|
what kind of camera is this
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2012 02:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 17:10 |
|
|
the posted:what kind of camera is this Mamiya 645 Pro with a power winder and prism.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2012 02:04
|
|
|
10 points to hufflepuff
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2012 02:07
|
|
|
the posted:10 points to hufflepuff That's good from you. Hey, this guy I work with takes photos of pretty clouds. I've seen him do it, I know he did it, he takes them with his Iphone. Anyway, he left his phone on a table and rushed out of the room and I went to change the phone number of his girlfriend to my number so I could break up with him, when I discovered he has like 10,000 photos of clouds. I was just checking for like, dick photos, but holy poo poo. I panicked after I saw that and put it back on the table, then went back after a minute and shifted it like a millimetre so it looked more like he left it. I sort of felt like I picked up a bone in a graveyard. Like it's probably a chicken bone, but what if it's not... and it's probably just a weird hobby, but what if he's collecting the sky...
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2012 12:40
|
|
|
Helmacron posted:That's good from you. well did you change his girlfriend's number to yours to break up with him or not?
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2012 12:48
|
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:As someone who owned an E-500, I am in no way surprised by Olympus being terrible. You clearly just can't handle a camera hardcore enough for the Yakuza  E: I'm the only one left on this sinking ship aren't I?
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2012 14:23
|
|
|
DJExile posted:You clearly just can't handle a camera hardcore enough for the Yakuza You're the only man who owns an Olympus. All the other 'owners' are fictitious and only exist in the balance sheet to launder funny money.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2012 14:30
|
|
|
titanium posted:Just to clarify my post I know there isnt a true perfect alternate to film I was just curious if they were selling fancy sliders. I'm aware there are cheap options for those looking to get into film but like I said it's something I dive into later on. if you do just want photoshop or lightroom plugins to emulate film, Alien Skin:Exposure is what I use and I think it's pretty cool. About half the time I prefer the simple presets to what I can produce with about 10 minutes playing with levels on the raw file, rather than just for novelty value. Check it out.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2012 14:32
|
|
|
I almost bought an Olympus for my first DSLR on a whim once. *clutches 5D in fear*
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2012 14:34
|
|
|
spog posted:You're the only man who owns an Olympus. Well, at least I still have my 
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2012 14:54
|
|
|
I haven't given up on m4/3 yet and I still think my EP-1 is a mostly good camera.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2012 15:02
|
|
|
Yeah, Olympus is absolutely throwing their support behind the m4/3 system, and they are pretty nice cameras. With the E-5 DSLR, I know they were trying to say in press releases that they were still supporting the regular 4/3 system but I can't help but wonder if that's the last we'll see of them, especially now with the financial troubles coming to light. Still, their glass is phenomenal and has been part of the reason I've stuck through it. I guess I'm one of those 'in for a penny, in for a pound' types. V  V
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2012 15:17
|
|
|
What about Sony? I forgot they even made DSLRs, until I had to recover a corrupted card for a friend of a friend the other day. Out came a whole bunch of lovely, poorly exposed, unfocused, badly composed shots that were enormous jpg files. Turns out the a900 is a goddamn 24-megapixel camera. I figured, considering the whole card had been shot on green-square auto, the only reason this guy with more money than sense ever bought that camera in the first place was for MORE MEGAPIXELS!
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2012 15:34
|
|
|
They're supposed to have some pretty good in-body IS, but that's about all I know of them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2012 15:41
|
|
|
Sony used to provide Nikon with sensors, right? So they've got that going for them I guess
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2012 15:58
|
|
|
MAkev posted:Sony used to provide Nikon with sensors, right? So they've got that going for them I guess Still do and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2012 16:57
|
|
|
DJExile posted:They're supposed to have some pretty good in-body IS, but that's about all I know of them. They always seem to get very good reviews.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2012 18:22
|
|
|
Cool high speed video of a dslr shutter. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6x_YXj0vWVM
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2012 19:01
|
|
|
Helmacron posted:That's good from you. This is actually a thing people do. If you do it with a real camera, you can use it as Photoshop stock for when you really gently caress up a shot and blow the sky.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2012 19:59
|
|
|
titanium posted:Just to clarify my post I know there isnt a true perfect alternate to film I was just curious if they were selling fancy sliders. I'm aware there are cheap options for those looking to get into film but like I said it's something I dive into later on. Yeah, it's called a Pentax ME or MX. Big rear end screen, great lenses, and you can be shooting with either one for under $100. Get yourself one of those and a SMC Pentax 35/3.5 or 50/1.7 (and later a 28mm f/2.8). It's hard to beat for the price, and you'll figure out the technical stuff within a roll or two.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2012 20:03
|
|
|
squidflakes posted:It extra sucks when you're doing medium or large format. Every time I release the shutter with film in the holder on my Crown Graphic I'm out $5-$10 dollars. I actually prefer medium format in this respect. There's only 8-16 shots per roll, so I get negatives back quicker. It is more expensive ($1 or so per shot), but that's an incentive to think a shot through fully. I only "see" so many good shots per area/day anyway, everything else is pretty much experimentation and I usually know they aren't that great before I take the picture. You don't really need 36 shots and unless you're trigger-happy it can take a while before you see your results. This way the results can be enlarged more if they're good or cropped more heavily if they're not. Large format is the obvious conclusion to this, but I'm not quite there yet equipment-wise or financially.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2012 20:11
|
|
|
If that's the only reason you shoot medium format, you should just short-load your own 35mm cartridges.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2012 20:24
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:If that's the only reason you shoot medium format, you should just short-load your own 35mm cartridges. I too think you should abandon your chosen medium and/or equipment  As I said up there, there's a variety of advantages. Faster results, sharper images, finer grain, larger enlargements (including the ability to make reasonably-sized prints from cheap V500 scans), or the ability to heavily crop a shot. It's also equipment that produces results I like.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2012 21:02
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:This is actually a thing people do. If you do it with a real camera, you can use it as Photoshop stock for when you really gently caress up a shot and blow the sky. I've been meaning to do that with some shots but I couldn't find any results for tutorials searching for "composite landscape tutorial" or similar.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2012 21:44
|
|
|
Must suck to be a photographer in the UK today: http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/photographers_face_copyright_threat_after_shock_ruling__news_311191.html  Hope it doesn't spread to the US.. or that barn near the Tetons is going to get a whole bunch of people sued.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2012 17:00
|
|
|
xzzy posted:Must suck to be a photographer in the UK today: Well, on the plus side, at least it should reduce the amount of selective colouring around.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2012 17:15
|
|
|
Well that was surprising. Just went through security at Logan airport, had my camera bag as carryon with a dSLR, SLR, cable releases, a bunch of lenses and a mess of film canisters, some of them funky old metal handrolled ones... no questions asked. No bag check.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2012 17:41
|
|
is go
|
Dr. Cogwerks posted:Well that was surprising. Just went through security at Logan airport, had my camera bag as carryon with a dSLR, SLR, cable releases, a bunch of lenses and a mess of film canisters, some of them funky old metal handrolled ones... no questions asked. No bag check. I went through Detroit Metro and Boston Logan not a week after that Christmas bomber guy tried to bring the plane down over Detroit with a backpack full of camera stuff and they never touched me either.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2012 17:46
|
|
|
spog posted:Well, on the plus side, at least it should reduce the amount of selective colouring around. First they came for the selective color shitheads, but I didn't speak out because it wasn't 1995 anymore. Then they came for the HDR lovers, but I did not speak out because that PCS hurt my eyes. Then they came for Kent Rockwell, but I did not speak out because I was jealous of his one of a kind left handed Nikon. Then they came for me, and my beloved Teton Barn photos, but there was no one left to protest on reddit for me.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2012 18:39
|
|
|
DJExile posted:I went through Detroit Metro and Boston Logan not a week after that Christmas bomber guy tried to bring the plane down over Detroit with a backpack full of camera stuff and they never touched me either. Orlando international, two of us with bags full of camera stuff. We both got bag checked, he got a pat down but not me.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2012 18:57
|
|
|
Last time I went through O'hare there was someone waiting to question me about my bag. She just wanted to ask me want kind of telephoto I was carrying because she was looking to get one herself in the future, but she lost interest once I said I shot Nikon, haha (she didn't pull me off to the side or anything, just chit chatted while I was putting my shoes back on and whatnot).
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2012 19:56
|
|
|
I was totally wasted going through SFO with my Ona bag completely full of camera gear wearing a "Just because you have a dslr doesn't mean you're a 'photographer'" shirt (ironically) and they didn't even blink at me.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2012 20:02
|
|
|
xzzy posted:Must suck to be a photographer in the UK today: haha what the gently caress. Literally every London tourist is liable for copyright theft.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2012 20:21
|
|
|
Anti_Social posted:Orlando international, two of us with bags full of camera stuff. We both got bag checked, he got a pat down but not me. Taipei, Tokyo, Detroit, and DFW, no questions asked except for the liquid I bought that was just over the limit, so I had to throw it away. The only thing was that they stopped everybody from using cameras and phones in certain parts (read, security areas) at Detroit's airport. I never seem to have a problem in Tokyo or Taipei, no matter what stupid things I do.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2012 20:46
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:haha what the gently caress. http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=london&f=hp Knock yourselves out, British court system.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2012 21:18
|
|
|
HookShot posted:http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=london&f=hp http://www.flickr.com/search/?w=all&q=london+bus+selective+color+bridge&m=text Look at all these criminals.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2012 21:22
|
|
|
Mr. Despair posted:She just wanted to ask me want kind of telephoto I was carrying because she was looking to get one herself in the future, but she lost interest once I said I shot Nikon, haha (she didn't pull me off to the side or anything, just chit chatted while I was putting my shoes back on and whatnot). "What are you shooting?" "A Sigma!" "Sorry sir, you're going to have to come with me." "But it has Foveon sensoooooooo-ow! Hey!"
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2012 21:23
|
|
|
Anti_Social posted:Orlando international, two of us with bags full of camera stuff. We both got bag checked, he got a pat down but not me. He must have a nicer rear end.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2012 21:43
|
|
|
At Berlin Tegel I got pulled into a side room and had my camera, lenses and laptop swabbed for explosives. The security guys assured me it had nothing to do with the fact that I was carrying a lot of electronics, "just a random check". Since I'm a short, white woman who at the time, in glasses and comfy travel clothes, looked more like a chubby-cheeked 12-year-old than the 25-year-old I was, it certainly had nothing to do with racial profiling...
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2012 22:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 17:10 |
|
|
xzzy posted:Must suck to be a photographer in the UK today: Does that actually set precedent outside of commercial use? It seems like more of a trademark thing, "the brand with the red double decker bus crossing the bridge away from big ben and the background is black and white" being specific enough that you might reasonably get the two confused (if they had similar products).
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2012 22:41
|
|