|
Photography is a gig based job with a lot of competition. You have to make a brand, almost always based on a personality because then it's not something another person can replace. There's very little ways to make a personality around photography. Either you reveal the truth, or you search for beauty, or whatever. Success breeds elitism because after investing your personality, success will go to your head. It's an awful career as well imo. if you have any passion for making images you will be destroyed doing weddings and events or highschool photos or boring product shots very few get to do the good stuff and even then its very empty
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2020 06:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 18:16 |
|
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2020 06:12
|
|
|
get your rear end to mars
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2020 06:16
|
|
|
perfect for developing film
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2020 11:47
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:And south east asia, africa and... uh... the rest of asia? You have overlooked Fortress Australia. Byzantine posted:get your rear end to mars 
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2020 14:45
|
|
|
breaking: first screenshot of new doom: hell on earth gameplay
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2020 15:18
|
|
|
Shame Boy posted:I already have ublock origin Imgur's been laggy as hell for a lot of people lately, especially their videos. I checked uBlock's list of scripts running on their site and there are dozens running now. If you turn off all 3rd party scripts, you get that stupid error message, so I just went in and blocked everything which didn't have 'imgur' in it and now it's running incredibly smoothly. I also used the element picker to remove drat near everything else - especially the comments section. It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if they'd deliberately gimped the free version of their site to try and force people to pay up for the "premium" version. It's the sort of short-sighted bullshit you see a lot in internet site which believe they're essential and cannot be replaced. Works out so well, every time. EDIT: Here's what I've got blocked right now. The list is so long, I had to merge two screenshots. Of course, by this time next week, there'll probably be a tonne of new lovely scripts running on imgur. 
Megillah Gorilla has issued a correction as of 17:22 on Sep 9, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2020 17:12
|
|
|
Hodgepodge posted:im not sure if digital ever caught up to film entirely, maybe it has by now. developing photos in a darkroom is its own art as well and I doubt the artistic value of that be replaced entirely by editing software. i'm not sure I understand this. after all you can dodge and burn all you want in photoshop?
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2020 17:18
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:i'm not sure I understand this. after all you can dodge and burn all you want in photoshop? It has nothing to do with the thread but that reminded me, I found out the other day that there were certain kinds of Polaroid cameras that output the picture in a format where it was still kinda gelatinous for a few minutes, and if you squished and smooshed the picture you could do something akin to the photoshop smudge tool, except analog and in like 1975: 
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2020 17:39
|
|
|
I think you can still do that with instant film
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2020 17:40
|
|
|
inferis posted:I think you can still do that with instant film From what wikipedia says it depends a lot on what kind of instant film. This particular kind (SX-70) took like 20 minutes to cure so you had a lot of working time and it was really easy, in some later kinds you couldn't do it at all.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2020 17:53
|
|
|
VomitOnLino posted:Dunno. Sadly, it's not just white men. I swear though, we are not all like this. Just most. sad lmaos source your quotes
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2020 19:35
|
|
|
Shame Boy posted:It has nothing to do with the thread but that reminded me, I found out the other day that there were certain kinds of Polaroid cameras that output the picture in a format where it was still kinda gelatinous for a few minutes, and if you squished and smooshed the picture you could do something akin to the photoshop smudge tool, except analog and in like 1975: Looks a bit like lsd visuals, neat.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2020 19:52
|
|
|
So Oregon just looks like loving Stranger Things now, that's cool
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2020 20:23
|
|
|
Weatherman posted:source your quotes My opinions..... bad?! Never!!
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2020 02:39
|
|
|
I ran that orgeon pic through a filter to make it look more like a classic shot of an early morning delivery from your fav shipping service on a very normal day 
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2020 04:08
|
|
|
Beneith a Steel Sky adaptation looking pretty literal
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2020 05:08
|
|
|
Marx Headroom posted:I ran that orgeon pic through a filter to make it look more like a classic shot of an early morning delivery from your fav shipping service on a very normal day I lo
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2020 09:22
|
|
|
Few pages back but Forceholy posted:Oh, is it going to be full of MLM schemes and army recruiters? it's probably a job fair outlining all of the job possibilities you'll have if you take one of the organizer's $40-200 training courses to be a phone support agent (: i was looking for a remote gig a year or two ago and ran into several of these. the sites are always generic sitebuilder templates on domains that have been registered <6 months and list addresses for random locations, one that i found was essentially a median by a highway offramp i bet these are exploding now with COVID, gotta hit that job hungry unemployed-due-to-a-pandemic market
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2020 09:55
|
|
|
Telltolin posted:Few pages back but Job fairs as a whole tend to be some of the most demoralizing things you can do when you're unemployed.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2020 14:39
|
|
|
Iron Crowned posted:Job fairs as a whole tend to be some of the most demoralizing things you can do when you're unemployed. I have a friend who had the complete wrong idea about job fairs in college and she rolled up and started grilling the interviewers for reasons why she should apply to their company accidental power move
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2020 15:36
|
|
|
Job fair? Can't you just call a friend and get a job at their company? I know it might suck, but just take that job at your dad's place.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2020 15:47
|
|
|
Iron Crowned posted:Job It's gaslighting the whole way down
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2020 15:53
|
|
|
spacetoaster posted:Job fair? Can't you just call a friend and get a job at their company? A friend of mine in highschool did the real power move and got a job at our friend's dad's place, after dropping out to boot. He's now the CTO lmao.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2020 15:57
|
|
|
In fairness it was a real small business then with like 3 people working there total including him, and now it's statewide and pretty successful, and they actually provide a useful service at pretty fair rates. They're an ISP that specializes in servicing areas that the other ISP's won't touch because there's not enough profit, using radio links. Anyway the one time I went to a job fair was out at the space center, I came in my nice tie and shirt and was all ready to be cool space guy and then the jobs they actually had were all "working the cash register at the space center gift shop". This was 2009 so there were like 500 applicants too, it was real depressing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2020 16:05
|
|
|
I had a telecom track IT major and I'd studied the altitudes of various satellites and other dumb poo poo and when I went to the career fair they were like "wanna sell routers, kid?" Which is how I became a miserable developer.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2020 17:31
|
|
|
Job fairs are 98% cattle calls for terrible high turnover jobs that nobody actually wants to do Like, sure if I'm desperate I might be willing to sell home alarm systems or something to survive but only until I find something else And they know it
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2020 18:05
|
|
|
Emerging from the lurker hole to mention my friend, who volunteered to help clean up after an engineering job fair in the late 00s, and the multiple yard waste sized garbage bags filled with resumes. Hand over a resume, told to apply online, and right in the trash. I never went to one because it seemed pointless as gently caress. Also for my senior design class we went to multiple engineering firms in the area to look at actual businesses and my professor would ask, "are you hiring?" at the end every time. The response was always, "No."
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2020 18:28
|
|
|
Manzoon posted:I never went to one because it seemed pointless as gently caress. Also for my senior design class we went to multiple engineering firms in the area to look at actual businesses and my professor would ask, "are you hiring?" at the end every time. The response was always, "No." Professor really hated y'all and wanted out real bad huh
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2020 18:49
|
|
|
The Bloop posted:Job fairs are 98% cattle calls for terrible high turnover jobs that nobody actually wants to do I miss working for a less lovely company. The positions we went to job fairs for were pretty good entry level ones, at a place that was big on promoting from within, so there was decent advancement potential. A ton of people got their careers started there. Then, back in May, the company that owned us decided that, even though we were profitable (and our profitability continuing to increase), we weren't profitable enough, so they shut the company down, fired almost everybody, and moved all the jobs overseas. Meanwhile, they increased their dividends. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2020 18:51
|
|
|
Shame Boy posted:Professor really hated y'all and wanted out real bad huh I think he thought he was doing us a favor. This was right as the recession was hitting so we were all kind of hosed anyway. Probably one of the best professors I had honestly.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2020 19:33
|
|
|
Shame Boy posted:Anyway the one time I went to a job fair was out at the space center, I came in my nice tie and shirt and was all ready to be cool space guy and then the jobs they actually had were all "working the cash register at the space center gift shop". This was 2009 so there were like 500 applicants too, it was real depressing. I've been to a few, because, well I was unemployed at the time, and I could put that down for my weekly quota of bullshit to get my UI. The one I went to in 2009 was definitely the most depressing. It was held by the city, so they rented out the convention center and managed to fill it up with jobs like "gas station attendant" and all the for profit colleges within a 50 mile radius. There were actually a couple of white collar jobs that showed up from out of state, but they were looking for people well above my pay grade. I was going to stick around for a seminar about something, but when I realized that there was no way in hell I wanted to waste time applying at Dairy Queen, I left.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2020 20:41
|
|
|
Hodgepodge posted:im not sure if digital ever caught up to film entirely, maybe it has by now. developing photos in a darkroom is its own art as well and I doubt the artistic value of that be replaced entirely by editing software. Color negative still wins in dynamic range and probably will for a very long time, silicon simply cannot do what silver+dye packs does at the same scale. you can over expose portra like 10 stops and still get decent images. For black and white... film still probably wins but the image changes a lot with over/under exposure. I can write a lot about how the two technologies work if you want. 4x5 still wins in resolution. But that's not so easy to shoot, limits your ISO if you want fine grain, and it costs $6 for one negative, processing and scanning can be like $60 on top of that. lol. I shoot a lot of 4x5 because it's so precious it forces you to get everything right, and I develop and scan myself which is an investment up front that pays off after so many photos. In a professional setting film also makes you take better images because you don't have access to the image until at least a few hours after you take it, and now there's no polaroid film being made for checking your exposure / focus / etc. I do think that you can do more in photoshop than in the dark room, in the dark room making a print you do a lot of testing and compare all your tests and put the things that work best together. You can do different exposures with different filters on top of dodging and burning. It's all way easier in photoshop but obviously way less skill. Antonymous has issued a correction as of 22:43 on Sep 10, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2020 22:41
|
|
|
it's cool to know these things, so sure, more on digital vs film
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2020 22:51
|
|
|
Dynamic range is the difference between the darkest and brightest detail a camera can capture in one image, defined as 'stops' or doublings of light, so 3 stops =8x more light, 3 doublings. What's the brightest light a camera can see, how many times do we cut that brightness in half before it's the darkest a camera can see? Right now digital can do about 14 stops. You'll see all kinds of numbers, from 12 to 15, although there is an official standard basically everyone makes up their own. It was common knowledge that film negative had 12-13 stops, so digital has been claiming 13+ for decades despite wildly differing results between cameras, you always have to test for yourself. Digital is already scraping the physical limit on underexposure. Photons arrive statistically so there's some noise there called shot noise, plus random noise from heat and amplification, so noise cannot go to 0, and I forget the number but we're already counting slightly more than 50% of the photons that arrive on most digital sensors, so there's less than a stop of signal available for underexposure. The big difference in underexposure is signal/noise ratio and some cameras use a lot of processing and expensive components to remove noise, but they don't see more signal. This makes digital great at handling underexposure. The drive for higher resolution has made each 'pixel' (photosite) of the sensor pretty small, and unfortunately the size of the photosite determines how many photons it can count before it gets full and clips, making digital awful at over exposure, the image simply clips white and it's a sudden, hard limit. There's also quantization issues because all sensors are analogue and somewhere in the camera the analogue voltage has to be made into a digital number, which can add noise and clip values. If you want more dynamic range with a given sensor tech, you need bigger pixels and better analogue - digital conversion, and therefore less resolution and maybe less photos / second. But resolution and fast shutters sell cameras more so than dynamic range. Black and white film uses silver salt that, when exposed to light and then developer, becomes metallic silver, and without exposure remains salt soluble in water (fixer), and so unexposed areas wash away and become clear, making a negative. This process has its own statistics, where the reaction takes more and more light and so it's very hard to react all of the silver atoms, making it almost impossible to lose detail in over exposed areas. and also it takes iirc 4 photons arriving in a very short period of time to react at all, so very dim light even in very long exposures might not activate any silver, which is called reciprocity failure. Even in normal exposure, this makes the film exponentially less sensitive in the shadows of the image so under exposure is bad, almost exactly opposite to digital. For color film, the silver activates a dye and then all of the silver is washed away with bleach. While black and white sees maybe a little more dynamic range, color negative is really insensitive to changes in the image with over exposure. Black and white will lose contrast with over exposure and grain will get bigger. Color negative will eventually see a little flatting in contrast and hue shifting but seems much less sensitive in my experience. When I shoot super 16mm I over expose 2 stops because then your mid tones get all the fine grain and you get a little more perceived resolution / less perceived grain. You can also develop color film without bleach (or less than necessary) which gives you a black and white image on top of a color image, called 'bleach bypass'. Fight Club, among other films, was developed this way. By leaving silver in the color film the film is somewhat more fragile and some dust removal tech won't work (doesn't matter for cinema).  Open this image in a new tab and look close. Film has a 'toe' where contrast steepens right before black and a 'fog' where signal simply ends, rather than gets noisier like digital. Some color film stocks fog at different levels, so shadows might look blue or green or magenta - the color that bottoms out first. At -2 she's losing detail in her black shirt. But from -1 to +6 there's no way to tell if the film was over or under exposed. At +6 there's some softening but my guess is that to get +6 they needed to open their lens more or do a longer exposure where subtle motion will soften the image. +6 is hard to get to in interior. If this scene had a bright window behind her, or a lightbulb in the shot, you might notice contrast in those bright areas flattening and hues shifting. I'm thinking that by +10 her skin highlights would start to shift hues, but maybe not. Definitely less contrast. http://www.johnnypatience.com/download/johnny_patience_portra_400_0_to_10.jpg This is someone testing the same kind of test, normal exposure to +10 stops (which is 1024x brighter) on two different scanners to see which scanner handles over exposure better. Part of film photography now is also how to digitize it (in some sense film photography is delayed digital photography with an intermediate). You can see one scanner handles +10 just fine. The negative is almost certainly a black square to the naked eye, so the scanner is really picking up the subtleties in that blackness. Here's a $75,000 cinema camera that's looking good -2 to +5. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ccc9-zhGPbo I also add that for cinema, where I actually work, shooting on film probably has little impact on the image honestly. People take the dust and grain out of things shot on film and they add it to things shot digitally, all of them get color corrected, there's really no difference. Tarantino and Nolan make prints but I don't think they are contact prints, you're still seeing a digital effects and color and whatever on the print. (was once upon a time in hollywood a contact print? i.e. film-to-film) Super 35 resolves about 3k-4k which is where most digital cameras land now as well (4k sensor resolves about 3k with good debayer algorithms). On set working on film changes everything. The workflow removes relying on looking at a screen on set for a lot of departments, director, wardrobe, hair and makeup, production design, lighting. The monitors for film cameras are pretty poo poo and so everyone focuses on using their eyes and being extra careful. That's the real power of shooting on film.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2020 00:49
|
|
|
 I knew Portra was really good but I never saw this before.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2020 01:03
|
|
|
Film science got really, really good while digital took off. The cinema stocks from Kodak are insane as well. Kodak 200T is maybe the best film ever made.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2020 01:09
|
|
|
Antonymous posted:was once upon a time in hollywood a contact print? i.e. film-to-film tarantino takes contact prints to his road shows, i think. the average theater is not getting this experience.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2020 01:11
|
|
|
I saw The Hateful 8 on a 70mm print and it was loving sick
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2020 01:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 18:16 |
|
|
nothing feels better than seeing contact print rushes that turned right. nothing else in photography/cinematography gives a pleasant adrenaline spike like that. I weep that I'll probably never see my work that way again. tbh idk what human experience comes close, maybe the nasa scientists landing a rover on mars with 9 minutes of delay between them
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2020 01:23
|
|