|
guidoanselmi posted:rear end is my canvas once suggested using nuclear weapons to do lighting for landscape shots. I smell a Bond villain...
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2011 19:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 13:59 |
|
|
The bombs killing all electronics would be an interesting challenge!
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2011 19:46
|
|
|
~Tenpenny Tower Photography~
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2011 19:47
|
|
|
Photography. Photography never changes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2011 19:53
|
|
|
Doesn't radiation affect film as well?
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2011 20:09
|
|
|
aliencowboy posted:Doesn't radiation affect film as well? Not sure.. one would think the answer is 'yes', but it's kind of hard to google the answer. You can find pictures of rapatronic cameras, which were used to photograph nuclear explosions in the 50's. They don't seem to have a lot of shielding on them, and the pictures generated are relatively noise free. Xray photos are also produced by radiation, and can be incredibly sharp. So perhaps the answer is no?  edit - I was just using the wrong search terms apparently: http://www.clavius.org/envradfilm.html Answer: "Yes, if the energy levels are high enough." xzzy fucked around with this message at 20:23 on Nov 2, 2011 |
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2011 20:20
|
|
|
rear end is my canvas posted:I smell a Bond villain... Ansel Atoms?
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2011 20:39
|
|
|
aliencowboy posted:Doesn't radiation affect film as well?
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2011 20:54
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:The bombs killing all electronics would be an interesting challenge! shoot in film then! aliencowboy posted:Doesn't radiation affect film as well? absofuckinglutely. light is radiation!  all it really takes is 'absorbable' energy. film is transparent at longer wavelengths (radio, microwave, and most IR) while UV light has a wavelength which makes it readily absorbed by glass. x-ray, gamma are so powerful they would penetrate glass and camera body. this is readily seen going through airport security. interestingly, the first photos of Chernobyl never turned out because the radiation was so penetrating that the film was exposed within the camera. they realized they needed to shield the camera in order to make sure photos came out. imaging gamma rays and x-rays is quite...difficult. i used to do gamma ray astronomy which images gamma ray emitters (neutron stars, accreting black holes, etc) by looking at secondary particles that are created when gammas are very quickly absorbed within the atmosphere. these particles travel faster than the speed of light (in air), creating little UV-light shockwaves. you end up getting images like this:  this is the crab nebula in optical wavelengths:  looks quite different! film goes bad over time in part due to the chemical reaction happening slowly without light (thermal) and because of penetrating cosmic rays and other radiation. if you want to make sure your film never 'expires' put it in a leadlined freezer.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2011 21:27
|
|
|
aliencowboy posted:Sounds like you aren't spending enough time doing long-exposure photography Fixed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2011 22:49
|
|
|
That too.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2011 23:04
|
|
|
AIIAZNSK8ER posted:You have to work on your delivery, but sometimes when I get asked how long I've been a photographer I tell them "a few hours". Most of the time they get a little wide eyed and are then eager for an explanation. I then talk about how photography is a series of moments that happen at fractions of a second, 1/500th of a second, so if I were to take all the actual time I actually "make" a photograph it would add up to a couple of minutes per year. Then I go on to talk about how the craft is learning to study light, and I actually spend more time processing images and setting up, ect. It's a great lead in. I stole the line from a photo podcast I heard a while ago. By the time you finish explaining it all, the client will just be blown away by your knowledge and passion.  "I live my life 1/125 of a second at a time"
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2011 00:42
|
|
|
Granny winding, not double-stroking like you should.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2011 01:30
|
|
|
8th-samurai posted:"I live my life 1/125 of a second at a time" How'd you know that Vin Diesel is one of my heroes?
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2011 01:43
|
|
|
Beastruction posted:Granny winding, not double-stroking like you should. You almost had me? You never had me. You never had your camera.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2011 01:52
|
|
|
"2 fast for 2 f-stop"
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2011 03:22
|
|
|
f/2ast f/2urious
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2011 03:48
|
|
|
"Hey man, he was in my viewfinder!" "I'm in your viewfinder!"
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2011 03:09
|
|
|
red19fire posted:"Hey man, he was in my viewfinder!" "You can have any camera you want, as long as it's a Canon" Original "You can have any beer you want, as long as it's a Corona" I don't like Corona 
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2011 15:38
|
|
|
This is a pretty cool exhibit. X-ray like images - technology is deconsctructed, each piece painted white, then reconstructed and shot at various stages of reconstruction. http://www.featureshoot.com/2011/11/max-deestebans-x-ray-like-photographs-of-obsolete-technology/  
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2011 15:55
|
|
|
"Hey what's the retail one of those?" "More than you can afford buddy!" Ha... wait
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2011 16:21
|
|
|
So I've been mulling this over for a while, and forgive me (slash just ignore me) if this is a stupid idea: How much of photography is subject specific? By that I mean, there are some really good pictures out there that are totally lovely in a formal sense, but capture an interesting moment. In other words, an interesting subject can make for really good photography. Like, the whole hipster photography scene. There are so many photographers who just take pictures of their friends being skinny and tattooed and dirty and doing lines of coke and gallivanting around in the dark. These aren't necessarily good pictures, they just illustrate a fashionable moment, so are they good photographers? If you put them in another scenario, would they make a nice picture, or is it just that fashion and the life style that makes them a "good photographer"? I suppose a lot of this is just personal rumination on what it means to be a photographer, and on my own personal skills, but it seems like it is easy to get attention and skill mixed up. I took some pictures of the OWS movement a few weeks ago, posted them a couple places, and got 10,000 views in a single day. That made me feel like a good photographer, but it was just curiosity by people wanting to see what was going on. But then again, finding and illustrating moments is what photography is about. In that sense, is it true that there are no formal aspects to "good photography"? Is it just that the guy running around the riots is luckier than the guy in Bumfuck, Ohio who is in his backyard taking pictures of his dogs? So, how much of photography is subject specific? I suppose the answer is that it doesn't even matter. Like everything else, do work that impresses yourself, and seek out things that interest you.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2011 16:47
|
|
|
Awkward Davies posted:So I've been mulling this over for a while, and forgive me (slash just ignore me) if this is a stupid idea: What is "subject specific"? You can take pictures of still-life, weddings, portraits, landscapes, sports, street, birds and other animals, insects, macro, abstract, snapshots of life, and probably more general categories that I am forgetting. So what exactly are you asking? You don't have to choose one subject and devote your entire life to it, photography is as broad as any other form of art. You could spend decades mastering various types of photography, but then there are other things as well, such as lighting and post processing. Is a snapshot of a great event significant? Sure, because it is telling a story of the time you were there, whether or not it is a good picture is kinda irrelevant, if you were the only one in that space and time. On the other hand, nobody is going to care if you randomly take a snapshot of X landmark or landscape. Edit: A lot of goons will agree that it is great to have a camera just for parties and such events. That way you don't have to carry a bigger system around, and you can focus more on having fun and getting snapshots of the event. You might or might not get a great shot from the event, but at least you will have memories. A picture that is great to you might mean nothing to everybody else, don't we all have at least a few of those?  Kids by DarSevn, on Flickr Here is my example of a shot that is not great in any aspect, but I will keep it forever, because it has a story attached. I was driving home late one night from my friend's place, which is at least 30 minutes from my home, with a lot of countryside along the way. Well, my scooter had been having trouble for a few days, and it picked that day to die on me. Not only was I driving home at about 11:30pm, it was the night of a holiday and I was in the middle of nowhere. Shops are usually closed around 10pm so I would have been out of luck anyways, not to mention the holiday bit. Well, I decided to try and limp it to a shop anyways, maybe I would get lucky, right? I happened to see a light on and I was able to read one of the few characters I know in Chinese, "car", so I thought I might just be in luck. When I got my scooter to the shop, I saw that everybody was sitting outside cooking barbecue, at least 3 families worth of people. As soon as I pulled up though, the boss stood up and asked me what was wrong. I can speak a little Chinese, but trying to describe a mechanical problem is far outside of my skill level. After I tried to explain, he told me to go sit down and eat barbecue with his family while he figured out what was wrong and fixed it. As soon as I sat down, one of the wives was opening a beer for me, and another one was loading up a plate for me. Being a foreigner, the kids were curious about me, so they came up and tried talking to me with varying levels of English. Long story short, they are all students at a branch of the school I work for and I was friends with their teacher. TL:DR, my scooter broke down in the middle of nowhere, the boss fixed it while I ate barbecue and drank beer with his family, including kids that go to my school. It is by no means a great picture, but it is a great memory in my mind, and to me that makes a picture great. Sevn fucked around with this message at 17:10 on Nov 4, 2011 |
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2011 16:55
|
|
|
Sevn posted:What is "subject specific"? You can take pictures of still-life, weddings, portraits, landscapes, sports, street, birds and other animals, insects, macro, abstract, snapshots of life, and probably more general categories that I am forgetting. So what exactly are you asking? You don't have to choose one subject and devote your entire life to it, photography is as broad as any other form of art. You could spend decades mastering various types of photography, but then there are other things as well, such as lighting and post processing. I think I was wondering about how much of being a good photographer is being in the right place at the right time. Like an extreme example, if I had lived in the Prague Spring, could I have been Josef Koudelka? How much of it is time and place, and how much is finding the moment in the time and place to take the picture of?
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2011 17:05
|
|
|
Awkward Davies posted:I think I was wondering about how much of being a good photographer is being in the right place at the right time. Like an extreme example, if I had lived in the Prague Spring, could I have been Josef Koudelka? How much of it is time and place, and how much is finding the moment in the time and place to take the picture of? Ok, so I was thinking you meant something else  I can try to answer this one too, though a more wise person will surely expand on it more.No. Being in the right spot at the right time doesn't mean you will have a great picture, or be a good photographer. I have dicked around under the hood of my car before and fixed small problems, that doesn't mean I am a good mechanic. You could get 1000 shots, and even if 10 were great, it doesn't mean you are a good photographer. To me, the great photographers are the ones with the skill to do something consistently, they don't rely on getting lucky and they don't rely on being in the right place at the right time. They know what to look for and they know what kind of shot they want ahead of time. Sure, luck is great for some things, such as light when you are shooting outside. But even with planning you can still get good shots if you know what to look for. I guess that is what it boils down to, knowing what to look for and knowing how to use your camera in that situation.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2011 17:15
|
|
|
Sevn posted:What is "subject specific"? You can take pictures of still-life, weddings, portraits, landscapes, sports, street, birds and other animals, insects, macro, abstract, snapshots of life, and probably more general categories that I am forgetting. So what exactly are you asking? You don't have to choose one subject and devote your entire life to it, photography is as broad as any other form of art. You could spend decades mastering various types of photography, but then there are other things as well, such as lighting and post processing. That's a great story (tangent: I wonder if it would be worth it to have a thread of those kinds of photos/stories). In that sense, photography is recording a memory and a moment for you, an intensely personal process. I guess that illustrates (as you pointed out) that there are many different reasons to take photos, and you can't necessarily apply the same metric of a "great" photo to all of them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2011 17:15
|
|
|
Awkward Davies posted:That's a great story (tangent: I wonder if it would be worth it to have a thread of those kinds of photos/stories). In that sense, photography is recording a memory and a moment for you, an intensely personal process. I guess that illustrates (as you pointed out) that there are many different reasons to take photos, and you can't necessarily apply the same metric of a "great" photo to all of them. It would be fun to look at other pictures that have no significance to other people, and then hear the story about them. I don't think I would make a good OP for something like that, but I would definitely contribute a shot or 2. Edit: I would hate to think it would turn into a thread like "This is a party, this is my friend." Because of course those shots are significant to the person taking them, but there isn't much of a story. Sevn fucked around with this message at 17:21 on Nov 4, 2011 |
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2011 17:19
|
|
|
I've been pretty discouraged with photography the past several months for a lot of the same reasons. I got a DSLR a couple years ago to photograph the vacations I take. I had no illusions anything I made would be "pro", but I was at least hoping I'd get some landscapes that would be nice to print and hang in the office. But it seems like the gap between "snapshot" and "wall hanging" is too big for the two to work together. To get a "wall hanging" you have to get up before dawn and get where you want to be as the sun is rising. Human nature dictates that most pictures will be taken around midday, which conventional wisdom says makes for bad pictures. What bugs me is that when I spend a couple hours hiking and end up at a gorgeous scene, it only looks good when seen with the eye. Point a camera at it and take a picture.. it loses everything that made it worth remembering. Is this bad composition? Bad settings? Or a trait imposed by the way a camera captures light?
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2011 17:23
|
|
|
xzzy posted:What bugs me is that when I spend a couple hours hiking and end up at a gorgeous scene, it only looks good when seen with the eye. Point a camera at it and take a picture.. it loses everything that made it worth remembering. I think a lot of this is that visual experiences in the real world aren't just visual. I took a lot of mountain photographs this summer, and it's really hard to capture the feel of being up high, so sometimes counterintuitive techniques were the only way to catch a little of that feeling. These photos:   were about as close I could manage to the sense of awe that high mountains create, but they don't adequately convey the breathlessness of carrying a pack up steep trails at 13k feet, the fleeting camaraderie with strangers, the crunch of the early morning ice under your boots... I think pointing the camera at the sun, showing off the resulting haloing and lens flair, was the most honest way to admit that the medium is a camera, a mechanical device that only captures little bits of the whole experience.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2011 17:50
|
|
|
xzzy posted:I've been pretty discouraged with photography the past several months for a lot of the same reasons. I think it is a multi-part problem. Lack of planning, and a lack of skill. You might see a great shot, but you don't know how to use the camera to capture it. Also, a camera will never capture exactly as your eye sees it, that is what post processing is for. Conventional photography wisdom says you cannot take a great photo in midday light, but rules are meant to be broken, you just have to know what you want and how to do it! Am I good at that? Not at all And if you spend your whole life getting snapshots, who cares? You will have plenty of photos to reminisce over later on in life.If you want wall hanging photos though, decide what you want first, then learn how to do it. Then take a lot of terrible shots. Learn what you did wrong and how to correct it. Eventually you will get a shot worthy of hanging on your wall I guess this post is sounding a little too much like advice haha. I did take me about a year of taking pictures to get a shot that I thought I might want to hang on my wall. Though I have been too lazy to get anything printed and see how it would actually look hanging up haha. Sevn fucked around with this message at 17:59 on Nov 4, 2011 |
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2011 17:54
|
|
|
And apart from what's been said I find that a good narrative of photographs is far more interesting than just the one or two shots of the most amazing things you've seen in a journey. Stop and enjoy the details, no matter how trivial they may be. Then photograph the poo poo out of them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2011 18:01
|
|
|
Maverique posted:And apart from what's been said I find that a good narrative of photographs is far more interesting than just the one or two shots of the most amazing things you've seen in a journey. Stop and enjoy the details, no matter how trivial they may be. Then photograph the poo poo out of them. This is right. I have lived in a foreign country, completely different from America in almost every aspect. I have tried photographing as much as I can, but usually my camera just hangs at my side because I am too busy enjoying myself. This is mainly true for food! I am too busy eating it instead of grabbing a snapshot of it, much less anything better haha. Hopefully I can get some more shots to remember though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2011 18:04
|
|
|
Sounds like you people just need to take more pictures of boobies. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2011 18:12
|
|
|
Sevn posted:To me, the great photographers are the ones with the skill to do something consistently, they don't rely on getting lucky and they don't rely on being in the right place at the right time. They know what to look for and they know what kind of shot they want ahead of time.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2011 18:33
|
|
|
I think it is appreciated for many different reasons. Some work is technically astounding like a really really wicked guitar solo. Some work strikes emotion like a beautiful ballad. I feel like I could see Sevn's picture in an art museum with his story in a plaque underneath. I could also appreciate something because I know what kind of work went into it. So, to me, a masterpiece is entirely subjective. It just so happens that if the majority of people enjoy it, it get's labelled as a masterpiece.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2011 18:44
|
|
|
Awkward Davies posted:I think I was wondering about how much of being a good photographer is being in the right place at the right time. Like an extreme example, if I had lived in the Prague Spring, could I have been Josef Koudelka? How much of it is time and place, and how much is finding the moment in the time and place to take the picture of? Time and place is pretty important. I'd be a lovely photographer if all I did was sit around at home all the time watching TV. Koudelka had to go out there and find the shot before he could take it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2011 18:45
|
|
|
xzzy posted:I've been pretty discouraged with photography the past several months for a lot of the same reasons. Have you ever taken a photo class or anything? I started out in a 35mm B&W class at my community college which really made me concentrate on each image before taking it since you couldn't just hit the delete button and keep snapping thousands of images without worry. I feel like it really helped enhance my "vision" as a hobbyist photographer. I think the class lasted 15 weeks or whatever a semester is and only cost me around $250. I definitely see what you're talking about though. I brought my DSLR to europe with me for 2 weeks and I had to keep reminding myself that it was my first time to Europe and I needed to actually concentrate on taking more photos than just tourist snapshots. This is why I used to bring my 35mm I tried finding different ways of taking photos of landmarks and scenery than just straight on or as if I just walked by and took a photo. I think the differentiator ended up being the time I took setting up a shot, choosing manual settings, busting out the circular polarizer, and waiting for people to move out of the way. It broke down to thought, my favorite pictures from the trip ended up being the well taken photos of random stuff like this bike in Lucerne Switzerland that was standing by itself on an empty street, much more memorable and scenic than the lion statue that you can find the exact same photos of on google images.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2011 19:08
|
|
|
Verman posted:Have you ever taken a photo class or anything? The dorkroom is my photo class.  Well, and the copy of Understanding Exposure that the dorkroom convinced me to buy. I have improved in the time since, but it's to the point where I won't even lift the camera if I don't see a perfect shot with great lighting.. and I don't have the patience to sit around and wait for the scene to be perfect. If ridiculous patience is what it takes to be great, I'd be fine with never being a pro photographer, but it doesn't change that poor results have really curbed my enthusiasm.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2011 19:25
|
|
|
xzzy posted:The dorkroom is my photo class. Have you tried changing what you typically take photos of? Sounds like you want a great landscape picture to put on your wall, but don't want to wait for the light to be perfect, which is like sunset/sunrise. I totally understand what you're saying because I feel the same way...I don't have a car but I live super close to the mountains so anytime I went I was on someone else's schedule which means we were usually there midday. Which means my great vision pretty much flopped, and I lost interest in photography for a while. Then I started branching off. Portrait photography was something I never thought I would be able to do, but I started doing it for the practice and it's one of the things I enjoy most now. I still have a lot to learn and a long way to go, but that keeps me inspired to keep trying and keep improving. It's nice because while there are "better" times of day to shoot, you don't have to wait for the perfect dramatic sky to get great shots, and the reward of having someone love their pictures is great. I know you probably won't get any of those "gonna hang this on my wall" from doing portraits for family/friends, but you could really branch into anything, like street or some kind of project. Maybe it will get you back in the groove and get your inspiration back to try and shoot for those amazing landscapes you want? I know it's inspired me to go back. Now I just have to work on my boyfriend driving me to the mountains at 4am :P
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2011 19:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 13:59 |
|
|
This is how I feel about it: if you want to get the photograph, don't half-rear end it, don't bring the camera along as a "just-in-case." If you want to enjoy the experience, don't bring the camera. That way neither your photographs or your experiences will be compromised.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2011 20:01
|
|
