|
You get print consistancy with a PDF. You don't get that with HTML.
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2012 16:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 12:27 |
|
|
ease posted:You get print consistancy with a PDF. You don't get that with HTML. It's really nice to be able to send a document such as a brochure or a resume to someone and not get the formatting all screwed up because their default printer is set to Letter and your document was created to A4.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2012 17:56
|
|
|
PDF is actually a great document format. It's a shame people always equate it with slow/clunky software.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2012 18:05
|
|
|
guys start a PDF thread. it's getting out of control here.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2012 18:18
|
|
|
Did you know that hello.PDF is actually a TIFF?
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2012 21:30
|
|
|
I'm starting to read reviews of the Lytro. Surprise, they're poo poo. For example: http://www.engadget.com/2012/03/08/lytro-camera-review/
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2012 00:30
|
|
|
It's neat to adjust your focal point or whatever. Image quality wise, they look about as good, or maybe even less than an iphone.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2012 00:47
|
|
|
JAY ZERO SUM GAME posted:I'm starting to read reviews of the Lytro. Surprise, they're poo poo. That doesn't look like poo poo, just like a very special-purpose sort of device.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2012 02:26
|
|
|
JAY ZERO SUM GAME posted:I'm starting to read reviews of the Lytro. Surprise, they're poo poo. Not poo poo at all, just the first generation of a future technology. I'm honestly surprised its not vaporware.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2012 02:37
|
|
|
This should be great technology for macro, because I can imagine you could get great fun with in camera focus stacking. Beyond that maybe the technology can be conceivably used to make more realistic artificial bokehs for the bokeh junkies rather than just a low effort gradiated gaussian blur. I'm probably a bad person for thinking "MOAR BOKEHS" but surely there would be a market for people who want that kind of gimmick from their camera without forking over infinity dollars for a nokton lens?
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2012 03:18
|
|
|
Shmoogy posted:Not poo poo at all, just the first generation of a future technology. I'm honestly surprised its not vaporware. Yah, it's probably better to think of this camera as a proof of concept. The technology is awesome, and if that 41 MP Nokia sensor, or something similar, makes its way into one, you could get modern resolutions and good image quality along with the ability to change the focus point later. One thing you might not think about is that the camera doesn't have to focus at all, which should make it extremely responsive for a non-DSLR camera (or even a consumer DSLR for that matter). No waiting for the AF to take a shot that goes by really quickly.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2012 17:26
|
|
|
CAN WE STILL CALL IT A PICTURE!? gently caress YO MAMA http://www.annenbergspaceforphotography.org/video-gallery/digital-darkroom
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2012 02:02
|
|
|
Photograph as reality is an absurd notion that should have died a long time ago.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2012 02:04
|
|
|
That's a really awesome video 
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2012 03:42
|
|
|
One morning a few weeks ago, I randomly checked a photog Facebook group I'm in, saw that a photographer in my area was looking for someone to help with post processing. Thinking it'd be nice to pick up some freelancing work, I sent him a message. 1 interview and 2 happy hours later, and I've got a full time job as an editor and photographer for a pretty cool studio. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2012 04:11
|
|
|
Oh, goddammit. I've been working in a sort of informal commitee/photo-group for the last 3 months. We've been trying to convince the people in charge of this place: https://www.godsbanen.dk/english ..that they need to give us room for a darkroom and a studio. We were pretty much all set to formalise our club and begin applying for grants, recruit more members and so on. And then the lady who has been a big driving force behind our group pulls out. Because it didn't turn out exactly like she wanted. It's this place or at home, over the kitchen sink, lady. Any of you know any creative photographers/volunteer-work-types in Aarhus, Denmark, now is the time to give them a call. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2012 23:25
|
|
|
Prathm posted:Oh, goddammit.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2012 17:01
|
|
|
Lmao Terry Richardson banged Lindsey Lohan, and now apparently she has creeped him out. That's pretty amazing since he's a right creepy oval office himself.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2012 17:11
|
|
|
Mathturbator posted:You don't have PM enabled, but are you in touch with Gorm? Can't say I am. Do you know him? e: just bought pm's
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2012 17:14
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:Photograph as reality is an absurd notion that should have died a long time ago. Yes, in general. But, I understand why in photojournalism they have a strict set of rules. Otherwise, we'd have the Foxification of photojournalism.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2012 17:17
|
|
|
A5H posted:Lmao Terry Richardson banged Lindsey Lohan, and now apparently she has creeped him out. That's pretty amazing since he's a right creepy oval office himself. She's into the daddy thing- http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2111547/Lindsay-Lohan-wants-relationship-Terry-Richardson-following-steamy-night-passion.html And daddy is into- http://snarkerati.com/celebrity-gossip/michael-lohan-accused-of-seeking-out-lindsay-lookalike-strippers/
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2012 18:02
|
|
|
torgeaux posted:Yes, in general. But, I understand why in photojournalism they have a strict set of rules. Otherwise, we'd have the Foxification of photojournalism. Sorry, but the idea of objectivity in photojournalism is just as laughable and it already exists as a farce.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2012 19:43
|
|
|
rear end is my canvas posted:She's into the daddy thing- http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2111547/Lindsay-Lohan-wants-relationship-Terry-Richardson-following-steamy-night-passion.html  Do we have to post words itt or could I have just posted the face? TIA soundmonkey.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2012 19:45
|
|
|
rear end is my canvas posted:She's into the daddy thing- http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2111547/Lindsay-Lohan-wants-relationship-Terry-Richardson-following-steamy-night-passion.html oh my
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2012 20:39
|
|
|
Terry Richardson is a prime example of someone who can take a negative trait, mainly looking, acting, and being known for being a creepy sex obsessed photographer, and by taking it to extremes has somehow transformed it in to a positive. Or, at least a way for him to have become rich and famous. squidflakes fucked around with this message at 22:30 on Mar 11, 2012 |
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2012 22:20
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:Sorry, but the idea of objectivity in photojournalism is just as laughable and it already exists as a farce. Sure. Weegee, one of my favorite photographers, staged photos. How shots are taken, point of view, lighting, are just as deceptive as post-processing. It's not that I think PJ is objective, I just agree with the concept of limiting deliberate post photo efforts to manipulate the scene.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2012 22:29
|
|
|
torgeaux posted:I just agree with the concept of limiting deliberate post photo efforts to manipulate the scene. Why? Being manipulative in the field, as an editor choosing frames, or as a subject, being aware of how you present yourself, is no different than doing post-work.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2012 22:31
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:Why? Being manipulative in the field, as an editor choosing frames, or as a subject, being aware of how you present yourself, is no different than doing post-work. Sure they're different. Most importantly, you can control the post-processing. Secondly, no matter how manipulative you've been in composing, it was still physically there. Cloning/content aware fill let you completely change the event.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2012 22:44
|
|
|
"Physically there" is ridiculous. Some photons of light hit your sensor in a certain way, and the context of that is completely fictive, determined by the string of people assigning meaning to the image created. Photographs are nothing but illustrations, the idea that they represent any sort of reality is a shared delusion based on the fact that they are visually similar to things we see. e: Consider that the New York Times originally had photographs as part of their art department, because they recognized that they serve the same purpose as any other visual ullustration. 365 Nog Hogger fucked around with this message at 22:52 on Mar 11, 2012 |
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2012 22:50
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:"Physically there" is ridiculous. Some photons of light hit your sensor in a certain way, and the context of that is completely fictive, determined by the string of people assigning meaning to the image created. Photographs are nothing but illustrations, the idea that they represent any sort of reality is a shared delusion based on the fact that they are visually similar to things we see. I'm gonna have to disagree with you. "Completely fictive?" I get, and agree with your point to a degree, but you've just reductio ad absurded it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2012 22:52
|
|
|
rear end is my canvas posted:She's into the daddy thing- http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2111547/Lindsay-Lohan-wants-relationship-Terry-Richardson-following-steamy-night-passion.html
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2012 23:31
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:This is THE best thing Yeah there probably is some driving force behind how messed up she is. Dr. Drew would always point out that porn stars were usually molested or abused when they were younger.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2012 23:45
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:Why? Being manipulative in the field, as an editor choosing frames, or as a subject, being aware of how you present yourself, is no different than doing post-work. I understand your point and to a certain degree, agree with you: it is certainly possible to manipulate the shot to create something artificial. We should certainly not say that because a shot has not been post processed, it is therefore honest and true. However, the key difference is that the photographer is reporting a fact, no matter what the viewpoint is, that certain set of facts does exist within the confines of a view finder. Even if you have have to stand on your head or put the camera in a specific location. As soon as you dig out the clone tool, you are creating fake information. Compare it with reporting on a statement made by someone. You can certainly pick and choose which sentences to include in your report, and by doing so, distort the situation. But as soon as you start making up sentences and words that were not used, you are creating fake information.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2012 00:17
|
|
|
spog posted:I understand your point and to a certain degree, agree with you: it is certainly possible to manipulate the shot to create something artificial. We should certainly not say that because a shot has not been post processed, it is therefore honest and true. There was a brilliant video I saw of a photographer giving a lecture about the reality of photojournalism. He was a photojournalist in Israel/Palestine and sort of just ended up taking a lot of pictures of photographers as well as he had a background in anthropology. I really wish I could find the link but I'll do my best to sort of try and sum it up. I found part of his footage here - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_Dx9LjnQOY
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2012 02:34
|
|
|
There are very few things in this world as reliable as gaff tape. I was hired for a video gig and most of the time there are podium mics that I tie into. This time it was a small venue and no mics, so I grabbed my mini tripod and taped up the directional mic to the wireless transmitter. We used to have a gaff tape thread.  untitled-0015 by AIIAZNSK8ER, on Flickr  untitled-0019 by AIIAZNSK8ER, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2012 14:34
|
|
|
They make fun of me at work for how stingy I am with the gaff tape. I don't feel it's a commodity to be used lightly so I get annoyed with the intern or my boss when they drop too much on something simple. I don't even like using "courtesy tabs" cause I think it's a waste.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2012 15:52
|
|
|
When I was in college and did some minor sound production I was beaten when I used too much. I don't think gaff tape even needs a tab, it's so easy to peel on its own. Are they thinking that it saves time?
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2012 19:05
|
|
|
The only time a tab is really critical is with packaging tape because that poo poo is a bitch to start without one.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2012 20:02
|
|
|
Right, gaffer's tape is designed to be easy to peel off, so tabs are pretty superfluous. Same goes for duct tape.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2012 20:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 12:27 |
|
|
The Affair posted:I don't even like using "courtesy tabs" cause I think it's a waste. Also I'm trying to imagine an assistant trying to work for someone voicing these kinds of concerns and I suddenly want a beer.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2012 20:57
|
|