them exercise. You need a method of matching what pets you took pictures of with the names or ID numbers of the pets -- I use the voice memo function on my camera, but others just write down a description of the pet, or the file number range next to the pet's name on a sheet of paper. Wrangling is my word for the same. Interesting to hear that your experiences are so similar to mine (I guess the Humane Society has widespread best practices), right down to the ID numbers and the bonding room and focus on throughput and everything else. Usually I just take a picture of the tag at the shelter, manually type it in at home, and use Lightroom to sync metadata for all the shots of that particular little guy. Piquai Souban fucked around with this message at 19:37 on Jan 24, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2011 19:32
|
|
|
mr. mephistopheles posted:I think the "y, y, y, n" poo poo, which I can't imagine means anything other than "would I gently caress you?" was probably what put it over the line. I agree that any guy who is insecure about being hit on by a gay guy has deeper issues than "eeeew homos." I usually take it as a compliment because most gay guys have pretty good taste. I'm actually uncomfortable photographing women I don't know just because I really don't want to come off as a sleazebag. It helps that I am personable and not a troll. Unfortunately a lot male photographers seem to be just that. On a completely different note Ernst Leitz and Elsie Kuehn-Leitz (Leica) were Nazi-resisting badasses. They organized missions to get their Jewish employees out of Germany after Hitler became Chancellor and the Nuremberg Laws were passed. (courtesy of the History thread in GBS) ZoCrowes fucked around with this message at 20:46 on Jan 24, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2011 20:09
|
|
|
mr. mephistopheles posted:I think the "y, y, y, n" poo poo, which I can't imagine means anything other than "would I gently caress you?" was probably what put it over the line. Like I said, it's an SA meme, not something I came up with. Unfunny? probably to most, but it was posted in irony and I thought it was common enough on all the SA sub-forums that people would get that it wasn't serious. I've never seen it used in seriousness, because honestly, it's the text equivalent of honking your horn at a passing person to say, "you're hot". It is a stupid derail, but that's the second time that guy has called me creepy, despite the fact I post far more useful contribution and critiques than comedic flirting. There are several female photographers at my last job and they seem more interested in the image making part than the gear. The male photographers, of which there are a lot more, all have way more expensive gear, and talk about it a lot more in depth, but seem to go out less than the women to photograph. It's odd that I still enjoy talking to the guys, despite less photo taking, because geeking out on gear is fun and can be done quickly, where as drawing out your goals and techniques for communicating in 2d form, while of course possible, is a bit deeper than a 5 minute conversation can allow. I think it's because most photographers who use it as a simple hobby just don't think too much about their motivation behind the images they take, but that could be an over generalization.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2011 20:35
|
|
|
Anybody fancy dropping some portrait photo tips into the SA Online Dating thread as an act of charity? Most of the profile photos on that are crying out for even the tiniest bit of technique, and the topic of profile pictures has come up. I'm assuming all they have access to is compacts. I was planning to suggest
I'll just leave the 3 most recent pictures posted here...   
Zegnar fucked around with this message at 22:46 on Jan 24, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2011 22:43
|
|
|
poopinmymouth posted:There are several female photographers at my last job and they seem more interested in the image making part than the gear. The male photographers, of which there are a lot more, all have way more expensive gear, and talk about it a lot more in depth, but seem to go out less than the women to photograph. It's odd that I still enjoy talking to the guys, despite less photo taking, because geeking out on gear is fun and can be done quickly, where as drawing out your goals and techniques for communicating in 2d form, while of course possible, is a bit deeper than a 5 minute conversation can allow. I think it's because most photographers who use it as a simple hobby just don't think too much about their motivation behind the images they take, but that could be an over generalization. I dunno, I think it's more of a hobby vs. art debate rather than one necessarily about gender although it certainly seems that way. There is definitely a huge amount of camera owners that just care about the gear and are in love with doing sharpness tests etc. and for them that's the hobby. I'd say 99% of those are men. As an art form I'm sure you'll find just as many men as women that care about the image product itself. It's just all the hobbyists make it seem that male camera users are more gearpigs than women.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2011 22:50
|
|
|
dakana posted:I volunteer at the Humane Society of Greater Dayton.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2011 05:11
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:male camera users are more gearpigs than women ExecuDork posted:if the pigs don't poo poo explosively upon me 
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2011 16:51
|
|
|
Ric posted:I find this derogatory talk about clean, intelligent creatures most offensive and insist that you use a different pejorative, possibly one based on sexuality or gender. Why, you bourgie gearfluffer!
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2011 18:12
|
|
is go
|
So wait, on a comedy forum, under a thread that's supposed to be specifically for GBS type stuff, we're calling each other out for making unfunny comments because we assume the other posters are a pack of skeezy weird-o fucks meanwhile we're expressing our biggest fear as being perceived as skeezy weird-o fucks? Awesome.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2011 18:24
|
|
|
squidflakes posted:So wait, on a comedy forum, under a thread that's supposed to be specifically for GBS type stuff, we're calling each other out for making unfunny comments because we assume the other posters are a pack of skeezy weird-o fucks meanwhile we're expressing our biggest fear as being perceived as skeezy weird-o fucks? I feel that you are prejudiced against the skeezy weirdo gently caress community and generally that means you are in denial about your own skeezy weirdo fuckness.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2011 18:49
|
|
|
People take jokes on the internet too seriously, more at 11. You guys remember 40 some odd bodies camera posting on CL I was excited about? Dude wanted 1500$ for the lot. Some of these cameras were plastic Polaroids.  http://newlondon.craigslist.org/pho/2176700179.html ease fucked around with this message at 18:57 on Jan 25, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2011 18:54
|
|
|
He just got his punctuation wrong. Its supposed to read "All good? No, junk here."
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2011 19:52
|
|
|
ZoCrowes posted:I agree that any guy who is insecure about being hit on by a gay guy has deeper issues than "eeeew homos." Female model gets hit on by photographer? Creepy photographer! Guy being hit on by other guy? Insecure homophobe! I hope you do see the double standard.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2011 20:20
|
|
|
I've only been hit on by gay guys twice, but both times made me feel pretty good for the day. I actually felt bad because I'm sure it took a lot of courage to try, and now they might be dissuaded from making an attempt. A photographer hitting on his model is extremely unprofessional and creepy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2011 20:29
|
|
|
squidflakes posted:So wait, on a comedy forum, under a thread that's supposed to be specifically for GBS type stuff, we're calling each other out for making unfunny comments because we assume the other posters are a pack of skeezy weird-o fucks meanwhile we're expressing our biggest fear as being perceived as skeezy weird-o fucks? Sure it's a comedy forum, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to be at least a little classier and more clever than 4chan or a Youtube comment section in here. Casual sexism is up there with casual racism for dragging a place down quickly. Shmoogy posted:A photographer hitting on his model is extremely unprofessional and creepy. During my freshman year at art school, there was a notorious 40+ year-old dude in the area known as "Sketchy Rob" who made a point of chatting up all the incoming freshman girls. He'd invite them to do private model shoots for him, pay a little bit or pay with food, and kept pushing their comfort levels towards nude fetish shoots as quickly as possible. If they reached that point, he'd try to start loving them too. Nickname was well deserved. I was less than pleased when my roommates started inviting him over to our place... Dr. Cogwerks fucked around with this message at 20:47 on Jan 25, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2011 20:38
|
|
|
Cross_ posted:Female model gets hit on by photographer? Creepy photographer!
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2011 20:47
|
|
|
Can we just please move on? I read an article about some D-Day photographer which I lost the link to, but have a look at these : http://blogs.denverpost.com/captured/2009/06/05/the-65th-anniversary-of-d-day-on-the-normandy-beaches/306/ 
ease fucked around with this message at 20:55 on Jan 25, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2011 20:51
|
|
|
Cross_ posted:Female model gets hit on by photographer? Creepy photographer! I hope you see that there is a difference. Hitting on someone in a professional context of a photoshoot is unprofessional no matter the sex or sexual orientation of the people involved. Being hit on by a gay dude at a bar is a different story. ease posted:Can we just please move on? These are really cool. I did not see any Capa photos in the lot. It's funny because his D-Day photos are probably the most well known. If I recall correctly there were only five press photographers involved with the D-Day landings and Capa was the only one to make it off the Higgin's boats in the initial landings. After getting his shots he got back on a boat and spent the remainder of D-Day helping to get wounded men back to the staging ships. He passed out from exhaustation and woke up in the infirmary the next day. When he got his negatives to the Life office all but 12 of them were destroyed by an overzealous intern who turned the negative dryer up too high. Only 12 frames or so survived. Capa's memoir is fascinating and anybody interested in photojournalism should pick it up. Robert Capa is probably one of the coolest men of the 20th century. ZoCrowes fucked around with this message at 21:04 on Jan 25, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2011 20:56
|
|
|
ZoCrowes posted:Being hit on by a gay dude at a bar is a different story. The Onion has you covered
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2011 21:00
|
|
|
If someone wants to start a thread about gender issues/male gaze/sexuality/whatever in photography please do and move the discussion out of this thread.quote:When he got his negatives to the Life office all but 12 of them were destroyed by an overzealous intern who turned the negative dryer up too high. Only 12 frames or so survived. This reminds me of the Arnold Newman story where he shot Alfred Krupp for Time (Nazi war industrialist, image is my avatar). He shot him all evil looking and managed to keep him and his bodyguards from seeing the Polaroids. Then they broke into his hotel room, stole the proofs but missed the negatives he had hidden, and he had to flee Germany and I believe was banned from entering ever again. Krupp was later convicted as a war criminal for using slave labor.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2011 21:23
|
|
|
brad industry posted:If someone wants to start a thread about gender issues/male gaze/sexuality/whatever in photography please do and move the discussion out of this thread. I always wondered what your avatar was. At avatar size it looks a bit like Dennis Hopper. I always find interesting the lengths that old-school photographers would go to hide negatives. I know that the Magnum photographer who got the first shots of Soviet ICBMs went to some pretty serious lengths to get the negs out of the country. I am racking my brain to recall the details though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2011 21:34
|
|
|
ZoCrowes posted:I did not see any Capa photos in the lot. That's who I was reading about, but now I can't find the article. He said he chose to arrive with the first wave.... crazy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2011 21:41
|
|
|
Here is a new topic. If you shoot Nikon, how do you feel about Canon, and if you shoot Canon how do you feel about Nikon? I shoot Canon, and feel that Nikon is for douchebags, since my stepfather shoots Nikon.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2011 01:19
|
|
|
I feel that they are camera manufacturers.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2011 01:22
|
|
|
ease posted:Here is a new topic. I think Nikon is for people who know someone who "takes really pretty pictures" and asks them what kind of camera to get, so they buy the cheapest available DSLR that "just came out!" and now they take pretty pictures too! That's my story, and I'm sticking with it. edit: MY GIRLFRIEND, who shoots Nikon, saw this post and glared at me, you know that look that women give you? I just got that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2011 01:22
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:I feel that they are camera manufacturers. That's why you are boring.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2011 01:32
|
|
|
Real pros shoot Leica  Who am I kidding no one can afford that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2011 01:33
|
|
|
A+++ excellent light tight boxes would shoot with again
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2011 01:35
|
|
|
I've tried to get my wife interested in cameras, and constantly hand her my camera in M with auto iso and dummy AF on (my 5 yo has taken some amazing pictures this way, btw) but she never takes more than a few photos. If she did want to get into it, I'd force her to get Canon and then systematically convince her she needed the lenses I didn't have.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2011 01:38
|
|
|
ease posted:Here is a new topic.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2011 01:39
|
|
|
Nikkor sounds too close to a racial slur so that's why I use canon
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2011 01:40
|
|
|
beeker posted:Real pros shoot Leica I like my Bessa R3a and collection of Leica thread mount glass (Canon, Cosina/Voigtlander, and Russian) ease posted:I've tried to get my wife interested in cameras, and constantly hand her my camera in M with auto iso and dummy AF on but she never takes more than a few photos. If she did want to get into it, I'd force her to get Canon and then convince her she needed the lenses I didn't have. Maybe an NEX or a Pen or something? Paragon8 posted:Nikkor sounds too close to a racial slur so that's why I use canon Nikkor, please.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2011 01:40
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:Nikkor sounds too close to a racial slur so that's why I use canon But the Canon-ites were Nikkors 
Zegnar fucked around with this message at 01:56 on Jan 26, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2011 01:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 13:23 |
|
|
Does the word-part, word-root, word-suffix, something, "-kor" have a particular meaning in Japanese? I ask because both Nikon and Minolta created a new brand for their lenses, but not for their camera bodies or (as far as I know) other components like flashes, Nikkor for Nikon (which seams reasonable enough) and Rokkor for Minolta (which seems totally out of left field). Or is this just some lame coincidence, probably based on the names of people who founded glass-shops 100 years ago?
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2011 02:08
|
|