|
Oh, actually, I just got my Olympus OM10 out and fiddled with it and I can see how it's pretty aight. Apologies. I can see how it's good for film cameras. I don't think it makes sense on digital, especially if you're landscaping it up. I heart zoom in liveview, it was the most exciting thing when I realized my D700 had that feature. EDIT: What I really want now, in professional digital cameras (and surely this could be some sort of firmware update), is the ability to watch the progression of a bulb exposure on the LCD back. Anybody else?
|
#
¿
Sep 20, 2010 01:28
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 12:27 |
|
|
^^^^^^^ I really appreciate the insights via the author via the recordings. They're great. Moist von Lipwig posted:Little late to this show but I will bet you 100 e-bucks that the printer hosed up her numbers and actually wants that file at 1440 dpi as it's one of the highest default resolutions supported by large format printers. You can almost assuredly get away with 720 as I'm pretty sure there's no surface capable of supporting that high a res unless you're Gursky and you're making C-Prints. Have you seen Gursky's show? Dude was my hero (in theory, I hadn't seen him, just his photos online), then I actually saw his most recent exhibition that did the rounds at our big art center in Melbourne and the photos are huge, yes, largest I've seen photos printed at. But when I saw it, I was extremely disappointed. His photos are very, very grainy, poorly colour corrected. I saw a seam on one photo, as if he'd joined two photos together in Photoshop and the actual prints themselves were pulling forward towards the glass in the frames, sagging. For godsakes, the people in 99 Cent were over-saturated. I was really sad. Rant over. I was doing C-Prints, on some beautiful Kodak rated to over 100 years paper. And really cheaply too, but the guy shut down, disappeared. Poof. Dude was a douce, so it's kinda understandable. If I can find him again, I probably will do that. I don't think I like the idea of cloth anymore.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 20, 2010 13:52
|
|
|
Moist von Lipwig posted:From what I understand Gursky shoots multiple 4x5 negs and photostitches them together. That's really sad that his stuff is flawed but I'm guessing he's an in-camera-film only kind of guy floundering in a digital environment. Looks good at web-res though! Maybe I've misunderstood C-print, but it cost me something like $60, gave this fellow a digital file, and he projected it onto photosensitive Kodak paper and gave me back this image, whatever it is. I think it was something like 30" up by whatever across. http://www.flickr.com/photos/helmacron/2347557464/ It's not so expensive where I am, but it's kinda hard to find. The guy who did it kept talking about how no one else does it. (I don't believe this, but hey) And I guessed Gursky was stitching 8x10's. And it is, of course, just my opinion his stuff is flawed. I thought it would be perfect and beautiful and huge and let myself be massively let down.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 20, 2010 14:29
|
|
|
http://pluggedin.kodak.com/post/?id=687843 I'm resizing some stuff right now and I've decided my favourite ratio is 1:2. I believe, because our eyes are 1:2, a photograph that is one up and two across will have the optimal eye real estate for viewing. Where you can perfectly frame the photograph infront of you. (if it's big enough) So that's mine. !:2. Anyone else?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 22, 2010 09:14
|
|
|
xzzy posted:I got lucky, I started reading here before I hit the HDR phase. I like to take HDR photos and improve the tonality of the images and show them to people and when they say they like the photo, inform them that it is HDR and then very calmly, reach out and pick their nose with my little finger and make them eat whatever I dig out. EDIT: also, it kinda pisses me off that people hate certain things, but have so much trouble identifying what they supposedly hate so much, unless it's all sliders to the right extreme. Helmacron fucked around with this message at 00:27 on Sep 27, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Sep 27, 2010 00:24
|
|
|
geeves posted:I didn't realize how bad the HDR problem really was until I looked into the ghettos of Flickr i think you kick rear end, i think you kick rear end like this guy i worked with who was just sitting there, and i was reading my book and it was lunch time and out of nowhere, he said "I wish I had a gun so I could go shoot some paedophiles". I was just reading my book. No one had said anything to initiate a conversation about guns, or paedophiles, or using one on the other. He just said it to be cool. You're cool, geeves. you're shooting paedophiles cool. I'm going in, yo: I didn't realize how bad the large format problem really was until I looked into the ghettos of Flickr and discovered http://www.flickr.com/groups/largeformat/ it's like they have these kick-rear end cameras but nothing to point them at
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2010 12:45
|
|
|
I HATE CARS posted:We were talking about HDR and Flickr the 5 posts above it so I'm not sure what you're on about. alright. fair point, sorry geeves. I only posted that because I looked at your blog and noticed your love of hate, without relevancy/without borders. whoa hating hdr just loving depresses me because it seems like such a easy way out of improving yourself. "my own work is poo poo, but by hating this particular filter that is used by many, and not using it myself, I can therefore feel better about my own work, which is still poo poo." I just hate photographers.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2010 20:57
|
|
|
I just looked at the page you linked, nothing else, and from that I don't feel like I can hate him. His photos are kinda nice. Does that make me a hack?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2010 00:35
|
|
|
I woke up at like, 2am, got up, packed my camera, got in the car, drove around 20 klicks to take a photo. Wandered around bushland in the height of nowhere for 30 minutes. Went back to my car, drove home, crawled into bed. It's like I'm dedicated, but lazy. I don't get it. Helmacron fucked around with this message at 20:14 on Oct 10, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2010 20:07
|
|
|
On reflection, I don't think anyone really needs to hear this story. Apologies to anyone who saw it.
Helmacron fucked around with this message at 14:39 on Oct 24, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Oct 24, 2010 14:32
|
|
|
Whilst I could probably fit some more in, I have just now filled two notebooks with photo ideas. I thought it would be a good idea if I got into uni. I could just catalogue them, and I wouldn't have to have on the ball creativity, I could just mix and match my previous ideas to fit anything. However, now I've got this huge backlog of creativity I feel stymied. Claustrophobic. Way too many photo ideas. I kinda wanna burn them.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 27, 2010 19:43
|
|
|
Cyberbob posted:What's the rules around vote begging? I think it depends on your entry.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2010 05:01
|
|
|
brad industry posted:I use a packing list that has all my poo poo on it. I keep it organized kind of by things and what they need, so it'll say "Camera" and then there's a sub list under that for "cards, batteries, charger, meter, etc" under that. I highlight everything that goes into the cases before I leave and then cross them off again when I get home and unpack. Do you print that out every day?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2010 19:25
|
|
|
TheLastManStanding posted:There is no way to impartially capture an event. Just in framing the picture you are leaving something out. There is always some context that is left out. Since you decide what gets left out you are in a sense manipulating the event. I was just writing an artist statement for a gallery proposal and I got sick of describing my photos as cartographical insights into the data snow flurries of cryptologists out to conceal the mercatorial projection and mercurial flow of real world visual information and the conversion of 3D to the 2D map framework of our conceptual understanding. Now you've given me something else to throw verbosity at. Thankin' you, sir, thankin' you. I was very near running a warm bath, breaking apart my safety razors, and sinking into the abyss with a William Gibson novel.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2010 01:12
|
|
|
brad industry posted:http://www.stinkyjournalism.org/editordetail.php?id=399 If you follow the link to the link to chasejarvis blog, the fellow there prattles on less about how the way the photojournalistic ethics can be manipulated and more how ingenious it is to break a code of ethics, and the way they've done it makes him want to hire them for... for what? You can't hire them for photojournalism now, they've obviously shown they are liars. These guys have shattered their reputation as long as that code of ethics is in place. I don't know the truth, but Chase Jarvis calls it "subversive... creative... meta..." and I suspect it was more along the lines of this paraphrased dialogue: "i never win anything, and i always work so loving hard, im going to make up something this year" "hey, ill join you. how about like, pictures of us being homeless" "cool ha ha" "ha ha" "oh god we won" "what do we do" "we can't get away with it, we have to admit it" "sacre bleu" EDIT: gently caress, dunkman. Blur into the background, you didn't deserve your win and it was the ugliest 15 minutes of fame I've seen in a long time, and you keep pushing, ungraciously pushing. Who are you to be such a fool. Just blur, dunkman, and stop acting like a oval office. Helmacron fucked around with this message at 23:42 on Nov 6, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2010 23:35
|
|
|
brad industry posted:It says they were surprised they won that competition. It actually is really smart and subversive. Journalism has a visual language the same way bad HDR photography has it's own style and language. We all know exactly what he means when he says images of "children with big wet eyes". Journalists use visual codes that we understand to signify certain ideas - humanity, suffering, gratitude, whatever. They faked those visual cues to draw attention to the language (I guess you could also call it 'manipulation') photojournalists use to communicate ideas and stories, and they faked those codes so successfully their little joke actually won. You're right. What I was trying to say is whatever their noble intentions may be now, whatever merit can be pulled from this stunt, I very seriously doubt that was their intention from the beginning, I don't believe they set off to mock the integrity of photojournalism. From what I've seen of these contests, from what I think I know about people, from what I've read in this article, this is not how things like this start, this is the story you make up later to get out of trouble. And that's what bothers me, this misinterpretation of "art". Whether or not I'm right, and my strawman point is true (in regards to me guessing their intentions), they've faked humanity in a photograph, and they faked it well enough to win a contest. I'm not going to say faking such photographs is easy and anyone with photographic understanding can do it, and I'm not going to say they shouldn't go out and find something real to photograph. I am going to say that if someone poo poo on your front door step, that is a poo poo on your front door step. It can be construed as a message to get a bigger fence, to purchase a starving doberman, to sit on your porch with a shotgun. You take whatever you want from that, but in the beginning, someone poo poo on your front door step and now you need to clean it up. You shouldn't cover the shitter in glory because you wanted that new fence. I personally don't feel like these guys deserve such a congratulating tone for sticking one to the establishment.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2010 01:18
|
|
|
Greybone posted:How easy it is to beat someone to death with things really should be the standard metric for photographic equipment. just like how many puppies can be killed in a bathtub and how many bodies fit in the trunk of a vehicle. "Oh ya, 'bout a three body boot."
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2010 12:29
|
|
|
I carry a D3s when I'm travelling. If I'm not carrying the bag, the bag is between my feet. It is under my arm. It is under my head. If I'm sleeping, I'm hugging it. I don't show people it. If someone sees it, I am extra vigilant. Mind you, I'm not sure if I have trust. That poo poo is just rust with a t.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 17, 2010 10:57
|
|
|
I find, more and more often, that when I don't understand a lengthy explanation after reading it five times, and one time out loud, and recording it and playing it back to myself, and then transcribing it into little single syllable words, and reading that over and over, and pumping it through babelfish and back for a while, then writing it out short-hand, eating it, and then vomiting it up past my mouth and out my nose, pulling it gently, wet with acid, from my right nostril and unfolding it and photographing it under black light for that shred of illumination... When I still don't understand it, maybe there just isn't much more to get than what I got initially. Vince Farnsworth posted:Concerning astrophotography and the recording of stars, there seems to be some confusion about f-ratios, aperture, focal lengths, etc. For point sources such as stars, it is the focal length, not the physical aperture, that determines the limits of what will be recorded on film. This is because the amount of background sky included in the picture varies with focal length and thus the amount of magnitude-limiting sky fog goes up as the focal length decreases. Longer lenses include less of the sky and therefore less of the sky fog. Since the stars are points, their light is not spread out as focal length (magnification) increases. This effect results in an increase in the ratio of starlight (point source) to skylight (non-point source) as focal length increases, and fainter stars are recorded before being limited by the sky fog. This light-source ratio is not affected by the f-ratio or physical aperture of the lens. For example, a 50mm lens at a dark site has a limiting photographic magnitude of about 11.5. A 500mm lens has a limiting magnitude of about 16. The magnitude scale is a way of estimating the brightness of an object, with each successive magnitude number being about 2.5 times brighter than the next one (magnitude 1 is 2.5X brighter than magnitude 2). The f-ratio does determine how fast the sky fog limit is reached. Exposures longer than that needed to reach the sky fog limit will not record fainter stars. Is he really just saying you get less of the sky and therefore, less ambient light, when you go up in focal length? IS THERE NOTHING MORE TO IT? I've seen two people link this post in star trail threads, referencing that what you need for star trails is larger glass, ie, diameter of glass on the front element, rather than focal length and he just doesn't seem to be saying that.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2010 22:40
|
|
|
This is exactly how you bust a pooper valve.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2010 01:44
|
|
|
What about hydrogen. EDIT: I've recently been thinking about the various merits of say, making a really nice portfolio page, and having some nice business cards printed up for art photography then pulling a stunt like standing in disease infested lake for a few days to take photos or attaching balloons to a chair and taking photos of the curvature of the earth, whilst breaking plenty of FAA laws. Helmacron fucked around with this message at 21:49 on Dec 20, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2010 21:47
|
|
|
Well I didn't get into any art galleries next year. I sent proposals to four. I also didn't get into any universities. I applied to three. I don't actually feel sorry for myself. Just perturbed. I heard nothing back from any of them and then a rash of rejections. I spent a couple hundred just printing photos for everything. I'm going to start sending proposals to stores that just sell artwork. I gave a couple CD's to people in stores like that and they always put them in like, an in-tray and say "we'll have a look at them later" and I stand there awkwardly, thank them and leave. And never hear anything back ever. And if this doesn't work, I'll have to, I don't know. I'm at a loss. Do my plan higher up this page and purchase a weather balloon and a deck chair.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 21, 2010 13:09
|
|
|
I thought they just wanted all cell phones off in planes because it used to be super annoying, listening to the phones send out their lonely "I'm here" calls on the dark bytes of the universe that your speakers pick up. They don't do that, anymore though. Or not nearly as bad.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 21, 2010 22:22
|
|
|
mr. mephistopheles posted:Caring what random strangers on the Internet think of you to the point where it influences your emotions is, in fact, sad. Hey man, this is not true. What, she shouldn't be upset the business her husband is trying to run is being poo poo on where anyone who happens to google his name can see? What the gently caress, man. I mean, you just said that he was noble and poo poo about it but it was a lovely thing to happen to him. You just said that. Yet you think there's no good reason to let it "influence your emotions". WHAT DO YOU USE YOUR EMOTIONS FOR like once a week you let them out on your dick AND THEN THAT'S IT EDIT: really, no emotions on the internet. this is an emotion free zone. really? who thinks that? that's wierd. isn't that wierd? am i the only one?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 16, 2011 09:19
|
|
|
I can't wait until ISO renders F/stop irrelevant to everyone who doesn't like to make their background fuzzy. I can't wait until megapixels make any focal length bar fish-eye irrelevant. snap a photo, crop to relevance. I don't really know Ken Rockwell besides that whenever I look up something his site is always first so he is superb at meta tags, but I get real excited sometimes about the future of photography and say dumb poo poo like the above. Also I use a tripod, or clamp for everything because I have a VR tripod head. Your comment hosed with my brain.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2011 18:57
|
|
|
everything is the same price as everywhere else. possibly a little bit more, since I'm in australia, and camera equipment is apparently more expensive here. and it was as expensive in Japan. Also Shinjuku has some cool places but you probably want to go to... I think it was Ginza. Also, contrary to popular belief, Japanese people whilst they are polite, they hate you. They hate you just as much as you hate people who are in your country and don't speak your language at all, in the slightest, except possibly thank you and hello. I mention this because nowhere will you experience the hatred of the Japanese more than camera stores. Oh boy they hate you in camera stores. You never knew just how much you suck until you jingle your merry way into one of those shops. I did find a neat camera store in Asakusa but, again, everything was the same price as eBay. I think you might be able to find like, old cheap lenses. But again, same price as eBay, really. EDIT: I feel kinda like a douche, I hope I didn't kill the dream too bad. EDIT 2: I didn't look at range finders, have some hope!
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2011 21:45
|
|
|
man all I remember is getting off at ginza, walking about down to something like C5... C11... I don't know. Somewhere in that region, getting out and there was a Lemon camera, but there also were just used camera stores everywhere around there. On corners and poo poo. More than I saw at Shinjuku. Although Shinjuku had, besides the big Yodabashi hole next to the bus station, a Map camera, I think it was. Map camera was the only place I actually wanted to buy something. 85mm F1.8 Nikon. Also, I don't know about Interrupting Moses, et all, but of the camera nerds I met over there, not one of them recommended Shinjuku. They were like "yeah there's shinjuku but ANYWAY you have to go to Ginza and (they'd point around Ginza on the metro map for good poo poo)". they'd skim shinjuku in sentences like you skim the awkward thing your sister did on the internet for money anyway, whatever. Japan was way boring. I found this kick-rear end "antique" store in Egypt that only had broken camera equipment. The dude was selling them as antiquities, telling me a hosed up Nikon F4 with a smashed mirror was from the early 1940's and poo poo. I bought some kick-rear end filters I will never, ever use because whilst he pissed me off with his arrogance i had to respect the lie he was trying to sell. one of the filters is like a kaleidoscope, i can't think of how it's used to any affect that's not poo poo. I would take that one store over Japan minus Mount Fuji because I heart Fuji.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2011 02:04
|
|
|
torgeaux posted:I vote kidney donation. We'll read about this in your local news later. Tell us what paper to check for dudes found in a bathtub filled with ice minus a kidney. this is like the story of the guy who got robbed, but the thieves left an insurance note detailing exactly what they've taken, and then didn't come back after the home owner delightedly re-purchases all his stuff new from the payout received. Why the kidney, that's all, why just a kidney, or two. gently caress, do you know how expensive bone marrow is and that poo poo can be put on ice for quite a while. gently caress, now I have "bone marrow longevity" on my googled list. Anyway, to make this topical I opened my camera bag, I haven't opened it for months. Then not knowing what to do, I licked my finger and ran it down the side of my D3S. And I'm trying to work out how to get a camera into the mine I work at. I'm on night shift right now and with the stars above, the dust I create drilling, the roar of the trucks in the distance, it's like working on a nightmarish moon scape from sci-fi hell.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2011 02:51
|
|
|
gently caress you guys jump to the drug conclusion quickly well from now on, i'm going to jump to the conclusion you've just been pegged. and i hope it was rough, zocrowes
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2011 07:11
|
|
|
my ex would snort a line of speed after two rounds and expect more of me. i reveal this only because it shows just how drugs are the bane of my existence. they force me into the most tedious of conversations and giving ridiculous amounts of head to a girl with self-esteem issues who took far too long to get off. on the other hand, i managed to get pretty excellently defined cheek bones + jaw muscles without having to do drugs edit: unless i ate them out of her Helmacron fucked around with this message at 07:50 on Jan 28, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2011 07:21
|
|
|
i always mocked the news when they were like "there's a locust plague!" and the visuals would like, show one locust. and then switch to another locust. and here's a locust chilling. Like it's a plague, but all the art/vid they've got is just a couple locusts max. It's kind of akin to "there's a riot!" and all the video they have is a dude sitting, reading a book and casually scratching himself. However, I am in a locust plague. And it's kind of hard to get a good photo of a whole bunch of them. There's three in my room right now and they just move so much. One got under my raised knee a second ago and when I scooched over a little to see it, it went insane and flew all over the room. In short, i forgive you news stations.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2011 18:52
|
|
|
I don't think because if you do something silly and trust something you shouldn't, you deserve to lose your life's work of photography. Take the concept one step left, and it's like "bitch be wearin' a short skirt, she want it".
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2011 21:36
|
|
|
I printed off a photo at 1x2m solely so the only place I can unroll it to show women is their beds.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2011 00:21
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:How the gently caress are you going to get on there if the print's in the way? Yeah it works like poo poo, I've shown it to two chicks and one of them I'd slept with three years ago and we're just good friends now and the other chick was my best friend's sister. It's loving cool, though, go fork out that money and get the biggest print possible. Totally worth it. I signed the tube it's in and now it's like I own a me original.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2011 10:34
|
|
|
I just bought a GoPro Hero camera, because it looks kick-rear end and I've been hunting a fish-eye point and shoot since forever and I really like the videos from it. Except because people don't tag the camera they use, usually, when putting a video on youtube, the only videos I can find are from GoPro themselves. And whilst they're all glorious, I do feel kinda like a sucker. On the other hand, I haven't checked but it looks exactly like the camera strapped to the door during the poop bungee scene in Jackass 3D. That's a nice advertisement.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2011 01:28
|
|
|
xzzy posted:Friend let me play with his over the summer.. the video that comes out of it is pretty spectacular for the size of the thing. Only downside is it hates slow SD cards, you gotta get the class 10 stuff or you'll get hitching in the video. You should link me to some of his videos because I'm linking you to videos I made by welding up vise grips and attached my D3s to things at my old work. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5iMLcuwbs0 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6HpsCas63E Also, great. Another $200 for a memory card. At least there's a slot for it in my macbook.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2011 02:21
|
|
|
GWBBQ posted:If I had $4000 to spare, I'd definitely buy this. Come on, man, go on a trip, see the world. Don't buy that thing. gently caress that thing. Find the most expensive restaurant and go there with a girl of your choosing in a rented tux. You know those condoms with the vibrating cock ring? Buy those and visit whores. Get liposuction where you don't even need it. gently caress that camera, man, gently caress it. Enroll in community college or whatever the gently caress you guys have in America, or just use that money for awesome photographic set pieces, like going and purchasing the main meal at all the fast food restaurants within in hours drive, Ie. Big Macs, Whoppers, whatever the salty fish poo poo they sell at Long John Silver's and set it all up in an empty pool with a waterproof HD camera strapped to the bottom and I don't know. But $4000. gently caress. I spent $8000 on a D3s and I haaate myself. I never use it and I want to sell it. Sometimes I look at myself and wonder why I'm not richer at 25 and it's because of dumb mope moves like this.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2011 00:23
|
|
|
I was at a friend's house the other day and she started feeding the pigs and I was broke off what I was saying and watched with utter fascination as she fed a pig's head from the abattoir to a sow. It was awesome. She wouldn't let me take a photo. The sow burrowed into the back of the dead pig's head, with it's glazed open eyes. EDIT: I felt this was related to the farm topic. Helmacron fucked around with this message at 06:00 on Mar 10, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2011 05:47
|
|
|
Looking up the specs for X100 is a little bit like finally sitting down and watching this movie your friend has been harping on about for months and discovering there's just a little bit too much rape in it. I mean, I love almost everything about it, the idea, the concept, the aesthetic, all very nice, but what's up with the lens? Why would they give you a fixed lens on a $1000+ camera. Also I do get it, I get why they think that's a good idea, and I get why people are buying it but in the end, honestly, it's like someone saying "buy the 50mm F/1.8 it's the perfect focal length". Technology moves on and then they put it in a lovely retro case. Also, on a side but relatively important note, there's really no good photos out there taken by it. Why didn't Fujifilm get a professional photographer or even, for gently caress sakes, some guy with a cool job like window washer or some poo poo, just to take the camera to town for a few days and snap some shots off. I visited their sample gallery on Fujifilm.com and I scrolled to the bottom, then back to the top, and then to the bottom again and then put my laptop down and went and made a really strong cordial to wash down the bile.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2011 06:36
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 12:27 |
|
|
A picture of your penis with urine coming out and cascading down down down to a busy city street.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2011 06:59
|
|