|
Radbot posted:What if you put these inside an adobe? Adobe adobe? What if Adobe made the adobe? Adobe adobe Adobe? Well, for one thing, adobe is a building material, not a type of house, and just because something is inside something else it doesn't mean that that object is necessarily "from" (or of), as implied by your sentence, the containing object.
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2009 21:42
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 20:21 |
|
|
Martytoof posted:I wonder if she knows how to use it, or if she's just shooting in Auto Haha what?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 27, 2009 02:19
|
|
|
If you can't justify your own photographs then why are you taking them, much less submitting them to a contest? Coffee is definitely related to food, if they ask you to argue it say that you drink it and sometimes make desserts with it.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 19, 2009 09:23
|
|
|
pwn posted:Thank you for calling me stupid. You are stupid.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2009 05:03
|
|
|
Augmented Dickey posted:http://www.japanexposures.com/shop/product_info.php?cPath=31&products_id=349 It's a cheap digital camera that people call the "digital holga" because it's so cheap. Like a holga. Complex.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 9, 2010 05:18
|
|
|
XTimmy posted:Put a bullet in me. What is it about other people taking photos the way they want that makes you so upset as to use the word "fag" as a pejorative?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2010 09:35
|
|
|
Well, fwiw, Holgas were around a long time before that style was ever popular or trendy. They were designed as inexpensive cameras for poor/middle class families in China. e: you shouldn't be concerned with offending me there are far worse things in the world than some guy appropriating a group of people to describe his displeasure about people who like shooting film. I would be more worried about nobody taking you seriously because you are acting like a careless bigot. Twenties Superstar fucked around with this message at 09:44 on Feb 11, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2010 09:39
|
|
|
FasterThanLight posted:I think it was more of a stupid joke than an insult, but I believe it was in that thread about the guy who sold his Leica M3 for drug money. You might want to read that thread again. I know that when somebody says "gearfag" or "filmfag" or "whateverfag" they aren't often trying to be marginalising or subjugating to gay people but it is such an ignorant thing to do. Whether you mean it or not using the words "gearfag" or "filmfag" is basically the same thing as saying "that human being who likes/uses gear/film" and that's pretty clearly not ok.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2010 18:28
|
|
|
XTimmy posted:I realise goons don't take admissions of guilt seriously because hey it's much more fun to tear a guy to shreds than pretend he's a human being right? But I feel sincerely guilty for making GBS threads up this thread. I meant no offence, I replied flippantly because, again, goons; we're all sarcastic fucks at each other's throats. By editing my post out I had hoped to avoid a page worth of debate regarding how offensive "human being" is in different contexts. I appreciate that you made that concession but really it's not you specifically that I'm tearing down. There are a lot of people that still think that it's ok to reappropriate the word fag as an insult when it really isn't. It's not funny, clever, or innocent. I'm not really sorry for derailing the thread in order to clarify that again.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2010 18:42
|
|
|
Dont be obtuse, he's just pointing out the obvious that there is no reason why any photo needs a geotag to be good. or, rather, that a geotag doesn't make a bad photo a good one Twenties Superstar fucked around with this message at 18:56 on Apr 5, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2010 18:51
|
|
|
Especially since there are probably a lot of carpenters who do exactly that.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2010 23:34
|
|
|
He's not talking about picture quality he's talking about the brand. You can buy a Nikon DSLR and you can buy a Nikon film camera the difference is is that the digital camera is going to be in part manufactured and designed by a company other than Nikon where all the components in the film camera are Nikon products. It doesn't really matter much to me becuase I dont use Nikon cameras anyway but I can understand why someone who had invested themselves into the brand before would have mixed feelings about the sensor being designed by a ostensible competitor. Really though if a product is good I'll use it and it doesn't matter who made it, generally though products with a unified brand sell better than ones that don't and its no surprise that Nikon doesn't make pains to advertise their Sony sensor. edit: Obviously not all of the components in a Nikon camera, digital or no, are proprietary Nikon products and my point pertains more to parts of the camera as integral as a sensor where it seems strange from a branding perspective that Nikon wouldn't take ownership of the design. Twenties Superstar fucked around with this message at 06:35 on Apr 7, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2010 06:31
|
|
|
Well whats the problem then
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2010 06:36
|
|
|
Leica makes some pretty nice cameras I guess
|
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2010 21:28
|
|
|
"That'll be $600 your proofs are in the mail"
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2010 01:00
|
|
|
But actually it depends on the shoot, if you are shooting for yourself then I don't think that would require any apology, sometimes its fun to talk with your model about what you're shooting for and why but for personal work there should be no obligation to spend any more time than it takes to get what you want. Generally for personal work I would use people I know anyway so I usually do additional glamour portraits or whatever just for fun afterwards. I don't do much commissioned work but in those instances I just talk to the model during the shoot as a way of making them comfortable with the camera (as well a way for me to get more comfortable with them) it helps too if they have a friend present that you can involve or even take photos of afterwards. I don't mind taking a few extra shots or using another roll of film if it means a happier model and/or better outcome for the shoot.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2010 01:07
|
|
|
Interrupting Moss posted:Don't apologize at all. Use that as an opportunity to show clients you respect the value of their time. This is a good point too. It's all about what your model expects really, if you are up front that it will only take a few minutes to shoot a set then they have no reason to be disappointed. This is especially the case if you work with your client beforehand laying out exactly what your process is and how you are going to carry out the actual shoot.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2010 01:11
|
|
|
Leica makes probably the best rangefinders out there that also have some of the best glass made for them. They have been marketed very intelligently and have become very much a cool designer brand that also holds a reputation for quality which unfortunately means that they are also relatively expensive. As a function of human society some people talk about Leica cameras like there is no alternative and other people complain, for some reason, that the cameras exist and that people actually like them.
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2010 18:31
|
|
|
Yes, definitely. lol.
|
|
#
¿
May 20, 2010 22:06
|
|
|
pwn posted:Because of the awkward parsing of the title, whenever I see the Polaroid thread, I read it as congratulations you got the joke
|
|
#
¿
Jun 17, 2010 19:41
|
|
|
Good thing its just a patent and not a concept made by some fuckshit industrial designer or else I'd have to get really mad
|
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2010 02:19
|
|
|
squidflakes posted:Even with the lighting and retouching the pictures look really noisy to me. REALLY NOISY. They were taken with an iPhone
|
|
#
¿
Jul 7, 2010 18:22
|
|
|
rcman50166 posted:So does anyone here listen to TWIP (This Week in Photography)? Is there any back story to why they seem to be obsessed with iPhones? http://www.flickr.com/cameras/
|
|
#
¿
Jul 26, 2010 20:28
|
|
|
AIIAZNSK8ER posted:When I saw that, I felt it was only half serious. I know that they do some crazy things for food styling, but the cheese puller hand model lady is out of control. Uh did you watch the whole thing? It's an advertisement.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 27, 2010 20:14
|
|
|
BeastOfExmoor posted:
It also lets you do the third thing if you drag the sides of the crop box after initially setting the crop and there is a whole other tool for rotating the entire scene.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 29, 2010 04:43
|
|
|
Yeah it actually does help stability quite a bit because the tension on the string not only braces the camera to a consistent height but also helps you keep the camera at a fairly consistent orientation. Obviously it's not as good as a tripod or even a monopod but in a pinch it's better than nothing.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 2, 2010 23:59
|
|
|
Spedman posted:I fully appreciate what your saying, I really digged his photos but that was before I knew who he was or what he's like. I don't think I can separate him from his work, primarily as he's in a lot of it. And I think the other problem I have is imitators doing really crap versions of his work and calling it edgy. But this is all a photographic amatuer's opinion. To be honest Terry Richardsons personality only makes his work more interesting to me edit: I'm not really sure what you mean by what you said, what is it about him that makes you dislike his work? Twenties Superstar fucked around with this message at 23:11 on Sep 6, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Sep 6, 2010 23:09
|
|
|
nonanone posted:Good news! I made into the film class I wanted, and the prof is going to let me use a friend's hassel. So now I'll get to learn the mysterious ways of the darkroom. Also, nyfw! The first thing you should learn about the mysterious ways of the darkroom is that Hasselblad is shortened to Hassey - edit: Also, the "is this art or is it obscene" is one of the oldest debates in art and Terry Richardson's work and the response embodies it perfectly. On top of that Richardson's stuff is not even the most "racy" stuff out there, you can cite uncomfortable models until your face turns blue but there are other sketchy rear end dudes out there that get just as much if not even more acclaim than him. edit2: also don't even try to talk like pretty much all "UrbEx Photography" isn't uninspired garbage Twenties Superstar fucked around with this message at 08:44 on Sep 8, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2010 08:12
|
|
|
I HATE CARS posted:How is Araki sketchy? Dude is absolutely awesome and seems to be super nice. I'm saying he's about as sketchy as Terry Richardson
|
|
#
¿
Sep 9, 2010 05:15
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:Dorkroom right there. 
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2010 15:44
|
|
|
Do you really expect to be able to pay $25 for an unwatermarked 8x10? Regardless of whether or not you own the rights to that photo probably you're going to want to talk to a person at National Geographic about it and not complain about the form people send in when they want to get a copy of Giraffe Baby and Afghan Girl to hang up in there office.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2010 01:41
|
|
|
pwn posted:You paid $10 for an account here. Do you think that was solely so SA could make money? Yes?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2010 06:00
|
|
|
Yes, I remember that. It was also in like 1999 or 2000 when the idea that Something Awful could be Lowtax's sole source of income wasn't even a glimmer in his eye. Similarly National Geographic in the past has held and sponsored contests that were free to enter and had big prizes. Do you actually think that Nat Geo is concerned that they would get too many low quality submissions? They have that reader photo page at the beginning of their issues and as far as I know there is no fee to submit to that. It's a no-brainer that less people are going to submit crappy photos if there is an entrance fee but $15 is not going to stop anybody with more money than sense (a common breed on photo forums) from submitting a whole stack of bullshit. In any case, even if the registration fee on Something Awful was still meant to be a mechanism for keeping out trolls and undesirables it's certainly not doing a good job. GBS and every other big forum is pretty much indistinguishable from 4chan or whatever excepting that there are rules here about typing with proper punctuation. You don't have to look long in this forum until you see a dumb meme or someone making GBS threads on a thread for no good reason or someone talking about their anal lining falling out or whatever.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2010 04:39
|
|
|
mr. mephistopheles posted:You've never been to GBS or 4chan. Well then I'll err to your expert opinion.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2010 05:07
|
|
|
Mannequin posted:Don't you think there's a disservice in not being constructive, though? Telling someone they have no hope of making it in the industry and they should get out now is one thing and may be completely necessary at times, but telling someone their work is flawed during a critiquing session without explaining why just seems like a disservice. More than that, I think it damages. I'm not mincing my words, I think tough criticism is sometimes the best, even if it's a little over the edge. But those kids seem impressionable and obviously they are vulnerable in a situation like that. I would think his harsh criticism could have been met with solid backing, if for no other reason than to humor them. It is like a math class. In math class a cross photoshopped on the white house would pass because the assignment is images that depict culture and an image of the white house with a cross certainly depicts a view of American culture. In art class it fails because that is honestly one of the dumbest most obvious loving ideas I've ever heard. Art isn't solve for x and show your work, it's do something interesting in an interesting way, I don't care how or what as long as it's interesting. A student who can't figure out what that means and how to do it is not going to be successful in a conceptual art class that is actually trying to teach them something instead of just patting them on the back because they have some boneheaded idea of "what's really going on in society."
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2010 10:48
|
|
|
Mannequin posted:For the two to be comparable you'd have to say the challenge was to depict culture in a meaningful way, otherwise there would be no way for the two to arrive at the same conclusion. The method is NECESSARILY different because in art there is nothing to solve incorrectly!! When someone hands in an improperly solved question in math you can tell them exactly how to make it right and show them where they went wrong. In art class when you hand in an assignment and the idea is bad it's not because you took a wrong turn with your figures. The prof can't just come in and straighten out your error because the error is endemic in the way you think and your dedication to the craft not simply in poor execution. If the student is someone who honestly thinks that a cross on the white house is a valuable piece of art and aren't just lazy then there is probably nothing a prof can do for them beyond saying "this is obvious and stupid".
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2010 06:45
|
|
|
brad industry posted:This is my favorite quote in the history of everything John Ruskin: "The labour of two days is that for which you ask two hundred guineas?" James Whistler: "No. I ask it for the knowledge I have gained in the work of a lifetime."
|
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2011 20:06
|
|
|
VomitOnLino posted:Don't have anything to add really, but: There are a lot of reasons to use a tripod in bright day light 
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2011 08:08
|
|
|
No Advice, just fun stuff. For example referring to woman as holes to be hosed.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2011 21:41
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 20:21 |
|
|
squidflakes posted:Lighten up, Francis. Obviously this statement can be applied equally well to men, its just a different group of holes. I'm glad that you're a thinking egalitarian but objectifying a man is just as bad as a women hombre
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2011 00:03
|
|