|
A5H posted:I don't like it at all. Why is that better than some cellphone pic some bro snapped of his gently caress buddy? It depends on how it's used - like with the olivia munn thing it works because it wants to convey that Munn is your gently caress buddy. It's about making it accessible, making you believe that girl/lifestyle is obtainable. Rather than how maxim and fhm shoots used to be - portraying an inaccessible woman in an inaccessible location. It's sort of a reversal against the technically perfect but bland editorials magazines are filled with. I'm not the biggest fan of the bare bulb direct flash style. I'd rather them use a big window or something as a light source for a candid intimate story Paragon8 fucked around with this message at 23:22 on Feb 27, 2011 |
#
?
Feb 27, 2011 23:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 14:38 |
|
|
Yeah but literally anyone could do that? I guess I just don't understand it 
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2011 23:23
|
|
|
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 Who was that journalist who did the Iraq story with Hipstamatic? Or Jorge Columbo's iPhone drawings that have been multiple New Yorker covers. quote:I don't like it at all. Why is that better than some cellphone pic some bro snapped of his gently caress buddy? Who gives a poo poo how technical it is? They're selling a product, and AA's advertising is not exactly what I would call unsuccessful. They made selling basic t-shirts hip, it's genius and it works whether people think it's a "good" photograph or not. Weren't we just talking in this thread about retouching in advertising and how consumers don't like seeing these imperfect people that have been airbrushed and Liquified into aliens? This kind of photography in a commercial context is a direct reaction against that which is why it gets people's attention even if the images are "poo poo" from nerd photographer perspective.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2011 23:30
|
|
|
A5H posted:Yeah but literally anyone could do that? Oh do not start this poo poo again.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2011 23:31
|
|
|
A5H posted:Yeah but literally anyone could do that? well anyone could technically speaking do it - so by using the most common and basic medium they're putting the ultimate faith in their skills at composition, posing and interacting with the model. It's being ballsy and basically saying that they don't need a fancy camera to show they're a great photographer. It's like doing an awesome sketch on the back of a napkin in a restaurant. It's worth remembering that most of these guys do know their poo poo and they've probably had to spend years setting up precise lights and all sorts of technical poo poo as assistants and now they've proven themselves doing that they're having a bit of fun and flexing their creativity.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2011 23:33
|
|
|
brad industry posted:Who gives a poo poo how technical it is? They're selling a product, and AA's advertising is not exactly what I would call unsuccessful. They made selling basic t-shirts hip, it's genius and it works whether people think it's a "good" photograph or not. I meant the photographer guy whose 'thing' it is. I guess it makes sense as an advertisement if it's cool and grabs attention or whatever. I just don't see the appeal in a photographic sense.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2011 23:35
|
|
|
A5H posted:I don't like it at all. Why is that better than some cellphone pic some bro snapped of his gently caress buddy? Technical aspects should solely serve the intended end product, there is absolutely no reason to value something on production.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2011 00:06
|
|
|
A5H posted:Yeah but literally anyone could do that? This is my least favorite phrase ever 
brad industry fucked around with this message at 00:12 on Feb 28, 2011 |
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2011 00:09
|
|
|
brad industry posted:This is my least favorite phrase ever that should be the title of the thread about what is art in photography.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2011 00:14
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:that should be the title of the thread about what is art in photography. Actually, it should be bannable.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2011 01:56
|
|
|
brad industry posted:This is my least favorite phrase ever Worse than 'nice photographs, you must have a good camera' ?
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2011 02:31
|
|
|
A5H posted:Yeah but literally anyone could do that?
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2011 02:45
|
|
|
Arguments about whether or not anyone could have made photograph 'X' aside, the point is, they did it and you didn't. If it's that easy, shut up and go make these supposedly simple photos and make a great living/become well known.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2011 02:47
|
|
|
The AA ad guy shoots for maxim? In the same style?
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2011 02:48
|
|
|
In response to the thing about film vs digital P&S, the good film P&S cameras had lenses as good as any SLR. The only difference was that it was a fixed lens. If you took two photos, one from a P&S and one from an SLR with all conditions being equal, they would largely be indistinguishable. It's not like with digital where there's a huge gap in sensor quality. With film, any camera could use the same sensor.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2011 05:14
|
|
|
This is why reddit's photography subreddit is retarded I found a link on there to some photographs supposedly taken by a photographer when he was 7. http://www.hebert-photo.com/IWS00.html (you click the image to move forward. Dumb navigation, I know.) 90% of the comments were "omg this website sucks lol" but then the rest were things like this quote:I don't understand the appeal of any of these photos or this particular style of photography. For the most part, his work panders to a sense of nostalgia more than adhering to the fundamental principles of good photography such as composition and subject matter. how the gently caress does that photo have "no merit"? I responded with quote:The first one you linked is fantastic. Take a closer look at it. The highly prevalent geometry is really quite good. Those cars are framed perfectly, sitting along the diagonal line that pretty much every other shape in the photo lends to. and got downvoted to -2, and he responded quote:No, he doesn't. There is no artistic intent in any of these photographs. What you're doing is imposing understanding on a random assortment of elements based on what you know. The photographer, on the other hand, had absolutely no clue about anything you just said.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2011 05:49
|
|
|
Just show those guys some REAL (bad) photography from this thread  http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?noseen=0&threadid=3303711
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2011 06:01
|
|
|
HPL posted:In response to the thing about film vs digital P&S, the good film P&S cameras had lenses as good as any SLR. The only difference was that it was a fixed lens. If you took two photos, one from a P&S and one from an SLR with all conditions being equal, they would largely be indistinguishable. It's not like with digital where there's a huge gap in sensor quality. With film, any camera could use the same sensor. In a somewhat related question, why are DSLRs so big, when the sensor is smaller than 135 film? Has anyone heard of / seen a trend towards smaller bodies in "full frame" DSLRs? I'm assuming the size is due to the additional electronics, and the fact a digital sensor is considerably thicker than a piece of film, even taking into account winding mechanisms and spools and so forth. How big is the Pentax 645D compared to the 645N? Are digital sensors and their associated circuitry getting more compact for the same sensor area?
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2011 06:49
|
|
|
dakana posted:stuff What? You're just attributing stuff to that photo based on what you know as a photographer. There's no way the photographer who took that photo knew those things that you know.  It's super easy to spot the people who can't get their work recognized at all.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2011 07:06
|
|
|
mr. mephistopheles posted:There's no way the photographer who took that photo knew those things that you know. Why would the photographer have to know those things for them to be true?
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2011 07:14
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:Good point, I stupidly didn't think of that. This gives me hope I'll get some good shots out of my ancient folding 120 camera (5 rolls of Tri-X on their way).
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2011 07:14
|
|
|
Mannequin posted:Why would the photographer have to know those things for them to be true? So, um, I took a shot at making an Art thread. http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3393131 and maybe we can answer some of these questions.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2011 07:34
|
|
|
here's the secret to defining art: it is what you say it is
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2011 07:50
|
|
|
HPL posted:DSLRS have a ton of electronics in them for focus and exposure as well as the image processing and other stuff.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2011 10:16
|
|
|
I got an email about licening a photo! Unfortunately, I wasn't the photographer. It's some other rear end in a top hat name Paul Chin they wanted. At least I rank higher than him in Google. This is the photo in question. http://articles.sfgate.com/2010-07-05/entertainment/21938429_1_aikido-chorus-energy He actually spells his name with 2 'n's which I've never seen before. The internet makes for some interesting scenarios.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2011 20:11
|
|
|
I've recently got an iphone, and the discovery of the free light meter app has made my life infinitely easier. It works really well, I'm impressed! Any other must-have photo apps?
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2011 20:35
|
|
|
AIIAZNSK8ER posted:I got an email about licening a photo! Unfortunately, I wasn't the photographer. It's some other rear end in a top hat name Paul Chin they wanted. At least I rank higher than him in Google. Well are you going to license his photo? 
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2011 20:36
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:Well are you going to license his photo? I didn't realise you had a business degree? nonanone posted:I've recently got an iphone, and the discovery of the free light meter app has made my life infinitely easier. It works really well, I'm impressed! Any other must-have photo apps? No way! When you say it works well, what kind of precision are we talking about? Because that sounds cool as hell.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2011 20:40
|
|
|
I haven't tested it extensively or anything, but it matched the meter on my dslr for outdoor light, and then inside too. I mean, the camera on the phone itself has to be able to meter, so it makes sense that there must be some way to just grab that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2011 21:06
|
|
|
Can it do incident metering?
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2011 21:27
|
|
|
The math behind light metering is relatively simple, I would think it'd be just as useful on an iTouch as any other light meter. The difference comes down to bells and whistles.. not sure how precisely an iTouch camera could do spot metering.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2011 21:31
|
|
|
AIIAZNSK8ER posted:I didn't realise you had a business degree? Doesn't matter how cool it is, you cannot have an iphone.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2011 21:35
|
|
|
McMadCow posted:Can it do incident metering? Nope, although that would be awesome. It's not a complete replacement for a legit light meter, but it's perfect for if you're going on a film photo walk and you want to check your light conditions.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2011 21:37
|
|
|
Charmmi posted:Doesn't matter how cool it is, you cannot have an iphone. drat you meddling wife.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2011 22:08
|
|
|
Whoa, poo poo just got real.nonanone posted:Nope, although that would be awesome. It's not a complete replacement for a legit light meter, but it's perfect for if you're going on a film photo walk and you want to check your light conditions. A professor of mine once showed me a cool trick to turn the spot meter on an SLR into an incident meter. You take a styrofoam cup and put it over your lens. Point the cup at the light source (or however you like to meter with an incident) and you've got your incident reading. Turns out a styrofoam cup transmits 18% of the light that hits it! Wonder if that would work on an iPhone.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2011 22:13
|
|
|
McMadCow posted:Whoa, poo poo just got real. Pringles lid also works.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2011 22:18
|
|
|
Dear CraigslistsRobert posted:Canon EF 70-200mm F/2.8 L IS USM Yours Truly, Robert
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2011 21:36
|
|
|
ooo, the rare capitalized Box edition.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2011 21:42
|
|
|
After spending a week with the s95, I'm strongly considering ditching my SLR gear in favor of a Fuji X100. I'm sort of in love with the idea of combining the X100 with Quadras for an ultraportable environmental portrait kit
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2011 23:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 14:38 |
|
|
I lolled at the "...so we're going to use any Olympus DSLR!" fakeout towards the beginning of the iPhone photo shoot video. nonanone posted:I've recently got an iphone, and the discovery of the free light meter app has made my life infinitely easier. It works really well, I'm impressed! Any other must-have photo apps? Geotagging app (free or near free I think). I'd like to get an iPhone for that, the light meter app, and other apps I'm already using on my Touch. For now, beholden to Sprint  surgical scar posted:After spending a week with the s95, I'm strongly considering ditching my SLR gear in favor of a Fuji X100. I'm sort of in love with the idea of combining the X100 with Quadras for an ultraportable environmental portrait kit PIMM alt account found.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2011 00:34
|
|