|
Sounds like some rich guy just wanted to scream, "Lasers... LAZERS! muahahhaha". they really should've designed something like the Image Fulgurator http://www.juliusvonbismarck.com/fulgurator/idee.html to ruin paparazzi shots.
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2009 17:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 06:12 |
|
|
AIIAZNSK8ER posted:Sounds like some rich guy just wanted to scream, "Lasers... LAZERS! muahahhaha". they really should've designed something like the Image Fulgurator http://www.juliusvonbismarck.com/fulgurator/idee.html to ruin paparazzi shots. This is a pretty cool concept, but then I watched the video where they test it out at Checkpoint Charlie and I realized I'd be pretty pissed off if I was a tourist there for a day and someone fagged up my photos with some kind of message bullshit. I mean, that's assuming they didn't tell all the people that they saw shooting what they did. Like that one couple they talked to seemed pretty surprised so I'm willing to bet there were more <  >Just my two cents.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2009 17:17
|
|
|
Make the image that you project be some obnoxious watermark, and then you'd be a photo rustler 
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2009 17:57
|
|
|
CCD only? Plus one point for CMOS 
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2009 22:17
|
|
|
the Image Fulgurator is cool, especially the Checkpoint Charlie experiment video. I also like how it sounds like something Calvin invented. Ken Rockwell posted a user-submitted randomizer script that pulls a random index page off his site every time you click it. First time I tried it I got this gem. http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/0-new-AIS-lens.htm
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2009 12:37
|
|
|
lawl  (is it time to bust out these fancy graffix yet?)
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2009 14:30
|
|
|
Officially the most helpful review Krock has ever given.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2009 19:54
|
|
|
I broke up and one of my biggest regrets is that there was this awesome swingset by her house that I never went and took a shot of, now I don't even want to go to that city ever again.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2009 00:10
|
|
|
Did some reading about the digital back used in that "digital holga" someone posted in one of the other threads. It was pretty awesome, with one thing that stood out in particular: It gives you an audible beep to tell you whether your histogram is overexposed, underexposed, or generally on the money. It'll give you a high or low pitch beep if it thinks you need to correct exposure. I think that was an awesome idea, and I'm a little disappointed that nobody (that I know) has implemented it yet. Seems like it would be much easier to just listen without taking your eye from the VF instead of chimping the histogram after every other shot or something. If you have EV compensation at your fingertips, you could theoretically fix the problem without even moving your eye.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2009 00:50
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:Did some reading about the digital back used in that "digital holga" someone posted in one of the other threads. It was pretty awesome, with one thing that stood out in particular: It gives you an audible beep to tell you whether your histogram is overexposed, underexposed, or generally on the money. It'll give you a high or low pitch beep if it thinks you need to correct exposure. How is this different than the EV meter at the bottom of a view finder?
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2009 02:02
|
|
|
Sadi posted:How is this different than the EV meter at the bottom of a view finder? Because it makes noise, obviously 
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2009 02:05
|
|
|
Sadi posted:How is this different than the EV meter at the bottom of a view finder? What's even crazier is using a human brain to figure out if your stuff is properly exposed
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2009 02:53
|
|
|
That beep would get very annoying, I'd prefer something onscreen :/ Like the EV meter
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2009 03:07
|
|
|
But the EV meter has nothing to do with if there's overexposed parts in the actual captured image....?
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2009 04:34
|
|
|
 Oh hey Scarlett, nice Leica.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2009 00:23
|
|
|
Mannequin posted:
There are so many things right with that picture that I wouldn't even know where to begin.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2009 00:55
|
|
|
Clayton Bigsby posted:There are so many things right with that picture that I wouldn't even know where to begin. Counterpoint (well, just the dude on the left really): 
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2009 02:14
|
|
|
I wonder if she knows how to use it, or if she's just shooting in Auto 
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2009 02:16
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:I wonder if she knows how to use it, or if she's just shooting in Auto Haha what?
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2009 02:19
|
|
|
Mannequin posted:
im so glad this thread has brought me this. now we must find more hot women with hot cameras!
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2009 04:24
|
|
|
Twenties Superstar posted:Haha what? some kinda jackal fucked around with this message at 18:07 on Sep 27, 2009 |
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2009 07:41
|
|
|
Well it is an M8. So autoexposure is a possibility.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2009 06:12
|
|
|
I have to admit this looks rather ridiculous. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2009 06:21
|
|
|
Tigertron posted:I have to admit this looks rather ridiculous.  I need to dig mine out of storage and shoot it someday, nobody has a good picture of it online.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2009 10:18
|
|
|
pwn posted:Reminds me of the old Sega Genesis/CD/32x tower. That reminds me of this  And back on topic  
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2009 12:24
|
|
|
Tincans posted:And back on topic I... uh.. 16 kilos?? http://www.dpreview.com/news/0801/08013101sigma250500.asp Jesus Christ
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2009 13:55
|
|
|
Tincans posted:first of all, you broke my table, second, pretty sure that is a dirigible cleverly disguised as a lens. and to add I found this, had there been SA back then, these guys would have been part of the dorkroom for sure.  can anyone explain to me what is going on here? caption contest, perhaps? 
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2009 15:12
|
|
|
my focus screen cutting let me show you it
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2009 03:58
|
|
|
AIIAZNSK8ER posted:This reminds me of that pinhole camera they made out of that airplane hangar.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2009 04:34
|
|
|
AIIAZNSK8ER posted:can anyone explain to me what is going on here? caption contest, perhaps? All I can imagine is how much it would suck for his grip to slip. Well, that and how this picture could be made funnier if his monopod were balancing on a belt clip.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2009 06:13
|
|
|
AIIAZNSK8ER posted:His left hand should be grabbing the monopod. Instead he's being a cool dude and just resting it there. Note that the popup flash is up, but not able to fully extend due to the hotshoe flash. He looks to be at a zoo. Conclusion: Guy has so much money he has no idea what to do with it. edit: the blog indicates the photo was shot in Kuala Lumpur. So, double confirmed. Guy has tons of money, travels to southeast asia, takes photos at zoo. JAY ZERO SUM GAME fucked around with this message at 16:37 on Oct 3, 2009 |
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2009 16:34
|
|
|
Interrupting Moss posted:The lens on the flash serves to focus it, giving it reach. They kinda sorta work... never seen them used seriously. In this case it's going to be largely blocked by the telephoto lens. The flash gadget looks like a Better Beamer and they do work pretty decently, and some pros actually use them to get a little fill in on wildlife stuff (mostly birding). As for the hand position, that is the proper way to handle a long tele lens to limit vibrations. Resting your arm on it like that makes a big difference. Not saying the guy knows what he's doing otherwise, but wanted to point that out.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2009 16:45
|
|
|
Fair enough about the holding. I'm used to grabbing the monopod in case I have to move quickly.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2009 17:36
|
|
|
So I figure I would tell my story here. I Took the wifey shopping for a new sewing machine over the weekend and asked her if she had done any research online. She told me that they were never too helpful because they lacked specifics. The online reviews of sewing machines were typically women who would talk about how it made them feel, or memories surrounding their use, or examples of clothing/quilts that the machine made. I laughed at this because, except for the Dorkroom, photo sites nitpick over focusing charts and the noise of the autofocus mechanism and never talk about the touchy feely stuff.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2009 17:14
|
|
|
Heres a cool Nat Geo video where they used three cameras on a some crazy robotic rig with what looks like 6 pocket wizards all tethered to a laptop to take an insane panoramic of a 1500 year old tree. http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/video/player#/?titleID=nichols-redwoods-gatefold&catID=1
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2009 18:21
|
|
|
While we're on the subject of magazines, Google just published copies of LIFE magazine from the 1930s through 1970 (I think) in their entirety, ads intact. Here's a Photography issue from 1966. Bonus points for old ads
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2009 18:41
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:While we're on the subject of magazines, Google just published copies of LIFE magazine from the 1930s through 1970 (I think) in their entirety, ads intact. This is great, only the other day i was trying to see if i could download past issues.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2009 21:03
|
|
|
 My pelican case came in, so I am bragging here. Now I am protected against all sort of weather issues, or if someone is trying to run over my camera. And it makes a great bludgeoning weapon in case someone is trying to mug me.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2009 21:02
|
|
|
It's also a good tactical shield and flotation device.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2009 23:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 06:12 |
|
|
If you're going to charge $3000 to shoot a wedding, you should probably know how to work a camera: http://news.ninemsn.com.au/world/872387/couple-sues-over-disastrous-wedding-photos quote:The collection of photos taken by Gareth Bowers, of Fresh Images, showed people with their heads chopped off, random close-ups of vehicles and inattentive wedding guests, UK media report. Not to mention a gamut of under/over exposed shots. *facepalm*
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2009 00:11
|
|
