|
aliencowboy posted:But yeah, usually it's "Hey what camera do you have? It takes great pictures!" I had some of my Guatemala photos in a gallery opening and I was talking to a couple who went to the same area I did. They were very nice and will probably end up buying a print. Anyway, they were talking about how good my shots were and finally out came the "the camera you were using must be really nice." I wanted to tear my hair out. But I just kept smiling and nodding. I'm really flattered they liked my work but the camera is only a very very small part of it.
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2011 04:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 08:11 |
|
|
I loved walking around with the Mamiya 645 1000s because it's obviously an old camera and I got stopped by no less than three ex photographers that shot the poo poo with me about how they used to shoot weddings with them, etc. That's the kind of stuff I enjoyed getting stopped for.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2011 05:41
|
|
|
Beastruction posted:the only one people comment on is the Nikomat. Not the Nikon FM or FG or Minolta SRT-102, only the Nikomat. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2011 10:37
|
|
|
Do you guys ever post your stuff on Facebook? I've always hesitated to do it because it always seemed tacky like you're fishing for compliments or something. That might just be because 99.9% of what gets posted on FB is poo poo though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2011 13:03
|
|
|
Thoogsby posted:Do you guys ever post your stuff on Facebook? I've always hesitated to do it because it always seemed tacky like you're fishing for compliments or something. That might just be because 99.9% of what gets posted on FB is poo poo though. I do, but it's on a separate fb page but I share it on my personal page often. It's good for networking so if a model sees one of her friends that I shot she might contact me and I know it's super effective for weddings. Even on a personel level it's nice to throw poo poo up there. Fight the fight against bad photos! One of the reasons I got into photography was that my facebook was just filled with poo poo pictures.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2011 13:05
|
|
|
Thoogsby posted:Do you guys ever post your stuff on Facebook? I've always hesitated to do it because it always seemed tacky like you're fishing for compliments or something. That might just be because 99.9% of what gets posted on FB is poo poo though. No, most people I know tend to like pictures of big boobs and HDR.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2011 13:17
|
|
|
Thoogsby posted:Do you guys ever post your stuff on Facebook? I've always hesitated to do it because it always seemed tacky like you're fishing for compliments or something. That might just be because 99.9% of what gets posted on FB is poo poo though. I do, but I do so with the understanding that it is 95% pearls before swine. I'm also a lot more liberal with what I post to FB than I am Flickr, as at that size it's easy to overlook noise/softness.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2011 13:43
|
|
|
tarepanda posted:No, most people I know tend to like pictures of big boobs 
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2011 14:31
|
|
|
I spend more time in the PYF rear end and Boobs threads than any photo thread here. #dorkroomconfessions
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2011 15:24
|
|
|
Thoogsby posted:Do you guys ever post your stuff on Facebook? I've always hesitated to do it because it always seemed tacky like you're fishing for compliments or something. That might just be because 99.9% of what gets posted on FB is poo poo though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2011 15:46
|
|
|
When I look at rear end and Boobs pictures, my attention is always concentrated on the depth of field used and the type of post-processing applied. #dorkroomconfessions
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2011 15:58
|
|
|
spog posted:When I look at rear end and Boobs pictures, my attention is always concentrated on the depth of field used and the type of post-processing applied. I can't even watch porn that's not properly lighted.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2011 16:17
|
|
|
spog posted:When I look at rear end and Boobs pictures, my attention is always concentrated on the depth of field used and the type of post-processing applied. Before I studied the art, a boob to me was just like a boob, an rear end just like an rear end. After I learned the art, a boob was no longer a boob, an rear end no longer an rear end. Now that I've understood the art, a boob is just like a boob, an rear end just like an rear end.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2011 16:19
|
|
|
dreggory posted:Before I studied the art, a boob to me was just like a boob, an rear end just like an rear end. After I learned the art, a boob was no longer a boob, an rear end no longer an rear end. Now that I've understood the art, a boob is just like a boob, an rear end just like an rear end. I wish I had a T-shirt with this on it while I was touring through the Louvre and Uffizi.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2011 16:21
|
|
|
spog posted:When I look at rear end and Boobs pictures, my attention is always concentrated on the depth of field used and the type of post-processing applied. And how the horizon is never ever level in those shots. It's so annoying I wish it wasn't nearly all I can see.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2011 16:42
|
|
|
Eh, boobs are ok, I guess.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2011 16:44
|
|
|
some of the recent posts in one thread have a girl that's repped by an agency I shoot for so I keep half expecting to see my secret glamour work come out 
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2011 17:20
|
|
|
Thoogsby posted:Do you guys ever post your stuff on Facebook? I've always hesitated to do it because it always seemed tacky like you're fishing for compliments or something. That might just be because 99.9% of what gets posted on FB is poo poo though. I tend to just post pictures on Facebook if friends are in them or if I'm making a new profile image, otherwise I usually just link to Flickr. I'm sure less people are inclined to follow a link to my Flickr page rather than just going through images on Facebook, but I really do feel that Facebook does a pretty large disservice to your images in how it compresses them. joelcamefalling posted:Yes, technically my 17-55 and 150-500 are 'three times zoom'. But I could also beat you to death with them. I can digital zoom like a hundred times in Photoshop. Martytoof posted:I loved walking around with the Mamiya 645 1000s because it's obviously an old camera and I got stopped by no less than three ex photographers that shot the poo poo with me about how they used to shoot weddings with them, etc. I borrowed my dad's Pentax K-2 a few months back and was leaning against a post waiting for the sun to get a little lower in the sky when an older guy with a camera stopped and asked me if I was waiting for the light and we talked about shooting film for a few minutes. It's nice running into people like that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2011 17:40
|
|
|
Edit: Crazy removed.
CarrotFlowers fucked around with this message at 18:44 on Jul 7, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2011 18:13
|
|
|
GWBBQ posted:My sense of self-worth is based almost entirely on how many of my friends use my shots as their profile pictures. Oh yay! I'm not the only one. When I go to parties I'm always trying to grab photos I think people would use for profile pics.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2011 18:30
|
|
|
AIIAZNSK8ER posted:Oh yay! I'm not the only one. When I go to parties I'm always trying to grab photos I think people would use for profile pics. haha, I know what you mean. I always lurk the comments thread when they post them too
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2011 19:05
|
|
|
We obviously need a #dorkroom confessions thread.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2011 19:16
|
|
|
Ever wanted to use your L-glass with an iPhone? Well now you can!!!  
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2011 19:16
|
|
|
Star War Sex Parrot posted:Ever wanted to use your L-glass with an iPhone? Next iphone needs to have a APS-C sensor and i can ditch my 7D. (not really)  EXTREME IMAGE QUALITY 
Big Mackson fucked around with this message at 19:39 on Jul 7, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2011 19:34
|
|
|
I'm going to assume that a large portion of the noise comes from their idiotic choice to use GIF for their image format. I know the iPhone can take better pictures than that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2011 19:48
|
|
|
xzzy posted:I'm going to assume that a large portion of the noise comes from their idiotic choice to use GIF for their image format. I think the GIF format underlines the need to switch from a bad bad iphone to something nice like a dslr. (or a x100)
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2011 19:56
|
|
|
NoneMoreNegative posted:Anyone tell me why a flash-head might go from ETTL to plain TTL and then back without any user input? Shooting my 50d last night with a 580exII attached via a 1meter curlycord; first few photos were fine then all of a sudden massive overexposure - check the flash and its now TTL... Swear and switch to manual until there's an intermission, dismantle everything and rub the contacts on camera, flash and cord - back to ETTL for the next acts. Hmmf, these things are sent to try us Had the same thing happening with my 550D and 430EX II connected by a 3rd party 2m ETTL chord. At first the flash would only work in manual mode. Then after some re-attaching I would get ETTL for some shots and then just TTL, all overexposed shots. Then, after re-attaching it again half a day later, everything worked fine and even a couple of days and shoots later it still remains working properly. Weird stuff. I guess it's some picky contacts on the chords.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2011 23:35
|
|
|
Star War Sex Parrot posted:Ever wanted to use your L-glass with an iPhone? Well now you can!!! Yes, the link says that you can now get great depth of field. Hmmm. Did they change the sensor size? No? And, you're still shooting through the "base" lens, right? Just using the new lens like a giant teleconverter. So, the depth of field is going to still suck, right? Plus, they show using an f/4 lens.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2011 00:12
|
|
|
I just got a fantastic job taking photos for a local detailing shop. $10 a car, anywhere from 1 to 6 per day, 4 or 5 days a week. 35 fairly specific shots of each car on individual (supplied) flashdrives that go in the glove compartment and then the cars are driven back to the dealer and the pictures go up on the web. The best part is I can do it after work, and it's on the way home. His previous guy is both an rear end in a top hat and was using a 9 year old point and shoot. If this all goes well, the first couple months (or less if the work is steady) will pay for some new camera gear 
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2011 00:20
|
|
|
That doesn't sound that great. 1 car = 35 photos? What about the inevitable time you will spend post-processing? 1 car for $10 might take an hour or more of your time. That's a pretty low wage.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2011 00:30
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:I've used plenty of FM's and SRT's but never even seen a Nikomat, so I'd probably ask you too Hah, I guess it's just hard to know what other people are picking up on when they look at a camera. To me the Nikomat looks like any other old camera from a distance, everything unique is up close and might not be obvious until you were using the camera.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2011 00:32
|
|
|
Hypnolobster posted:I just got a fantastic job taking photos for a local detailing shop. $10 a car, anywhere from 1 to 6 per day, 4 or 5 days a week. Mannequin hit this already, but calculate your hourly wage. If you're shooting jpeg, and doing no post, and the 35 shots are standardized, and you don't need any lights, it might be worth it. Don't see how you make it otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2011 00:33
|
|
|
I hope that's on top of an hourly wage.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2011 00:43
|
|
|
Mannequin posted:That doesn't sound that great. 1 car = 35 photos? What about the inevitable time you will spend post-processing? 1 car for $10 might take an hour or more of your time. That's a pretty low wage. Well, the lighting is mediocre but already setup and it'll be good enough. From the standards from the previous guy, as long as I have proper exposure I'm already lightyears ahead. The owner said he'd pay more if the pictures were better than his previous guy.  The dealerships want the pictures on the flashdrive to be jpegs at 1024x768, if that gives you an idea of the quality they expect. It sort of seems that they don't even know how to resize. e: They're standardized shots, 4 sides, seats, trunk, under the hood, jambs, etc. It's not a full time job by any means, but the owner is a fun guy and it'll take an hour every day after my real job.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2011 00:46
|
|
|
Hypnolobster posted:Well, the lighting is mediocre but already setup and it'll be good enough. From the standards from the previous guy, as long as I have proper exposure I'm already lightyears ahead. The owner said he'd pay more if the pictures were better than his previous guy. Don't let people bring you down, that sounds like a lot of fun, and I'm sure you've done hundreds of hours of free photography so getting paid at all is an awesome feeling.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2011 00:57
|
|
|
No one's trying to bring him down. I speak from experience as a low-paid photography grunt. What I can envision happening is the post-processing to get it to look just right... 35 photos is a lot. But hey, maybe it won't be so bad. It's just that $10 per car isn't really that great. He deserves more for his hard work. This job will be about speed. If he can shoot and process the photos extremely quickly it will be worth the $10, otherwise, not so much... despite the fun of it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2011 01:08
|
|
|
Mannequin posted:No one's trying to bring him down. I speak from experience as a low-paid photography grunt. What I can envision happening is the post-processing to get it to look just right... 35 photos is a lot. But hey, maybe it won't be so bad. It's just that $10 per car isn't really that great. He deserves more for his hard work. This job will be about speed. If he can shoot and process the photos extremely quickly it will be worth the $10, otherwise, not so much... despite the fun of it. Im pretty sure you literally will need to spend about 5 seconds on post work. Just get the shot. Straighten. Auto adjust levels. Batch crop. Put on USB drive. You wouldnt spend much time on anything. Just as long as theres not bright reflections on the car from the sun.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2011 01:17
|
|
|
Are you walking to the dealership too? I bet the gas you spend getting there and back is going to make the first car you shoot free or nearly free.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2011 01:46
|
|
|
Fists Up posted:You wouldnt spend much time on anything. Just as long as theres not bright reflections on the car from the sun. Indoors! Also, it's directly on the way home from my real job. The extra drive is about 500 yards down an industrial parkway and back again. e: also, I make terrible money at that real job, so even if I'm hugely slow and can only shoot 2 cars in an hour I'm already making considerably more.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2011 02:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 08:11 |
|
|
Hypnolobster posted:Indoors! Are you absolutely sure your boss isn't loving you in the rear end? He could be selling: "Professional photographs of your newly detailed car! Only $99!" and laughing all the way to the bank.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2011 02:21
|
|
