|
I think VSCO looks really nice, even if it's not necessarily emulating a certain film accurately.
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2012 18:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 19:03 |
|
|
The main problem with VSCO is going to be its overuse not its qualities in a vacuum. It is very tempting to use presets and actions to get a "style" but the problem with a style everyone buys is that you're like five guys that show up to a bar wearing the same shirt.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2012 18:35
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:They all suck + look like poo poo. Shockingly, yes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2012 18:46
|
|
|
A guy on craigslist is offering a Pentax ME Super w/ tripod & a Rolleiflex 3.5 of some sort (can't tell exactly what model from the picture) w/ tripod, plus some sort of light meter and a couple little brownie type cameras, all for $200. Oh please oh please oh please oh please...
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2012 19:29
|
|
|
ash with a five posted:I think VSCO looks really nice, even if it's not necessarily emulating a certain film accurately. You know what looks even nicer? Film.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2012 20:05
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:The main problem with VSCO is going to be its overuse not its qualities in a vacuum. Couldn't this same argument be used against film?
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2012 20:46
|
|
|
QPZIL posted:A guy on craigslist is offering a Pentax ME Super w/ tripod & a Rolleiflex 3.5 of some sort (can't tell exactly what model from the picture) w/ tripod, plus some sort of light meter and a couple little brownie type cameras, all for $200. that's a pretty sweet deal, especially with a free rolleiflex thrown in. An ME Super is easily worth twice that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2012 20:53
|
|
|
Mr. Despair posted:that's a pretty sweet deal, especially with a free rolleiflex thrown in. An ME Super is easily worth twice that. Nah bro it just has a 50mm f/2 on it :\ I saw an ME Super with 50mm f/1.4 on eBay for $90, I could buy that and flip the lens and make a profit. You see what you all have done to me? I'm getting into the ME Super black market.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2012 21:02
|
|
|
David Pratt posted:Couldn't this same argument be used against film? I think for a lot of people they rely on film to add "something" to their picture so for those I think that argument can be used. People forget that film used to be treated exactly like digital files in the sense that they had post work done on them before they were used in advertising and print. Now a lot of people rely on a picture merely being shot on film to make it a photograph. In a sense the same attitude people have with instagram filters - applying a indelible characteristic on an image without adding the complexity of tweaking and twiddling in photoshop. It's an alluring simplicity and can be quite cool but the danger is making it a crutch. I don't mean to denigrate film or anything. There is something cool about working in certain mediums but film is a choice and you have to have a reverence for the process and it becomes a key part of your work. Whereas if someone just wanted to take a picture they're probably better served by digital.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2012 21:06
|
|
|
QPZIL posted:Nah bro it just has a 50mm f/2 on it :\ Or buy that lens and use it non stop cause it's a p. swell lens.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2012 21:24
|
|
|
Mr. Despair posted:Or buy that lens and use it non stop cause it's a p. swell lens. Already got one bro
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2012 21:34
|
|
|
And you could have TWO. Think of the possibilities!
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2012 22:08
|
|
|
I shoot my friends with a DSLR, and acquaintances with an RD35. Much easier to get good stuff when you're not sticking a loud and enormous camera in a quasi stranger's face.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2012 23:26
|
|
|
Hey if you want to be lumped into the "scumbag creep perv" category for taking a camera outside, Toronto will probably soon be the place for YOU, judging by how much press this is getting: http://www.torontosun.com/2012/10/09/toronto-women-in-creepshots (e: I'm not defending photographers being extra creepy, but rather getting anxious at the public suspicion that this will probably trigger) some kinda jackal fucked around with this message at 00:13 on Oct 11, 2012 |
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2012 00:10
|
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:This is actually a really solid fakepost and I'm unironically impressed. Yeah, Kodak is a company full of problems that has made catastrophic mistakes, but the demand for film is way, way down -- not unexpectedly so. I know pro photographers who grew up shooting film and now only shoot digital just for the convenience factor. Demand is down. Fuji and Kodak are both slashing their film offerings. It is indeed very sad if you are a film fanboy. This isn't 1983 anymore. At least when Kodak was loving up in the 80's people were still giving money to them hand over fist for film and development. SoundMonkey posted:There's a drugstore in this town that will totally process your film for you... by which they mean send it out for FOUR TO SIX WEEKS to some central developing place then you get prints back. Why would anyone even do that? Yeah, I use NCPS and there are one or two other good places, who do professional quality work at a reasonable price. Depending on how fast you ship your film to them they take about a week-10 days to develop and scan it and ship it back. Turnaround time is about 2-3 weeks overall for like 10-15 rolls (this includes your time to ship it to them).
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2012 00:24
|
|
|
David Pratt posted:Couldn't this same argument be used against film? So film is crap because film presets are crap? That's maybe the best example of the secundum quid logical fallacy I've seen in a while.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2012 00:25
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:Hey if you want to be lumped into the "scumbag creep perv" category for taking a camera outside, Toronto will probably soon be the place for YOU, judging by how much press this is getting: I don't know, this is one of those gray areas. I felt somewhat creepy taking this shot, but A) I asked permission and B) she totally agreed and thought it would be cool. It looks a little whorish to me and not totally my style. It has like 90 favorites or some ridiculous number because of all the pervs. Yes, she's an attractive woman, (it bugs me that her sunglasses are not pushed all the way up), but she looks a little sloppy. I don't know. I mean, if you can see something with your eyes someone can be taking a picture of it. I don't condone certain types of photography from an ethical point of view. I don't photograph the homeless or down-and-outs, (except for one shot from about 3 years ago and one recently, with permission, because I thought it could make a beautiful photograph), and I would never take a picture up a woman's skirt. That's just below my ethical standards and I would think below most of the people posting here, too. Ever get off a subway and walk up a platform? Sometimes you catch the underside of a woman's skirt and it's not even necessarily intentional. I'm sure other women see this when they are behind other women. But yeah, that is creepy stuff, but at the same time what was being posted on Reddit was legal. And I support the legal measure that if you are out in public you should have no expectation of privacy. So it sucks and it's unfair to women, and it makes men as a whole look even worse as a populace, but there have been creepy individuals since the dawn of time and there will be creepy individuals for the rest of time. I guess self-awareness is becoming even more paramount these days.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2012 00:35
|
|
|
Anyone else still have Kolorkins kicking around their parents' basement in a box somewhere?  edit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3ecHsWwILg burzum karaoke fucked around with this message at 01:10 on Oct 11, 2012 |
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2012 01:08
|
|
|
Mannequin posted:word's yeah the difference between street photography and this guy is that you asked permission (though that's obviously a courtesy), and this guy created a subreddit devoted to posting pictures of attractive women for pornographic purposes and attracted hundreds or thousands of redditors and got the support of the site
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2012 01:52
|
|
|
 Here's a guy who mods 5Dmk2s to Leica M mount.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2012 02:20
|
|
|
aliencowboy posted:Anyone else still have Kolorkins kicking around their parents' basement in a box somewhere? Yes, I think I have 3 of them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2012 02:20
|
|
|
Goofy video a photographer I work with made, I make a couple super brief cameos in the background. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKBetMjwLk8
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2012 06:58
|
|
|
Ric posted:
Why the hell doesn't he just go buy an M3? Unless he's shooting video I really don't see the point.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2012 08:03
|
|
|
MrBlandAverage posted:So film is crap because film presets are crap? That's maybe the best example of the secundum quid logical fallacy I've seen in a while. So the original statement was quote:It is very tempting to use presets and actions to get a "style" but the problem with a style everyone buys is that you're like five guys that show up to a bar wearing the same shirt. and the point I was trying to make is that you could replace "presets and actions" in that sentence with "film".
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2012 11:38
|
|
|
Spedman posted:Why the hell doesn't he just go buy an M3? Unless he's shooting video I really don't see the point.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2012 12:02
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:Hey if you want to be lumped into the "scumbag creep perv" category for taking a camera outside, Toronto will probably soon be the place for YOU, judging by how much press this is getting: of course it's reddit
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2012 12:04
|
|
|
Spedman posted:Why the hell doesn't he just go buy an M3? Unless he's shooting video I really don't see the point. For me, it's like that whole 'climbing Everest' - because it's there. It looks pig ugly, I can't say that the end results are worth the effort or the cost, but it's cool that he managed to do it. Has anyone done a definitive study of Leica vs Canon L body+lens results? How does Zeiss stack up to Leica? Does the 'Zeiss-look' match the 'Leica-look'
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2012 12:06
|
|
|
I still think Jonas Peterson is the best wedding photographer in the world and he uses VSCO to get a lovely aesthetic. I don't really care if it's emulating film or just looking nice for the sake of it. What are the implications of more people using it? Something doesn't look less nice because of the quantity of usage does it? So it's the argument about things being played out(?), which I have never seen before in photography.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2012 12:11
|
|
|
With weddings it's probably going to endure a lot more but in other fields it isn't the smartest thing to "buy" a style as recognisable as VSCO presets. Even if your content and everything else is great, VSCO is immediately going to stand out and almost anyone familiar with photography trends is going to be like "oh this guy uses VSCO" and there's going to someone as good as you that isn't using VSCO. and yeah, things do get played out in photography. Less so in weddings because the clients don't follow trends as much but even so they are there. It's not that it looks less nice (even though that's subjective) because everyone uses it, but that everyone know's where it's from. It's awkward like showing up to a costume party with a store bought costume that five other people are wearing. VSCO are very savvy, they've done a lot of stuff like giving away presets to bloggers and stuff and market it well.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2012 12:55
|
|
|
ash with a five posted:I still think Jonas Peterson is the best wedding photographer in the world and he uses VSCO to get a lovely aesthetic. I don't really care if it's emulating film or just looking nice for the sake of it. Good tools are always gonna be good tools. The problem will be the giant hordes of people using VSCO because they think it will make their lovely photo look better. Over used and played out is also a thing, the first guy to do the high pass filter grunge thing was cool but look at the poo poo that followed.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2012 13:25
|
|
|
David Pratt posted:So the original statement was My point was that if film is like a tuxedo, VSCO presets are like a tux t-shirt. Same look, right?!!?!? But no, there's a lot more subtlety to how film behaves, even for someone who doesn't know what they're doing and just wants the "look."
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2012 14:33
|
|
|
MrBlandAverage posted:My point was that if film is like a tuxedo, VSCO presets are like a tux t-shirt. Same look, right?!!?!? But no, there's a lot more subtlety to how film behaves, even for someone who doesn't know what they're doing and just wants the "look." This too, no software is gonna change the response curve of your sensor like switching from velvia to portra will. 8th-snype fucked around with this message at 14:52 on Oct 11, 2012 |
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2012 14:49
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:With weddings it's probably going to endure a lot more but in other fields it isn't the smartest thing to "buy" a style as recognisable as VSCO presets. Even if your content and everything else is great, VSCO is immediately going to stand out and almost anyone familiar with photography trends is going to be like "oh this guy uses VSCO" and there's going to someone as good as you that isn't using VSCO.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2012 15:45
|
|
|
JAY ZERO SUM GAME posted:Brides don't care about any of this. If I shot weddings I'd buy that poo poo in a second. that's basically exactly what I said.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2012 15:49
|
|
|
Speaking of weddings i went to one last night and the photographers still had their focus confirm beeps on. and the one dude would focus / recompose 3 times before he took every picture. god loving dammit that was annoying. I don't know if non-photographers notice it but it was a seriously small wedding (like 10 people) and my 98 year old great grandmother was reciting a poem she wrote with BEEPBEEP BEEPBEEP BEEPBEEP CLAP going off in the background the entire time
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2012 15:51
|
|
|
JAY ZERO SUM GAME posted:Brides don't care about any of this. If I shot weddings I'd buy that poo poo in a second. Weddings are basically a series of cliches strung together, so cliched photos match just fine.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2012 16:20
|
|
|
spog posted:Weddings are basically a series of cliches strung together, so cliched photos match just fine. Wedding photos are supposed to look "timeless" and "unique" which is industry speak for whatever kitschy poo poo is currently popular. Which is fine until some hack mixes and matches things. Pick a color scheme that fits the time of year and/or wedding colors and remain internally consistent and that's cool.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2012 16:31
|
|
|
Local ad has a 5d2 + 24-105 + grip + bunch of other junk for $1500. Bait for a mugging?
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2012 04:48
|
|
|
CarrotFlowers posted:Local ad has a 5d2 + 24-105 + grip + bunch of other junk for $1500. Bait for a mugging? Sounds like it. New York? Bring along some dudes, meet in a coffee shop.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2012 04:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 19:03 |
|
|
Ok so what is the Dorkroom's opinion on this graph? Is it accurate? Stupid? I show some of my photo buddies this and they seem to like it. I saw this when I was first starting and it seemed pretty true. 4 years later, it seems pretty accurate. I seemed to have skipped the HDR hole. What about you? Also this needs the obligatory Facebook photography page.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2012 05:55
|
|
