|
iSheep posted:I'm probably gonna be posting my 6x6 shots there whenever they get back from development Those 6x6 shots were definitely meant to be displayed on a 5.5 inch screen, good move.
|
# ? Aug 21, 2015 17:30 |
|
|
# ? May 23, 2024 17:17 |
|
They are gonna be garbage photos either way.
|
# ? Aug 21, 2015 17:33 |
|
iSheep posted:They are gonna be garbage photos either way. Yeah I mean I'm just giving you poo poo, post em wherever you want and reap those sweet sweet Internet points.
|
# ? Aug 21, 2015 17:36 |
|
Awkward Davies posted:I also find it a little funny when people post 35mm to instagram. The journey that photo had to take to end up there. How is it more than posting them to flickr?
|
# ? Aug 21, 2015 17:37 |
|
Thoogsby posted:How is it more than posting them to flickr? The extra step of getting them on to your phone, and then using an additional app to present them in their true aspect ratio, OR the additional step of cropping to a square aspect. Shoot > Develop > Scan (> dust/edit) > Send to phone > Crop in 3rd party app > post to IG As opposed to: Shoot > post to IG Like I said above, do what you want, it just occurred to me that the process of getting them to IG is fairly involved.
|
# ? Aug 21, 2015 17:39 |
|
There are 35mm shooters whose primary way of showing their images is Instagram?
|
# ? Aug 21, 2015 19:56 |
|
Radbot posted:There are 35mm shooters whose primary way of showing their images is Instagram? I follow https://instagram.com/96integra/ because he takes pictures of old cars on 35mm.
|
# ? Aug 21, 2015 21:15 |
|
Awkward Davies posted:The extra step of getting them on to your phone, and then using an additional app to present them in their true aspect ratio, OR the additional step of cropping to a square aspect. Or they just use something like this: http://microsites.lomography.com/smartphone-scanner/
|
# ? Aug 21, 2015 22:31 |
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:Or they just use something like this: http://microsites.lomography.com/smartphone-scanner/ If you do this please kill you are self.
|
# ? Aug 22, 2015 01:15 |
|
Radbot posted:There are 35mm shooters whose primary way of showing their images is Instagram? Yeah a fair number of them now that I think about it. Daniel Arnold and that lot do it. Thomas Prior def does it, tho he seems to shoot primarily 120. I guess it makes sense as a publishing platform, somewhat.
|
# ? Aug 22, 2015 02:25 |
|
Awkward Davies posted:The extra step of getting them on to your phone, and then using an additional app to present them in their true aspect ratio, OR the additional step of cropping to a square aspect. Get a Robot and shoot 24mm squares. 50 exposures to a roll!
|
# ? Aug 22, 2015 03:50 |
|
Pukestain Pal posted:A photo doesn't have to be an exact representation of the scene to be good. No poo poo dude. But there's a difference between the person who took a photo deciding to throw a tone filter over it and someone else doing it after being delivered a finalized product. Are the people saying it's no big deal to alter someone's art the same people who raged about Richard Prince basically doing that a while back? Or is it different because he didn't alter the images, just the way they were displayed? Does artistic vision and intent matter to any degree or is it irrelevant? If a gallery accepted your work for an exhibition and then did something like alter the contrast or colors of them somehow because they thought it looked better, would that be okay? If it wouldn't, why is it okay for someone to do that on social media? Why should the level of respect you have for your work be dependent on the audience? Again, I don't think it's anything worth getting upset about myself, but I respect people who value their work to that degree and I wouldn't think they were stupid for caring that much. mr. mephistopheles fucked around with this message at 04:21 on Aug 22, 2015 |
# ? Aug 22, 2015 04:19 |
|
I don't like someone putting a filter on their images, but the Richard Prince thing had nothing to do with alteration and everything to do with claims of authorship. If 'work' is delivered to a client, then there may or may not be a transfer of ownership for how things are used. I can't speak to the specific contract here, but there are pretty different things.
|
# ? Aug 22, 2015 04:43 |
|
365 Nog Hogger posted:I don't like someone putting a filter on their images, but the Richard Prince thing had nothing to do with alteration and everything to do with claims of authorship. If 'work' is delivered to a client, then there may or may not be a transfer of ownership for how things are used. I can't speak to the specific contract here, but there are pretty different things. I would like to take this opportunity to say for the record that I think Richard Prince is piss garbage and terrible, thank you for your time.
|
# ? Aug 22, 2015 06:09 |
|
8th-snype posted:I would like to take this opportunity to say for the record that I think Richard Prince is piss garbage and terrible, thank you for your time. *prints out this post and sells in for $100k*
|
# ? Aug 22, 2015 17:33 |
|
feigning interest posted:*prints out this post and sells in for $100k* You got robbed son
|
# ? Aug 22, 2015 18:16 |
|
When I deliver portraits or wedding images to clients, their license (and their contract) explicitly says they aren't allowed to alter the images beyond cropping. I even go over that with them (nicely, because I'm not a petulant child). It's because I don't want a lovely filter or HDR tonemap or whatever the gently caress done to my images, and then people see them online and think that's how I delivered them.
|
# ? Aug 22, 2015 18:30 |
|
dakana posted:When I deliver portraits or wedding images to clients, their license (and their contract) explicitly says they aren't allowed to alter the images beyond cropping. I even go over that with them (nicely, because I'm not a petulant child). It's because I don't want a lovely filter or HDR tonemap or whatever the gently caress done to my images, and then people see them online and think that's how I delivered them. Fine, but are you actively enforcing it? Are you stalking their personal Facebook pages and Instagram? It's just going to inevitably happen. Sucks, but what are you going to do.
|
# ? Aug 22, 2015 19:03 |
|
Pukestain Pal posted:Fine, but are you actively enforcing it? Are you stalking their personal Facebook pages and Instagram? It's just going to inevitably happen. Sucks, but what are you going to do. I won't stalk, but I make sure to be proactive by explaining it upfront during the consultation. If I saw it, yeah, I'd ask them to take it down. It hasn't happened yet though.
|
# ? Aug 22, 2015 19:10 |
|
Isn't showing what your work is about the point of your portfolio ? Do you watermark the pictures you deliver to clients ? I'd kinda expect to own the pictures I paid for and do whatever the gently caress I want with them.
|
# ? Aug 23, 2015 06:52 |
|
Well then you would hire a photographer willing to sell you a license to do that.
|
# ? Aug 23, 2015 07:44 |
|
crap nerd posted:How do you guys feel about revisiting older photos and making changes to them or just getting rid of them? It's your body of work, and your hobby, why should you be forced to keep stuff you no longer like/want different. Maybe keep a copy so you can see yourself progress if you are into that.
|
# ? Aug 23, 2015 09:20 |
|
unpacked robinhood posted:Isn't showing what your work is about the point of your portfolio ? Do you watermark the pictures you deliver to clients ? Most people that come in for their first consultation do so because they saw my work online first - often from their friends' Facebook pages. My portfolio by that point is just icing on the cake. I don't watermark, but most of my clients tag me and my business in their posts. Also, my metadata setup defaults to putting my website url in the photo description on Facebook. And yeah, you'd need to seek out that kind of license. I retain the copyright to the photos I deliver; I grant a permanent license for personal use - they can copy, share, print, perpetuate, etc however they'd like. They can't, however, make money off of them by entering them in contests, selling them to stock or ad agencies, licensing them to a magazine, etc. It's pretty standard practice in the industry. Wedding clients are paying for personal use wedding photos. dakana fucked around with this message at 16:33 on Aug 23, 2015 |
# ? Aug 23, 2015 16:31 |
|
I've moved into the SFAI residence hall. There's a film lab that does E6 a fifteen minute walk away from me. e: it's cramped and smells like fixer in there
|
# ? Aug 25, 2015 01:44 |
|
atomicthumbs posted:e: it's cramped and smells like fixer in there Sounds like my bathroom.
|
# ? Aug 25, 2015 04:13 |
|
unpacked robinhood posted:
You don't own the right to do what ever you want with a photo just because you paid for it.
|
# ? Aug 25, 2015 06:15 |
|
8th-snype posted:You don't own the right to do what ever you want with a photo just because you paid for it. Unless that was in the licencing agreement you signed.
|
# ? Aug 26, 2015 16:30 |
|
Dread Head posted:Unless that was in the licencing agreement you signed. True, but in that particular case we wouldn't be having this conversation.
|
# ? Aug 26, 2015 17:28 |
|
8th-snype posted:You don't own the right to do what ever you want with a photo just because you paid for it. In Canada until like a year or two ago you did. If someone commissioned photos they had full rights by default unless the agreement stated otherwise.
|
# ? Aug 26, 2015 17:47 |
|
Fart Amplifier posted:In Canada until like a year or two ago you did. If someone commissioned photos they had full rights by default unless the agreement stated otherwise. Right, which is why your contract or modeling agreement should take local laws into account. In the US I don't have to spell out everything being copyrighted does to protect my work but ymmv anywhere else. If you aren't having people sign releases or contracts then you probably don't care if someone makes your stuff look bad after delivery.
|
# ? Aug 26, 2015 20:09 |
|
https://vimeo.com/119002441
|
# ? Aug 26, 2015 20:21 |
|
not a rickroll 0/10
|
# ? Aug 26, 2015 20:42 |
|
Nice desaturate filter
|
# ? Aug 26, 2015 22:43 |
|
shitting_in_stagram
|
# ? Aug 31, 2015 18:27 |
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2Q5lnAir3k
|
# ? Sep 2, 2015 19:39 |
|
|
# ? Sep 2, 2015 19:43 |
|
His laughter at the end slays me.
|
# ? Sep 2, 2015 20:00 |
|
Not sure why he was only using the half-flush
|
# ? Sep 2, 2015 22:15 |
|
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/08/the-war-photo-no-one-would-publish/375762/ The Atlantic ran a story about a photograph from the first Gulf War (1991) that, perhaps, should have been more widely printed and viewed. Emphasis added because the term "should have" is something that makes me twitch, for reasons unrelated to this article.
|
# ? Sep 4, 2015 01:40 |
|
|
# ? May 23, 2024 17:17 |
|
https://vimeo.com/106332129
|
# ? Sep 5, 2015 23:22 |