|
President Beep posted:Slow down, guys. I'm taking notes here. Here you go. https://petapixel.com/2018/04/17/largesense-unveils-worlds-first-single-shot-8x10-digital-camera/
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2018 18:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 18:55 |
|
|
Nope can't use it, based on their gallery that camera is only good for shooting girls on a couch or in a field. Unsuitable for head crushing forced perspective, keep searching.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2018 19:13
|
|
|
who actually buys camera's like that
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2018 19:20
|
|
|
It would be fun to mess around with if it were 1/100 the price
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2018 19:28
|
|
|
  Blast those documentaries that haven't told me to not start big!!! I can't make this stuff up people! Edit: He has thoughts about that there big camera too! 
mAlfunkti0n fucked around with this message at 19:43 on Apr 18, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2018 19:40
|
|
|
Yeah, man, I mean who really wants a 100k toy like that? It's a joke. You've gotta invest serious cash money into those iPod Telephone cameras to make it into galleries these days.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2018 20:04
|
|
|
Thom12255 posted:who actually buys camera's like that Nobody does. I have no idea what their target market is. People with too much money and a gear fetish are going to buy digital Hasselblads. Fine art photographers who want to use large format gear will still use film because there's no compelling reason to spend a hundred grand on swapping one set of limitations for a different set. I remember reading about the guy who had a custom digital 8x10 made for him (it also cost around $100k) because he figured that over the life of the thing it would save him that much in time, effort and cost of shooting test polaroids before taking the final shot. Even with his monstrous CCD though, he still took the real shot on film. Maybe there are some art archivists who are salivating over this thing? Helen Highwater fucked around with this message at 20:13 on Apr 18, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2018 20:09
|
|
|
Helen Highwater posted:Nobody does. I have no idea what their target market is. People with too much money and a gear fetish are going to buy digital Hasselblads. Fine art photographers who want to use large format gear will still use film because there's no compelling reason to spend a hundred grand on swapping one set of limitations for a different set. I remember reading about the guy who had a custom digital 8x10 made for him (it also cost around $100k) because he figured that over the life of the thing it would save him that much in time, effort and cost of shooting test polaroids before taking the final shot. Even with his monstrous CCD though, he still took the real shot on film. Folks like our buddy on reddit are his target market. He will reconsider and steal some cash from his parents to fund his fetish.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2018 20:20
|
|
|
The fact that it's only black and white, and only 12 mp, well, why? Why?
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2018 00:18
|
|
|
torgeaux posted:The fact that it's only black and white, and only 12 mp, well, why? Why? Yes, everyone knows 18 would have been the minimum there. mAlfunkti0n posted:Folks like our buddy on reddit are his target market. He will reconsider and steal some cash from his parents to fund his fetish. But with only 12 megapickles he won't be able to make 40x60 prints that sell for thousands of dollars! also his fetish is poo poo, not cameras
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2018 01:50
|
|
|
Yond Cassius posted:megapickles i'm stealing this
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2018 02:01
|
|
|
Yond Cassius posted:Yes, everyone knows 18 would have been the minimum there. Nah his fetish is cameras. Have you seen his photos? XD mAlfunkti0n fucked around with this message at 15:21 on Apr 19, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2018 04:12
|
|
|
His fetish is findom through buying cameras.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2018 15:00
|
|
|
Oh ho boy. Re-signed up to flickr caught bots https://www.flickr.com/photos/billypones/ Billy Pones! Amazing use of ms paint watermarks on HDR there billy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2018 11:52
|
|
|
learnincurve posted:Oh ho boy. Re-signed up to flickr caught bots  Stolen by Billy Pones, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2018 12:05
|
|
|
Billy Pones is actually awesome and doesn't belong in this thread.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2018 13:34
|
|
|
xzzy posted:Billy Pones is actually awesome and doesn't belong in this thread. I agree. Billy Pones is cool. This, on the other hand, is...really something else.  So far it takes the cake for the weirdest thing to show up in my feed. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2018 13:59
|
|
|
edit: wrong thread -_-
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2018 14:17
|
|
|
One of the winners of the Wildlife Photographer of the Year Award got disqualified for using a photoshopped taxidermied anteater. https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2018/apr/27/winning-anteater-photo-disqualified-judges-agree-stuffed-marcio-cabral
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2018 16:00
|
|
|
GrandpaPants posted:One of the winners of the Wildlife Photographer of the Year Award got disqualified for using a photoshopped taxidermied anteater. The first time I saw this, I read "stuffed" as "plush", and thought anyone who could win a wildlife photography award with one of these deserved it, regardless of the spirit of the event.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2018 19:16
|
|
|
GrandpaPants posted:One of the winners of the Wildlife Photographer of the Year Award got disqualified for using a photoshopped taxidermied anteater. That would really suck if there were a real anteater that just so happened to be in the same position as the taxidermied one and had the same markings, the same tufts of fur etc. and he wasn’t lying but couldn’t prove it. That said, without being an anteater scientist expert or whatever that certainly does look like the same anteater and before reading the article, while comparing the picture, it looked pretty obvious since those random tufts of fur matching up were really damning. I like that he provided a before and after shot with no anteater as some sort of proof though...not sure what that achieves. Is there any way through EXIF data or raw files to prove that something is unedited? I’ve never had to prove something like that but if Photoshop left a trail of exif data on the file then he could just submit the original unedited photo as proof (not that I believe him)
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2018 19:31
|
|
|
Yond Cassius posted:The first time I saw this, I read "stuffed" as "plush", and thought anyone who could win a wildlife photography award with one of these deserved it, regardless of the spirit of the event. Same here. When I opened the link I was honestly a bit disappointed.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2018 19:34
|
|
|
Are they claiming he photoshopped it or stole the stuffed animal, faked the scene, and replaced it without anyone knowing? I thought it was fairly easy to forensically detect whether a photo had been manipulated before, not to mention I don't even know if it's possible to edit a RAW file then save it back as a RAW.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2018 19:38
|
|
|
polyester concept posted:Are they claiming he photoshopped it or stole the stuffed animal, faked the scene, and replaced it without anyone knowing? I thought it was fairly easy to forensically detect whether a photo had been manipulated before, not to mention I don't even know if it's possible to edit a RAW file then save it back as a RAW.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2018 19:39
|
|
|
rio posted:Is there any way through EXIF data or raw files to prove that something is unedited? I’ve never had to prove something like that but if Photoshop left a trail of exif data on the file then he could just submit the original unedited photo as proof (not that I believe him) The easiest way to prove it is a legit shot would be to provide a series of RAW files that show the time before and after the actual image was taken. Surprise surprise -- he provided those but the anteater unfortunately only ran in for that single exposure so the rest of the RAW files didn't have it. Biggest giveaway this was fake -- any true wildlife photographer would have at least 200 different photos of the anteater in this situation.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2018 19:41
|
|
|
Uptime Sinclair posted:It's the latter. Oh poo poo, that is much more hilarious. I thought they were accusing him of photoshopping in the anteater.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2018 19:42
|
|
|
InternetJunky posted:EXIF is trivial to change, but making a fake RAW would be a bit more difficult (although still easy enough since he did it). Ah ok, I didn’t know if it were possible to make a fake raw since I haven’t tried to either. That part did crack me up, that he only had time to take one photo of the anteater. Like it just teleported in and out or like he was on his last shot of film or using single shot large format or something. Practically anyone in that situation would be mashing the shutter button one the anteater got up to the mound. Edit: whoops, post is not edit
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2018 19:44
|
|
|
Uptime Sinclair posted:It's the latter. lol! I must've missed that part.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2018 19:52
|
|
|
https://petapixel.com/2018/04/30/a-closer-look-at-the-stuffed-anteater-photo-contest-scandal/quote:In our original report, we wrote that Cabral had presumably created a composite photo that inserted the taxidermy anteater into his nighttime termite mound photo. However, the National History Museum reached out to us to correct this assumption.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2018 20:01
|
|
|
I wonder if the guy from Reddit discussed ITT would allow this to be included in his super exclusive image repository thingy. I mean, it's not baiting.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2018 20:05
|
|
|
rio posted:That would really suck if there were a real anteater that just so happened to be in the same position as the taxidermied one and had the same markings, the same tufts of fur etc. While it's certainly possible, even a layman looking at pictures of anteaters would easily determine they've all got similar patterns with unique details. https://www.google.com/search?safe=...1.0.5KTC2UNawks rio posted:That part did crack me up, that he only had time to take one photo of the anteater. Like it just teleported in and out or like he was on his last shot of film or using single shot large format or something. Practically anyone in that situation would be mashing the shutter button one the anteater got up to the mound. Photographer's claim is they were taking long exposures to capture the bioluminescent stuff, and the anteater just happened to be in frame as he popped his flash. Which we all know is bullshit, everything about the photo is carefully composed. If you block out the anteater it's a bad composition of a glowing rock. So the sequence they expect us to believe goes something like: set up camera, configure a nice long exposure with some short star trails, oh crap what's that rustling noise? Phew it it's just an anteater coming in to frame. Good thing I had my flash set up to illuminate the animal perfectly and thank god it paused in the giant hole on the left side of the frame so I don't have to reset my composition. Aww poop it sprinted off into the distance at cheetah speed to prevent any followup photos.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2018 20:14
|
|
|
I feel like there should be a children's tale about a group of people who ridicule someone for doing something seemingly impossible only to find themselves in the same situation in the future.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2018 20:26
|
|
|
President Beep posted:I wonder if the guy from Reddit discussed ITT would allow this to be included in his super exclusive image repository thingy. I mean, it's not baiting. Nah those greens are too green. Far too much "to the right on saturation".
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2018 21:09
|
|
|
InternetJunky posted:I feel like there should be a children's tale about a group of people who ridicule someone for doing something seemingly impossible only to find themselves in the same situation in the future. I managed to get an absolutely stunning picture of my puppy because I tripped over a dog toy while holding my camera and hit the shutter while catching it. No one will ever believe me.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2018 22:10
|
|
|
Post the puppy picture so we can decide its authenticity.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2018 22:51
|
|
|
Uptime Sinclair posted:What this means is that Cabral is accused of physically transporting the stuffed anteater from the visitor center at the entrance of the park and placing it next to the termite mound to stage his photo. I think that is a more awesome con. Anyone can photoshop one photo into another, but I think it takes some cunning to sneak in to a museum, steal an entire anteater, use it for a photo and then smuggle it back in without anyone saying 'hey! where's out anteater gone?' or 'is that an anteater in your trousers?' I feel George Clooney and/or Brad Pitt were involved.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2018 23:43
|
|
|
learnincurve posted:I managed to get an absolutely stunning picture of my puppy because I tripped over a dog toy while holding my camera and hit the shutter while catching it. Well supposedly that one guy in Tiananmen Square disappeared immediately he was photographed standing in front of a bunch of tanks... 
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2018 23:57
|
|
|
big scary monsters posted:Post the puppy picture so we can decide its authenticity.  bug at 12 weeks by learnin curve, on FlickrI guess if you compare it to the other shots of her then the EM-5 clearly focuses better than I do.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2018 07:51
|
|
|
Someone please send help to this man, everywhere he goes the earth starts glowing red hot. https://www.instagram.com/grantplace/
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2018 02:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 18:55 |
|
|
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2018 02:47
|
|