|
Haggins posted:I don't need to explain my hipster bigotry I now present noted hipster extraordinaire, Bill Nye The Science Guy.  Kai is a goofy nerd and makes no attempts to be anything else. Labeling people hipsters is dumb. "Hating" someone because of an arbitrary label is dumb. rio posted:Laurent Schwebel was stabbed and killed and his camera stolen while taking pictures in Buenos Aires. Jesus. He was in a touristy area and in daylight and everything. People saw it happen. What a tragedy. mr. mephistopheles fucked around with this message at 21:53 on Feb 13, 2013 |
#
?
Feb 13, 2013 21:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 17:19 |
|
|
Kai is just a fashionable man in a fashionable city. Even he mocks hipsters from time to time.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2013 21:53
|
|
|
gently caress arguing about what it is and isn't, I just cannot wait for the word to go away.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2013 22:03
|
|
|
Thank you Haggins et. al, this poo poo's annoying enough that I refer you to the newly minted Dorkroom Rule 18, which can be found in the should-be-checked-frequently rules thread: 18. In this day and age, the term 'hipster' is not representative of any specific cultural group, manner of dress, or style of photography. As such, using it as a blanket term is really stupid and you really shouldn't do it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2013 22:05
|
|
|
Haggins posted:I don't need to explain my hipster bigotry Not putting two and two together yet. Define HipsterI MEAN WORD WE CANT SAY NOW RULE 18 please. I dont like Kai. Not because I think hes some lovely RULE 18, because he made a pink D90. Hate the playa, not the game Haggins.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2013 22:05
|
|
|
Sorry, I'm not very scientific in categorizing groups of people I don't like.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2013 22:24
|
|
|
rio posted:Laurent Schwebel was stabbed and killed and his camera stolen while taking pictures in Buenos Aires. That really awful. According to one site, he was probably targeted in an area increasingly known for robberies. http://www.argentinaindependent.com/currentaffairs/newsfromargentina/french-tourist-killed-in-plaza-san-martin/
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2013 22:24
|
|
|
Haggins posted:Sorry, I'm not very scientific in categorizing groups of people I don't like. "I hate his dumb loving glasses", "I hate his stupid bowtie", and "What kind of rear end in a top hat paints a D90 pink" are all still perfectly acceptable.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2013 22:26
|
|
|
Haggins posted:Sorry, I'm not very scientific in categorizing groups of people I don't like. Here's a list of groups of people I don't like: - Posters named "Haggins" (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2013 22:30
|
|
|
geeves posted:That really awful. According to one site, he was probably targeted in an area increasingly known for robberies. quote:French Tourist Killed in Plaza San Martín They really couldn't think of a better or more appropriate headline?
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2013 22:47
|
|
|
Spedman posted:I must say I'm a big fan of the Film Photography Podcast, it's a bit goofy but a lot of fun every two weeks. I keep trying to listen to that because they get interesting guests, but the constant sound effects and shilling for their store means I usually make it 15 minutes before shutting it off.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2013 22:50
|
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:18. In this day and age, the term 'hipster' is not representative of any specific cultural group, manner of dress, or style of photography. As such, using it as a blanket term is really stupid and you really shouldn't do it. I wish this was a forum-wide rule. Thank you.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2013 23:20
|
|
|
It's so close, yet so far.  
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2013 23:33
|
|
|
Demon_Corsair posted:I keep trying to listen to that because they get interesting guests, but the constant sound effects and shilling for their store means I usually make it 15 minutes before shutting it off. It's one of those things that you either find loving annoying or you've listened to the podcast long enough you know where those stupid sound effects come from and find them mildly amusing. If you're going to try again listen to the early ones where it's a far more subdued, and there is next to no shilling (that's really starting to give me the shits TBH).
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2013 23:39
|
|
|
Steering the conversation away from defining hipsters, let's talk about Michelle Jenneke's SI shoot https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Gtk_vTsLtI I'm really surprised at just how terrible these photos are considering it's Sports Illustrated. Here are the photos If you don't know who she is, this is what catapulted her to fame in 2012: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xr5DouXRv0k
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2013 23:43
|
|
|
They're not so much terrible as they are painfully mediocre. I mean I guess relative to the level of photography they should represent they are terrible, but they're competent enough.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2013 23:48
|
|
|
psylent posted:Steering the conversation away from defining hipsters, let's talk about Michelle Jenneke's SI shoot Those are amazingly bland. And the dude isn't even holding the camera right.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2013 23:49
|
|
|
Hell yeah, I'm good enough to be an SI shooter!
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2013 23:50
|
|
|
I just looked at the video and goddamn they could have done some cool photos with the natural light in that first location.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2013 23:51
|
|
|
mr. mephistopheles posted:They're not so much terrible as they are painfully mediocre. With all of the D&B and smoothing they did on her skin, you'd think they could have taken an hour or so to touch up the backgrounds, or alternately, not shot against something so reflective.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2013 00:01
|
|
|
mr. mephistopheles posted:They're not so much terrible as they are painfully mediocre. I mean I guess relative to the level of photography they should represent they are terrible, but they're competent enough. Yeah, I agree. Probably good enough for the local swimsuit store's penny saver ad. You'd think SI would have some playboy quality shots. Speaking of Glamor photography, can anyone recommend any good photographers to check out?
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2013 00:05
|
|
|
Sports "jesus loving christ, could you not get one horizon straight" Illustrated
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2013 00:11
|
|
|
Those look just as bland as any other SI/Maxim/"lad mag" type photos I've ever seen.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2013 00:15
|
|
|
It looks like their "location" was a cheap studio hotel room. Seriously, I don't think I've ever seen professional portrait photos that look so cramped.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2013 00:48
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:Those look just as bland as any other SI/Maxim/"lad mag" type photos I've ever seen. Yep. Being furiously cut out and affixed to the inside of lockers as we speak.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2013 00:56
|
|
|
Haggins posted:some playboy quality shots.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2013 01:02
|
|
|
Wow. Lets send you a naturally beautiful woman to shoot. The direction? Umm i dunno make her look hot. An easy soft ball. This is on the level of like lovely russian porn because there was only about 1 photo where shes doesn't look uncomfortable or like her head is detached from her body. gently caress that photographer ... I could have shot that better with a camera phone from a droid Razer. What a waste of model.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2013 01:11
|
|
|
The skin bothers me more than anything. They don't need to make these women as smooth as a mannequin. Yuck.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2013 02:58
|
|
|
mr. mephistopheles posted:They're not so much terrible as they are painfully mediocre. I mean I guess relative to the level of photography they should represent they are terrible, but they're competent enough. If some random dude on the forums posted these they wouldn't be trashed, but people here would give him a long list of things he could have done better. You'd expect a lot better from SI.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2013 03:03
|
|
|
psylent posted:You'd expect a lot better from SI. I know for an absolute fact that more than a few pretty terrible photographers work for SI. It's not like they're aiming to be the NatGeo of football and breasts.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2013 03:26
|
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:I know for an absolute fact that more than a few pretty terrible photographers work for SI. It's not like they're aiming to be the NatGeo of football and breasts. Natgeo is already the Natgeo of breasts, did your elementary school not have a ton of back issues that were basically all tribal titty all the time? ... Yeah, mine totally didn't either. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2013 03:31
|
|
|
8th-samurai posted:Natgeo is already the Natgeo of breasts, did your elementary school not have a ton of back issues that were basically all tribal titty all the time? ... Yeah, mine totally didn't either. I think somehow they got called out on that eventually, whenever I got to the dentist and flip through NatGeo (the other option being Cosmo usually), it's mostly reports about delightful spots on various coastlines.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2013 03:32
|
|
|
I think it's more that no one cares about starving third world countries anymore, so it's not really a topical thing for natgeo to constantly document. That was kind of "the thing" back in the 80's and 90's.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2013 03:35
|
|
|
Speaking of National Geographic, the other thing I remember about them from back in the day (and from seeing issues from back in the day more recently) is the advertising. NatGeo seemed to contain two kinds of ads - car ads and camera ads. Most of the camera ads, at least that stand out in my mind, were "Wildlife as Canon Sees It"; a quick google search to confirm the wording reveals they are still running this campaign. Anyway, I was always impressed by the quality of photos published in NatGeo, including in the Canon ads (the car ads, on the other hand, are simply hilarious now). Does anyone know how much it might cost these days to get one of the camera outfits pictured? I'm thinking of the FD bodies in ads in the early 80's, and the big-rear end telephoto lenses. I'd guess the bodies can be picked up relatively cheaply - maybe $200 (?) for a good-condition, top-of-the-line A1 or whatever the most professional body of the era was - but the lenses would still command a premium, despite the lack of autofocus and the obsolete mount. Recent NatGeo photos I've seen have, to my eye, gone a bit overboard on very wide angle shots. An extremely wide, distorted (but not fisheye) view seems to be what they're going for these days.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2013 04:30
|
|
|
This is the camera you seek http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_New_F-1
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2013 05:50
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:Speaking of National Geographic, the other thing I remember about them from back in the day (and from seeing issues from back in the day more recently) is the advertising. NatGeo seemed to contain two kinds of ads - car ads and camera ads. Most of the camera ads, at least that stand out in my mind, were "Wildlife as Canon Sees It"; a quick google search to confirm the wording reveals they are still running this campaign. One of my friends co-workers just had one of his photos used in one of those Canon ads you are talking about. I dont think it is the best picture but still cool! 
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2013 09:29
|
|
|
psylent posted:Steering the conversation away from defining hipsters, let's talk about Michelle Jenneke's SI shoot Sports Illustrated don't know how to shoot women. Case in point Kate Upton's "bodypaint" shoot in the current/upcoming issue. Take a girl that's been on the cover of every major Vogue in the past few months and do a model mayhem shoot. Any decent swimwear lookbook/campaign practically destroys the SI Swimsuit edition. I'd be slightly more inclined to blame the magazine than the photographer with the Jenneke shoot. Sometimes publications do post production in-house. I've been on plenty of great shoots ruined between delivery and publication.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2013 12:10
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:I'd be slightly more inclined to blame the magazine than the photographer with the Jenneke shoot. I think the blame can be shared equally. Everything I see in those pictures is a gently caress-up that I've worked really hard to correct and will get a shot thrown out during my own work flow, and I'm just some shitheel that takes pictures of purdy tattoo girlies. What really gets me is that SI Swimsuit Issue shoots used to be the brass ring of glossy magazine photography. I remember being excited for months in advance, and once I got all of my crazy monkey teenage masturbation out of the way, the technical and artistic quality of the photos would keep me interested a lot longer than the bikini. Hell, even their locations would be tremendously exotic and beautiful, not the bathroom at some hotel in California. squidflakes fucked around with this message at 17:07 on Feb 14, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2013 17:03
|
|
|
squidflakes posted:I think the blame can be shared equally. Everything I see in those pictures is a gently caress-up that I've worked really hard to correct and will get a shot thrown out during my own work flow, and I'm just some shitheel that takes pictures of purdy tattoo girlies. http://jamesmacari.com/ this is the photographer that shot it. NSFW for fashion nudity It actually makes me a little angry because I didn't expect him to be that good when I googled who shot the shoot. Paragon8 fucked around with this message at 17:25 on Feb 14, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2013 17:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 17:19 |
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:I know for an absolute fact that more than a few pretty terrible photographers work for SI. It's not like they're aiming to be the NatGeo of football and breasts. Yea its pretty LOL just how many terrible photographers SI employs. They must scout out Art Institute of CITY NAME for talent, or our SAD forum.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2013 18:01
|
|