|
rear end is my canvas posted:^^^Isn't that just asking to get chased and beat up by angry parents?^^^ I've heard that a good trick if you get confronted (by angry parents or angry subjects) is to simply smile, show them the picture if it's digital, and offer to email them a copy of it. Assuming they like it, suddenly you've turned it from "that guy took a picture without my permission" to "this guy wants to give me a free gift".
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2010 09:14
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 07:06 |
|
|
No. 9 posted:He could have been courteous and even fake deleted if it really mattered to him so much. I think that a perfect use for the Direct Print button, on every camera the CHDK people get their hands on, would be to make a screen pop up that says "IMAGE DELETED!" for about 3 seconds and then quickly cycles to the previous image on the card. Why does Canon insist on including that thing, anyway? It's got to be a running joke around the engineering and design labs by now. Powershot team: "Hey EOS guys! How's that direct print button going? Found a good place for it yet? Baahahahaha"
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2010 01:33
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
mcosio posted:
This is nice, but the fact that it was obviously taken from inside a car really ruins it for me.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2010 19:39
|
|
|
Obama 2012 posted:Here's a couple I did back in my photography class: Looks like the colors are pretty far off to me 
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2010 18:23
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 07:06 |
|
|
Greybone posted:
Seems to me more like a picture of a man taking a picture of a man taking a picture.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2010 17:04
|
|
