|
I upload at 100% because for the most part, I don't think the work I do is actually worth stealing to anyone, and second because, as a gear oriented person and occasional pixel peeper, I think it's interesting to see how things look at 100%. I got pissed that a few people took my Clouds & Moon shot and used it for their own purposes, (one even using it for an album cover), but for the most part no one would even want to steal what I post. The optimal resolution IMO is somewhere around 1200-1400px though.
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2011 01:26
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 14:58 |
|
|
DJCobol posted:Got a weekend to kill in NYC coming up, and I plan on going to B&H on Friday. They close early on Fridays, be sure you get there early enough. Also, make sure you go upstairs as some people forget to do this for some reason, and miss out on the best part. Also... really, don't buy anything there. NYC sales tax is horrendous. Cross_ posted:There's a 50% chance it's a Jewish holiday and they'll be closed. Not this Friday. Their hours.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2011 02:05
|
|
|
DJCobol posted:My flight gets into Newark pretty early, so I'll be there in the morning. Whats upstairs? The only I planned on purchasing while I'm there is a backpack. I need to make sure I get something big enough to hold all my crap (laptop and accessories, camera and lenses, ipad, cables and other crap, etc.) and want to see a bunch of different bags in person rather than buying sight unseen online. The entirety of the camera department if I recall. Downstairs they have lights and telescopes, and a bunch of other stuff I don't remember. Check out their bags but wait until you get home to buy it online, unless you don't mind paying the extra tax.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2011 05:03
|
|
|
Star War Sex Parrot posted:There's some nice wildlife gear-porn in this clip about a bald eagle that's been spending time in Orange County: She hand-holds her (500mm?) lens in the beginning (impressive!) but then rests the camera flat against her body to peer down at the LCD without giving any support to the lens. That puts a lot of pressure on the lens mount. Very bad technique. William T. Hornaday posted:For some reason, I find the guy at the beginning hilarious. Yeah, that was pretty funny.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2011 04:50
|
|
|
Went to the National Wildlife Refuge briefly today to take some pictures just after it rained. I got on the boardwalk to start walking through, and I took off the lens cap to my Hasselblad and dropped it by mistake and it went straight into the water below. D'oh! $12 down the drain.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2011 01:31
|
|
|
Yeah, I buy the brand caps and accessories in EX condition even though the knock-offs are just the same. I think it's some OCD thing because it logically makes no difference.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2011 05:15
|
|
|
spog posted:Well, I thought it was interesting to see what the official Whitehouse photog used. Sorry that you disagree. They are 5DII whores with L lenses. Nice, subtle Canon promotions there. spog posted:No. Is it on youtube or somewhere for non-americans? Pete Souza is the head photographer. He's a pretty cool guy from the interviews I have seen. The documentary is here. I believe they shoot in JPEG because it's faster (they don't have time to post process). And legally, they are not allowed to delete any images taken. xzzy posted:I like how they blurred the printout sitting on her laptop. If you look at Hillary Clinton's binder it reads at the top: "TOP SECRET CODEWORD NOFORN" I think. Kind of interesting, I guess.  spog posted:I bet it must be frustrating that 90% of your stuff never gets to be seen by the public Hahahaha Mannequin fucked around with this message at 04:51 on May 4, 2011 |
|
#
¿
May 4, 2011 04:45
|
|
|
Mannequin fucked around with this message at 09:24 on May 26, 2011 |
|
#
¿
May 26, 2011 01:48
|
|
|
It was a beautiful weekend, I found a new way to get into the city cheap, I have a pass to get to the top of Rockfeller Center to get some nice sweeping views of the city, but I just couldn't be arse'd. I know I will regret this. Sigh. Also, there was the Mermaid Parade in Coney Island this weekend but who the hell wants to treck out to Brooklyn from Jersey? drat my laziness!
|
|
#
¿
Jun 20, 2011 04:18
|
|
|
Film Hasselblads are actually not that expensive these days. You can get a really nice setup for under $1,000, which is not bad considering the quality is top of the line.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 23, 2011 02:02
|
|
|
That doesn't sound that great. 1 car = 35 photos? What about the inevitable time you will spend post-processing? 1 car for $10 might take an hour or more of your time. That's a pretty low wage.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 8, 2011 00:30
|
|
|
No one's trying to bring him down. I speak from experience as a low-paid photography grunt. What I can envision happening is the post-processing to get it to look just right... 35 photos is a lot. But hey, maybe it won't be so bad. It's just that $10 per car isn't really that great. He deserves more for his hard work. This job will be about speed. If he can shoot and process the photos extremely quickly it will be worth the $10, otherwise, not so much... despite the fun of it.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 8, 2011 01:08
|
|
|
I had good luck once explaining to a cop what I was doing and my intentions when some guy got angry for me taking his picture on the street. It was taken at a distance, not in his face, and he really was overreacting. It was more or less a shot of the street with him being in it, but not really a close-up street shot or anything. He got very angry and tried to take the camera from me. Then people started gathering around and tried to block me from leaving. It almost got out of control. Thankfully a cop car drove by and the policeman stopped and got out, and I was able to explain I was on a public street and I meant no harm and the cop totally backed me up. Somehow, I think the cops in NYC might be better trained than in other places. Either that, or he could tell the guy giving me a hard time was being totally unreasonable (and actually getting on the verge of violent) so he took my side. I have to say, I hustled out of their pretty quick because I was afraid when the cop left this guy's gang of people would follow me, but I was okay in the end. This happened about 2 years ago.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 25, 2011 00:07
|
|
|
Wrong thread.
Mannequin fucked around with this message at 21:22 on Sep 11, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2011 19:28
|
|
|
I took a picture of this guy the other day: In a heavy accent he commented on my Hasselblad. After I took the photo he asked if I could email him the photo and gave me his business card. Turns out he's a member of parliament in Sweden (where Hasselblads are made). Go figure! Just some guy reading the paper and he's a fairly major politician. Who knew?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2011 04:24
|
|
|
squidflakes posted:I had a fairly prominent (locally anyway) artist approach me at the convention I was shooting last weekend and ask me about the Crown Graphic. Someone got their technologies mixed up and told him I was shooting tintypes, but after a few minutes talking we got that straight. Right away he asked if I could do a portrait of him and his wife. This is the test shot I took with my Nikon just to make sure I was getting the exposure correct. Still waiting on the negative to get developed. Awesome! Vintage cameras can really spark some interesting discussions. That's an awesome photo, too! Can't wait to see the full scan. ... On another note, I was looking at the people who added this photo of mine to their favorites, and one person in particular stood out: http://www.flickr.com/photos/32476442@N03/favorites/with/6289587005/#photo_6289587005 ...creeeeepy. I wonder what form of lung cancer he has.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2011 05:26
|
|
|
BobTheCow posted:I have no idea if the magazine Rangefinder is any good but you can sign up for a free subscription (print or digital or both) here if you'd like: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3415037&pagenumber=17#post397417466 It's not great but it's not quite as bad as Popular Photography.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2011 12:44
|
|
|
Haggins posted:I joined a bunch of meetup.com photography groups awhile back. Though I never go to any meetings, I get emails from them all the time. Some of them are really loving stupid. I got this form letter in my flickr account the other day: quote:Hi William: My response: quote:Unfortunately, crediting me for the photo doesn't pay the bills and I don't work for for free. I would ask $125 for the image and give you full rights. If you can't make that commitment then I would have to ask that you please not use the image.  I never got a response back. I'm sure he found somebody who was like "Sure!!! You can use my image!" Also, I was being pretty generous too. $125 for full rights is not bad at all. But whatever.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2011 12:54
|
|
|
red19fire posted:Can you give us a link to this photo? I grew up near Morristown, and I'm trying to figure out if they're referring to the area by Hennessy's, or the current condo/eyesore thing next to Cluck U. They didn't link specifically to the photo but I'm guessing it's this one: http://www.flickr.com/photos/mannequin-/2896583505/
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2011 23:35
|
|
|
pwn posted:Next time reply with this Ha! That would have been pretty good. I think I was drawing from this guy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mj5IV23g-fE
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2011 17:35
|
|
|
Harlan Ellison is right. Do you think the guy setting up the project is getting paid? What about the contractor? What about the real estate developer? What about the printing company who has to print the fliers and the web developer working on the town website? Everyone is getting paid but there's no budget for a tiny little photo? I think you have to be tough with these people. And if this person or company doesn't buy an image from me in the future because of my candid response on flickr there's a part of me that doesn't particularly care. They're assholes. But I also have faith that I can sell other images or get other jobs, and I don't need them anyway.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2011 08:35
|
|
|
I frequent the Strobist blog less and less these days, but I happened to go there tonight and found a YouTube video he had linked to regarding one of my favorite photographers, Richard Avedon. Well worth the watch while it's still up! Richard Avedeon: Darkness and Light https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OpIZ_S38A_0
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2012 03:14
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:I don't like it Oh great, not again. The last change was drastic and to this day I still have some issues with it. But now I'm at least used to it. Don't change it again! gently caress Mark Spiering. If they do anything, I hope for God's sakes they do something that makes it easier to move pictures into different positions. If they do that I will be happy. But they need to just basically leave it alone in my opinion. It works. Don't break it.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2012 01:36
|
|
|
About a month ago I was in Union Square taking some pictures. Some guy ran up to me and say "Hey, you're that photographer who takes pictures of people. I've seen your work!" At first I was like, "Yeah! That's me!" But then I started to wonder how he knew it was actually me, and not confusing me with someone else. I mean, hell, there are tons of New York photographers. Somehow we ended splitting ways without really clarifying it or talking more, I think because I told him I was busy photographing somebody and and asked him to kindly give us some space. Today, I was coming out of Washington Square Park and I bumped into him again. He was with another man and he said, "that's the guy I've been telling you about!" Anyway, long story short, turns out this other guy is a writer and he's doing a piece on film photograph vs. digital and a lot of the questions that relate to that, like how do I feel about all of these digital shooters and do I dislike them or do I think it's great that so many people are shooting. It was neat. It turned into a real interview. He tape recorded my answers and we had a 20-30 minute discussion. That's never happened to me before. The first guy who said he knew me found out about me because he posted some pictures online somewhere and somebody told him, "no no, you're doing it all wrong, check out this guy's work" and liked my to site. I feel pretty cool about that. Unfortunately, the writers isn't anyone you would know. He's not a major journalist or writer for the Times or anything. I think he just has a popular blog. I didn't get enough information about him to find out. But anyway, they're going to do a piece about this stuff and I don't know if it's going to be just on me or about sort-of photography in general. I feel really cool about it. I mean, I know there's lots of lovely photography out there that gets attention beyond the amount it deserves -- I think we could all basically come to an agreement on that. And some of you feel my work falls right into that category, and that's fine. Some people like the color blue and other people like the color red. The same basic principles apply to artistic works we see with our eyes. Sometimes people will say 'This major historical photographer is banal and bland' and get crap for that, but really we all make judgements about what we like and don't like, and there aren't necessarily rules for that. Anyway, just thought I would share the good news. Once I get the article I was send a link.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2012 03:08
|
|
|
I hope they paid you for this and didn't just give you a photo credit, right? xzzy posted:Not sure which thread to put this in so I'm just gonna try it here. I would imagine if you put the camera inside a standing structure, up against glass or very clean plexi-glass, it wouldn't go anywhere. And it wouldn't get rained on either. You could incorporate lines or just glue a tripod down inside a small shack dedicated to the timelapse and always rip the rubber feet off the tripod and replace them when you were done. They're not expensive. You might also want to glue the ballhead as somebody else suggested, just to be sure nothing shifts, although that would probably render it useless after the fact. In the event something does shift, and hopefully only by a tiny bit, you may just want to consider cropping the images a little. You would then probably have to re-align them manually later on. But slight shifts in timelapse photography is not unforgivable. It happens, it's not usually a big deal unless it happens a lot and is very jarring. But if you crop your images down then you can be sure to leave a margin so that you can shift images slightly, if needed.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2012 01:32
|
|
|
Went to fashion week today in NYC. Got into the city at about 4:00 a.m. to do some night photography, then remembered Fashion Week was starting. So at about 10:00 am I went over to Lincoln Center and found a back entrance and started photographing the models as they came in. They were all eager for pictures because it was a huge event and they figured publicity was good. Not too many other photographers were there but they all admired my old Hasselblad film camera. I saw Victoria Beckham come into Lincoln Center, though she disappeared from her SUV so quickly and into the back entrance that it was impossible to get a shot. Took pictures of lots of models, some of whom are quite well known. But me being me, I don't necessarily know who they were. I met up with a guy who has been doing this for years and flies in from Florida every year for Fashion Week, also travels to Paris and Milan. The models know him by name and sometimes come up to him and suggest getting pictures. I ended up meeting quite a few gorgeous models. It was a lot of fun. I saw Mandy Moore and spoke to her for a little bit, asked for her photo, and she was cool at first and was like "yeah, no problem!" but she was with a small entourage of about 4 or 5 people who shut me down. Bastards. Then I went off to a fashion show at DKNY down on the west side and photographed some more models. It was a lot of fun! Hard work because my feet were killing me at that point, but it was neat seeing people. Victoria Beckham showed up at that one too but as soon as the SUV doors opened she was barraged by paparazzi and other photographers, and fans with cell phones. I couldn't even squeeze through. It was a cool experience though. I then went back up to Lincoln Center where the main Fashion Week was being held and photographed Alexa Chung who is quite a beautiful model and had her own show on TV for a while. Didn't recognize her at first and then when she mentioned her name it clicked in my brain. She was very humble. I think I underexposed the shot (me shooting film) so we'll see how it turns out. Anyway, now that I live so close to NYC I will be doing more events like this and if I get anything good I will post the pictures on flickr (and/or here) at least. Apparently, according to the guy I was shooting with who has been doing this for several years and knows many of the models by name and status had told me I photographed a number of high end models. He threw a name out, Karo. I photographed her and she is apparently pretty high up? I don't know all the model names, and this was the first time I had done something like this, but it was a lot of fun and I got my way in to some of the back doors. I did not get a press pass and did not go into any of the runway shows, which is just as well because the photography would have been very limited. Instead, I was in a section where models were coming in and out of shows, partly in makeup and partly without makeup, ready to be styled. Anyway, I know I'm kind of boasting here but I don't have very many people to share my stories with so I thought you might think it was cool, especially since I spoke candidly with some minor/major celebrities. Mandy Moore's people were a pain, though, otherwise I'm sure she would have given me a shot. Next year I will definitely do it again and see what happens. It's a lot of fun and if any of you are in the New York area during fashion week, come on down! I know how to get in and get access to the models and celebrities. One last downside... I am very, very behind on developing film. I have about 50 rolls of film that need to be developed and scanned, including the 11 rolls I shot today. They are medium format at 6x6, so only 12 shots per roll. But nevertheless that's a lot of pictures... the 11 I took today were for fashion week, the rest are just my standard artsy-fartsy bullcrap that you are not really interested in. Anyway, thought I would share. You guys should come out some time with your cameras and join me! It's a lot of fun! Mannequin fucked around with this message at 23:34 on Sep 10, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Sep 10, 2012 05:07
|
|
|
Santa is strapped posted:Hah, those crazy Chinese kids, hah. This is why film is dying. Not just because of China, of course, but because of the "digital revolution" in America and Europe. So sad.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2012 04:32
|
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:This is actually a really solid fakepost and I'm unironically impressed. Yeah, Kodak is a company full of problems that has made catastrophic mistakes, but the demand for film is way, way down -- not unexpectedly so. I know pro photographers who grew up shooting film and now only shoot digital just for the convenience factor. Demand is down. Fuji and Kodak are both slashing their film offerings. It is indeed very sad if you are a film fanboy. This isn't 1983 anymore. At least when Kodak was loving up in the 80's people were still giving money to them hand over fist for film and development. SoundMonkey posted:There's a drugstore in this town that will totally process your film for you... by which they mean send it out for FOUR TO SIX WEEKS to some central developing place then you get prints back. Why would anyone even do that? Yeah, I use NCPS and there are one or two other good places, who do professional quality work at a reasonable price. Depending on how fast you ship your film to them they take about a week-10 days to develop and scan it and ship it back. Turnaround time is about 2-3 weeks overall for like 10-15 rolls (this includes your time to ship it to them).
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2012 00:24
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:Hey if you want to be lumped into the "scumbag creep perv" category for taking a camera outside, Toronto will probably soon be the place for YOU, judging by how much press this is getting: I don't know, this is one of those gray areas. I felt somewhat creepy taking this shot, but A) I asked permission and B) she totally agreed and thought it would be cool. It looks a little whorish to me and not totally my style. It has like 90 favorites or some ridiculous number because of all the pervs. Yes, she's an attractive woman, (it bugs me that her sunglasses are not pushed all the way up), but she looks a little sloppy. I don't know. I mean, if you can see something with your eyes someone can be taking a picture of it. I don't condone certain types of photography from an ethical point of view. I don't photograph the homeless or down-and-outs, (except for one shot from about 3 years ago and one recently, with permission, because I thought it could make a beautiful photograph), and I would never take a picture up a woman's skirt. That's just below my ethical standards and I would think below most of the people posting here, too. Ever get off a subway and walk up a platform? Sometimes you catch the underside of a woman's skirt and it's not even necessarily intentional. I'm sure other women see this when they are behind other women. But yeah, that is creepy stuff, but at the same time what was being posted on Reddit was legal. And I support the legal measure that if you are out in public you should have no expectation of privacy. So it sucks and it's unfair to women, and it makes men as a whole look even worse as a populace, but there have been creepy individuals since the dawn of time and there will be creepy individuals for the rest of time. I guess self-awareness is becoming even more paramount these days.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2012 00:35
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:This is true, but film demand has largely hit its floor for the same reasons. It will decline over time but it's not going to be crashing like during the switch to digital. An absurd amount of the film market is now cinematographers who think nothing of blowing through a couple hundred meters of film or disposable cameras (which are still the go-to in many parts of the world). Neither of those markets will switch immediately, cinematographers who still shoot film are doing it for the dynamic range or uprezzing capabilities and it's not possible to make a $5 digital camera that doesn't suck. I would imagine the cinematographers who are pioneering film are all mostly of the older generation and will be retiring and/or dying off as time goes by. Students might shoot with film. I see the students from the NY Film Academy using old film cameras for their cinematography in the parks, but I believe the younger generation will scrap it once they get their hands on modern equipment if and when the opportunity presents itself. Then again, you never know. I hope they don't.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 18, 2012 04:22
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 14:58 |
|
|
casa de mi padre posted:It looks like someone saw tumblr getting more and more popular. This has done it for me. The site is hardly useable. It also seems much slower, but obviously it's because people are constantly downloading thumbnails and large images as they scroll through people's streams. It's sort-of become unusable to me. So... yeah. Forget that. I'm glad I built my own site. I'll dump stuff on flickr every now and then but at this point I don't particularly care about flickr. woot fatigue posted:Besides, now you can have full-res, full-screen of all of your favorite foot fetish and forced-feminization groups. Yeah, one other downside is that people who want to limit the size of the images they display on their stream to non-contacts, well, now it's much easier to get full resolution on a big screen by clicking on the magnifying glass on a picture, and entering full screen mode. Paragon8 posted:The more people know about ad block the harder people will try to stop it It's like piracy though, it can never be fully stopped. The cat came out of the bag on ad blocking years ago. CarrotFlowers posted:I actually really like it. Old flickr was pretty boring and my contact's new stuff was shoved in tiny thumbnails at the bottom. Now they're big and in my face and I actually get to see what they're uploading without having to individually click. I think it's a big step forward. This is something I think is bad. I tend not to open up images if they are already at a nice size. So the homepage, which lists activity from my contacts, leaves me in a position where I click less to view their streams, because there's no need. The images are right there in front of my face. I think the whole thing sucks! 
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2013 13:16
|
|