|
DanTheFryingPan posted:15 Thoughts on Composition by Alan Briot over at Luminous Landscape: LL is often good, but I expect more of their contributors. I wouldn't argue with any of these but I wish they were expanded on. poopinmymouth posted:He consistently hates on anything that has even a modicum of mainstream appeal. I take exception to that assertion, mainstream appeal does not have to equate to blandness. This particular photographer isn't doing anything interesting beyond demonstrating the field isolation of the lens ad nauseum (often in ways which negatively affect the photo, why have so much background space if it is irrelevant?).
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2011 03:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 06:14 |
|
|
HPL posted:I guess if you really, really wanted that look and were willing to put in some extra work, you could get a medium format camera like a Mamiya 645 and a 150mm f/2.8 for a fraction of the price. I think you would need a 300mm to keep the focal lengths equivalent in order to get the same compression, but yeah, MF would probably be an easier solution. spf3million posted:What's so good about those? It looks like about 50% are just pics of his hot gf standing around in different places. I guess I should have specified. Most of those pictures are lame and unimpressive but two or three stand out as being quite nice. The purpose of linking to them was to show what kind of shots you could get with that particular lens considering it's very rare and you don't see many photos taken with it, not because he's some great photographer (although I do think he's taken some good shots over the years). Reichstag posted:Nothing. You're so dramatic. brad industry posted:Clearly you have to be bitter to not appreciate the subtle genius of Flickr user mister bokeh. The one thing you have to keep in mind about this guy is that, as embarrassingly stupid as it is to have a name that incorporates the word 'bokeh', he started using it waaaay before it became what it is today. And now it's just sort of attached to him so he uses it. But if you forget about all that and actually look at his pictures, he does occasionally do good work.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2011 04:07
|
|
|
Mannequin posted:I think you would need a 300mm to keep the focal lengths equivalent in order to get the same compression, but yeah, MF would probably be an easier solution. I thought the whole 200mm f/1.8 business was about background separation as opposed to compression? You'd have to stand closer with medium format for the same shot which would give you better background separation, wouldn't it? I mean if it was about compression, any old 200mm f/2.8 or f/4 would do for 35mm/APS-C.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2011 04:20
|
|
|
As I understand it, and I could be wrong, compression and shallow depth are not necessarily opposites. You could compress a scene thing with a long focal length but still get plenty of background separation with shallow depth of field.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2011 04:31
|
|
|
This is a pretty cool use of HDR: http://www.photographybay.com/2011/03/19/red-hdrx-gets-the-impossible-shot/
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2011 05:00
|
|
|
Rated PG-34 posted:This is a pretty cool use of HDR: We are using epic on the movie I am working on and it is the most amazing piece of electronics I have ever seen hands down. It takes better stills than any camera I know as well. Film is dead as soon as these bad boys are widely available.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2011 05:06
|
|
|
Rated PG-34 posted:This is a pretty cool use of HDR: 
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2011 05:22
|
|
|
Mannequin posted:As I understand it, and I could be wrong, compression and shallow depth are not necessarily opposites. You could compress a scene thing with a long focal length but still get plenty of background separation with shallow depth of field. And I could be wrong too (and I most likely am) but the closer you can get to the subject, the more separation you get in that DOF shrinks and the background blurs more and more, right? So if you can use a longer focal length while maintaining or shortening distance to the subject, you should get even more background blur? Aw crap, now I don't even know what I'm talking about anymore.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2011 06:42
|
|
|
Anyone going to Photoshop World in Orlando next week? I don't have the funds to attend the full thing this year, but I will be there for the free expo pass. Especially considering it's 5 minutes from my house. If you haven't heard of the conference, despite the name it's actually mostly geared towards photography and photographers though there are a few classes that dabble in other arts. As you would expect, most of the classes are on the post processing side of things but there is a healthy number technique and business classes too. It's also a great place to network. As for the free expo pass, it was pretty cool and totally worth going if you're in the area. It's fun to check out the vendors and play with all the gear you've only read about online. I remember the Wescott booth being really neat and someone had a booth with a ton of different tripods for sale. Bring some money if you can because you'll probably find something you'll want to buy. However, I'd have to say the best part of the expo pass is that they put on free bonus classes all day. Last year I went to David Ziser's class and ended up learning a lot in the hour he spoke.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2011 08:07
|
|
|
I believe compression is the phenomenon where things in the background look bigger relative to the foreground when a longer lens is used. I do not think the aperture affects this aside from the obvious impact on DOF. A great example of compression are people who specialize in taking pictures of the moon. They use compression to make the moon seem bigger than it actually is. They'll use a 200mm+ focal length and shoot the moon behind something and this makes it look huge. They typically try to have their "foreground" subject be on the horizon so that they can keep both the moon and the "foreground" subject in focus while using a wide aperture. They could use a smaller aperture and this won't affect the relative size of the foreground/moon but it's night time and the moon is moving so they can't use a long exposure (forced to use a small aperture and hence have the subject far away for DOF purposes). There's no reason why you couldn't use a closer subject for the foreground and a stationary object for the background which you want to appear bigger. You would only need a smaller aperture to keep them both in focus.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2011 08:14
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:LL is often good, but I expect more of their contributors. I wouldn't argue with any of these but I wish they were expanded on. I found the LL article too shallow as well. Several of his photos are interesting, pleasing, and have good composition, unless you are asserting that you can universally declare a body of work worthless? What makes your tastes so great? Letting a background blur does not make it empty, and even if it were empty, negative space has been used for framing since the beginning of time. His photos where it is most successful might be largely accidental, and I've already said he probably uses the lens as a crutch, but going bokeh overboard isn't always detrimental to the image. Plus the link specifically led to only his images shot with the 200mm 1.8, not his entire body of work.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2011 10:41
|
|
|
http://vimeo.com/5186819 1984 T70 ad with Larry Bird, and 1981 AE1 Program ad with John Newcombe
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2011 15:14
|
|
|
I honestly don't think I've ever seen a TV ad for an SLR before, maybe it's just been too long. edit: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrHyHfuc53s Shoot like a pro with guide mode! 
burzum karaoke fucked around with this message at 18:00 on Mar 22, 2011 |
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2011 17:57
|
|
|
Choose a lower f number to blur the background!
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2011 19:03
|
|
|
Did they borrow their music from Death To Smoochy?
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2011 19:08
|
|
|
BobTheCow posted:Choose a lower f number to blur the background! At least they kept it accurate and it only went down to f/4.5. I used a 50D and it has a "blurry" setting and doesn't even mention f stops. It just has a slider that goes from "more blurry" to "less blurry".
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2011 21:12
|
|
|
aliencowboy posted:I honestly don't think I've ever seen a TV ad for an SLR before, maybe it's just been too long. - Wonder why none of your photos came out because you took a nightclub photo at 1/4000 f/5.6
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2011 21:15
|
|
|
AIIAZNSK8ER posted:At least they kept it accurate and it only went down to f/4.5. I used a 50D and it has a "blurry" setting and doesn't even mention f stops. It just has a slider that goes from "more blurry" to "less blurry". gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2011 21:38
|
|
|
Fuji guys tweeted that the X100 has landed in Canada. Should see them in stores next week.  When I was browsing the dpreview forums for info, I noticed people were seriously concerned about radioactive cameras 
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2011 21:46
|
|
|
Guy I know who manages a camera store in town here posted this on facebook (This is in Canada)quote:Sorry fellas "The Fuji Guys" didn't say you could buy an X100 today, that is not what "shipping to retailers soon" means.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2011 22:21
|
|
|
AIIAZNSK8ER posted:At least they kept it accurate and it only went down to f/4.5. I used a 50D and it has a "blurry" setting and doesn't even mention f stops. It just has a slider that goes from "more blurry" to "less blurry".
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2011 23:13
|
|
|
William T. Hornaday posted:Did they borrow their music from Death To Smoochy? After I read this I was listening to the commercial and was thinking "is this guy crazy?" and then it started up.. hilarious!
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2011 23:45
|
|
|
AIIAZNSK8ER posted:At least they kept it accurate and it only went down to f/4.5. I used a 50D and it has a "blurry" setting and doesn't even mention f stops. It just has a slider that goes from "more blurry" to "less blurry". Considering the type of person who would be using a "guide mode" on a loving dslr the canon method of "less\more blurry" makes more sense than displaying f stop numbers.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2011 23:49
|
|
|
psylent posted:I never bothered exploring what "creative auto" was on my camera until recently, but I can confirm this. "Make background more blurry". OH GOOD. More cameras are adding automatic HDR. Next thing you know, its automatic sparkly awards printed right into the EXIF, which uploaded to Flickr, creates a comment.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2011 00:14
|
|
|
psylent posted:I never bothered exploring what "creative auto" was on my camera until recently, but I can confirm this. "Make background more blurry". OH GOOD. I know a professional photographer who exclusively uses creative auto. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2011 00:21
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:I know a professional photographer who exclusively uses creative auto. Are they exclusively a studio photographer? and if not did you slap them?
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2011 00:25
|
|
|
keyframe posted:Considering the type of person who would be using a "guide mode" on a loving dslr the canon method of "less\more blurry" makes more sense than displaying f stop numbers. Just remember it like this: Canon/Nikon want to market to the people that weren't already going to buy a camera. You are the type of user that knows settings, knows what various cameras can do, and will know what you want to upgrade to when the time comes. These ads are trying to get people that DON'T know those things to buy a camera.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2011 00:45
|
|
|
AIIAZNSK8ER posted:Are they exclusively a studio photographer? and if not did you slap them? I wanted to so bad. Sadly they'll probably be more successful than I ever will.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2011 01:01
|
|
|
The original ad was taken down earlier.  Bonus points for having a $700 lens but not knowing how to post an image to Craigslist.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2011 02:21
|
|
|
aliencowboy posted:I honestly don't think I've ever seen a TV ad for an SLR before, maybe it's just been too long. I remember the Andre Agassi Canon commercials growing up: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IwoxBRAYwsI That one is the best, it has loving AWESOME song.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2011 02:39
|
|
|
Celebrity endorsements are fun.  As I've mentioned in a couple other threads, I've been helping the owner of a defunct photo store with inventory and liquidation. While she was out, one of her kids was rooting around in the basement and found an old, dusty, life-sized stand-up cardboard Bill Cosby torso from back when he did Kodak ads. They set it up behind the counter. Later that night, the owner comes into the dark store, sees Bill Cosby's silhouette lurking in the dark by the registers and proceeds to flip the gently caress out, almost called 911 thinking that he was a burglar. So much cursing ensued. I'm gonna see if I can keep the cutout and use it to torment anyone who visits my apartment. Dr. Cogwerks fucked around with this message at 03:04 on Mar 23, 2011 |
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2011 03:01
|
|
is go
|
Dr. Cogwerks posted:Celebrity endorsements are fun. If Cosby was white, this mistake wouldn't have happened 
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2011 03:58
|
|
|
Rated PG-34 posted:If Cosby was white, this mistake wouldn't have happened Well, it is the Colorwatch system...
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2011 04:38
|
|
|
keyframe posted:Considering the type of person who would be using a "guide mode" on a loving dslr the canon method of "less\more blurry" makes more sense than displaying f stop numbers.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2011 07:38
|
|
|
My little brother wants to borrow my XT for a day so he can be "one of those Asians with huge cameras hanging from their necks" while he's hanging out with his friends. I'm going to cry when he comes back and his Auto pictures are better than anything I could ever make  e: Oh God I just played with his Lumix DMC-ZS7 P&S and the LCD is so much nicer than my XT 
Casull fucked around with this message at 10:03 on Mar 23, 2011 |
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2011 09:47
|
|
|
i like having my P mode turned off in custom functions on my camera because it makes me feel superior
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2011 17:45
|
|
|
I removed my mode dial after setting it to M .
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2011 18:42
|
|
|
ease posted:I removed my mode dial after setting it to M I set mine to P and take good pictures anyway, just to add a challenge to overcome. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2011 20:26
|
|
|
McMadCow posted:I set mine to P and take good pictures anyway, just to add a challenge to overcome. You guys are still setting dials? I don't even put batteries in anymore.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2011 20:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 06:14 |
|
|
What the hell is P? Full auto?
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2011 20:29
|
|
