|
I'm starting to read reviews of the Lytro. Surprise, they're poo poo. For example: http://www.engadget.com/2012/03/08/lytro-camera-review/
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2012 00:30
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 13, 2024 08:35 |
|
|
8th-samurai posted:Other boards are terrible.
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2012 16:25
|
|
|
Or you could realize that people are in different stages of development and you made some really lovely photographs once, too. Maybe you still do and people are always trying to hide their disgust from you! So it's in everyone's interest to just be nice and always be improving and always be humble.
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2012 15:53
|
|
|
You can give people advice while still being polite. That's what I mean. I advocate getting involved in your own arts community (not a photo club that meets at a library or something) because of the diversity. I've learned a tremendous amount in the last two years or so of being involved with city and state level arts organizations. I only know a few other photographers, and I see this as a good thing. It's made me start looking at photography as only my avenue to visual arts production, and I don't think about all the technical aspects I used to be engrossed with. I'm much better at thinking about WHY I'm photographing and what I'm trying to communicate. It's made me write critically about my own work and others'. Online photography communities I've decided are great for looking at photos, but all most people want are to be told they're doing good or they're looking for improvement tips as long as they fall within a narrow scope of expected criticism. Anything else is ignored and argued against and does no good. Becoming part of your local arts community makes you do all the things you talk about doing online. Galleries, juries, curators, grant administrators, and the public don't care what lens you have or what ISO you used. They care about the end photograph. And you should too.
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2012 16:14
|
|
|
Awkward Davies posted:I just got out of grad school so I'm looking around for jobs. This means spending a lot of time on craigslist. Just found this one:
|
|
#
¿
Jun 20, 2012 15:05
|
|
|
It looks like poo poo, they haven't done anything.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 23, 2012 03:29
|
|
|
The fact that he didn't disclose a very crucial element of his process (and pretty obviously because he knew it would cause controversy) is dishonest and I would drop him in a heartbeat.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 3, 2012 14:44
|
|
|
Whether or not he legally purchased the appropriate rights from the copyright holder of the images, not including "I take images others have made and manipulate them" in your artist statement is deliberately misleading and the audience is right to assume the artist has created everything in a piece unless stated otherwise. Calling yourself a "photo media artist" and expecting anyone to know that means you find images on stock websites and edit them with a Wacom is so shady I don't know where to begin. Every work I have ever encountered that uses an object, image, sound, etc. not created by the artist has had it stated clearly either in a title card, artist statement, or didactic. There is zero excuse for his actions, he intended to mislead. There's no way an artist, even one at age 30, is this ignorant (believe me, I work with a lot of them).
|
|
#
¿
Sep 3, 2012 19:13
|
|
|
That 70s Shirt posted:So Google apparently just bought up Nik Software, which is too bad because while I only use Silver Efex Pro 2 myself, I've heard that pretty much all their software is kick-rear end.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2012 14:15
|
|
|
As long as the jorts are left blue as well, go for it
|
|
#
¿
Sep 27, 2012 15:08
|
|
|
I used to order prints online. Matte, glossy, or "pearl" finish, or that terrible metallic paper, the usual options. About two years ago I started having them printed at a local place run by just a few people. The quality is miles better. I can select any paper I like, I do endless test prints (which you really, really, have to do y'all), no shipping wait, I get a discount because I have a state tax ID, and I'm supporting someone who does excellent work in my city and who supports the arts community. I saw a show by a photography last night. Fantastic work. Huge prints. However he clearly had it printed from some online order place that just used some random Kodak paper. The quality was distracting and overshadowed his work, it wasn't being done justice. There are so many, many, examples of poor printing ruining my impression of work. There's another HUGE artist showing locally whose work is also overshadowed by poor prints (I'm purposefully not going into details). Printing should be taken especially seriously, especially in 2012 when most images don't see paper. By printing something you are making a statement, "I chose this because it stands out far above the others and it demands your attention." That $35 16x20 canvas print doesn't look like a very good deal at all.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2012 15:55
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:With weddings it's probably going to endure a lot more but in other fields it isn't the smartest thing to "buy" a style as recognisable as VSCO presets. Even if your content and everything else is great, VSCO is immediately going to stand out and almost anyone familiar with photography trends is going to be like "oh this guy uses VSCO" and there's going to someone as good as you that isn't using VSCO.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2012 15:45
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 13, 2024 08:35 |
|
|
moral of the story: don't get married.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 15, 2012 21:27
|
|