|
It must have been pretty neat to get those aerial photos back on large format film and see how much you could zoom and enhance on the enlarger.
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2011 20:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 05:01 |
|
|
HPL posted:It must have been pretty neat to get those aerial photos back on large format film and see how much you could zoom and enhance on the enlarger. My dad's got some aerial prints that he made back when he was a Navy S&R pilot, they're pretty awesome. He moved out of state recently, but next time I see him, I'll see if he still has the negatives around.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2011 20:31
|
|
is go
|
 http://newyork.ebayclassifieds.com/photo-video/freeport/solid-14k-gold-3-d-hasselblad-camera-w-diamond-lens-1-of-a-kind/?ad=9106662
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2011 21:44
|
|
|
Wonder if these can be adapted to it?
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2011 22:15
|
|
|
"THIS IS BEYOND ART !!" Let's make this the new Dorkroom slogan.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2011 23:19
|
|
|
Dr. Cogwerks posted:For about a hundred bucks, you could rock the KGB-issue Zenit "Fotosnaiper." It'd be almost as goony as using the machine gun camera, and only slightly less likely to get you shot by the police.  F4 Kaiser S by SparkUK2007, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2011 23:34
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2011 00:56
|
|
|
ease posted:Was that built for some sort of "worst ideas ever" contest?
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2011 02:30
|
|
|
Weren't these for officer training? They set them up in some kind of scenario, let them shoot, then developed the film to see exactly what they would have shot.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2011 02:32
|
|
|
Lets not forget this cool thing. I was never sure if it was real or not. http://www.juliusvonbismarck.com/fulgurator/ 
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2011 02:44
|
|
|
AIIAZNSK8ER posted:Lets not forget this cool thing. I was never sure if it was real or not.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2011 04:38
|
|
|
How would shooting a flash through the film even work?
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2011 04:43
|
|
|
ease posted:How would shooting a flash through the film even work? It just takes an exposed 35mm and projects it through the lens onto an object.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2011 05:01
|
|
|
ease posted:How would shooting a flash through the film even work?
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2011 05:15
|
|
|
TheLastManStanding posted:The flash is on top of the camera. That's just the power pack on the back (kind of like some ring flashes). No it's not. The flash is in the back, it's pretty obvious from the shape of the thing. And like Martytoof said, it's not actually a camera anyways, it's just a projector of sorts. It's pretty easy to tell that from the shape of the thing, but also you can look at the site and just glance at what it is to know that. At least read a bit before you post.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2011 05:18
|
|
|
Or you can buy one of these, which is more useful and legitimate than any of the gun/camera combos posted here.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2011 13:51
|
|
|
Gizmodo covers photography in the weirdest ways http://gizmodo.com/#!5771168/fruit-roll+ups-make-for-great-camera-flash-gels  Maybe because he's in an ice cave, the flash wouldn't straight up melt the fruit roll up.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2011 20:37
|
|
|
AIIAZNSK8ER posted:Maybe because he's in an ice cave, the flash wouldn't straight up melt the fruit roll up. One shot shouldn't kill it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2011 21:56
|
|
|
HPL posted:It must have been pretty neat to get those aerial photos back on large format film and see how much you could zoom and enhance on the enlarger. I just got my 645 slides back from my aerial photoshoot from around LA and the level of detail on even those is amazing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2011 03:42
|
|
|
AIIAZNSK8ER posted:Lets not forget this cool thing. I was never sure if it was real or not. As awesome as that thing is, I find this caption on their examples page to be highly suspicious: quote:Barack Obama's speech in Germany in front of Berlin's Siegessäule. July 24th 2008 I'm pretty sure it wouldn't have ended well for the artist if he pointed that thing at Obama.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2011 03:43
|
|
|
There is absolutely no reason to make that thing look like a gun.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2011 05:54
|
|
|
So maybe this is old news, but can somebody explain why this toolbag is duel wielding point and shoots for a Maxim photoshoot? It kept distracting me from Olivia Munn in a hot tub... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFTsC4p4Gtc
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2011 08:22
|
|
|
trip9 posted:So maybe this is old news, but can somebody explain why this toolbag is duel wielding point and shoots for a Maxim photoshoot? It kept distracting me from Olivia Munn in a hot tub... probably trying to out terry richardson terry richardson.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2011 10:29
|
|
|
Terry also shoots with 2 (so he doesn't have to wait for the flash recharge).
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2011 11:15
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:Terry also shoots with 2 (so he doesn't have to wait for the flash recharge). Ahh, I guess that makes sense.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2011 18:47
|
|
|
trip9 posted:Ahh, I guess that makes sense. well... considering that a photographer shooting for maxim probably has access to any gear he could name it doesn't make a lot of sense. Some guys really dig that edgy american apparel bare bulb thing though
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2011 19:46
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:Terry also shoots with 2 (so he doesn't have to wait for the flash recharge).
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2011 19:56
|
|
|
Is the best 35mm film today still better for this kind of thing than a top-end digital P&S? I was under the impression that digital quality had surpassed film in all but a few specialized applications, but maybe that's just for full-frame DSLRs. Speaking of which, how long is the flash recharge time on the very best DSLR flash money can buy? Is it quicker than the shutter lag + recompose time of dual-wielded P&S?
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2011 20:11
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:Is the best 35mm film today still better for this kind of thing than a top-end digital P&S? I was under the impression that digital quality had surpassed film in all but a few specialized applications, but maybe that's just for full-frame DSLRs. The guy in the video was definitely using digital point and shoots - I think G10s or G11s. It's an aesthetic/style choice with little to do with technical quality. I'd guess that they're just set to auto as well. You can produce great images with a point and shoot with the right model and styling, and it fits in with the give no fucks attitude some photographers have (which can be pretty awesome) People have love affairs with mediums - like polaroids for example. People go apeshit for the aesthetic and the novelty of the film and instantaneousness of it. Sort of like hipstamatic for the iPhone. It can be frustrating as an arm chair photographer to see a BTS like that and think "holy poo poo if I had maxim bankrolling my shoot I'd have a loving octo above that jacuzzi and be shooting a 1ds or hassie body"
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2011 20:21
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:The guy in the video was definitely using digital point and shoots - I think G10s or G11s. After I looked at the finished shots I hated it a little bit less. The fact that it WASN'T shot with perfect lighting or a hassie body, but a P&S gives it a little more of an intimate feel. More like "oh some dude was just chilling in a jacuzzi with Olivia Munn and decided to snap a few shots".
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2011 20:27
|
|
|
trip9 posted:After I looked at the finished shots I hated it a little bit less. The fact that it WASN'T shot with perfect lighting or a hassie body, but a P&S gives it a little more of an intimate feel. More like "oh some dude was just chilling in a jacuzzi with Olivia Munn and decided to snap a few shots". Yeah, exactly. If it works, it works. Of course getting to the point where you're shooting magazine editorials means you've proven yourself to the point where you can pretty much do what you want. Sports Illustrated did a bunch of behind the scenes stuff of their swimsuit editions recently and it was really cool to see that they mostly just used reflectors instead of just using flash gear "because they could" It's been a while since I've picked up a "men's mag" but it's an interesting genre as they want to avoid it just being soft porn while having the allure of it being sexy. I'm not a huge fan of this Olivia Munn editorial - I think it's a little too try hard to be like AA or Terry Richardson. I really like the shots of her with the space helmet from a while back though - I'm not sure if that was Maxim though
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2011 20:41
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:well... considering that a photographer shooting for maxim probably has access to any gear he could name it doesn't make a lot of sense. Some guys really dig that edgy american apparel bare bulb thing though Oh loving hell, American Apparel didn't come up with that style. They stole it directly from Yone - http://hypebeast.com/blog/yone/ (NSFW). There's a great interview with him here - http://mekas.jp/en/interviews/396.xhtml#1 quote:Your lo-fi aesthetic often feels very close to American Apparel ads.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2011 22:01
|
|
|
Why is that considered good photography? I wish someone had started that WHAT IS ART thread.
Bape Culture fucked around with this message at 22:10 on Feb 27, 2011 |
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2011 22:07
|
|
|
I HATE CARS posted:Oh loving hell, American Apparel didn't come up with that style. They stole it directly from Yone - http://hypebeast.com/blog/yone/ (NSFW). There's a great interview with him here - http://mekas.jp/en/interviews/396.xhtml#1 Yeah I'm pretty sure AA didn't invent the style but they are fairly (or rather unfairly) responsible for putting it on the sides of buses and making it "mainstream." It's considered good because it is intimate and candid and some people like that. It's a loose and fluid aesthetic that makes you feel like you're the person taking the picture. A full professional or studio set up would reduce that intimacy somewhat.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2011 22:13
|
|
|
A5H posted:Why is that considered good photography? I wish someone had started that WHAT IS ART thread. I think it makes perfect sense commercially when you look at what advertisers are competing against for consumers attention (social media). It's not "bad" they are just picking up visual cues from "vernacular" photography that come across as more authentic/personal. Canadian Club is doing the exact same (award winning) thing as AA right now with their "drat right your dad drank it" 70s snapshot ads.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2011 23:03
|
|
|
brad industry posted:I think it makes perfect sense commercially when you look at what advertisers are competing against for consumers attention (social media). It's not "bad" they are just picking up visual cues from "vernacular" photography that come across as more authentic/personal. Canadian Club is doing the exact same (award winning) thing as AA right now with their "drat right your dad drank it" 70s snapshot ads. It's only a matter of time before we get a mainstream editorial shot on an iPhone. I'm actually a little surprised we haven't had one already
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2011 23:05
|
|
|
I don't like it at all. Why is that better than some cellphone pic some bro snapped of his gently caress buddy? Intimate/Candid/Loose aesthetic = no effort, no technicality?
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2011 23:07
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:It's only a matter of time before we get a mainstream editorial shot on an iPhone. I'm actually a little surprised we haven't had one already Park Chan-wook (one of my favourite directors) shot a short movie on an iPhone.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2011 23:07
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:It's only a matter of time before we get a mainstream editorial shot on an iPhone. I'm actually a little surprised we haven't had one already There was that demo video that one guy did. http://fstoppers.com/iphone/
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2011 23:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 05:01 |
|
|
Paragon8 posted:It's only a matter of time before we get a mainstream editorial shot on an iPhone. I'm actually a little surprised we haven't had one already I remember reading that a magazine cover, was shot on an iPhone. AH here it is: http://www.geek.com/articles/mobile/iphone-4-used-to-shoot-a-glossy-magazine-cover-2010084/
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2011 23:15
|
|
