|
Pantsmaster Bill posted:I think maybe a picture of you taking pictures might work instead of the aperture logo. Then they'll know it's your photo! Going off of this, if you can afford it, you should pick up a cheap, used body -- like a 20D or something -- and put a 10-22 on it. Tape it to 10mm, mount it on a pole attached to a helmet so that it is directly above and behind you, and use a pocket wizard to make sure that every photo you take with your main body triggers a shot with the remote camera. Then, every photo you post needs to have this proof included somewhere as part of the watermark. Plus, camera helmets are in fashion.
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2009 19:51
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 17, 2024 02:58 |
|
|
this thread is a definitely fun stuff for dorkroom discussion but really, i hope people start realizing the possible implications of what they say. i think interrupting moss put it pretty well -- when you think about it, it's really not any different from old people that toss around crudities because it used to be socially acceptable to call people by those names. nowadays, i hope that we're a progressive enough society to not adapt a general insult from a pejorative that absolutely can and is used as a hateful name for a homosexual. just because you're not using it in that sense doesn't mean it isn't still a charged and blighted word. there's really no reason -- english is colorful enough to get your point across without stirring up cruelty and hate. tl;dr let's just  man
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2010 18:41
|
|
|
Most of those shots look like they were lit with huge umbrellas or something, so I imagine they're pretty drat used to being photographed. They're pretty much models.
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2010 14:33
|
|
|
...wait, since when was paul c buff insane?quote:My suspicion is that, as we speak, governors of around 28 middle American states are considering mass secession into the new Confederate States of America. If this happens, it won't be like the civil war These states have the real power today, the energy resources, the workforce and constitutional attitude, the military might and the will to remove big government and public unions and corruption from their lives. If this should happen, the seceding states will become what America once was - a global superpower, while the remaining liberal states will sink into the Socialist/Marxist status Europe is headed for.
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2010 07:02
|
|
|
Friend of mine recently bought a Promaster (rebadged Tamron) 17-50 2.8 Nikon mount for $85. He saw the ad on Craigslist. It was extremely succinct -- just the lens name and an e-mail. He e-mailed the guy and found out his name, and googled it with the city name. Came up as some doctor in the area. Then he googled it without the city name in the search, and it's the same name as some convicted rapist who was exonerated after like 8 years from DNA evidence. I told him to bring a knife or something when he met the guy. Turns out it was the doctor, and apparently he didn't realize what the lens was worth. Mint condition Tamron 17-50 2.8 for $85. The bastard. Gotta love Craigslist.
|
|
#
¿
May 11, 2010 19:42
|
|
|
orange lime posted:Exonerated means they determined that he was innocent, you know. :P Prison changes people, maaaan. also, I can't believe I just made this. 
|
|
#
¿
May 11, 2010 20:34
|
|
|
TsarAleksi posted:Sweet how can I make my cameras evolve? you just throw money at them, man
|
|
#
¿
May 11, 2010 20:42
|
|
|
McMadCow posted:I think we'll steer this away from who's touching whom, and onto a little Flickr shenanigans. quote:Vincent Boiteau Pro User says: Man, this guy's pretty pro. Clearly, he understands how to expertly compose a photo.  and knows the right applications for a ring light.  Bresson's got nothing on this dude.
|
|
#
¿
May 14, 2010 20:41
|
|
|
This camera is ridiculous. Pretty much all of these were servo focusing, too.
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2010 18:51
|
|
|
orange lime posted:And with the perfect angle and lighting to highlight the EOS 5D MARK II on the strap, too! My Mark III has my Rebel's strap on it (...because it didn't come with one, mostly)
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2010 03:50
|
|
|
Jahoodie posted:That's what the big kids sports pic companies do. Use the sun as a side/rear hair light, use flash to fill shadows. Don't know why they were 30' away though. This is because they suck, as most of these companies do. It's 10% photography and 90% logistics and business sense for them. When I did it, I used a shoot-through umbrella and an AB800 for the main light and had them positioned so the sun just hit their backs. That way, there's no squinting, and also, it's not goddamn bare flash.
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2010 20:44
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:haha, too late. Pristine Promaster (rebranded Tamron) 17-55 f/2.8 for Nikon. $85. My friend got a hell of a deal. It was some doctor that didn't know what it was worth.
|
|
#
¿
May 20, 2010 01:10
|
|
|
BobTheCow posted:I did probably the dumbest thing I've ever done with my gear today. I was shooting a track meet, but only had one body instead of my usual two, so I had to keep switching between the 70-200 and 17-50. My R-strap was screwed into the collar of the 70-200. Niiice footwork. I change lenses a lot, and fortunately haven't dropped any -- except for today, coincidentally. I got home from a 4-hour event and had my stuff all packed away. Then, there were a bunch of frogs out by my pond, so I hastily grabbed my stuff. I went to stick the 70-200 on by grabbing it by the hood, and the hood apparently wasn't on right and the lens fell about 1-2 feet, thankfully onto soft wood. I panicked as it fell because I was right near some rocks that bordered a pond. That would have sucked.
|
|
#
¿
May 22, 2010 22:26
|
|
It fell around four feet, fortunately directly onto my shoe, which I maneuvered quickly to cushion the fall. I imagine I would've been in deep poo poo had it hit the track directly.
|
Rated PG-34 posted:Forget that, we need one of these; it has two handles jesus that'd be perfect for the newsroom on deadline nights
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2010 01:25
|
|
|
I turned on IOGraphica for 20 minutes while editing a batch of Little League photos. Pretty cool because you can pick out all of the Lightroom develop tools I used a lot, and the edges of the images I dragged for cropping..png) Click here for the full 1600x1200 image.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2010 06:26
|
|
|
It was around 16:50 in the first half -- Ramos's shot goes wide of the goalpost. From what I could see, though, I don't think an L lens went flying. It hits and knocks over a dSLR, but I think it may have hit a small video camera, because the lens that flies off is white with a black hood, but it's thicker and shorter, like a 16-35, but since it's white, I'm assuming it's a video lens. Edit: here's a gif I made off of the ESPN3 replay  (my hosting) dakana fucked around with this message at 03:54 on Jun 17, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Jun 17, 2010 03:14
|
|
|
InternetJunky posted:Thursday was Canada Day and I was in a national park chilling on a beach trying to get some pelican shots. Being a holiday, the place was packed with people, many of whom brought dogs. I was sitting in a folding chair with my (very expensive) tripod setup in front of me when a couple walked past and watched as their dog pissed on my tripod. It was only after I made a big stink about it that I even got a completely fake apology, otherwise they seemed content to walk off. holy poo poo, that's an incredibly lovely thing for them to do. i would never let my dog piss on anyone's anything. that's so ridiculously inconsiderate.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 3, 2010 17:20
|
|
|
Honestly, I'd reply and just say something like "good light makes good photos; I was bouncing my flash off of the ceiling and it created a large, soft light source which generally looks pretty good."
|
|
#
¿
Jul 6, 2010 04:22
|
|
|
Beastruction posted:I have that same problem with shutter speed knobs on the top of the camera. My Minolta SRT-201 has a bar at the bottom of the viewfinder that tells me what the shutter speed is. I guess the 70s were a time of innovation in this area.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 8, 2010 19:45
|
|
|
After that Phorumr script broke with the new Flickr page, I got tired of manually putting in the BBCode and copying over URLs, so I wrote a new one. Now, as a warning, I should tell you that this is horribly hacked together and may break at any moment. I do not really know JavaScript; I just pretend to and used the google extensively to look up functions. Here it is, go hog wild. If you use Chrome, click that poo poo and then click allow or yes or whatever at the bottom of your screen. If you use Firefox, click that poo poo and install it as a GreaseMonkey script (assuming you already have GreaseMonkey installed.) What this does: It puts a box under the description of the photo on the photo page containing bbcode like the following: {url=URL-of-your-photo-page}{img}URL-of-your-photo-at-the-size-shown-on-the-photo-page{/img}{/url}  It does the same thing when you go to the All Sizes page. You can click on any of the sizes and it'll stay there under the photo.   Hopefully this saves you time so you can post more pictures of your dogs and stuff. How it works: terribly. Here's the awful code code:dakana fucked around with this message at 07:56 on Jul 20, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Jul 20, 2010 07:54
|
|
|
McMadCow posted:Or if the same underspec'd/overworked PSU was pwering them both. Or if they were in the same computer that was hit by a rocket.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 23, 2010 21:55
|
|
|
Whoa. http://itchyi.squarespace.com/thelatest/2010/7/20/the-longest-photographic-exposures-in-history.html I didn't even know this was possible. The article shows a few extremely long exposure photos -- from 6 months to 2 years and beyond. How did they do it? Pinhole cameras, ultra neutral density filters, some kind of special film?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 27, 2010 04:59
|
|
|
ease posted:Why hasn't this caught on yet? 1$ image stabilizer for any camera! mostly because it doesn't really work
|
|
#
¿
Sep 2, 2010 23:15
|
|
|
psylent posted:I somehow flicked it to B during a wedding ceremony the other day Imagine my confusion when I discovered that B is a mode, not shutter speed, on the 1DIII.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2010 23:45
|
|
|
brad industry posted:I was on a shoot once where we had two Profoto 2400's hooked up to a bi-tube head outside a big window, and the sprinklers came on. ...I'm imagining the explosion every time the capacitors discharge and that light goes off is also impressive... good lord, that's a lot of light.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2010 18:34
|
|
|
I took a panorama of a record-breaking crowd last year at one of our women's basketball games. We ran it the next day in our paper. I got an e-mail from the head coach asking for a copy of it because she liked it, so I sent one. Today, I found my panorama displayed on the university's athletics website under an article about season tickets with the credit reading "Courtesy: Toledo Athletics" Aw hell naw. Politely-worded e-mail, sent! 
|
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2010 07:43
|
|
|
Not exactly "fun stuff", but I don't know where else to put this. http://www.news.com.au/pictures/gallery-e6frflv9-1111119597823?page=8
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2010 03:58
|
|
|
Photos have to tell the truth. If you take out a pimple, you are lying. You can argue all day about how merely taking a photo is manipulation, but that's a different beast. If you take out some power lines that were intersecting your subject's head or killing a really cool framing effect, you're lying. You can't do that.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2010 22:45
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:That's rich. I'll take the bait. You're coming at this from a different perspective. After doing PJ for a few years and being surrounded by it, I think that I've got a pretty different point of view. With a news photograph (or even a features photograph), you absolutely manipulate the scene. I'll agree to that. You pick your angle, focal length, light, depth of field, etc. But the point is that in the photograph, everything that is portrayed is real. It happened, and if you were at that event, you would have seen the exact same thing is you were watching. That's the key here. You can mew mew mew at me about how the act of taking a photograph and controlling those variables manipulates what you're shooting, but I'm going to repeat until I'm blue in the face that editorial photographs have a responsibility to remain truthful to reality and portray what actually happened. Whether or not it conveys a different emotion, selects a different detail to focus on, is a subjective interpretation of the scene by the photographer and his/her biases is a different topic. The takeaway from all of this is the simple fact that everything in an editorial photograph is physically real. You choose how you capture it, sure, but it existed. If you take a photograph and then take out a pimple, you create a fiction in which that person does not have a pimple. edit: I probably should have specified when I made the quoted post that I was referring to an editorial photograph being used in a news publication. That's where the "truth" responsibility comes from. Under any other circumstance in which you're not using photographs to inform the public in a news publication, do whatever the hell you want and more power to you for doing it.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2010 23:01
|
|
|
I built this trigger a little while ago http://hiviz.com/kits/mt.htm and tried some gun stuff with it in bright sunlight. I put my camera downrange and to the side, then used the sound trigger, spliced to a Yongnuo trigger. My camera fired via a Yongnuo receiver. It looks like the delay from sound --> trigger --> receiver --> fire camera was too great to catch any bullet hits (we shot .223 out an AR and a .40 handgun), but I still caught some cool stuff. Now that I have a .22lr I want to go and do some more, maybe with subsonic ammo, and with a better way of triggering the camera.      
|
|
#
¿
Nov 17, 2010 02:33
|
|
|
brad industry posted:What did you shoot for the explosion? It was a can of spraypaint. The key was to have a flame near it to ignite the stuff once it came bursting out. I didn't realize how big the fireball was going to be the first time  But we got it right the second time  Man, I really want to go back down there now.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2010 10:30
|
|
|
I always liked taking pictures for some reason. I started reading Creative Convention pretty heavily and started lusting after a dSLR, but in the meantime I started experimenting more with my older brother's point and shoot -- trying to do long exposures, diffusing the flash, etc. Then, my girlfriend was given a Minolta SRT-201 and a Canon AE-1 Program; she gave me the SRT-201 and we went out and shot photos together. This was all in my junior year of high school. Finally, in January of 2008 (senior year), I had enough money to buy a refurbished Rebel XT with a kit lens and a 1gb card. I took it everywhere, and took pictures of everything. A semi-distant relative brought me along to shoot a wedding with him. In the summer before going to college, I bought a 70-200 f/4, and got a position as a staff photographer at the student newspaper. Then I picked up a 430EX and my brother bought me a 50 f/1.8. I also bought some lighting gear. I did a bunch of photojournalism, did some weddings, a few senior portraits, and then did landed a gig with the local little league, doing all of their team/individual portraits and game photos. It paid well since there are over 50 teams, and they also hosted a state tournament. With that money, I bought an AB800 (before the gig so that we could use it for the pictures) and a 1D Mark III. I didn't budget correctly, though, and couldn't afford a wide lens for it. Right now, I'm still working for the student newspaper while I'm going to school. Before I buy any more photo stuff, though, I really need to buy a car. So hopefully I'll be able to afford a car after another little league gig this summer, and then start looking at getting a 16-35 f/2.8, upgrading my 70-200 f/4 to a f/2.8, and investing in some more lighting gear. I really like portraits, sports, and weddings, so hopefully I'll be able to continue doing those.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2010 02:36
|
|
|
I had a sociology professor who asked the class, "What should I do? Should I sodomize him?" after he saw me using my phone in class. This is the same professor who, trying to get class responses, said "[if you speak up], I'll let you kiss Wally!" (Wally was his service dog; he had a seizure disorder). Then, after still no one answered, he said "I'll let you go rear end-to-mouth with Wally! No, I'm kidding. You never go rear end-to-mouth." (I think he thought going "rear end-to-mouth" meant kissing/licking someone's rear end, not the other definition.) Oh, and you should be reading all of these quotes in an Australian accent.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2010 00:20
|
|
|
McMadCow posted:Good deals do happen, though. You just have to be patient and thorough. I just bought a classic car on CL about a month ago for about half of what it would be worth if I wanted to flip it. On the other side of that coin, I have a friend who was ripped off to the tune of thousands by a BUYER on Ebay who exploited Paypal's buyer protection. A friend of mine found a Nikon mount Promaster 17-50 f/2.8 (it's just a rebadged Tamron) for $85 on Craigslist. Turned out to be a dentist that just didn't know what it was worth.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2010 04:01
|
|
|
HPL posted:And here's me all like fffffffffffffff want a wide lens and to upgrade my 70-200 f/4 to an f/2.8 but can't justify it in the face of all the other things I have to pay for uuuuuuuuuuuuuck
|
|
#
¿
Jan 14, 2011 16:44
|
|
|
aliencowboy posted:Are there any good sites for finding high-res production shots from movies? The only luck I've had is filtering Google image search for large, black and white images. We get ours from wire services.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2011 04:44
|
|
|
holy poo poo that thread
|
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2011 05:19
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:It was suggested recently in the pictures-of-pets thread that we (people who like to pretend to know a thing or two about taking a picture) could volunteer at local animal shelters to provide photos of animals available for adoption. A bit of googling demonstrates that this does indeed occur, though not particularly often. I do this. I volunteer at the Humane Society of Greater Dayton. Before I went up to school my freshman year of college, I sent them an e-mail explaining that I was a photographer who was interested in volunteering to take photos of the pets they had for adoption so that they'd have good photos on their adoption listings website. They had me come in and talk with them, and they explained that with the volume of pets they processed on a weekly basis, that ideally they'd need someone coming in twice a week. I wasn't able to commit that amount of time, so we decided that I'd come in as often as I could, but that I would also give a workshop to their regular volunteers that came in often so that these non-photographers would be able to take better photos of their animals. Also, they asked me to come up with a proposal for some equipment for them -- I was planning on getting them a few used SLRs, bounce flashes, and 50 1.8s or 35 f/2s. Unfortunately, they had a ringworm outbreak followed by a parvo outbreak, and by the time they had everything cleaned up, the summer was over and I was up at school. When I came home for the summer after my freshman year, I went back to volunteer with them again, and found out that while I was at school, another photographer stepped up and volunteered as I did. They were able to recruit two others as well and set up a rotation so that a photographer was coming in twice a week. I joined, my brother joined, and a few others joined on too so that we had a monthly rotation schedule, and adoption rates and website impressions were going up. I had to take myself out of the rotation when I went back up to school, but when I get back home for the summer I'll be volunteering again. Like someone else said, it really becomes a logistical question rather than a photographic one. Usually, I bring a friend to help me "wrangle". For cats and small animals, we use one of the "bonding rooms" they have and just bounce flash. Dogs can be brought outside, which has the added benefit of giving them exercise. You need a method of matching what pets you took pictures of with the names or ID numbers of the pets -- I use the voice memo function on my camera, but others just write down a description of the pet, or the file number range next to the pet's name on a sheet of paper. Honestly, I could go all out and bring in white seamless, 3-4 strobes, and set up a studio somewhere, but the set up time wouldn't be worth it. Honestly, getting clean, attractive photos of the pets is fine. If you slightly miss focus, no one will notice. If the background is a little busy, no one will notice. For the sheer volume of animals that a lot of shelters process, it becomes more of a streamlined process where you go in with bounce flash and get what you get. That's not to say the photos are bad -- they're just not perfect. If resources allowed for a semipermanent studio to be set up at the shelter, that would be awesome. The problem is that the resources don't exist, and you have to make do and get through the queue of new pets needing homes. dakana fucked around with this message at 19:30 on Jan 24, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2011 19:26
|
|
|
Just a warning: these links contain images of two kids getting hit by a car. They lived and everything, but it's kind of distressing. This is kind of hosed up. This photo in the Boston Globe Year in Photos: http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2010/12/2010_in_photos_part_3_of_3.html#photo20 is captioned: An Israeli motorist runs down a masked Palestinian youth who was standing among a group of youngsters throwing stones at Israeli cars on October 8, 2010 in the mostly Arab east Jerusalem neighborhood of Silwan. (ILIA YEFIMOVICH/AFP/Getty Images) This is kind of bullshit. If you watch the video of this incident: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yvwDt8C4LVU it's pretty clear to see that the motorist was trying to get out of there, and starts driving away, initially swerving out of the way of the people throwing rocks at the car. It swerves back when it's about to hit the curb, and that's when it hits the kids, who are running directly at the car. As a photojournalist, the caption "runs down a masked Palestinian youth who was standing among a group of youngsters" is straight-up lying. I'm not making any statements about the Palestinian - Israeli conflict, but to say a car is running down someone who was "standing among a group" is simply not stating the truth. Maybe the photographer was in shock when they wrote the caption; I know I'd be pretty messed up after witnessing that. But this caption clearly makes the insinuation that the driver purposely ran down this kid, and that kind of statement can't be made in this situation. It's violating journalistic ethics.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2011 01:28
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 17, 2024 02:58 |
|
|
Did anyone else see the guy at the super bowl with a huge telephoto (minimum 400 2.8, maybe bigger) on a monopod slung on his shoulder, taking photos of postgame with a pink point-and-shoot?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2011 07:43
|
|