|
squidflakes posted:PCS then? Can the different letters be different colors, outlined in harsh, glaring white? And if it pulses...can it pulse? If so, PCS seems to have it.
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2010 17:11
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 03:41 |
|
|
squidflakes posted:
Beautiful...just...breath-taking. I have a small tear in my eye. That could be caused by the damaged retina, though.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2010 17:26
|
|
|
Whitezombi posted:Sign me up. Is it $.50 per picture accepted or per picture provided? Because if it's the latter, I'm willing to fly in and fill up a few 16 gig cards for the guy.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2010 18:10
|
|
|
tuyop posted:Man it's going to take forever to process all those HDRs. Ya gotta automate that. That's the strength of the HDR, they all end up looking alike anyway, so there's no need to individualize the process. Select pictures, push button, sheild eyes, save result. I plan to charge him $1.50 per HDR, since it will be three shots combined.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2010 19:10
|
|
|
Whitezombi posted:I got a reply. Well, we always say, "Don't give away your photos." And, you wouldn't be. This is a great start for a photographer, and you'll get good exposure, and you'll get better paying jobs in the future, and you should be happy that people will see your work, and did I mention that you'll get better jobs in the future and this is good exposure?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2010 21:02
|
|
|
Whitezombi posted:I'm being a smartass - no way in hell would I do this. You should almost pay them for all the great exposure this will give you.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2010 21:15
|
|
|
orange lime posted:Are you kidding? It's 50 cents per picture and they accept ONE picture of each place? Or someone who will use this as "I'm a professional photographer for X website....I'll need to get in front of this line!"
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2010 21:35
|
|
|
RangerScum posted:I think it's hilarious how a strong majority of people who bitch about HDR photos don't even know the correct terminology for things and in turn look like fools. I try and post corrections every once in a while... this is literally the ONLY part of photography that turns me into a cranky old man when people get it wrong. Because when people, to whom we're reacting, talk about HDR, they are talking about the tone-mapped nightmares of which you speak. Sure, we could first correct them and THEN ridicule them, but it's just easier to cut-out step one.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2010 21:51
|
|
|
poopinmymouth posted:Post your portfolio link. A shorter echo of Tsar: I think the point isn't, "Hey, anyone could shoot that," but rather that it's likely those are the subjects and locations anyone would shoot who shot that tribe. The similarity in subject/composition isn't particularly meaningful, alone. Given the difficulty factor in getting to this location and these people, and the fact that this particular guide doesn't do this trip regularly, well, those are the more significant factors that lead me to conclude the second photographer was likely deliberately imitating the earlier shots.
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2010 18:13
|
|
|
poopinmymouth posted:
You don't stand a chance with this kind of talent. 
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2010 18:40
|
|
|
orange lime posted:I wonder if that would even stand up as evidence in court. You took the photos demonstrating that you were engaged in an illegal activity, but providing them to the police would effectively be incriminating yourself, so I would think that you could use the fifth amendment to fight their being used. And in that case, would the police taking them from you count as a forced confession? The fifth amendment is testimonial in nature. How did the police get the pictures? Did they, pursuant to a valid warrant, find them when searching your home? Can be used if they can be authenticated. Did you publish them online? They can be used if authenticated. The guy being charged with aiding and abetting has a good case, on the face of it. He didn't arrange for the commission of the crime, he went to one already planned. He didn't aid in the planning or execution, according to him. He's basically being charged with being their lookout, which would be illegal, but he denies it and the facts don't seem to support that allegation.
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2010 13:56
|
|
|
RangerScum posted:Is 10x10 even really big enough though? I realize it might be better than nothing but you would be extremely limited. It could work, so long as you can stand outside and shoot in, which shouldn't be a problem.
|
|
#
¿
May 11, 2010 18:08
|
|
|
dakana posted:Friend of mine recently bought a Promaster (rebadged Tamron) 17-50 2.8 Nikon mount for $85. 8th-samurai posted:Could certainly work for headshots or still life. This is how I read the last two posts.
|
|
#
¿
May 11, 2010 20:21
|
|
|
Henry's just emailed me that they shipped my order. What order? I don't remember. Finally found it...the Canon telephoto thermal mug.
|
|
#
¿
May 14, 2010 20:07
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:It seems to support the "author" over just someone performing the physical act of pressing the shutter as you can argue that contribution isn't as distinct as planning the shot, directing the human tripod, setting the settings and processing the work later. RangerScum posted:No I definitely would not because they are not legal entities. Despite what you use humans for, they are still a person and not a tool. I'm pretty sure I have read people claiming that if you take a picture with someone elses camera, then the copyright belongs to you. I'm just trying to see where the lines are, if there are any. The quote from Paragon8 also describes the US state of affairs. The "author" is the creative force, not the mechanical force.
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2010 15:05
|
|
|
Bloody August posted:Canon mug came in yesterday! I've had mine about 3 days. Good size for work mug, about 12 ounces.
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2010 12:59
|
|
|
Moist von Lipwig posted:Wow, that's an actual thing? They are hilariously kitschy. Although, I'd kill to have an actual 70-200 f/1.4, which is what the "lens" is described as.
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2010 14:18
|
|
|
Bloody August posted:poo poo, I'm sorry, didn't mean to give you cancer bro. Next time I'll move my ashtray out of the frame so nobody else has to suffer. I just looked at the actual mug, and you're right...it's a mundane 70-200 f/4. Pfft. I wouldn't own such a thing. Pedestrian.
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2010 19:59
|
|
|
spf3million posted:It's time for another round of What Would You Take? I'm going to spend a few days hiking around around Huashan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Hua. What gear would you take? I have available: You could not talk me out of taking the 5dii, weight or not weight. I'd take it, the 35 and the 135, and tripod.
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2010 15:01
|
|
|
My "Canon PowerShot SD4000IS 10 MP CMOS Digital Camera with 3.8x Optical Zoom and f/2.0 Lens (Black)" is set for delivery today. Which means I'll get home, have a "we tried to deliver" note, sign the form, and they'll deliver it tomorrow. Still, pretty psyched to have a good P&S again. The wife never ever takes pictures because she hates using the big camera.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2010 13:34
|
|
|
Shmoogy posted:I think there might be some sort of thing the seller has to do on their end to enable it, because I couldn't really find anything on the search engines for UPS/Fedex. The last two packages I've received via FedEx have had a link I could click on to print out and sign, if I wanted the delivery man to leave it without anybody being there to accept the package. I think it has to be enabled upfront. I can't find a way to do it now. Of course, I'm not at home, so it won't help anyway. I have a plumber there today, maybe he'll sign for it.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2010 15:21
|
|
|
McMadCow posted:Are you sure about that? I was under the impression that smaller film/sensor size= less glass needed to go super wide. The light path of the 35mm f/1.4 is larger because the lens is larger. The focal length is first converted to the relatively-easy-to-understand 35mm format, e.g. the lens is 8mm, but has the same field of view as a 24mm wide angle lens on the 35mm format, so it's simply called "24mm". Then, the aperture of the 8mm lens is calculated for the actual lens focal length, that is, 8mm. So, f/1.4 would be 8/1.4 or 5.7mm or so. The actual size of the aperture is the same, no matter the size of the sensor. Example: Suppose you have a Canon 7D and a 5dII. You put the 50mm f/1.0 on each. The field of view on the 7D is 80mm, while the field of view on the 5DII is 50mm. The maximum aperture on each is still 50mm, because it's the actual focal length that's divided, not the relative field of view. For exposure purposes, your brain is saying, 50mm aperture on an effective 80mm lens is not f/1.0, it's f/1.6. But it's not. The fact that only the center of the circle of light is being used instead of a larger portion of the center of the circle of light doesn't change how much light there is. torgeaux fucked around with this message at 20:44 on Jun 1, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2010 20:41
|
|
|
ease posted:Ahh the old Sony Cybershots were awesome to me at the time. I used to drool over Mavicas. My first digital was the Mavica FD, using the 1.4MB 3.5 inch floppies. I still have those floppy disks somewhere. Of course, I have no computer with a floppy drive.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2010 21:55
|
|
|
diarrhea for girls posted:Welcome back buddy. The great thing about the Mavica was it's macro ability. The whole interlaced/non-interlaced photos was a pain in the rear end. For any moving object, you took "field" photos, and for full resolution, "frame". God, I loved that lovely little camera. I think my ex-roommate still has it somewhere.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2010 13:26
|
|
|
http://scottaudette.com/?p=218quote:An Apple WiFi iPad, a Canon 5d Mark II with a WFT-4e II A, a three-year-old linksys broadband router, a first gen REV. A, a Sprint Aircard and some duct tape … watch out, Macgruber, you’ve got nothing on us. And what did all of the above give us? A camera that took wicked awesome photos on an iPad out the window of the Reuters trailer at the Kennedy Space Center and all from the comfort of the Hampton Inn in Titusville, Florida.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2010 13:48
|
|
|
oncearoundaltair posted:Ah, that's cats for you. Although sadly I don't have the problem anymore. I built a shelf in a closet for my gear. Now all that sits there is the gear I use less often (macro rail, ebay triggers, Vivitar flash) plus my battery charging station (two canon chargers, two rechargeable battery chargers). The rest of the gear stays on the desk, or in one of a couple of camera bags.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2010 13:45
|
|
|
Helmacron posted:I just bought an auto-focus lens for my D3s because I felt silly having all these focus points and never ever ever ever being able to do anything with them and oh god it's good i'm a little weak at the knees. It's only a 28m F/2.8. Too late. Preserved forever in quote form.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 20, 2010 02:00
|
|
|
Oakland police are taking photos from flickr and publishing them, looking for looters. They haven't been asking permission to use the photos, but have been giving them to news organizations, who attribute the photos, "Provided by Oakland PD." Bradindustry had some shots of the riots as I recall. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/07/16/BA7P1EETMS.DTL http://thomashawk.com/2010/07/oakla...s.html#comments
|
|
#
¿
Jul 21, 2010 19:23
|
|
|
brad industry posted:I wondered about that when I saw it. OPD just laid off 80 officers and I think they are just desperate for help (between highway shootouts with right-wing crazies, ghetto snipers, and other crazy poo poo that has been going on lately). They might be, and the police/prosecution could likely use them without permission for that purpose. What they probably cannot do is publish them, without attribution, to newspapers/media. Not an issue that comes up that often, though.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 21, 2010 21:19
|
|
|
Picked up this weekend: An Inner Silence: Cartier-Bresson's Portraits. Love it. I just don't think of him as a portrait guy. drat good stuff. http://www.amazon.com/Inner-Silence-Portraits-Henri-Cartier-Bresson/dp/0500288755/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1280178882&sr=8-1
|
|
#
¿
Jul 26, 2010 22:16
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:Guy who sold them can't even afford to buy a gun to off himself now, after being talked down from $70 to $45. Those dinner plates could be collectible Franklin Mint plates. Were there ever Ansel Adams collectible plates?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 27, 2010 19:23
|
|
|
Denver Post posted:
http://blogs.denverpost.com/captured/2010/07/26/captured-america-in-color-from-1939-1943/
|
|
#
¿
Aug 5, 2010 15:01
|
|
|
Whitezombi posted:I posted a link to Shorpy a while back that had most of those. #43 and #70 are my favorites. I think there is a flickr stream with more of those. Your link is to the full size, too. That shot at 43 is phenomenal.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 5, 2010 18:04
|
|
|
ease posted:How do you guys pronounce aperture? Ap a chur.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 18, 2010 13:39
|
|
|
Dread Head posted:New 120MP APS-H sensor from Canon... http://www.photographyblog.com/news/120_megapixel_canon_cmos_sensor/ Start the rumor now: The new Canon 1DMarkV will have this very sensor. Instead of 10 shots per second burst, it'll be 10 seconds per shot burst. Sure, it'll be noisy, but they'll have definitively won the megapixel battle.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 24, 2010 13:16
|
|
|
I'm a moron, sometimes. I was doing some low light shooting this weekend at around dusk, action snapshots of torgeaux, jr. being attacked by the torgeaux family animals. Just couldn't get focus down, and I was using my 70-200 f/2.8L, which is really good. Everything soft. Suspected it was the AF used, so I switched to single shot. Nope, still not good. Finally realized I'd been shooting Av, and hadn't changed my ISO, so I was shooting 200mm at 1/50th. Dumbass.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2010 19:46
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:I really wonder why there isn't some kind of lock on the setting's wheel. It's frustrating to have it slip to Av when you have your M settings all dialed in or whatever. With the battery grip, my 5Dii is huge, so when it goes in my bag, the wheel frequently gets moved. I'm pretty good about checking it out, but sometimes forget.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2010 21:56
|
|
|
ZoCrowes posted:I have a hard time believing this. I would say it's probably that people with full frame cameras are a bit more serious as photographers and are better at postprocessing. Being able to see differences in resolution at the size they are posted at in SAD is a bit ridiculous. He may be referring to the shallower depth of field that's available, or the wider angles.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2010 20:57
|
|
|
ZoCrowes posted:Even then you can get a pretty drat shallow DOF with a fast lens. There are also plenty of wide angle zooms too. That's the big draw of full frame for me. I love the 14mm f/2.8 Rokinon. 14mm, truly 14mm, is loving fantastic. My 24mm f/1.8 is fun as hell also.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2010 21:27
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 03:41 |
|
|
ZoCrowes posted:That's part of the reason I want to move to full frame. I do a lot of concert shooting and being able to get that wide and fast would be amazing. On the other hand having a fast zoom and a crop body is great for getting portrait shots at shows. Reach versus width, the age old dilemma. The solution? 1D.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2010 21:37
|
|