|
Unless you're shooting on glass plates, you're going to have trouble finding film that isn't made of plastic.
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2010 22:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 20:23 |
|
|
orange lime posted:Unless you're shooting on glass plates, you're going to have trouble finding film that isn't made of plastic. Sure, the strip is plastic, but the actual photo-sensitive materials (e.g. silver halide) are not.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2010 04:41
|
|
|
Documenting the human condition is a huge pet peeve of mine, as is "YOU HAVE TO TELL A STORY". It expects too much from the people who will be viewing the photo. And if photography was all about image quality and sharpness, we'd all still be shooting daguerrotypes, as the plates used record the image on a molecular level. I know no one (at least no one not on the internet) who has the patience to polish a daguerrotype plate for 8 hours in preparation of using it. Photography is a compromise between image quality and convenience of use.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2010 14:03
|
|
|
The best part of that "Documenting the human condition" video was: "...a lumbering slr can rarely escape the eye of a subject..." 
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2010 14:44
|
|
|
That picture is a perfect example of why no matter what camera you use, most of the time street photographers look like dicks, myself included, people are always saying and thinking "what is he doing with that camera, why would he want a picture of that?" so everyone should just forget about getting noticed with an slr. Being unnoticed is a massive part of street photography, but to make the argument people will see you unless you use a rangefinder is stupid, I have used a fed 3, an A1 and a 7D and if someone notices you pointing something at them then they notice you, no matter how big or small it is. And also "Hay guys? look at this, I have one eye looking through the view finder... but wait, the other eye is looking out into the world, you cant do this with an slr..." Can't you? I'm doing it right now, oh and whats that in the picture above, your left eye is closed? He does make good pictures, just needs to get over himself.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2010 15:06
|
|
|
dik-dik posted:I do like the wildlife analogy though, because it very accurately describes how I go about taking shots. It feels quite predatory. I'm out on the street for some reason, and while I'm there I'm taking advantage of these people by snapping photos of them they won't ever know about. Kinda hosed up really. Cconcept shot: Landrover parked on a street corner, goony looking guy with photo vest and Leica M shooting out a window with a big white L tele attached to his camera.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2010 15:09
|
|
|
fronkpies posted:That picture is a perfect example of why no matter what camera you use, most of the time street photographers look like dicks, myself included, people are always saying and thinking "what is he doing with that camera, why would he want a picture of that?" so everyone should just forget about getting noticed with an slr. Yeah, I'd say the best way to not get noticed is to simply pretend you're a tourist, and point your camera at buildings and poo poo. Then when they're not looking, point it at people
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2010 18:47
|
|
|
dik-dik posted:Yeah, I'd say the best way to not get noticed is to simply pretend you're a tourist, and point your camera at buildings and poo poo. Then when they're not looking, point it at people Wide angles are good for that because you can get a person in the frame while not necessarily pointing the camera at them. It does have a few drawbacks though. Beware of taking photos of women with wide angle lenses because they think you're taking a photo of their boobs.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2010 18:54
|
|
|
Or you could just buy a lens hood with a 45 degree mirror in it, and shoot out the side of your lens! Not a creepy ad at all: 
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2010 19:00
|
|
|
orange lime posted:Or you could just buy a lens hood with a 45 degree mirror in it, and shoot out the side of your lens! Oh man this reminds me of those waterguns you can get with directional nozzles so you can point them to the side. Awesome. HPL posted:Wide angles are good for that because you can get a person in the frame while not necessarily pointing the camera at them. It does have a few drawbacks though. Beware of taking photos of women with wide angle lenses because they think you're taking a photo of their boobs. Alternately you can just go the super-tele route and shoot photos of people from too far away for them to see you. Or you could go the "non-scumbag" route: http://www.wired.com/video/street-portrait-photo-how-to/27609165001
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2010 19:06
|
|
|
The reason street photographers like rangefinders is because gently caress carrying a 20 pound hunk of camera and glass while you're taking photos of people. I frequently end up walking over 10 km when I'm out shooting, and sore shoulders aren't fun at all. It helps that leica makes incredible lenses. My Nikon F4s is NOT a walking about camera, my M2 was. There's also the little issue of mirror slap of older slrs being loud as gently caress, but it stopped being an issue around the time of the F4 with its silent drive.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2010 19:26
|
|
|
thpook posted:Documenting the human condition is a huge pet peeve of mine, as is "YOU HAVE TO TELL A STORY". How is expecting people to read and analyze a text too much?
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2010 19:56
|
|
|
thpook posted:My Nikon F4s is NOT a walking about camera, my M2 was. There's also the little issue of mirror slap of older slrs being loud as gently caress, but it stopped being an issue around the time of the F4 with its silent drive. Mirror slap is actually often shutter slap more than anything else. I've found that when I've held the mirror up and tripped the shutter on a lot of older SLRs, it's the shutter that makes the majority of the noise. The sound varies quite a bit amongst camera models as well as manufacturer. My Pentax ME Super has a nice tight muted sound rivaling rangefinders versus my Pentax MX which is more of a clang. With Olympus, my OM-2SP has a rattly sound, the OM-2N has a tight but louder snap and the OM-4T is somewhere in between. And then you could get something crazy like a Canon 1N RS which uses a pellicle mirror so there's no mirror slap at all, the downside being that it's rather large.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2010 20:13
|
|
|
thpook posted:The reason street photographers like rangefinders is because gently caress carrying a 20 pound hunk of camera and glass while you're taking photos of people. I frequently end up walking over 10 km when I'm out shooting, and sore shoulders aren't fun at all. It helps that leica makes incredible lenses. Maybe its because I've been a laborer since I left school, but I don't care if I'm walking around with all my cameras, lenses, film, litres of water and a tripod. Will regret it when Im and old man for sure ha.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2010 20:13
|
|
|
I have decided to go shoot solicitors. I feel that if give them a couple bucks or sign their lovely petition or whatever, it gives me blache carte to do whatever I want. Plus, the whole reversal of being bothered in public thing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2010 21:48
|
|
|
Henker posted:I have decided to go shoot solicitors. I feel that if give them a couple bucks or sign their lovely petition or whatever, it gives me blache carte to do whatever I want. Plus, the whole reversal of being bothered in public thing. Nice. Reminds me of the $2 portraits idea. I like that photo a lot, not only because of the glaringly obvious juxtaposition of the sign and the solicitor, but also because of the way her white and red outfit compliments the sign's colors. thpook posted:The reason street photographers like rangefinders is because gently caress carrying a 20 pound hunk of camera and glass while you're taking photos of people. I frequently end up walking over 10 km when I'm out shooting, and sore shoulders aren't fun at all. It helps that leica makes incredible lenses. A DSLR with a short prime lens will weigh a half pound, maybe a full pound at most, more than what a Leica does when fitted with a comparable lens. As a quick comparison, the Canon 7D weighs 29 oz, and the 28mm f/1.8 weighs 11 oz, which comes out to 40z. The Leica M9 (actually lighter than the M7 and MP) weighs 21 oz and the Leica 50mm SummiLux / f1.4 weighs 11 oz, coming out to 32 oz. That's a difference of 8 oz, or half a pound. Percentage-wise, the 7D + 28 weighs 25% more than the Leica. The 5D weighs 29 oz, and the 50mm f/1.4 USM weighs 10 oz, for a total of 49 oz. Sure, the 1D series gets heavy (42 oz), but those are really for sports shooters anyway. I've spent days walking around cities downtown with SLRs and never had any shoulder pain from it. The shoulder pain comes when you try to lug a bunch of gear around with you, or maybe if your camera spends too much time hanging on your shoulder, instead of in your hand, where it belongs. dik-dik fucked around with this message at 03:03 on Mar 29, 2010 |
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2010 02:42
|
|
|
Took me almost a month to finish a roll on my half-frame: Leaving Asia Culture Festival in Miami:  Ye Olde Renn Faire:   Festival Italiana:    I like these cultural event type things because fewer people seem to notice/be bothered by photography. Was able to go pretty much hog wild at the Italian Festival thing, still have a roll of B&W (standard 35mm) to develop.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2010 03:35
|
|
|
dik-dik posted:Nice. Reminds me of the $2 portraits idea. I like that photo a lot, not only because of the glaringly obvious juxtaposition of the sign and the solicitor, but also because of the way her white and red outfit compliments the sign's colors.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2010 04:16
|
|
|
Henker posted:Thanks. I had never heard of the $2 portraits idea, but after reading about it it's pretty much what I was planning on doing. I'm a big chicken, and I find strangers easier to photograph when they approach you with something first. Yeah, I've been thinking of doing it too. I was planning on trying the 100 strangers project, but when I've tried, I tend to clam up when asking for a photo and then end up taking a lovely photo of them in a rush instead of taking my time to put them in a good place for the ambient light, frame it properly, etc. Or, I end up just talking to them for a half hour and losing the light that I was there for  . With the $2 portraits, I've bought a little bit of their time. Even if it takes 5 minutes, that's like $24/hour, which is way more than I'm making.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2010 04:44
|
|
|
So how does one get the photo to the person? Email, I'm assuming? Printing would only result to like .50/photo profit.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2010 05:16
|
|
|
No. 9 posted:So how does one get the photo to the person? Email, I'm assuming? Printing would only result to like .50/photo profit. No, no, no. The way it works is, someone approaches you asking you for cash. You say "I'll give you $2 if you let me take your picture." You take their picture, give them $2.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2010 05:27
|
|
|
dik-dik posted:No, no, no. The way it works is, someone approaches you asking you for cash. You say "I'll give you $2 if you let me take your picture." You take their picture, give them $2. http://www.flickr.com/photos/natebol/sets/72157621011989204/ That's how I do it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2010 05:31
|
|
|
dik-dik posted:No, no, no. The way it works is, someone approaches you asking you for cash. You say "I'll give you $2 if you let me take your picture." You take their picture, give them $2. Ah jeez I had it way backwards. This actually works more in my favor since my city has tons of homeless!
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2010 05:40
|
|
|
Silly idea that came to mind while I was driving today. If you were to use a shift lens, standing on the side of the road, could you make it look like you were standing in the middle of the road and get some badass shots of cars coming straight at you?
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2010 23:03
|
|
|
dik-dik posted:Silly idea that came to mind while I was driving today. If you were to use a shift lens, standing on the side of the road, could you make it look like you were standing in the middle of the road and get some badass shots of cars coming straight at you? no.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2010 23:39
|
|
|
Twenties Superstar posted:no. That's why god invented overpasses.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2010 00:06
|
|
|
Black and white stuff from Italian Festival I developed last night: Family meal  Arms full  Fill 'er up  Spirit of Italy (I think he was judging the grape stomp-off)  This dude could totally ride his dog like a  Sassy mom  Fresh produce  Almost didn't go because of the 80% chance of rain forecast, but it was mostly overcast with a few sprinkles here and there.  Patted myself on the back for not screwing this one up.  At the end, just wanted to cash out the rest of my tickets at the Cannoli stand before the sky let loose. Like these folks.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2010 03:13
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:
I hate to be the guy who does this, but that's some strange bokeh. On the left (on the produce) it looks like little glowing worms, and in the center you've almost got some donuts going on. Not bad, just weird. Is that a characteristic of the Canon 1.2, or just the lighting?
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2010 06:37
|
|
|
orange lime posted:I hate to be the guy who does this, but that's some strange bokeh. On the left (on the produce) it looks like little glowing worms, and in the center you've almost got some donuts going on. Not bad, just weird. Is that a characteristic of the Canon 1.2, or just the lighting?
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2010 08:15
|
|
|
orange lime posted:I hate to be the guy who does this, but that's some strange bokeh. On the left (on the produce) it looks like little glowing worms, and in the center you've almost got some donuts going on. Not bad, just weird. Is that a characteristic of the Canon 1.2, or just the lighting? First, go to the flickr page of that photo. Then, look at the tags, and select the tag for that lens. You'll see a picture of a girl with a green/yellow bokeh-ey background. The comments there are about the weird bokeh the lens produces. It's a feature, not a bug, is going to be the argument.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2010 14:17
|
|
|
orange lime posted:I hate to be the guy who does this, but that's some strange bokeh. On the left (on the produce) it looks like little glowing worms, and in the center you've almost got some donuts going on. Not bad, just weird. Is that a characteristic of the Canon 1.2, or just the lighting? Seriously?
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2010 15:05
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:Seriously? The bokeh is a bit distracting - good thing is that it is easily fixed.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2010 15:20
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:Seriously?
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2010 15:56
|
|
|
I guess I'll just post in PAD and save my bokeh-critiques for the experts at Fredmiranda 
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2010 16:00
|
|
|
I feel Pompous Rhombus' pain. He posts some pretty cool street shots, and all he gets comments on is bokeh.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2010 16:30
|
|
|
That's not what I meant. Yes the bokeh's busy, but I quite like some of the photograph (Grandma+kid being my favorite). And in most pictures the OOF areas aren't even distracting.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2010 16:48
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:That's not what I meant. Yes the bokeh's busy, but I quite like some of the photograph (Grandma+kid being my favorite). And in most pictures the OOF areas aren't even distracting. I like all of them. bokeh discussions are just part of the "how did this happen this way" kind of thing for me. That bokeh in the one shot isn't attractive, but the picture's still good. It just makes me want to know, "why?"
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2010 17:15
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:Seriously? Yeah, seriously. I prefixed that post with "I hate to be that guy" for a reason -- I'm not trying to be some kind of  BOKUGGGHHH dork. When I look at the photo, though, it *is* what jumps out at me. I think they're all great shots, but the weird amount of extra detail in what is supposed to be an out-of-focus area is just...weird.It's especially strange that it's just that photo. None of the others seem to have the same effect as that produce one does. The OOF areas look like heat ripples, wrinkles in the film, JPEG artifacts, all kinds of weird things. orange lime fucked around with this message at 19:01 on Mar 31, 2010 |
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2010 18:58
|
|
|
Mannequin posted:What did you do to get this color?
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2010 19:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 20:23 |
|
|
The problem is not the bokeh at all, it's that the photo has extremely shallow depth of field for no apparent reason.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2010 03:43
|
|