|
Yeah, the show is pretty terrible and after watching the episode I sort-of regretted posting it here. It seems like it's more of a drama between the photographer and his model-partner vs. a show about photography. They were in big financial problems according to the magazine article I read last year.
|
#
¿
Jul 18, 2010 23:00
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 13:24 |
|
|
a foolish pianist posted:Can you get a split prism screen for DSLRs? Yes you can, they're expensive. Here's a good write-up on dpreview: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=31502753. I almost bought one from Brightscreen several months back but decided to use the money for something else.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 21, 2010 05:04
|
|
|
So I was sitting here watching a documentary about psychopaths... found the link from reddit... and all of a sudden I see one of my photos flash by the screen. Photo in question  It's cool though. I forgot I had uploaded this originally with a creative commons license, and anyone could use it as long as I was credited. And they even credited me in the end so it's all legit, but it was really weird seeing this when I was not expecting it!
|
|
#
¿
Jul 24, 2010 06:28
|
|
|
Time-lapse of a guy walking across America. Pretty awesome: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lzRKEv6cHuk Here's something similar I found as well. It's a couple of years old but it was new to me: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3A-unBigvoY
|
|
#
¿
Jul 25, 2010 02:43
|
|
|
Beer Coaster posted:FWIGTEW and Other First Wedding Acronyms Yeah but it's offset by the number of cool lenses you get to shoot with pro-bono, almost any time you want. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_euUMN-V1s
|
|
#
¿
Jul 26, 2010 04:45
|
|
|
You can also hit F to change the screen mode and you can crop outside of the canvas.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 29, 2010 04:43
|
|
|
DJExile posted:The eyyesss... THE EYEEEEESSS Macro lens, f/16, strobe, 50% crop. It would be painful, though, you'd have to endure the flash. Edit: AIIAZNSK8ER posted:Does anyone have recomendations for good documentaries on photography? I liked The Impassioned Eye, on Henri Cartier Bresson. Mannequin fucked around with this message at 03:36 on Aug 9, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2010 03:23
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:This is definitely part of what I remember. I'm completely stitching (no pun intended) two memories together in my mind. Thanks for this! I think you're confusing two things. There was the link that Beastruction posted, but then I, too, remember someone taking multiple photos in NYC and stitching them together (almost haphazardly, if I remember, one on top of the other). It was not to create a DOF effect but, I think, just to create interesting photos. (Were they time lapse?) Now I really want to find this, too! drat. BeastOfExmoor posted:BBC has a six part documentary that's not bad. I found it online somewhere, but I'm not sure if Netflix, etc. has it. It's a pretty broad overview of the history of photography. I just have to say this is incredibly awesome. I am enjoying this thoroughly. I am in the middle of it right now and I've had to pause it several times over the last few days to take pictures because it is so motivational. I recommend everyone watch this. You can find it online if you know how to look.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2010 22:31
|
|
|
Well, he could have been credited, just like the web designer could have been credited.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 20, 2010 12:18
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3343073&userid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=1 ahahahaha, oh god this is terrible. We really don't want people like this representing photographers.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 29, 2010 04:46
|
|
|
Well that's interesting. Nikon has begun selling their own stuff. That's going to piss off their distributors. http://shop.nikonusa.com/
|
|
#
¿
Sep 5, 2010 16:32
|
|
|
If Nikon competes directly with its retailers/distributors they won't want to carry Nikon products. This is not a good thing.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 5, 2010 17:32
|
|
|
Okay. Maybe it will just end up pissing off high-end dealers (like Ritz), since they seem to be at about the same price point. Edit: The other thing I was thinking of was small camera stores because they can't buy in huge volumes like B&H. But I guess they faced that problem anyway.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 5, 2010 17:59
|
|
|
ZoCrowes posted:On a D3s with a 50mm f/1.8 the depth of field range is between 5.77ft and 6.25ft (0.47 feet total) if the subject is 6 feet away from the shooter. On a D90 with the same lens and distance the focal range is between 5.85 ft and 6.16 ft (0.32 feet.) That's not really that big of a difference in DOF. I'm not trying to be a dick or anything I'm just pointing out the fact that it's pretty hard to tell just from an image what kind of camera they were shot with especially after post processing. It's like people who claim they can tell if an image came from a Nikon or Canon. It's gear fetishization. Yeah, but doesn't the size of the sensor influence perception? Physical amount of depth might be very close, but the perceived amount of depth is smaller on a full frame (at widest apertures) because of the larger image size. It's the same reason shooting in medium or large format gives you less perceived depth than 35mm, even if you're shooting its equivalent. Example: 50mm f/1.4 on a 35mm camera vs. 100mm f/2.8 on a medium format. They are the equivalent to one another, but the larger format will show to have less depth of field at widest aperture because of the larger image size. That's at least how I understand it, someone will no doubt correct me if I'm wrong.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 9, 2010 04:42
|
|
|
You have to wonder, does anyone actually aspire to do what these photographers do? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uoXi0sUMBvE I mean, even if it paid well would you really want to harass people this much? They're all such dicks!
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2010 04:40
|
|
|
I'm still waiting for the Will it Blend guy to blend one of his own blenders.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 22, 2010 05:50
|
|
|
Ringo R posted:I know this belongs in the flickr thread but don't want to bump it. Anyway, one day I got 900-something views. I thought some old pic must've made explore or something but on the stats page the top pics only had like 5 or 4 views. After some more research I found out that some crazy guy has been looking through almost every single one of my pics! Like, probably 800 or so. Wow. Could have been a bot. There are some known flickr comment spammers, like Roberto Carboni and a few others. They have bots that go out and post comments on thousands of pictures a day in the hopes that people will go to their flickr pages and leave comments on their own terrible photos. (Because seriously, who would give a picture like this 184 comments and 4 notes?) Here's a group dedicated to them: http://www.flickr.com/groups/rcarboni/ Edit: McMadCow posted:Here's the thief, Dana Dawes giving an interview to "clear up any misunderstandings". Wow, that's pretty bad. How could she not notice having so many stolen photos on her own site? Mannequin fucked around with this message at 00:18 on Sep 23, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Sep 22, 2010 23:47
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4_ogz10kH8 Wow! Looks cool.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2010 00:57
|
|
|
I really want an F6. Bad. I don't want to buy it used, I want it new, but I am nowhere even remotely close to being able to afford it. I am also petrified they are going to discontinue it soon. I think I'm going to have to get a second job or just a better first job... the problem is I don't really have any marketable skills anymore besides photography, but I can't pursue that because I don't have the balls. I wish I didn't like camera stuff so much. Why couldn't I have liked baseball or basketball? You just pick up the ball and play, you don't need $2,300 cameras. 
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2010 21:33
|
|
|
Interrupting Moss posted:It's not worth it. At all. It has matrix metering and i-TTL on a film body, and that's the only thing that sets it apart. If you have a particular film that you love shooting and think it could benefit from those features, it's the body for you. It's overpriced but it's got some good features. It takes every lens ever made by Nikon, including pre-AI lenses. The only ones it won't take are the older invasive fisheyes, or the rangefinder lenses made for the SP/S2/S3. The main downside to the camera from my perspective is that its Aperture Priority setting maxes out at 32s (vs. 15 minutes like some of the older film cameras - a useful feature for exposing correctly/automatically at night). It's also incredibly tough and durable, like the D3, but not completely over-sized. Max shutter speed is 1/8,000. If you look around you won't find this combination of features from any other film camera from Nikon. pwn posted:I don't get you on this. Not buying a used F6, returning that one Nikkor because of a cosmetic ding, is this compulsion explainable? Lord knows I have esoteric hobbies, but SNL DVDs are like $20 each, $40 tops for the rarest stuff. Used F6's, unless in really poor condition, are still horribly expensive. Factor in that I don't trust bodies from KEH due to the US/Gray Market thing, it's worth buying new to me. Otherwise, I would probably get it used if I knew it was legit and in good shape. The 50mm lens was not really a bargain in its condition, so I had to return it.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 19, 2010 04:44
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:*remembers on the train ride home that his D200 incorrectly meters +2/3EV with his Sigma 30 1.4 and green button reset the custom -0.7EV adjustment* This is the reason why the green resets on Nikons are almost never a good idea. Just change what you want to change manually, it's not that hard. Edit: spog posted:Why the hell does it do that? It's trying to be helpful. Ken Rockwell explains: Ken Rockwell posted:I reset everything every time I use my camera, much as a pilot uses a checklist before flight to prevent any switches from being in the wrong position. When I don't check first, I often have left my D200 in some screwy mode from shooting in the dark the night before. Except he's stupid because it obviously affects settings, including IQ options (it resets RAW back to JPEG and ISO back to Auto ISO), and it messes with custom functions. Long story short, Ken Rockwell should be avoided. Mannequin fucked around with this message at 06:35 on Nov 28, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2010 06:20
|
|
|
brad industry posted:Also what poop said about professors is 100% true. I always took people who were known for being "assholes" (which meant they didn't bother with the people putting in no effort and were totally honest with the people who were). It's not like learning math, what you need to hear in an art class is exactly why you and/or your work sucks in the most direct way possible without any bullshit. Especially in photography where editing plays such a large role. Don't you think there's a disservice in not being constructive, though? Telling someone they have no hope of making it in the industry and they should get out now is one thing and may be completely necessary at times, but telling someone their work is flawed during a critiquing session without explaining why just seems like a disservice. More than that, I think it damages. I'm not mincing my words, I think tough criticism is sometimes the best, even if it's a little over the edge. But those kids seem impressionable and obviously they are vulnerable in a situation like that. I would think his harsh criticism could have been met with solid backing, if for no other reason than to humor them. It is like a math class.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2010 00:59
|
|
|
RangerScum posted:
I wonder if she was trying to focus this manually and totally botched it. Or maybe she just applied gaussian blur to the whole thing for some reason. Mannequin fucked around with this message at 01:08 on Dec 3, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2010 01:06
|
|
|
Twenties Superstar posted:In math class a cross photoshopped on the white house would pass because the assignment is images that depict culture and an image of the white house with a cross certainly depicts a view of American culture. For the two to be comparable you'd have to say the challenge was to depict culture in a meaningful way, otherwise there would be no way for the two to arrive at the same conclusion. But I wasn't comparing art to math, I was comparing the professor's teaching methods to teaching methods you would find in a math class. A good math teacher will explain why a student solved a problem incorrectly, showing examples of what he could have done differently to get it right. I think the same could have been done with the professor in the video. It's no good if you just say "you did it wrong" or "it sucks" without providing substantial backing to your statement if you have any hope of the student actually learning anything. In that sense, teaching art is (or should be) like teaching math. I am essentially responding to the professor's quick one-liners - "this is boring" or "this sucks", etc. I think he did an okay job getting his point across about why the restaurant shots were a failure, but overall he did a crappy job explaining himself. brad industry posted:If the work is thoughtless you can't give it a thoughtful critique. You can say it's thoughtless and that's a thoughtful critique, or at least the beginning of one. You might follow it up by saying "here's something that's not thoughtless" and show them side by side. You don't need to spend a lot of time on it, as long as the point is made. Mannequin fucked around with this message at 04:35 on Dec 4, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2010 04:29
|
|
|
Twenties Superstar posted:The method is NECESSARILY different because in art there is nothing to solve incorrectly!! Yes, there can be! Twenties Superstar posted:When someone hands in an improperly solved question in math you can tell them exactly how to make it right and show them where they went wrong. In art class when you hand in an assignment and the idea is bad it's not because you took a wrong turn with your figures. The two aren't exactly equatable so in art we're not talking about numbers. But we can take wrong turns in art. If a photo I take is boring because the concept is unoriginal, (like you see with the Model Mayhem photographers), this is a problem that can potentially be "solved". I can change my behavior. I can learn that I was stuck trying to be technically proficient instead of focusing on the concept. I can see what other portrait photographers have done that made their photos interesting. In time I can change and create better work, so in this sense it is like finding a solution to a problem. Twenties Superstar posted:The prof can't just come in and straighten out your error because the error is endemic in the way you think As I said before, people who have no hope of achieving any form of success because they lack the talent/the vision/whatever, should probably be told sooner than later to get out. But someone who is eager to learn might actually learn something eventually with the right guidance. Twenties Superstar posted:If the student is someone who honestly thinks that a cross on the white house is a valuable piece of art and aren't just lazy then there is probably nothing a prof can do for them beyond saying "this is obvious and stupid". If someone is interested in improving they would benefit from knowing why it's obvious and stupid.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2010 08:05
|
|
|
AIIAZNSK8ER posted:I wish there was camera that could take soul portraits http://iasos.com/artists/erial/celestial-soul-portraits/ I would do that for a laugh if it didn't cost $150 for an 8x10!
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2011 00:55
|
|
|
"The only person who thinks this photo is about Jack Nicholson is Jack Nicholson." -Stanley Kubrick Ha!
|
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2011 05:52
|
|
|
psylent posted:I That's pretty good considering it's in my Amazon shopping cart at the moment and I was going to buy it any day now. However, I hate reading books on the computer. Nevertheless, that's a pretty good deal right there.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2011 07:08
|
|
'd Hot Shoe Diaries and it looks like it's actually online
|
brad industry posted:I just set up a mirrored RAID for everything and now I can finally sleep at night. I wish I knew how to do this. Is it fairly simple? I still have not come up with a proper backup solution after getting my recovered data back.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2011 06:19
|
|
|
Hmm. Just spent the last 2 hours e-stalking a girl I had a crush on in high school. Always wondered what happened to her. Turns out she went off to art school, became a professional photographer, and is now very, very successful and quite talented. She's also married.  
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2011 07:07
|
|
|
beeker posted:Interesting thing going around about Gap using a modified version of a CC licensed photo from Flickr without permission on t-shirts http://www.flickr.com/photos/cdevers/5402217217/ Smells like an out of court settlement.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2011 00:48
|
|
|
mr. mephistopheles posted:I am inclined to agree. A generic image of a mass produced vehicle? Who gives a poo poo. No one, except it happens to be a photo he took. It's his. And Gap stole it. Obviously, there are issues with that regardless of how ordinary the photo looks.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2011 04:42
|
|
|
mr. mephistopheles posted:"Stole" implies motive. You have no evidence of this. My evidence is the t-shirt itself. You can't just say that looks like any generic E-type Jag. It's the same photo. They used it without permission. That's called theft. Now whether or not they can get away with it legally because of 'artistic interpretation' or whatever, I don't know. But it doesn't make it right. mr. mephistopheles posted:Speaking in hypotheticals on an Internet forum is completely meaningless, but I honestly would not care. I'd probably post "holy poo poo gap used my photo for a shirt" on my facebook and buy one and wear it for a while and then not care. I seriously doubt that.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2011 06:22
|
|
|
The President's Photographer (PBS), as narrated by Morgan Freeman. This program follows Pete Souza, the photographer for the Obama Administration. It's fun to watch and shows some interesting behind-the-scenes. He also takes some very nice pictures.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2011 06:47
|
|
|
Amazon user review for the Nikon F6:quote:Will not work with Digital Media, Camera will not work with CompactFlash or other digital media. You must buy a cartridge of tape, which allows for just 24 shots. No LCD screen with image playback. Very disappointed and returned. 
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2011 05:48
|
|
|
mr. mephistopheles posted:There's no way the photographer who took that photo knew those things that you know. Why would the photographer have to know those things for them to be true?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2011 07:14
|
|
|
Oh crap:quote:Nikon shuts down Japan quake DSLR factory: Canon update 4.00pm That sucks for both Canon and Nikon. I wonder what that's going to do to any upcoming releases. It was predicted that Nikon was going to unveil some new stuff this year, like a D3/D3S replacement. Mannequin fucked around with this message at 03:18 on Mar 16, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2011 03:14
|
|
|
InternetJunky posted:I just found a local guy selling a Canon 200mm/f1.8 for $2000, but when I contacted him he said he just sold it a few minutes before. I've always been a fan of this guy's shots with that lens. Looks like a pretty sweet lens if you can find it, let alone afford it. Rated PG-34 posted:http://www.gizmag.com/permanent-anti-fog-coating-developed/18163/ Wow, that would be nice. As a wearer of glasses there's nothing more annoying than walking around outside for a while and then stepping into a cafe for a cup of coffee and having them completely fog up. 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2011 20:35
|
|
|
HPL posted:I guess if you really, really wanted that look and were willing to put in some extra work, you could get a medium format camera like a Mamiya 645 and a 150mm f/2.8 for a fraction of the price. I think you would need a 300mm to keep the focal lengths equivalent in order to get the same compression, but yeah, MF would probably be an easier solution. spf3million posted:What's so good about those? It looks like about 50% are just pics of his hot gf standing around in different places. I guess I should have specified. Most of those pictures are lame and unimpressive but two or three stand out as being quite nice. The purpose of linking to them was to show what kind of shots you could get with that particular lens considering it's very rare and you don't see many photos taken with it, not because he's some great photographer (although I do think he's taken some good shots over the years). Reichstag posted:Nothing. You're so dramatic. brad industry posted:Clearly you have to be bitter to not appreciate the subtle genius of Flickr user mister bokeh. The one thing you have to keep in mind about this guy is that, as embarrassingly stupid as it is to have a name that incorporates the word 'bokeh', he started using it waaaay before it became what it is today. And now it's just sort of attached to him so he uses it. But if you forget about all that and actually look at his pictures, he does occasionally do good work.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2011 04:07
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 13:24 |
|
|
As I understand it, and I could be wrong, compression and shallow depth are not necessarily opposites. You could compress a scene thing with a long focal length but still get plenty of background separation with shallow depth of field.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2011 04:31
|
|