|
HPL posted:I'm not normally one to crap on ideas, but this seems like a bad idea. It's the kind of thing people will latch on to for a few months out of novelty and then quickly abandon it when they figure out what a pain in the rear end it is. Sounds like a great idea: they sell the system at a healthy profit and get to drop the consumable support for it 12 months after they stop selling units. Well, a great idea for their balance sheet.
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2016 00:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 22:08 |
|
|
Fart Amplifier posted:"There are some moments that digital just can't deliver, because it doesn't have the incomparable depth and beauty of film. These moments inspired Kodak to design a new generation of film cameras." When you buy a Leica and try to justify the expense.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2016 00:21
|
|
|
BANME.sh posted:what the hell is kodak thinking. this better not bankrupt them (again) don't worry, Alaris is safe and wise
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2016 02:38
|
|
|
thetzar posted:See: Lillian Bassman who went apeshit with dodging/burning. You sonofabitch.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 03:34
|
|
|
I see Gregory Crewdson finally has another collection out: [http://time.com/4166380/discover-gregory-crewdsons-new-surreal-photographs/]Cathedral of the Pines[/url]. I have to say, they don't immediately grab me like Twilight or Beneath the Roses.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 09:15
|
|
|
My favourite part of this is the flash based website.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2016 07:38
|
|
|
HookShot posted:My favourite part of this is the flash based website. It's rare for a fine art photographer of a certain vintage to even have a website let alone a modern one.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2016 08:41
|
|
|
everyone should shoot film. everyone should shoot film like this rad ukranian dude
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2016 16:08
|
|
|
I'm not sure the photo quality is due to radiation though.. everything I've seen says that when particles hit film, it tends to create overexposed points. eg: http://www.shimpeitakeda.com/trace/ The elephant foot photo just looks like jpeg artifacts to me. I wonder where the original photo lives.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2016 17:19
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/brooklynbeckham/status/693056133200744448 i'm glad the spice girl and kickball man's child can find work in this economy
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2016 01:48
|
|
|
feigning interest posted:https://twitter.com/brooklynbeckham/status/693056133200744448 https://twitter.com/brooklynbeckham/status/649173709689851904
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2016 03:11
|
|
|
The kid is a natural.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2016 03:13
|
|
|
feigning interest posted:https://twitter.com/brooklynbeckham/status/693056133200744448 http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2016/jan/30/sheer-nepotism-brooklyn-beckham-burberry-shoot-angers-photographers
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2016 03:20
|
|
|
alkanphel posted:http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2016/jan/30/sheer-nepotism-brooklyn-beckham-burberry-shoot-angers-photographers man, those poor retouchers are working really hard to salvage those images
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2016 03:24
|
|
|
Burberry x ~*~LeiCa gLoW~*~ S/S 2016
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2016 03:35
|
|
|
dakana posted:man, those poor retouchers are working really hard to salvage those images I can guarantee you there's a first assistant who's not getting paid nearly enough to do all the work involved, down to spinning the dials on that 'thanks dad' Leica.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2016 03:37
|
|
|
He's a step up from the usual 'celebrity does a photoshoot' in that he apparently wants to be a fashion photographer rather than just doing it as a name-in-the-press stunt. It is a stunt for Burberry, l think less so for him. And weep for Leica. Based on the behind-the-scene photos, he used a 5Diii...
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2016 12:16
|
|
|
I hope y'all are using the correct terminology when referring to Adobe® Photoshop®
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2016 14:01
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2016 14:02
|
|
|
Adobe should go get themselves a box of Kimberly-Clark Kleenex(tm).
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2016 15:09
|
|
|
I saw a mention of Adobe's hands-on-ears-la-la-la denial of language in The Economist not long ago. Their take on it was pretty much "pick your battles, Adobe". How many photoshops of Adobe execs are out there, with comic sans text and big-rear end copyright symbols placed ironically?
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2016 17:39
|
|
|
Pretty sure that Adobe thing is just a media style guide. All large companies have those. Apple's is pretty elaborate. E: It does have a kind of dick tone to it, but after two decades of professional news publications calling people "photoshoppers" and poo poo I can kind of understand it. mr. mephistopheles fucked around with this message at 18:56 on Jan 31, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2016 18:54
|
|
|
crap nerd posted:I hope y'all are using the correct terminology when referring to Adobe® Photoshop® You guys probably know this but isn't it because trademark law requires you to enforce it otherwise it can slip into public domain? It's probably done so no one can claim they're completely neglecting usage of it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 01:07
|
|
|
Thanks Adobe, I xeroxed this after googling a version I could laserjet.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 08:33
|
|
|
Suicide Watch posted:You guys probably know this but isn't it because trademark law requires you to enforce it otherwise it can slip into public domain? It's probably done so no one can claim they're completely neglecting usage of it. Yeah, I'm not sure why it's such a shock that's there.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 13:53
|
|
|
It's understandable why it's there, but that doesn't mean it isn't funny as hell. Like when Texas A&M keeps freaking out on the Seattle Seahawks and other schools to maintain their trademark on "12th Man"
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 15:11
|
|
|
This is why I always report people for shitposting, I gotta protect my brand
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 15:31
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 18:32
|
|
|
Again, it's somewhat "lol" when you read it, but they basically have to do that in order to protect their brand. Shocking that a company would want to at least attempt to protect their brand, right?
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 18:35
|
|
|
Shocking that some people would want to joke at the expense of their dumb but necessary attempts to protect the Adobe® Photoshop® brand. Please be more considerate of the brave men and women of the Adobe® legal department in future everyone.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 19:49
|
|
|
It's the shouting at the tide thing that I find amusing. Yes, in actual publications - newspapers, company websites, professional resumes, etc. - you should respect the copyright stuff. It is important, at that level. But Adobe looks like they're trying to dictate English as-she-is-spoke, the popular use of words and grammar that evolves spontaneously. Getting your copyright commodified ("Kleenex"; "Hoover", etc.) is a business opportunity, not some snotty kid with a hate-on for your brand. Adobe should run with it - "Learn to photoshop with the people who made Photoshop possible" or something.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 19:54
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:It's the shouting at the tide thing that I find amusing. Yes, in actual publications - newspapers, company websites, professional resumes, etc. - you should respect the copyright stuff. It is important, at that level. But if you use that language in an official capacity, you open yourself up to losing your copyright/trademark of the phrase Photoshop. If Adobe starts using photoshop as a common word for digitally modifying an image, it could potentially give ammo to, say, Paint Shop Pro to argue they should be allowed to say stuff like "Paint Shop Pro lets you photoshop your photos like the pros at half the cost". Is Paint Shop Pro still even a thing, by the way?
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 00:18
|
|
|
Cool old photography stuff on today's Objectivity https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Xt55LyX5pU
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 19:57
|
|
|
 http://mashable.com/2016/02/05/another-vietnam-photography/ atomicthumbs fucked around with this message at 10:48 on Feb 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 10:40
|
|
|
Why would you even bother wearing masks in that environment?
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 16:58
|
|
|
HPL posted:Why would you even bother wearing masks in that environment? Um, to prevent the patient from becoming contaminated in an otherwise sterile environment, obviously.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 17:33
|
|
|
The last time these photos made the rounds, I think it was concluded that this photo was staged.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 17:45
|
|
|
vxsarin posted:The last time these photos made the rounds, I think it was concluded that this photo was staged. When was the last time
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 19:45
|
|
|
The caption for the photo in the mashable link says it wasn't staged, claims the photographer felt it was an unremarkable photo so never printed it. No real certification beyond that. This is my favorite from the set:  Oozes atmosphere.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 19:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 22:08 |
|
|
xzzy posted:The caption for the photo in the mashable link says it wasn't staged, claims the photographer felt it was an unremarkable photo so never printed it. No real certification beyond that. oops, yeah, I remembered incorrectly... quote:This scene was an actual medical situation, not a publicity setup
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 20:09
|
|