|
Radbot posted:Good lord. I would have gladly made that business deal with Leibovitz if I had the money to loan. It's hard to argue with making a loan whose collateral is worth far more than the loan itself. For something like that? They shot a bunch of different options they didn't show, that's some relatively detail oriented photoshop work, etc etc. For a cover shot like that they are going to spend a ton of time making sure that it's perfect.
|
# ¿ Aug 19, 2009 05:25 |
|
|
# ¿ Apr 27, 2024 16:56 |
|
...
TsarAleksi fucked around with this message at 21:43 on Apr 20, 2019 |
# ¿ Aug 19, 2009 07:15 |
|
torgeaux posted:Put this up in the General thread a while ago, but loved it too much to let it go away: That's really interesting, he makes some really good points. Shame that they don't consider it ok to run bodies any more
|
# ¿ Sep 2, 2009 02:02 |
|
If you just use some really soft leather gloves you should be able to use your camera fine. It's how I shoot late fall football and what I did when I was in China in the winter.
|
# ¿ Sep 13, 2009 02:27 |
|
brad industry posted:Even if they're not making a profit, you are still entitled to some kind of compensation. You can use it for your portfolio
|
# ¿ Dec 17, 2009 02:51 |
|
pwn posted:When he whines about how the boom operator gets paid, he glosses over that they don't get paid every time someone buys the DVD. They do the work once and get paid once. It's pretty hilarious how people in the arts think one instance of their work should be paid for over and over and over again into perpetuity. Yes, yes you are, unless you grant someone an unlimited license, in which case they are paying more in order to not have to pay each time (this is what you are doing with you camera, in a sense, especially when you pay more for a unit designed to be used by working professionals. But that's a stupid comparison because service/creative work and manufacturing of objects are totally different and unrelated markets). But the way that the creative market works is that you get paid with consideration to how much money the client is going to make from your work. If it's worth a lot to them, then they should pay you an amount that reflects this importance.
|
# ¿ Dec 17, 2009 03:22 |
|
It's no different than all the shooters standing in one spot at a football game-- people just aren't really creative enough to find their own images.
|
# ¿ Feb 5, 2010 17:08 |
|
Interrupting Moss posted:Except it's difficult to portray sideline shooters as exploiting their subjects. Naturally, but it could be termed exploitative if there were 1 or 100 shooters.
|
# ¿ Feb 5, 2010 17:40 |
|
evil_bunnY posted:
No, the point is that more photographers doesn't make it more exploitative. It's just as exploitative with 1 or 100 or 1000. Those images of shooters packed around make the point more poignant without a doubt but it doesn't really seem to me that it's the number that is driving the exploitative nature.
|
# ¿ Feb 10, 2010 23:48 |
|
Mannequin posted:This looks photoshopped to me, specifically as though he used the radial blur filter: Just looks like panning to me... Panning into a turn can do some odd stuff.
|
# ¿ Feb 18, 2010 20:10 |
|
torgeaux posted:You should have then quoted this bit: Seems like he was willing to "adjust lighting" in film, but not digital. [/quote] My guess is, then, that he's talking about substantial manipulation, then, rather than global adjustments/dodge & burning.
|
# ¿ Feb 25, 2010 19:20 |
|
torgeaux posted:My guess is, then, that he's talking about substantial manipulation, then, rather than global adjustments/dodge & burning. You can get to a reasonable place, but you really do have to ignore what he actually says, including his conclusion that if you manipulate lighting you can't call it art. If he had said, you can't call it a photo, or "it's not reporting" or "it's not accurate" but "it's not art?" [/quote] Yeah it seems like he's maybe gone a bit overboard with it-- and was probably choosing words very poorly.
|
# ¿ Feb 25, 2010 19:40 |
|
The only question that I would have about buying an older MF back is that you're going to take a real hit in usability/speed in terms of the processor, etc-- when I interned at a studio that was often the major factor that kept the MF gear shelved for the DSLR. Obviously if you've got experience with it (which I'm assuming) and it's not a problem, then it's not a problem. But still something to think about.
|
# ¿ Mar 11, 2010 22:15 |
|
AIIAZNSK8ER posted:Are you saying that older MF backs take longer to process a DSLR so you can't take shoot in a continuous mode? The point being that while the image quality out of an older MF back is still current, the software and computer hardware is outdated from a usability standpoint, which could be frustrating. But like I said, I'm going to assume that it's not really an issue for Brad given that he handles this gear regularly.
|
# ¿ Mar 11, 2010 22:22 |
|
If you are just someone who likes to go cool places, and likes to take pictures, then it would probably be a lot of fun. I'd imagine most of the folks on these trips are not going to make earth-shattering images.
|
# ¿ Apr 1, 2010 04:43 |
|
torgeaux posted:Yeah, but why not just go with some photography friends? I see what you're saying, and I see the appeal, but I think I'd be irritated out of my mind by hour 2. Now, I've never been on one of these trips, but I have a strong feeling that many of them are made up of people (men) whose wives have similar sentiments and therefore they have no one to go on a trip with.
|
# ¿ Apr 1, 2010 13:56 |
|
Radbot posted:Has anyone read that new-ish Ken Rockwell article about the research of photography hobbyists being due to the easy availability of internet porn? Really kinda turned me off the guy. I knew he was always a bit off his rocker, but that one takes the cake. Uh... if you read the article that's not even remotely what he's talking about. That's actually a pretty reasonable article for Ken-- he makes a good if somewhat obvious point: that we get too caught up with the tools to actually get out and use them to make good pictures.
|
# ¿ Apr 5, 2010 18:00 |
|
squidflakes posted:I wonder if invoking Ansel Adams is the photography community's version of Godwin's law. I saw a poster with the following: "ansel had a 12th zone that he kept secret just for himself"
|
# ¿ Apr 5, 2010 21:07 |
|
orange lime posted:Yes. Seriously, watch the video. Realize that the footage of a dozen happy civilians walking and joking in the street before being shredded by anti-tank cannon fire, after several minutes of observation and debate by the helicopter crew and their commanders, is completely real. Man good to know that you know so much about the situation that you can freely comment and judge everyone involved.
|
# ¿ Apr 6, 2010 05:36 |
|
HPL posted:I think that's the heart of it. If they were like: "OH poo poo gently caress gently caress gently caress" then that would be one thing that could be interpreted as a panic response but it sounds like they were fairly deliberate about what they were doing. Right, but the way I interpreted it, they never thought that they were deliberately killing civilians. Unless you're some kind of LF conspiracy nut who thinks they were lying to get permission to fire, the chatter makes them really unsympathetic in human terms but it says nothing in terms of their intention to kill innocents.
|
# ¿ Apr 6, 2010 15:50 |
|
tuyop posted:I never got why he didn't just camp out like 800 meters away in a nice big hide with a long lens and get the shot that way. Because the image you can make with a short lens is radically different. There are endless images of wildlife shot from far away, very few shot up close.
|
# ¿ Apr 20, 2010 22:49 |
|
Augmented Dickey posted:Can someone explain to me how exactly fixed aperture zoom lenses work? It boggles the mind. I'm not an optics expert but I've been given to understand that on a lens that is fixed aperture numerically, the opening shifts as you zoom. If you look down, say, a 70-200 as it zooms, you can see that the diaphragm shifts. But I could be off on this, so do your own research.
|
# ¿ Apr 26, 2010 05:20 |
|
RangerScum posted:I'm just saying you of all people might want to call it the right thing since a lot of your B&W landscapes are HDR. You remind me of the blind black KKK leader from the Chapelle Show. Everyone but you knows what we're talking about when we talk about 'HDR' because if you have to call it out as a recognizable technique, then it looks like poo poo. It's stupid bordering on asinine to demand that every image where something has been done to increase the dynamic range beyond what can fit in the print/display medium/whatever.
|
# ¿ Apr 30, 2010 21:56 |
|
Paragon8 posted:Don't get me wrong I didn't mean to sound like I was defending him. It must be an awful feeling seeing the people you spent a huge amount of time and effort producing a photojournalism story on in somebody else's portfolio. It's definitely different than someone taking a picture of the eiffel tower in the same way as you, or some other easily accessible concept. I'm not sure how to read the situation-- people duplicate each others stuff all the time in photography, though obviously not on the scale of copying a project entirely. But, as any anthropologist will tell you, we (as in, the West) don't exactly have ownership of this or that far away tribe. Just because one guy photographed them doesn't mean they are off-limits to any one else. So in conclusion, I think the second guy fell down more in the duping of shots than he did in going and taking pictures of these people. If he could have turned out his own unique images of the people, then it would have been no harm, no foul. OR there is some alternative answer where these people are so used to be photographed (this happens more often than you'd think) that they guided BOTH photographers around to prearranged shots. I don't know nearly enough about the situation to say that there is any truth to that.
|
# ¿ May 6, 2010 14:31 |
|
I also should have noted that the overall concept: "go to a small village, shoot pictures of the OTHER and then bring them back to the safety of civilization to show off" is not exactly one over which Joey can can claim ownership. Mentawai.org (which seems to be a repository of ethnographic data on the people living in the Mentawai Islands) notes anthropologists posted:The rapid expansion of surf tourism in the Mentawai Islands in the period 1995-2009 has subjected them to world scrutiny to a degree probably unmatched in their history. In this we are possibly seeing the beginning of a new chapter in the relationship between the region's residents and the rest of the world. These people are pros at getting photographed. Not much different than UNIQUE photos of the women with rings 'round their necks in Nepal. I think Joey should probably relax. vvv Anthropology majors represent: I'm graduating with a cultural anth degree in like 2 weeks vvv TsarAleksi fucked around with this message at 15:01 on May 6, 2010 |
# ¿ May 6, 2010 14:34 |
|
The other thing that bothered me a lot about this particular series is the way that he uses the group name to title his photos. "The Mentawai" strongly implies that these photos summarize the people in a way they most certainly do not.
|
# ¿ May 6, 2010 15:08 |
|
There's nothing *wrong* with what he's doing. The point is that freaking out because someone replicated a lot of the poses ignores the fact that these are probably poses with which these folks are very familiar. My other comments are just critique of this kind of work, more from an academic than artistic standpoint. I think some of Joey' s other travel work is really interesting: "Holy Men" is a really cool series, particularly in the way that it compares and contrasts people of a variety of cultures. But that doesn't make *everything* he does creative and unique.
|
# ¿ May 6, 2010 15:29 |
|
I don't think he's saying that he could make shots that are equal to or identical to Lawrence's shots (I don't know the guy, I'm not going to call him by his first name. Seems weird.) What he's saying is that if he or anyone else went to this village, it makes sense that they're going to take photos that could be seen as an attempt at copying, because there just ain't that much to shoot. I also don't think that these are the strongest images in Lawrence's portfolio by a long shot. The lighting is, to me, incongruous with the setting, whereas it feels seamless in the some of the other sets. That said, if Verges really did set out to mimic the work he had seen, that's a raw deal. It is interesting though, because if you take a look at this guy's site, he has some really nice work that is very different from the Mentawali images. But then again, even Lawrence acknowledges that it was not *his* purely original idea-- he got the idea to photograph these people because he read about them and looked at the images the anthropologist had taken. Presumably, he thought that these were really interesting people, and that he could make images that were far more interesting than the anthropologist had taken (which seems a safe bet, most anthropological photography leaves something to be desired). Everything is shades of gray after all. edit: I'm not sure I buy the idea that this guy really dilutes Lawrence's portfolio. The work is clearly not as good, and this guy is not working in even remotely the same circles. Yes, he spent a great deal of time and money on getting his photos, but effort put in isn't what makes a portfolio, it's the quality of the images presented. Verges is a travel photographer, not a commercial shooter. It seems unlikely to the extreme that his dupe shots will cost anyone any work. TsarAleksi fucked around with this message at 18:12 on May 6, 2010 |
# ¿ May 6, 2010 18:08 |
|
The thing is that well-taken photographs of people in tribal regions that are extraordinarily difficult to get to and require weeks or months of work to get are not something that only one person has taken. Hell, there's an entire magazine dedicated to it that has been in print since the 1930s.
|
# ¿ May 6, 2010 18:23 |
|
ZoCrowes posted:Has some kind of yellow border or something... Nothing in anthro for the time being anyway. I really enjoy it and find it fascinating but I'm not terribly interested in heading right into academia. poopinmymouth posted:Also I find Pietur Hugo's work way more exploitive and patronizing than JoeyL's. It's almost by definition look at these crazy (black) savages and how savage and different they are from us. I know he and others claim it's meta, but I don't buy it. Yeah it feels like it's going way way too far in the opposite direction of 'noble savage' to just... 'savage.' I though that the critique in that last link was really dead on.
|
# ¿ May 6, 2010 18:46 |
|
How could you look at his self-portrait demo shots and not know he's insane? That being said, I really want to visit their shop. He seems like he'd be hilarious and unbalanced in person as well. Like hanging out with that weird relative.
|
# ¿ May 9, 2010 19:18 |
|
Honestly the immigration commentary is crazy but not really that outside of the normal kinds of nuts. This stuff on the other hand...
|
# ¿ May 10, 2010 17:13 |
|
dakana posted:Prison changes people, maaaan. Sweet how can I make my cameras evolve?
|
# ¿ May 11, 2010 20:42 |
|
I think it could be possible with a wide angle lens and water housing. That said, I don't really want to make a statement about *that* photo because it does look a little funny.
|
# ¿ May 14, 2010 19:23 |
|
orange lime posted:Wow, that's ridiculous. It also implies that you're going to hit your shutter's rated life after you've recharged the battery 20 times, right? Ouch. Well I think it'd be 60 times...
|
# ¿ May 16, 2010 22:27 |
|
fronkpies posted:20 times would be 100,000, so that's right isn't it? 1D mark III is rated to 300,000.
|
# ¿ May 16, 2010 22:29 |
|
Bojanglesworth posted:I'm sorry but that is just the type of person who pisses me off. There is no need to have that much gear strapped around your neck, especially not for a "dog surfing event." At the end of the day, who cares? So he spends more money on cameras? So what? How does that impact you at all? Do you curse out guys who drive fancy cars or who travel a lot? For someone with a lot of money, investing in expensive cameras is actually a pretty inexpensive hobby, when compared to something like play golf every weekend or owning a boat. It's all relative and it's silly to get bent up about what other people own.
|
# ¿ May 30, 2010 14:52 |
|
I don't think there's much of an argument-- "bird photography" is bird watchers using technology for their pursuit, just like that dentist uses a camera for his professional pursuit. I think it's cool that these guys have found a way to expand their hobby, and who cares if they use the same tools as art or journalistic or whatever photographers. I think we lend too much similarity to the device that we use. It's a little like calling everyone who used a typewriter a novelist. I think the fact that a camera is a tool that is somewhat difficult to master tends to disguise these differences, because you can't just pick up a camera and have its use down in 5 minutes (like you can a typewriter). Perhaps a more apt distinction might be between a stone mason and a sculptor.
TsarAleksi fucked around with this message at 07:16 on May 31, 2010 |
# ¿ May 31, 2010 07:12 |
|
GWBBQ posted:Hey man those are sweet shots. Mind sharing the exif?
|
# ¿ Jun 9, 2010 18:54 |
|
|
# ¿ Apr 27, 2024 16:56 |
|
Bloody August posted:Freshly formatted card, I did have some misc Reaper files on there from a friend, but that's why I formatted it. I guess it could have been that the card was old and tired, I didn't check my better 2GB card. Either way, 2Gb in a 5DII equals failure. In practice you'll get about 50, give or take, raws onto a 2gb card, depending on ISO and whatnot. I have a ton of 2gb cards left, so I tend to use them a fair bit with the 5D. It's not really the end of the world, helps you parse it down a bit.
|
# ¿ Jun 21, 2010 15:27 |