|
Dread Head posted:He has gone for gold in GBS. Link?
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2012 22:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 04:29 |
|
|
HeyEng posted:Link? http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3514781
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2012 23:32
|
|
|
Holy pano.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2012 23:52
|
|
|
I tried that long ago and got RF burn on my finger tips for my trouble 
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2012 01:01
|
|
|
Helmacron is massively entertaining.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2012 02:15
|
|
|
HeyEng posted:Helmacron is massively entertaining. I would make a forum that was nothing but his posts and quotes of his posts.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2012 04:00
|
|
|
After reading his post about climbing a crane, I'm fairly sure Helmacron is some sort of invincible genie prince.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2012 06:07
|
|
|
Now I'm really sad. National Geographic chose one of my macro shots to print in their magazine. It's a focus-stacked shot of 30 source images. They just emailed me asking for my "camera raw, untouched, high res file" but I deleted all my source images.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2012 15:47
|
|
|
Get an undelete tool. Depending on how much data churn you have, those images are most likely still kicking around on your hard drive.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2012 18:22
|
|
|
InternetJunky posted:Now I'm really sad. National Geographic chose one of my macro shots to print in their magazine. It's a focus-stacked shot of 30 source images. They just emailed me asking for my "camera raw, untouched, high res file" but I deleted all my source images. How can you have a single RAW file for a collection of 30 individual images?
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2012 20:13
|
|
|
spog posted:How can you have a single RAW file for a collection of 30 individual images? Shift+select them all, add to compressed folder. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2012 20:18
|
|
|
have you tried telling them that it's a focus stacked image made of 30 different files? that might be enough to get them to go "oh cool no worries"
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2012 20:20
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:have you tried telling them that it's a focus stacked image made of 30 different files? that might be enough to get them to go "oh cool no worries" "Thanks for sending this along, and for all the details for the image you submitted. I will let you know if we run it!"
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2012 20:21
|
|
|
that should be enough. the get the RAW thing is probably just a blanket thing they ask in general.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2012 20:33
|
|
|
death of film by Robert Burley. Some nice shots of demoed Kodak buildings.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2012 21:14
|
|
|
ifixit.com did a teardown of a Nikon D600: http://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/Nikon+D600+Teardown/10708/1 
Star War Sex Parrot fucked around with this message at 22:31 on Nov 8, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2012 22:16
|
|
|
So for those with pro-level SmugMug accounts, there's some (sorta) good news. After hearing all the complaints, they've decided to keep the ability to sell prints with all pro-level accounts. Before, if you wanted to continue selling prints you had to upgrade to the new "Business" account and pay twice as much for all the features you already had. So they've decided that all those who don't want to upgrade and instead stay with "Portfolio" accounts can still sell prints, you just lose every other feature that you were already paying for. Package printing, branded shopping carts, the ability to create discount coupons, etc.- all gone. So yeah, sorta good news. I'm far less tempted to just ditch SmugMug all together now, but I'm still not 100% happy.  SmugMug Brings the Ability to Price and Sell Prints Back to All Pro Accounts
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2012 17:56
|
|
|
That 70s Shirt posted:So for those with pro-level SmugMug accounts, there's some (sorta) good news. After hearing all the complaints, they've decided to keep the ability to sell prints with all pro-level accounts. Before, if you wanted to continue selling prints you had to upgrade to the new "Business" account and pay twice as much for all the features you already had. So they've decided that all those who don't want to upgrade and instead stay with "Portfolio" accounts can still sell prints, you just lose every other feature that you were already paying for. Package printing, branded shopping carts, the ability to create discount coupons, etc.- all gone. These guys have me by the balls... At a time when I was selling more prints, I started hosting all of my blog images on SmugMug because Squarespace's interface was a pain in the rear end. My focus isn't really on selling prints any longer, and I don't sell nearly enough to justify the monthly cost of SmugMug, but moving hundreds of photos that are hotlinked on my site would be an enormous hassle. (This isn't really their fault obviously, just my own recent frustration that happens to involve SmugMug.)
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2012 19:23
|
|
|
Is a good architectural photo a beautiful photograph, or a photograph of beautiful architecture?
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2012 22:43
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LApO_BDRE8M
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2012 22:51
|
|
|
Got my hands on a Lytro: https://pictures.lytro.com/alpha/pictures/395613 Only pic of mine that my friend uploaded. The LCD is completely unuseable, it's smaller than a postage stamp and looks really really bad even for what it is.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2012 00:50
|
|
|
David Pratt posted:Is a good architectural photo a beautiful photograph, or a photograph of beautiful architecture? Is this like the photography equivalent of bringing up declawing in Pet Island?
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2012 01:05
|
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:Is this like the photography equivalent of bringing up declawing in Pet Island? No, that would be buying a k-01.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2012 01:11
|
|
|
It's kind of a dumb question anyways because it's not like those things are mutually exclusive. You can have a beautiful photo of terrible architecture and vice versa.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2012 02:10
|
|
|
David Pratt posted:Is a good architectural photo a beautiful photograph, or a photograph of beautiful architecture? there is no such thing as a 'beautiful photograph'. All photographs are terrible.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2012 03:07
|
|
|
Augmented Dickey posted:All my photographs are terrible. Welp.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2012 05:42
|
|
|
nonanone posted:It's kind of a dumb question anyways because it's not like those things are mutually exclusive. You can have a beautiful photo of terrible architecture and vice versa. Yeah, basically this, which is true for anything that a camera has ever been pointed at.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2012 18:30
|
|
|
Crossposting an interview that the blog Deadspin got to have with Sports Illustrated photographer Neil Leifer (of the famous Ali knockout photo) about some of his favorite shots from the NFL. Worth a read.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2012 14:48
|
|
|
JosephStalinVEVO posted:Got my hands on a Lytro: https://pictures.lytro.com/alpha/pictures/395613 That's kind of cool.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2012 15:14
|
|
|
JosephStalinVEVO posted:Got my hands on a Lytro: https://pictures.lytro.com/alpha/pictures/395613
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2012 15:15
|
|
|
Anyone around here taken a camera to glass beach? http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass_Beach_(Fort_Bragg,_California)#section_1 Saw a couple pictures from it on google+ and it seems like a neat spot to spend some time.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2012 04:24
|
|
|
I've been browsing ebay for old watches and I was pretty blown away by the photography in this listing. I mean, it's pretty standard product photography, but compared to the poo poo direct flash point and shoot photos and stock images that comprise 99% of the listings on ebay, I'm pretty impressed and I wonder how much impact the photos make on the final sale price. http://www.ebay.com/itm/160923844857?_trksid=p5197.c0.m619 Does anyone know if anyone has ever done a study where they list identical items with one having poo poo photos and one having professional photos and then compare? I think that would be a fun experiment to do if I had any idea how to do product photography at all. I mean just looking at that watch, I know I would hate in person (gold, ew), but it looks gorgeous in those photos and I'd almost consider bidding if it wasn't already well past my price range.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2012 08:15
|
|
|
mr. mephistopheles posted:I've been browsing ebay for old watches and I was pretty blown away by the photography in this listing. I mean, it's pretty standard product photography, but compared to the poo poo direct flash point and shoot photos and stock images that comprise 99% of the listings on ebay, I'm pretty impressed and I wonder how much impact the photos make on the final sale price. OKCupid did a study about camera value for profile image vs. message responses. It was quite comprehensive (if someone can find it in the OKC blog). There were a couple weird outliers I seem to recall (use your Olympus DSLR for pics of ur swole abs or something).
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2012 08:47
|
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:OKCupid did a study about camera value for profile image vs. message responses. It was quite comprehensive (if someone can find it in the OKC blog). There were a couple weird outliers I seem to recall (use your Olympus DSLR for pics of ur swole abs or something). Oh yeah, I read that and it was definitely interesting. Wouldn't mind reading it again if someone has the link handy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2012 08:56
|
|
|
 http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/dont-be-ugly-by-accident/
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2012 09:07
|
|
|
Basically, just buy an iPhone instead of a new camera.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2012 09:36
|
|
|
I'm crying right now. I know I'm laughing, but it won't be long before the absolute despair hits. Thank you for this gem. evil_bunnY posted:Basically, just buy an iPhone instead of a new camera. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2012 10:00
|
|
|
Menorah on Fire posted:I'm crying right now. I know I'm laughing, but it won't be long before the absolute despair hits. Thank you for this gem. f/8 and don't get a date
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2012 10:05
|
|
|
alternatively, f/7.1 -- beauty's last stand
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2012 10:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 04:29 |
|
|
So basically people want mates who have as few of the gross human things that we all have visible as possible. People may as well just commission people to do paintings of them looking swole as gently caress and killing a dragon because that's basically where photography is heading as a medium. People don't want images of themselves, they want images of who they want other people to think they are. We created a tool capable of capturing us as we are, and we projected our own superficial ego-driven bullshit onto the art it creates. What value does it even have over digital painting if that's all it's going to become. If all people want is an imagined, digitally enhanced perfect image of how they wish they looked then why even pay people to take photographs. I realize everyone here also realizes this. I am lamenting out loud.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2012 14:04
|
|