|
This isn't the right place to post this, I'm sure. I'll go ahead and do it anyway however. http://vivianmaier.blogspot.com/ I'm just gonna quote the info in the page header: quote:This was created in dedication to the photographer Vivian Maier, a street photographer from the 1950s - 1970s. Vivian's work was discovered at an auction here in Chicago where she lived for 50 years but was originally a native to France. Her discovered work includes between 30-40,000 mostly medium format negatives. Born February 1, 1926 and deceased on Tuesday, April 21, 2009. Some inspirational stuff.
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2009 09:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 00:06 |
|
|
notlodar posted:dear mac owners, your monitors are too bright. please calibrate or lower your brightness. I keep my Macbook at 4/16 most of the time, anything above 8 is blinding.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2009 03:24
|
|
|
I'm just bitching, but after I shot a fashion show last weekend, the show coordinator already lifted my pictures off of facebook to post as her own photo album. I left a nice little note "reminding" her to credit me, but here's to remembering to watermark the poo poo out of everything even if you think no one but friends is going to see it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2009 19:32
|
|
|
nonanone posted:I'm just bitching, but after I shot a fashion show last weekend, the show coordinator already lifted my pictures off of facebook to post as her own photo album. I left a nice little note "reminding" her to credit me, but here's to remembering to watermark the poo poo out of everything even if you think no one but friends is going to see it. That's the thing with Facebook. It's too easy to do that kind of stuff. At least if it's on Flickr or something like that, the person has to make a conscious effort to gank your photos. Facebook also makes it easy for a person to crop out the watermark when they make a photo a profile picture. Facebook also strips off all the EXIF info from the photo so you can't embed stuff like copyright in the photo. That and it recompresses photos and makes them look like crap. If you're going to post photos on there, post one or two photos with a link to your web site for the rest of the set. HPL fucked around with this message at 21:20 on Nov 11, 2009 |
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2009 21:18
|
|
|
I've been toying with the idea of making a facebook page for my photography business, but really, it's a bitch. You either need to watermark them like gently caress, deal with lovely jpeg compression, or do something else. I'm more than happy to let a combination of lightroom, my blog, my website, and flickr comprise my workflow, without adding in all the steps involved in throwing them onto facebook too. With LR3 directly exporting to a flickr photostream, it's going to be more and more of an effort to involve facebook in the workflow. Barely makes the effort worth it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2009 21:25
|
|
|
Cyberbob posted:With LR3 directly exporting to a flickr photostream, it's going to be more and more of an effort to involve facebook in the workflow. Barely makes the effort worth it. The key to having a Facebook page is to keep fans updated and on top of what's new and what's coming up. Use it to drive traffic to your web page, don't use it AS your web page. LR can also directly export to SmugMug as well.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2009 21:30
|
|
|
Yes, I should have known better. At least it's not like they're high rez or anything. However, now she is trying to tell me that models own "half the copyright" so that's why her modeling agency can use them for "self promotion".  I don't feel like arguing it, so as long as she gives me credit on facebook, I'm letting it go this time. This is mostly only because she is adding me to her list of photogs at the agency, otherwise I'd educate her a little more. I'm watermarking the poo poo out of everything after this though, it's amazing what people think they have the "right" to do.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2009 21:39
|
|
|
nonanone posted:I'm just bitching, but after I shot a fashion show last weekend, the show coordinator already lifted my pictures off of facebook to post as her own photo album. I left a nice little note "reminding" her to credit me, but here's to remembering to watermark the poo poo out of everything even if you think no one but friends is going to see it. When I put up pictures of my friends dance recital on fb, other people took the pictures and re tagged all the same people in it again. So there was really no need to save them and put them in your own album. It just didn't really make any sense. But yea if its something you care about watermark the gently caress out of it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2009 21:41
|
|
|
I post social/party photos to facebook, but that's about it. You're probably going to have to sort out one of those obnoxious watermarks that go across the middle of the photo.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2009 22:25
|
|
|
I shot some pictures over the Halloween weekend of a girl dressed in the flight attendant costume from The Fifth Element on a corporate jet for that added "I'm on a jet" feel. Not my best work, but there are some gems in there. Definitely a learning experience when it came to transitioning from the weak light inside the jet to the harsh arc-sodium lamps in the hangar. It made me wish my ABs had come in and blah blah blah. http://gallery.prairiesquid.com/v/onicon2009/t5e if you want to see some lovely pictures today. ANYWAY... After I put the gallery up the model asked if she could take a few and put them on myspace/DeviantArt/FB/etc. No problem there since these were basically loving around shots. What she posts though are pictures that are slightly cropped to remove my watermark, made contrasty as gently caress, and with her skin smoothed to that unnatural doll-like finish. On top of all that, she added some weird white cursive text with her website and a portion of my URL. I'm still on the boarder of calling bullshit and telling her to take them down, and just letting it go.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2009 18:49
|
|
|
squidflakes posted:I shot some pictures over the Halloween weekend of a girl dressed in the flight attendant costume from The Fifth Element on a corporate jet for that added "I'm on a jet" feel. Haha, poo poo. It's one thing to steal a photo and not give credit but actively ruining it with lovely effects is another thing entirely.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2009 21:09
|
|
|
Providing that she's not crediting you with the shittyness of them, Let them go. I've had clients steal my photos, edit them, then retain the credit to my name.. I've told them to take em down.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2009 21:42
|
|
|
 I don't know how many of you guys know (or care) about this, but there's going to be a new TV show coming to Bravo early next year about photography. The details are a little sketchy, but it seems to follow the life of two pro-photographers in NYC.Knowing what most of the content is like on Bravo and from what I know about the show based on the press release, it's probably going to suck and most of you will hate it. However, because I don't know for a fact it's going to totally blow, it might be cool or at least mildly interesting. I have been thinking for the longest time they need to do a Project Runway/Top Chef type of show for photography since I think it could be cool. And since photography is becoming so mainstream these days, I think there could be an audience for it. Anyway, I don't think this new show is going to be setup like this at all but it still could be interesting. More details here: Bravo TV posted:Double Exposure" (working title) follows photographers Markus Klinko and Indrani, along with high-end stylist GK Reid, giving viewers a taste of the fast-paced world of high fashion and celebrity photography. (No real web links to point to yet as it was only announced via press release a few months back.) What I am hoping, at least, is that the photography plays a big role and it's not just a relationship show. Time will tell.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2009 03:24
|
|
|
Was it Bravo did that god loving awful "Next Top Fashion Photographer" (or something) show? I couldn't watch it because the guy judging it was some no-name pervy lingerie photographer and they kicked someone off the first episode for moving the lights around on a studio photography competition.  Hopefully this one will be better, Markus & Indrani are actually really good. Except they've been in the news recently for something else.... The Wall Street Journal posted:both Markus’ and Indrani’s studios sought Chapter 11 protection from an angry creditor earlier this week. In court papers, both studios - Markus Klinko Photography Inc. and Double Exposure Studios LLC - say they turned to the bankruptcy court because they could no longer afford to defend themselves in a lawsuit the creditor filed to collect on its claim. They did those hosed up/awesome Hello Kitty Lada Gaga photos that have been floating around
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2009 03:49
|
|
|
I feel like they already had a show about fashion photographers sort of Top Model-style and it sucked really bad. It would be nice if it were good, but I'm certainly not expecting it to. edit: ^^^ that's the show I'm thinking of, but I can't remember if it was on Bravo. Also that picture scares me.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2009 03:50
|
|
|
nonanone posted:I feel like they already had a show about fashion photographers sort of Top Model-style and it sucked really bad. It would be nice if it were good, but I'm certainly not expecting it to. I know what you're talking about. It was done by Nigel Barker ("NOTED FASHION PHOTOGRAPHER"), who is also a judge on ANTM. I remember it being pretty dumb, especially since I remember the photographers being mostly crap at everything. Just like Top Model, hah!
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2009 05:41
|
|
|
I found it, it wasn't Nigel Barker, who is at least personable and has pretty good work, it was Russell James and it was called "The Shot" on VH1. http://www.nppa.org/news_and_events/news/2007/10/the_shot.html
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2009 06:00
|
|
|
I watched an episode of Dirty Jobs a week or so ago. I realized that the show was showing very little of the actual job, and spent most of the time on stupid crap like Mike Rowe making jokes about how awful the Poors must have been who had lived in the trailer home was that they were demolishing. The second job on the episode was making mannequins, again they spent probably 80% of screen time with HURF TEH DURF  BOOBIES jokes and general titillation, showing the bare minimum of boring poo poo like how they make mannequins.I figured it was likely that a lot of times, these people agree to be followed and filmed but at the same time don't want any more of their trade secrets opened up for all the world to see than is absolutely necessary. Cable channels are poo poo posturing as art and only care about keeping as many eyeballs glued to the sets long enough to see the commercial breaks; they have no more interest in going in-depth about the subject than the subjects. The show is built around the superficial ephemera and HUMAN DRAMA rather than its supposed goal. Both parties are happy, and viewers can feel like they're watching educational programming while never learning anything more than if they stood around when a contractor comes over, watching them work. I really see no reason to believe that this Bravo show will break that mold. Now if it was on PBS... pwn fucked around with this message at 08:19 on Nov 13, 2009 |
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2009 08:12
|
|
|
brad industry posted:I found it, it wasn't Nigel Barker, who is at least personable and has pretty good work, it was Russell James and it was called "The Shot" on VH1. Actually, I was half right! I knew he wasn't the judge, but I found he was the executive producer. All I remember was seeing his name somewhere on there.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2009 13:58
|
|
|
Hahahhahaha http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0toBw68L5Y4&feature=player_embedded
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2009 20:48
|
|
|
brad industry posted:Hahahhahaha
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2009 20:54
|
|
|
Cyberbob posted:I loved The Fountain as a film, I'll have to rewatch it for the cinematography. worth mentioning the fountain used no CGI for the nebula/bubble special effects
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2009 21:16
|
|
|
brad industry posted:They did those hosed up/awesome Hello Kitty Lada Gaga photos that have been floating around Oh jesus loving christ I can't appreciate this on any level 
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2009 21:18
|
|
|
brad industry posted:Hahahhahaha But it's true! Anyone have a link to a thread where people actually go on about this?
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2009 21:22
|
|
|
The concept had gobs of potential, but it was so poorly acted. Shame.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2009 07:50
|
|
|
Mannequin posted:photography reality show I admit it, I watched lots of "Next Top Fashion Model" just to see how the photographers go about it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2009 14:14
|
|
|
Trig Discipline posted:you know that nobody likes to go sightseeing with you because you carry a golf bag full of monopods and spend ten minutes choosing the right one for each shot
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2009 06:16
|
|
|
People can't tell the difference between a photo taken with the Hasselblad and a Canon P&S 
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2009 01:07
|
|
|
At 13x19 that doesn't really surprise me, what does surprise me is that someone would bring a H2 out into the woods to shoot with. That would be so annoying.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2009 01:18
|
|
|
psylent posted:People can't tell the difference between a photo taken with the Hasselblad and a Canon P&S I'm not sure I can really tell the difference either. The subject matter doesn't really help though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2009 01:32
|
|
|
So are we now at the end-times for the digital SLR? Will the only people using them be quaint old fogeys who have to struggle with things like focus and making sure some fiddley settings are correct while the real photographers are getting 35 shots of the same cypress knee in the same amount of time? Ahh technology.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2009 08:17
|
|
|
squidflakes posted:So are we now at the end-times for the digital SLR? Will the only people using them be quaint old fogeys who have to struggle with things like focus and making sure some fiddley settings are correct while the real photographers are getting 35 shots of the same cypress knee in the same amount of time? Only if you're taking photos of old fogey subjects. For stuff that requires speed and low light performance, the DSLR will be king for a while yet.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2009 08:29
|
|
|
psylent posted:People can't tell the difference between a photo taken with the Hasselblad and a Canon P&S The part I don't get is when he was looking at the images at 100% and couldn't tell the difference. At web resolution, you can definitely confuse high-res and low-res, but up close the Hasselblad would have a significantly better dynamic range. Nothing really looks good at 100% in my opinion, so there may be a tendency to think something might be less than what it normally is when you're viewing it that close. But to compare the two at 100% and still not be able to tell the difference... jeesh. E: I think it also has to do with subject matter. Where a $40,000 camera will outshine a $400 camera is in dynamic range, and in a shot of a forest like that the range isn't discernible. Where it might show better is in a picture of a person's face, or any subject up close that fills the frame. brad industry posted:I found it, it wasn't Nigel Barker, who is at least personable and has pretty good work, it was Russell James and it was called "The Shot" on VH1. Huh, go figure. I didn't even know that had done a photography show before, wish I'd seen it, although I'm probably not missing much. Fragrag posted:I admit it, I watched lots of "Next Top Fashion Model" just to see how the photographers go about it. Yes. I'm ashamed to admit I watched Make Me a Supermodel just to see what that Perou guy would photograph. They actually mixed up the photographers quite a bit and there was a fairly decent amount of focus on that considering it was a show about models. Mannequin fucked around with this message at 09:01 on Nov 16, 2009 |
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2009 08:36
|
|
|
Mannequin posted:E: I think it also has to do with subject matter. Yeah if he had shot something with skin tones there would have been a huge difference.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2009 10:46
|
|
|
guidoanselmi posted:worth mentioning the fountain used no CGI for the nebula/bubble special effects Realy? wow.. where can I find more information on it? DVD BTS or something?
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2009 10:02
|
|
|
Cyberbob posted:Realy? wow.. where can I find more information on it? Yep. I think they used little microscopic cultures for all of the effects. I watched it when I rented it and it was really fascinating... made me appreciate the movie even more.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2009 20:24
|
|
|
Peter Parks was the guy they got to do the microscope photography stuff. http://norb.homedns.org/nwp/storycode/ppk-web/index.html
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2009 20:28
|
|
|
Mannequin posted:Yes. I'm ashamed to admit I watched Make Me a Supermodel just to see what that Perou guy would photograph. They actually mixed up the photographers quite a bit and there was a fairly decent amount of focus on that considering it was a show about models. I remember one cringe-worthy occasion. The models were in a absolutely fabulous hotel, swimming pool, sun, palm trees... But for the photo shoot the photographer set up an impromptu studio and shot ordinary white background photos.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2009 22:51
|
|
|
OK team. I've just spent half the day taking photos of coffee for a photo essay competition. I now realize the the competition says its subject is "Food, or anything related" I'm concerned that if I entered it, they'd turn around and say "Not food." so I'm hoping to plead a bit of a case with my entry.. Ways that coffee can be related to food.. go!
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2009 09:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 00:06 |
|
|
If you can't justify your own photographs then why are you taking them, much less submitting them to a contest? Coffee is definitely related to food, if they ask you to argue it say that you drink it and sometimes make desserts with it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2009 09:23
|
|
