|
Paragon8 posted:It might be worth having a super serious thread to contain all the retouching is evil and what is art topics that come up every month or so Only the same four people will post in it and it will die a slow death
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2011 03:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 19:04 |
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:Only the same four people will post in it and it will die a slow death or it could actually foster debate because there is a specific place for it's not clogging up the more light hearted threads. It's not like this forum is super fast moving anyway. Although we are on our second tripod megathread
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2011 03:14
|
|
|
Rememember when models had pores? Wow, you must be old!
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2011 05:12
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:It might be worth having a super serious thread to contain all the retouching is evil and what is art topics that come up every month or so I think topics that come up in the light hearted threads should just split off into new threads if there's enough interest. That's why we have a subforum. I have been meaning to write an OP for an 'artchat' thread after the discussion in 'awesome photographers' recently, just haven't had time.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2011 05:36
|
|
|
brad industry posted:I think topics that come up in the light hearted threads should just split off into new threads if there's enough interest. That's why we have a subforum. I have been meaning to write an OP for an 'artchat' thread after the discussion in 'awesome photographers' recently, just haven't had time. Yeah, that would be good. I think people get a bit intimidated about starting new threads so I guess people should be a bit ballsier with posting.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2011 05:48
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:Yeah, that would be good. I think people get a bit intimidated about starting new threads so I guess people should be a bit ballsier with posting. Retouching is loving awesome. All women should look skinny as a rail with huge boobs.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2011 06:45
|
|
|
brad industry posted:But the vast majority of fashion images are produced, styled, and commissioned by gay men and are largely consumed by straight women. I would be interested in hearing what your perspective on that is (maybe this topic deserves it's own thread, it's interesting). I of course can't google the quote or remember who said it, but I remember someone making headlines not that long ago for calling fashion models "unfuckable gay men's fantasies" (I remember it being in the NYT if anyone knows what I'm talking about). I'd make a thread (I had one typed up) but I haven't worked in a gay dominated industry yet. The only field that can give videogame art-pits a run for their straight-white-male domination is network administration. That said, I don't see a huge difference between the females that straight game-artists make, and hollywood/glamor mags. Sure runway models are more alien-esque, but I would posit that's the only field where gay men actually have full agency, and aren't just making what they think their straight-male market wants. (aren't actual catwalk audiences at the big shows full of women and gay men in all the actual positions that matter?) Having said that, I would never ever want to use the women you see on the catwalks for photography. My tastes in females as objects of beauty runs much more vanilla. It could also just be a massive self-feedback loop that just keeps pushing higher and higher in production values in order to keep up the exclusivity of veblen goods as photography product, and has nothing to do with actual aesthetic or sexual orientation preferences.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2011 13:16
|
|
|
HPL posted:Retouching is loving awesome. All women should look skinny as a rail with huge boobs. I think you should start a new thread about this! It sounds like a winner!
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2011 14:03
|
|
|
poopinmymouth posted:Sure runway models are more alien-esque, but I would posit that's the only field where gay men actually have full agency, and aren't just making what they think their straight-male market wants. (aren't actual catwalk audiences at the big shows full of women and gay men in all the actual positions that matter?) Or they're not looking for hot women, they just need a walking clothes rack to drape their artistic genius on.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2011 15:41
|
|
|
Beastruction posted:Or they're not looking for hot women, they just need a walking clothes rack to drape their artistic genius on. From what I understand, this is it. The high fashion standard is not super skinny with big boobs, just super skinny, so it hangs better (or worse depending on your opinion). There's an interesting history about the shift to super skinny (thanks twiggy) but I think it has a lot to do with the designers. Exaggerated features make a lot more interesting of a walking clothes rack, which is basically what e girls and guys are. They're beautiful, that's for sure, but very awkward off the runway, they basically tower over everyone else. I should mention that everyone I've ever met at fashion shows always talks about how disgustingly thin the models are, especially when it's obvious they've starved themselves, but a surprisingly amount of them are naturally that skinny. You can really easily tell when they are naturally that skinny versus not (aka can you see her ribs from her back).
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2011 16:15
|
|
|
Beastruction posted:Or they're not looking for hot women, they just need a walking clothes rack to drape their artistic genius on.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2011 20:32
|
|
|
Some quick reading, Chris Leaman recently shot fresh Congresspersons for Washingtonian Magazine. EOSHD says Nikon's still imaging will suffer if they don't improve video, or something. Michael Reichman reviews Panasonic GH2, and as always, any negative points are actually positive if he likes a product. Still interesting to try one out.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2011 20:33
|
|
|
Interesting - Nikon's first ever DSLR and it was usable at ISO 3200
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2011 21:11
|
|
|
Speaking of Michael Reichman's gh2 review, I went back and was reading some reviews of various cameras from 4-5 years ago, and it's amazing what was given glowing reviews back then. Talking about good iso 400 as if it was the be-all, screen resolutions and other technical aspects that are bested in even cheapo cameras today. I am not sure where I am going with this, but it really puts reading reviews in perspective. poopinmymouth fucked around with this message at 21:46 on Feb 20, 2011 |
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2011 21:39
|
|
|
I have seen a lot of people who invested in medium format digital switch to 5Dmk2's recently FWIW. Mostly things like the Leaf Aptus 22's and generation or two behind Phase backs (P20-30's). No one seems to be really upgrading their backs for newer ones for more resolution (what are we up to now with Phase One, like 60+ megapixels?). It seems like 20-25 megapixels is the sweet spot for file size and people would rather use a smaller/cheaper camera and not have to deal with the frankensteined way you hook up Mamiyas, lovely Leaf Capture software, etc. I think we've finally reached the point where megapixels don't matter anymore, the current sensors are good for 99% of poo poo, just like you didn't need to bust out the 4x5 for everything back in the day.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2011 21:48
|
|
|
Mega pixels are something you can market to the masses, I think the masses are now catching on that they have reached the upper limits of what is really needed. It was something a manufacture could easily market "more mega pixels = better camera" , it was something you could tell someone with no knowledge of cameras or electronics. If you look at marketing for cameras today mega pixels are no longer something that is first presented to you (in most cases), they have moved onto other features.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2011 23:28
|
|
|
HPL posted:Retouching is loving awesome. All women should look skinny as a rail with huge boobs. If you want the retouching thread to really take off, post it in the E/N subforum instead.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2011 23:31
|
|
is go
|
Dr. Cogwerks posted:If you want the retouching thread to really take off, post it in the E/N subforum instead. that would be a beautiful trainwreck Dread Head posted:Mega pixels are something you can market to the masses, I think the masses are now catching on that they have reached the upper limits of what is really needed. It was something a manufacture could easily market "more mega pixels = better camera" , it was something you could tell someone with no knowledge of cameras or electronics. If you look at marketing for cameras today mega pixels are no longer something that is first presented to you (in most cases), they have moved onto other features. Here's something to think about - will cameraphones make point and shoots obsolete?
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2011 00:16
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:Here's something to think about - will cameraphones make point and shoots obsolete? Probably eventually.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2011 00:17
|
|
|
They already have for a large segment of the population.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2011 00:22
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:that would be a beautiful trainwreck Yes, absolutely. High quality cameraphones are becoming more and more attainable and have all the features needed of a P&S. I think the next generation will have a good enough camera that I, personally, won't really need to bring my S90 anywhere.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2011 00:30
|
|
|
It'll be interesting to see if the big camera manufactures try to get into it - not manufacture phones but the cameras and adding their branding to it similar to what zeiss has done
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2011 00:31
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:They already have for a large segment of the population. A coworker of mine bought a bridge camera and a dedicated camcorder in anticipation of his kids 2 years ago. I helped to show him how to transfer the photos and video, and he really didn't use it all that much. Then last fall he got an iphone4 now every week he's showing me a photo and dozens of videos. On facebook I'm one of the few people left that uploads non cell phone photos.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2011 00:47
|
|
|
If you look on Flickr's stats the iPhone is by far the most common camera.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2011 00:59
|
|
|
I took some tourists photos with an iPhone 4 yesterday, I could not imagine taking that as my camera on a vacation but it is convenient.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2011 01:06
|
|
|
Does the iPhone have a fixed FL? Any idea what the 35mm equivalent is?
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2011 01:15
|
|
|
iPhone 4 is a 3.9mm f/2.8, which is roughly a 30mm f/22 equivalent.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2011 01:27
|
|
|
Working in a tourism job, we definitely see a decent spread. iPhones are for the younger crowd, and most of the P&S we see are from older groups. I see very few newer model P&S now. On the opposite end, though, and tying in with the earlier conversation about MP no longer being the big selling point, we also see a lot more entry-level dSLRs. They're cheap enough that we rarely have tours go out without at least someone with one around, and people seem to want options and LET ME CARRY AROUND 5 LENSES OH GOD. I really don't blame anyone, either. People interested in photography can get a used or entry dSLR for the same price as a high-end P&S almost. And, people that want something easy can get a phone with a decent camera for Facebook without the added burden of batteries and uploading poo poo. The only big P&S we see nowadays tend to be the new ones that take panoramas as you scan across a scene. I know there have been plenty of times I wish I had something small and simple like a good camera phone just because it's immediate and easy to get into places without hassle (I do not recommend the Blackberry Curve for the camera).
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2011 03:54
|
|
|
I'd be curious to see if there were any crossover from the camera manufacturers. e.g. Canon makes a new P&S that includes a SIM to allow you to send your photos straight to facebook when taken.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2011 06:37
|
|
|
Dr. Cogwerks posted:If you want the retouching thread to really take off, post it in the E/N subforum instead. I'll be happy to go in and pick a fight to get things started. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2011 07:39
|
|
|
brad industry posted:I think we've finally reached the point where megapixels don't matter anymore, the current sensors are good for 99% of poo poo, just like you didn't need to bust out the 4x5 for everything back in the day.  Now that they have 20+MP, I really wish canon will push towards that direction with their sensors like what nikon have done recently.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2011 07:51
|
|
|
spog posted:I'd be curious to see if there were any crossover from the camera manufacturers. Of the big manufacturers, Sony and Samsung also make phones, so maybe they'll see the writing on the wall. In any case, compact cameras need the sharing abilities from phones if they're to survive as a mass market consumer item.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2011 08:06
|
|
|
You know what, there's nothing wrong with cell phone cameras. Someone took this with a lovely cell phone: Click here for the full 1296x968 image. And then I added some Photoshop. Without a cell phone camera, this moment might have been lost to the ages.  Grid Warriors by AIIAZNSK8ER, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2011 08:08
|
|
|
One of the things I've enjoyed doing recently is reading http://photo.stackexchange.com/. It's a Q&A site dedicated to photography in the same vein as stackoverflow is for programmers. I've learned a couple of things going there. Like the shooting with both eyes open technique and why some people prefer back button focusing
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2011 08:31
|
|
|
And here I thought I was being a unique little snowflake by keeping both eyes open when photographing car races. It's super useful when trying to frame an object moving 200mph. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2011 15:13
|
|
|
poopinmymouth posted:Speaking of Michael Reichman's gh2 review, I went back and was reading some reviews of various cameras from 4-5 years ago, and it's amazing what was given glowing reviews back then. Talking about good iso 400 as if it was the be-all, screen resolutions and other technical aspects that are bested in even cheapo cameras today. There are a lot of old issues of Popular Mechanics on Google Books now, check out the bits they had on amazing new products. and marvel at how far we've come in a short time.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2011 17:56
|
|
|
Is it possible to build a machine that records something as vector data?
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2011 18:00
|
|
|
A5H posted:Is it possible to build a machine that records something as vector data? I think everyone uses GPS for that these days. Put a data logger on whatever's moving around, and parse the data later. For acceleration you'd need accelerometers or something.. which the iPhone and Wii have made very cheap for the rest of us.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2011 18:04
|
|
|
I mean like a vector image. So a camera that doesn't use pixels? I know this is really stupid btw. But is it possible to some degree?
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2011 18:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 19:04 |
|
|
GWBBQ posted:I think in the next couple of generations, we're going to start seeing stuff like in-camera HDR and it will trickle down to consumer level within a few years after that. The iPhone 4 I think does in camera HDR already
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2011 18:19
|
|