|
As the United Nations General Assembly starts today, here's a repost of some world leader portraits from 2009 by Platon. Most of you probably remember this, but if you haven't seen the set, it's excellent. Portraits of Power: http://www.newyorker.com/online/multimedia/2009/12/07/091207_audioslideshow_platon
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2010 12:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 16:20 |
|
|
DanTheFryingPan posted:As the United Nations General Assembly starts today, here's a repost of some world leader portraits from 2009 by Platon. Most of you probably remember this, but if you haven't seen the set, it's excellent. Wow, these are really interesting. I have to question why some are colour and some are B&W though, very odd. Footnote: Paraguay's president is a Catholic Priest, how very interesting, didn't know that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2010 13:11
|
|
|
Helmacron posted:EDIT: What I really want now, in professional digital cameras (and surely this could be some sort of firmware update), is the ability to watch the progression of a bulb exposure on the LCD back. Anybody else? I've been wanting a feature like this too. I wonder how hard it would be to implement.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2010 13:50
|
|
|
^^^^^^^ I really appreciate the insights via the author via the recordings. They're great. Moist von Lipwig posted:Little late to this show but I will bet you 100 e-bucks that the printer hosed up her numbers and actually wants that file at 1440 dpi as it's one of the highest default resolutions supported by large format printers. You can almost assuredly get away with 720 as I'm pretty sure there's no surface capable of supporting that high a res unless you're Gursky and you're making C-Prints. Have you seen Gursky's show? Dude was my hero (in theory, I hadn't seen him, just his photos online), then I actually saw his most recent exhibition that did the rounds at our big art center in Melbourne and the photos are huge, yes, largest I've seen photos printed at. But when I saw it, I was extremely disappointed. His photos are very, very grainy, poorly colour corrected. I saw a seam on one photo, as if he'd joined two photos together in Photoshop and the actual prints themselves were pulling forward towards the glass in the frames, sagging. For godsakes, the people in 99 Cent were over-saturated. I was really sad. Rant over. I was doing C-Prints, on some beautiful Kodak rated to over 100 years paper. And really cheaply too, but the guy shut down, disappeared. Poof. Dude was a douce, so it's kinda understandable. If I can find him again, I probably will do that. I don't think I like the idea of cloth anymore.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2010 13:52
|
|
|
Helmacron posted:^^^^^^^ From what I understand Gursky shoots multiple 4x5 negs and photostitches them together. That's really sad that his stuff is flawed but I'm guessing he's an in-camera-film only kind of guy floundering in a digital environment. Looks good at web-res though! I've only been doing this photography stuff for a short time but I'm dying to try C-Prints. Sadly I'm also dying to buy a Mamiya RB67 and a large format monorail camera etc etc so I have to pick and choose.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2010 14:20
|
|
|
Moist von Lipwig posted:From what I understand Gursky shoots multiple 4x5 negs and photostitches them together. That's really sad that his stuff is flawed but I'm guessing he's an in-camera-film only kind of guy floundering in a digital environment. Looks good at web-res though! Maybe I've misunderstood C-print, but it cost me something like $60, gave this fellow a digital file, and he projected it onto photosensitive Kodak paper and gave me back this image, whatever it is. I think it was something like 30" up by whatever across. http://www.flickr.com/photos/helmacron/2347557464/ It's not so expensive where I am, but it's kinda hard to find. The guy who did it kept talking about how no one else does it. (I don't believe this, but hey) And I guessed Gursky was stitching 8x10's. And it is, of course, just my opinion his stuff is flawed. I thought it would be perfect and beautiful and huge and let myself be massively let down.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2010 14:29
|
|
|
THUNDERDOME II IS HERE AND HEADING STRAIGHT FOR YOUR FACE: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3349884
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2010 14:43
|
|
|
DanTheFryingPan posted:As the United Nations General Assembly starts today, here's a repost of some world leader portraits from 2009 by Platon. Most of you probably remember this, but if you haven't seen the set, it's excellent. My favourite commentary is his description of Quaddafi. Moist von Lipwig posted:Footnote: Paraguay's president is a Catholic Priest, how very interesting, didn't know that. In which case, hopefully the "You look wicked!" colloquialism transcends cultual boundaries 
some kinda jackal fucked around with this message at 16:35 on Sep 20, 2010 |
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2010 16:32
|
|
|
Helmacron posted:Maybe I've misunderstood C-print, but it cost me something like $60, gave this fellow a digital file, and he projected it onto photosensitive Kodak paper and gave me back this image, whatever it is. I think he's talking about RA-4 printing which is how you do color in a darkroom. What you got is probably a "Lambda" print, which I think is like RGB lasers that 'print' the image onto traditional wet chemistry paper and then run through a RA-4 processor.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2010 01:04
|
|
|
Helmacron posted:And I guessed Gursky was stitching 8x10's. And it is, of course, just my opinion his stuff is flawed. I thought it would be perfect and beautiful and huge and let myself be massively let down. It's neat to see how far technology has progressed in such a short time span.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2010 02:10
|
|
|
http://www.dpreview.com/news/1009/10092129sigmasd1.asp Sigma sd1 released. They claim it's 46mp but it's really 15.4 or whatever, x3 layers. Still, one thing I found, is that none of the normal websites (dpreview, dxomark, etc) have done reviews of the past sigma foveon dslrs. I want to know if the foveon sensor results in higher dynamic range or not. Anyone have an sd14 or 15 or read a review that specifically goes into DR? Anyone know why the main sites haven't reviewed it?
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2010 13:06
|
|
|
Even the SD15 was effective 4.8mpix. No one's going to take that seriously.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2010 14:18
|
|
|
Combat Pretzel posted:Even the SD15 was effective 4.8mpix. No one's going to take that seriously. Did you read my post? The new one is 14.something mp per layer.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2010 14:26
|
|
|
I know. I was just saying that in regards to the question why no one seemed to care reviewing the predecessors.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2010 14:29
|
|
|
There's no point in doing Sigma SLR reviews because they have such a niche audience. Sigma SLRs kind of remind me of digital medium format cameras until the Pentax 645D came along. Sure the image quality was nice but everything else was about 5 years or so behind the times compared to the leaders like Nikon or Canon. That plus the limited selection of lenses don't help. Another thing is that Sigma fanboys are huge snobs and if you put out a review saying that the Sigma is anything other than divine, you'll get a mountain of complaints saying that you just don't get it and that you reviewed it wrong.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2010 16:05
|
|
|
I am sad that this thread closed as I was hoping to get my uplifting evocative photos out for all my friends to see  http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3350252
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2010 20:24
|
|
|
Not counting the extremely slow RAW write speed and the maximum ISO of 1600 their other cameras. Maybe the dual processor will help the SD1 with the raw, but ISO beyond 1600 seems unlikely. Also judging from their past product release, it probably wont come out till next year or 2012. edit: No wonder why something looked amiss in the SD1 photos... there's no LCD on the top. DaNzA fucked around with this message at 20:40 on Sep 21, 2010 |
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2010 20:35
|
|
|
Rated PG-34 posted:I am sad that this thread closed as I was hoping to get my uplifting evocative photos out for all my friends to see It amazes me that it took people less than two hours to get so many dead animals into the thread. Does everyone have an album on their hard drive of things that died horribly for such an occasion?
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2010 21:01
|
|
|
DaNzA posted:Not counting the extremely slow RAW write speed and the maximum ISO of 1600 their other cameras. Maybe the dual processor will help the SD1 with the raw, but ISO beyond 1600 seems unlikely. Why would you need anything above 1600? Sigma SLRs should never leave the tripod because they're serious cameras for purists!
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2010 21:28
|
|
|
xzzy posted:It amazes me that it took people less than two hours to get so many dead animals into the thread. I think the answer is pretty clear, yes they do.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2010 21:56
|
|
|
xzzy posted:It amazes me that it took people less than two hours to get so many dead animals into the thread. I submitted every single photo I have! My name will be brilliantly displayed under the pictures!
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2010 22:08
|
|
|
Hey guys I don't know why you're bothering with that new Fuji camera when you could all be running out to buy this new $29,000 Leica M9 limited to 500 worldwide. http://www.petapixel.com/2010/09/21/new-leica-m9-titanium-limited-to-500-pieces-looks-great-in-a-bank-vault/
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2010 22:29
|
|
|
beeker posted:Hey guys I don't know why you're bothering with that new Fuji camera when you could all be running out to buy this new $29,000 Leica M9 limited to 500 worldwide. If I won the lottery, I'd buy that then use old Russian M39 lenses with it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2010 23:01
|
|
|
HPL posted:If the X100 can do rangefinder-style manual focusing along with AF, that would be so loving cool.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2010 23:02
|
|
|
HPL posted:If I won the lottery, I'd buy that then use old Russian M39 lenses with it. HAH! The joke is on you! It doesn't even TAKE a screwmount! 
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2010 00:03
|
|
|
beeker posted:Hey guys I don't know why you're bothering with that new Fuji camera when you could all be running out to buy this new $29,000 Leica M9 limited to 500 worldwide. I'd buy one and give it to the WILL IT BLEND?! guy.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2010 00:22
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:I'd buy one and give it to the WILL IT BLEND?! guy. I retract my original statement and change it to this.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2010 00:28
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:I'd buy one and give it to the WILL IT BLEND?! guy. Holy poo poo, I can hear the Leica fanboys crying already.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2010 02:55
|
|
|
I'm still waiting for the Will it Blend guy to blend one of his own blenders.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2010 05:50
|
|
|
McMadCow posted:HAH! The joke is on you! It doesn't even TAKE a screwmount! M-mount adapters are only like $40.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2010 05:57
|
|
|
http://pluggedin.kodak.com/post/?id=687843 I'm resizing some stuff right now and I've decided my favourite ratio is 1:2. I believe, because our eyes are 1:2, a photograph that is one up and two across will have the optimal eye real estate for viewing. Where you can perfectly frame the photograph infront of you. (if it's big enough) So that's mine. !:2. Anyone else?
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2010 09:14
|
|
|
Interesting. Looks like someone actually converted the SD14 into a canon mount that works with AF and AA. Supposedly it's because the signaling for the electronics on the sigma is extremely similar to the canon. Canon mount SD1 for less than a grand probably isn't too bad.. http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/675852 Full size pics and full disassembly http://www.pbase.com/bigflat/sd14_to_eos_conversion
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2010 09:54
|
|
|
Helmacron posted:http://pluggedin.kodak.com/post/?id=687843 Yeah but the retina inside the eyeball itself is a circle with distribution of rods and cones is a circle with the most density in the middle to take advantage of centre sharpness of the cornea/lens optics.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2010 11:16
|
|
|
That's why I crop everything to a circle. They only look rectangular because your brain interprets the signals that way.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2010 17:16
|
|
|
I know this belongs in the flickr thread but don't want to bump it. Anyway, one day I got 900-something views. I thought some old pic must've made explore or something but on the stats page the top pics only had like 5 or 4 views. After some more research I found out that some crazy guy has been looking through almost every single one of my pics! Like, probably 800 or so. Wow.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2010 17:34
|
|
|
squidflakes posted:That's why I crop everything to a circle. They only look rectangular because your brain interprets the signals that way. Pros do it with the vignette slider.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2010 17:46
|
|
|
I take 360 panoramas of everything.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2010 18:01
|
|
|
How to Fail Spectacularly in Photography: http://www.petapixel.com/2010/09/15/photographer-offers-groupon-deal-using-stolen-photographs-chaos-ensures/ Even better, the comment section on petapixel is full of some amazing sperglords.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2010 22:24
|
|
|
squidflakes posted:How to Fail Spectacularly in Photography: Here's the thief, Dana Dawes giving an interview to "clear up any misunderstandings". http://www.cbsatlanta.com/local-video/index.html?grabnetworks_video_id=4340231 I would love it if the photographers she stole from sued her into oblivion. McMadCow fucked around with this message at 23:06 on Sep 22, 2010 |
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2010 23:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 16:20 |
|
|
Here's a nice breakdown on how physically impossible it would've been for her to deliver on that deal: http://sherriinnis.wordpress.com/2010/09/15/groupon-photography-sessions-vs-working-mcdonalds/ Of course, she would've skimped on prep and post. In all likelihood she has a rebel xt and shoots jpgs with pop up flash, and then uses the direct print button for prints.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2010 23:12
|
|