|
Paragon8 posted:http://jamesmacari.com/ this is the photographer that shot it. NSFW for fashion nudity It just looks like SI decided, "Let's get that 'boys boys boys chic from the Olympics". Throw Jenneke in front of a camera with little prep for her and the photgrapher. She's attractive, but looks awkward and uncomfortable as hell. All of her poses and smiles are stiff and just look weird. That and she's photoshopped poorly to hell which doesn't help. It's like they both just showed up, had exactly 1 hour to do the shoot and that was it with no plan.
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2013 18:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 22:58 |
|
|
Musket posted:Yea its pretty LOL just how many terrible photographers SI employs. They must scout out Art Institute of CITY NAME for talent, or our SAD forum. This is a vicious burn on SAD bro.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2013 18:44
|
|
|
geeves posted:It just looks like SI decided, "Let's get that 'boys boys boys chic from the Olympics". Throw Jenneke in front of a camera with little prep for her and the photgrapher. She's attractive, but looks awkward and uncomfortable as hell. All of her poses and smiles are stiff and just look weird. That and she's photoshopped poorly to hell which doesn't help. It's like they both just showed up, had exactly 1 hour to do the shoot and that was it with no plan. I would imagine it's more down to bad selects and in house processing. He probably gave SI the hard drive on the day and moved on. I'd imagine you could probably produce a great editorial out of images shot on that day, but on jobs like that it's the clients images and unless you're contracted for retouch you just clock out at the end of the day. I've got truly terrible images out there in awful magazines that I'm never putting my name to but it pays for work I do that I love.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2013 19:13
|
|
|
squidflakes posted:I think the blame can be shared equally. Everything I see in those pictures is a gently caress-up that I've worked really hard to correct and will get a shot thrown out during my own work flow, and I'm just some shitheel that takes pictures of purdy tattoo girlies. I agree completely. I have a book that's a compendium of Walter Iooss's SISI work over his career, and his work has almost no drop-off in quality from 1972-2009. However, he shot supermodels instead of amateur-athletes-forced-into-the-limelight, which I think accounts for a big chunk of the Model Mayhem quality of the photos. We know the photographer has the chops from his website, I believe it might be a decision from an art director or higher-up at SI that made the decision to make the photos the way they are.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2013 19:16
|
|
|
You guys... for a minute I thought I was being too critical about my photography and it was actually decent. ILLUSION RUINED 
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2013 20:52
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:http://jamesmacari.com/ this is the photographer that shot it. NSFW for fashion nudity That just makes me more angry! Holy gently caress, did he do this on a lunch break with a camera he borrowed from some beefy German tourist while having a running bet with another photographer that he could make Jenneke look as awkward as possible and still get the photos published? I guess everyone has bad days. I'd love to see the raws to know if they were all as bleh.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2013 23:15
|
|
|
squidflakes posted:That just makes me more angry! Holy gently caress, did he do this on a lunch break with a camera he borrowed from some beefy German tourist while having a running bet with another photographer that he could make Jenneke look as awkward as possible and still get the photos published? What makes you think he wasn't shooting JPEG? 
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2013 23:24
|
|
|
squidflakes posted:That just makes me more angry! Holy gently caress, did he do this on a lunch break with a camera he borrowed from some beefy German tourist while having a running bet with another photographer that he could make Jenneke look as awkward as possible and still get the photos published? I doubt it's on him. Si probably pitched him the idea and he must have liked Jenekke from her vid and thought why not. SI probably controls their own post (terribly) and here we go. The Kate Upton stuff is much worse imo because she's going from being shot by literally the best photographers in the world to a super awkward body paint shoot. She looks sexier in a fully clothed Marie Claire editorial than "naked" for SI. I can't believe her agency let her shoot that job. SoundMonkey posted:What makes you think he wasn't shooting JPEG? To gently caress up pictures as badly as sports illustrated did you need the full bit depth of raw!
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2013 23:29
|
|
|
One of you better have pockets deep enough to buy this. It's only $35,000 http://www.ebay.com/itm/190796013023  For future thread posterity.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2013 02:06
|
|
|
Dorkroom project, film test them all and flip them for
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2013 02:46
|
|
|
If you look at their other items for sale they're also selling about ten more film cameras separately. What is so special about those cameras, hmm?
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2013 02:57
|
|
|
They have a cool pix 990. I just pulled one out of a closet at work, complete with 16MB flash card.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2013 03:01
|
|
|
quote:Pick up is most preferable way to finish up the transaction. I've found for old camera gear that shipping is often somewhere between 40% and 100% of the cost of the item. In this case, one could buy the truck necessary to haul all this somewhere, and then sell the truck for about what you paid for it, thus reducing shipping cost to (potentially) the cost of fuel. Although, they say on the ebay page that shipping could be $1000 for USPS domestic. That's actually not too bad, considering the size, weight, and number of boxes likely involved. We should start a Dorkroom Kickstarter, and do this. "We want to buy a camera store" "At the $25 level, you get a Pentax ME" "Stretch goals: we buy even more cameras from ebay" EDIT: This is awesome. Dread Head posted:One of my friends co-workers just had one of his photos used in one of those Canon ads you are talking about. I dont think it is the best picture but still cool! I thought about it a bit more, and dug around on ebay to get a sense of prices, and I think what I'd like to do is get the issue of NatGeo from the month I was born (March 1978), and then lurk ebay / kijiji / garage sales for the exact model used in the Canon ads in that issue. I'm still pretty surprised at how much a professional SLR body from 30+ years ago goes for - the New F-1, from circa 1984, seems to be worth around $550. ExecuDork fucked around with this message at 03:17 on Feb 15, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2013 03:08
|
|
|
So Nikon Australia ran a surf photo contest. Some amazing stuff in there. http://magicseaweed.com/Nikon-Surf-Photo-of-the-Year-Finalists-Content/4127/
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2013 04:38
|
|
|
A short behind the scenes video of Martin Schoeller's twins https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DzdaiJIahUY
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2013 18:57
|
|
|
8th-samurai posted:The 202s are older and can have sync voltages of up to 200v. SoundMonkey posted:Also on any well-designed camera the hotshoe and the PC socket don't share the same circuitry (on good Nikon bodies at least, the PC socket can also handle significantly higher voltages than the hotshoe can). my pc sync plot thickens. I got my hot shoe pentax flash for my camera and...it works. So to recap: 1. My pentax k7 used to work fine with norman 202s via pc sync port on the camera. I have my last shoot with it and put everything away...next time, strobes don't fire on command but only when plugged in. 2. Strobes fire on other (film) cameras without issue. 3. I buy a hot shoe-pc sync adapter to fire the pc sync via the hot shoe. The strobes fire when plugging in their connector to the adapter but don't fire. 4. I can use my working hot shoe flash on my pentax camera. I can use my hot shoe flash on the adapter (serial connection to allow for a hot shoe flash on the adapter)! BUT I cannot get either the hot shoe flash or strobes to fire as soon as the pc sync cable's inserted. I'm wondering if the camera has a built-in shunt system to make sure it don't kill itself on high voltage of heritage strobe? I'm pretty much out of ideas now... I think my next, final move will be to get radio triggers before reclaiming my white lightnings from LA (sorry, rear end is My Canvas)
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2013 04:34
|
|
|
guidoanselmi posted:I think my next, final move will be to get radio triggers before reclaiming my white lightnings from LA (sorry, rear end is My Canvas) I guess a safe-sync adapter is pretty much the only thing you haven't tried.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2013 05:01
|
|
|
I'm probably going to get cactus v5's & kill two birds w/ one stone. The reviews are good and it can take up to 300 V. Maybe I should go hook my strobes to an oscilloscope and find out what they actually produce first... Speaking of, i realize i'm asking for advice in a 'no advice' thread. dunno if it matters but maybe it'd be useful to have a general troubleshooting thread? I just posted here because it has more traffic though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2013 18:22
|
|
|
guidoanselmi posted:I'm probably going to get cactus v5's & kill two birds w/ one stone. The reviews are good and it can take up to 300 V. Maybe I should go hook my strobes to an oscilloscope and find out what they actually produce first... There is the general questions thread and the lighting thread, both of those would probably be good. Also, reported everyone who gave advice here for not tainting instead.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2013 18:27
|
|
|
Mr. Despair posted:Also, reported everyone who gave advice here for not tainting instead. I actually immediately went and checked the reports after you posted this. I'm not sure what that says about you as a poster 
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2013 19:21
|
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:I actually immediately went and checked the reports after you posted this. I've hit the paragon tier of trolling.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2013 19:22
|
|
|
Mr. Despair posted:I've hit the paragon tier of trolling. One of my favorite dorkroom moments was making a couple of posters believe that Japanese version of the Rebel series - The Kiss Kiss Digital or whatever had a smaller chassis because Japanese people had smaller hands than western markets.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2013 19:42
|
|
|
Have you tried telling people that they called it the Rebel because the ceo of Canon through everyone here would buy it because we liked star wars?
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2013 19:44
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:One of my favorite dorkroom moments was making a couple of posters believe that Japanese version of the Rebel series - The Kiss Kiss Digital or whatever had a smaller chassis because Japanese people had smaller hands than western markets. That’s beautiful.  I wonder if any readers looked into importing one for their own small hands.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2013 19:45
|
|
|
Mr. Despair posted:Have you tried telling people that they called it the Rebel because the ceo of Canon through everyone here would buy it because we liked star wars? It would not surprise me if this was true. Or Canon thought their prime market was in the South - leave the Yankees for Nikon.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2013 19:50
|
|
|
I remember there was a movie called Crazy People from the 80's that had people from an asylum coming up with marketing ideas , such as saying that Sony's electronics are best because they're made by Japanese people with little hands.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2013 21:49
|
|
|
Just wanted to share the one video that really helped me with the Document size/Image size relationship inside of PS. Some might already know this but this is for the others who, like me at the time, still believe all photos should be resized to 72dpi for web view. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44mV3NsLmXw
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2013 19:34
|
|
|
Santa is strapped posted:Just wanted to share the one video that really helped me with the Document size/Image size relationship inside of PS. Some might already know this but this is for the others who, like me at the time, still believe all photos should be resized to 72dpi for web view. I used to be one of those 72dpi people as well. geeves fucked around with this message at 01:28 on Feb 21, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2013 19:58
|
|
|
Santa is strapped posted:Just wanted to share the one video that really helped me with the Document size/Image size relationship inside of PS. Some might already know this but this is for the others who, like me at the time, still believe all photos should be resized to 72dpi for web view. I deal with this poo poo every single day at work. It is amazing how many "designers" & "photographers" do not understand this. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2013 20:14
|
|
|
No kidding. Check out some museum calls for submission that want digital files. They always specify dpi. Just give me pixel dimensions and/or megabytes, dammit 
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2013 00:21
|
|
|
I live 20 miles at 65mph outside New York
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2013 00:38
|
|
|
I was just reading a bunch of motorcycle threads and that made perfect sense to me for a second 
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2013 12:01
|
|
|
Does anyone else get really wound up by people who pixel peep and complain about how they could never use 3rd party lenses and NEED L-Glass for their 1000px wide images on 500px? I don't know why it annoys me so much.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2013 17:26
|
|
|
Zlatan Imhobitch posted:Does anyone else get really wound up by people who pixel peep and complain about how they could never use 3rd party lenses and NEED L-Glass for their 1000px wide images on 500px?
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2013 17:37
|
|
|
Zlatan Imhobitch posted:Does anyone else get really wound up by people who pixel peep and complain about how they could never use 3rd party lenses and NEED L-Glass for their 1000px wide images on 500px? I usually tell them I am too busy taking photos to give a poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2013 17:40
|
|
|
Zlatan Imhobitch posted:Does anyone else get really wound up by people who pixel peep and complain about how they could never use 3rd party lenses and NEED L-Glass for their 1000px wide images on 500px? Someone indirectly claiming to be an authority on a subject they clearly have little knowledge of or even desire to be knowledgeable about is pretty annoying, yeah. Also the new Sigma 35 1.4 destroys every first party lens available at that focal distance, but somebody has to keep paying $400 more for 10 year old glass with a red ring or Canon might go bankrupt or something.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2013 17:47
|
|
|
It never seems to be people who do it for a living either, always people who picked it up a year or so ago as a hobby. Like I KNOW it shouldn't annoy me but it really does. Plus there's no way to tell them otherwise without seeming like a massive condescending prick. Weirdly we were talking about 30s. All of which he thinks are 'unusable below F4' if not L glass.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2013 17:51
|
|
|
Zlatan Imhobitch posted:It never seems to be people who do it for a living either, always people who picked it up a year or so ago as a hobby. The people who do it for a living can afford the L quality and need it - because their work gets printed. It was funny to see some people go crazy over the 28-70 II and in the same breath dismiss the original version. Those people are the types who buy expensive anything only because to them, the bigger the price the better the product. I'll go as far as to say that those people are the ones who keep the companies afloat - they are the ones buying the 5DmVII because it has marginally better AF and goes up to ISOmillion. bobmarleysghost fucked around with this message at 17:58 on Feb 21, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2013 17:55
|
|
|
mr. mephistopheles posted:Someone indirectly claiming to be an authority on a subject they clearly have little knowledge of or even desire to be knowledgeable about is pretty annoying, yeah. I'm currently scheming to get that Sigma 35 1.4. I will have one.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2013 18:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 22:58 |
|
|
Zlatan Imhobitch posted:It never seems to be people who do it for a living either, always people who picked it up a year or so ago as a hobby. An internet comment starting with "As a professional photographer..." to me immediately conjures up the kid whose uncle worked for nintendo. 98% of the internet photography community is unbearable. The Dorkroom as flawed as it can be is really the best of the bunch.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2013 18:06
|
|