|
Cyberbob posted:Realy? wow.. where can I find more information on it? Yep. I think they used little microscopic cultures for all of the effects. I watched it when I rented it and it was really fascinating... made me appreciate the movie even more.
|
#
¿
Nov 17, 2009 20:24
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 2, 2024 04:21 |
|
|
Hop Pocket posted:Yeah. It looks better as you've displayed it, in two pieces. It's art now. Agreed, I like your photo of the picure torn in two more than I like the original.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2010 19:03
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:I know all you scrubs probably have the big picture in your RSS feeds, but the recent one was pretty interesting - http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2010/02/backstage_at_fashion_week.html The reflector that the model is holding in picture 20 looks like some tin-foil home-made poo poo.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2010 13:24
|
|
|
squidflakes posted:Oh, and whoever said that woot fatigue does good HDR... man... there really should be a different term for what woot does that separates it from the average shithead who takes three pictures and presses the HDR button in some program. Whitezombi posted:I think poo poo works best. 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. HDR = High Dynamic Range Forget the part where it says High, lets just focus on "Dynamic Range." To learn about dynamic range, check out this site for a readup, and check out this site to see picture examples. Dynamic range is a good thing. Take a look at Ansel Adams' landscapes. Pretty much all of them have a high dynamic range and as a result pretty much all of them look awesome. Ansel Adams didn't use photoshop and photomatix to achieve these results, he just shot medium/large format which allow a much higher dynamic range than smaller film formats. (He also was great in the No no, nobody hates HDR. People hate tone mapping. Simple Definition of Tone Mapping posted:Tone mapping is a technique used in image processing and computer graphics to map one set of colours to another, often to approximate the appearance of high dynamic range images in a medium that has a more limited dynamic range. Since this is a photography forum that doesn't put up with much stupidity, I don't understand why people allow this pretty significant misunderstanding to keep being spread around without trying to instead educate people. RangerScum fucked around with this message at 21:43 on Apr 30, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2010 21:40
|
|
|
Whitezombi posted:Yes - I am a fool. Whatever the gently caress you want to call it. I still think the photos everyone posts and calls HDR look like poo poo. 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.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2010 21:53
|
|
|
Beastruction posted:Tone mapping is a method of creating high dynamic range images, hating "HDR" is short-hand for hating poorly-crafted HDR images. I'm just saying that one result of people never using the correct terms is that you confuse people that are new to photography and teach them to hate something that they shouldn't. Yes HDR can be relative when comparing large format film to digital. However, when discussing photographs the relation of dynamic range of our eyeballs to our sensors/film isn't ever relevant. Tone mapping can look amazing as well, as seen in some of the Nasa photos that you have mentioned. I never said I hated tone mapping, I just said that is what people who don't like "hdr" photos dislike. I can't make anyone say anything different, I was just making sure people knew the difference (not everyone does) and was stating that I thought it odd that the same poeple who get anal over the smallest little things on these forums can't be assed to use/learn the right terminology for something they frequently state their distaste for.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2010 22:12
|
|
|
Whitezombi posted:It's pretty simple guys. I am calling the lovely photos that people call HDR exactly what they are - poo poo. I think there is a pretty big difference between those photos and my landscapes. I also think that I have a pretty good idea of what dynamic range is based on those photos. Hey guys it was a joke about a funny skit that was kinda similar to the situation guys but alright.  Yes there is a big difference between lovely tone-mapped images and some of your landscapes. I guess it puzzles me why nobody wants to call it the right thing and then get downright hostile about it when it's brought up.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2010 22:24
|
|
|
spf3million posted:Whatever happened to Clayton Bigsby anyway? Last I heard he divorced his wife.
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2010 01:56
|
|
|
poopinmymouth posted:Post your portfolio link. You should probably at least say please. I am not yet sure what opinion I have of this earth-crushing debacle, but I would be interested in knowing how many other guides there are that make the ridiculously long and annoying trek to this remote tribe of people. I can't imagine it being a large industry.
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2010 17:39
|
|
|
poopinmymouth posted:You guys are treating this like it's a cut throat business that anything not illegal is fair game, which while technically correct, devalues the artform of photography. If the guy has nice work (which some of it is ok on his site) he should come up with his own ideas, so we can see some new stuff, not copy someone elses. All legal issues aside, it was lovely to do. I am not sure I agree with you. I think both pieces of work are nothing more than nice-looking documentary work when you consider the subject matter. Joey L didn't create those people with his imagination, he simply chose the matter in which to portray their "story." You can't lay claim to documenting something. You can be the first to do it in a certain way- which I think is a pretty significant feat that other people can't take away from- but the subject matter isn't yours to claim. edit: Ok should have read to the bottom of the thread, my bad.
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2010 19:24
|
|
|
squidflakes posted:Let me just say that today is the 3rd time I've been laughed at when I told someone what I was looking to pay to rent a 10X10 climate controlled space so I could at least fool myself in to thinking that I had a studio. Is 10x10 even really big enough though? I realize it might be better than nothing but you would be extremely limited.
|
|
#
¿
May 11, 2010 18:01
|
|
|
torgeaux posted:It could work, so long as you can stand outside and shoot in, which shouldn't be a problem. Yep that is true, I hadn't considered that.
|
|
#
¿
May 11, 2010 18:16
|
|
|
squidflakes posted:Also, when I grow up, I want to be like Fadil and touch all the models while sensually pulling things out of them. I haven't heard of Fadil before.. from the sound of him I assume he is a pretty well known veteran? Do lots of famous pros all touch the models? That's always been a big no-no for me so yeah, I'm a little shocked to see him doing that. He fluffed that one girls hair and it didn't change jack poo poo. Why couldn't she fluff it? Creepy.
|
|
#
¿
May 13, 2010 19:48
|
|
|
Fun topic for discussion: Copyright. Ok say I want to take a really cool self portrait, except I realise there is no way to actually do what I have in mind with the camera on a tripod or by holding the camera myself. So I set up all the lights, create the scene, then hand the camera to my friend after dialing in all the settings and direct him how to compose the shot and finally take the picture. Who does the copyright belong to in this case? Technically he took the picture so technically it is copyright, correct? What if I press the shutter button and start the timer and then hand it to him and have him compose the shot? Is it still his copyright? What if I have my camera on a tripod and I press the timer button and someone picks up my camera and re-composes the shot before the picture is taken. Whose copyright is it? What if I have my camera on a tripod and I press the timer button and someone bumps my camera altering the composition slightly before the picture is taken. Whose copyright is it? To be honest, it isn't a very important question but I am interested in knowing how everyone here interprets these different situations.
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2010 20:42
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:Your friend is a human tripod in this case. You wouldn't give a manfrotto tripod or a gorillapod copyright would you? 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.
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2010 22:48
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:I would imagine those are also defined in contracts too. I agree that those are probably all predetermined copyrights.
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2010 23:27
|
|
|
poopinmymouth posted:Every bit of white painted text, logos, and graphics on my camera is gaffered over, and I picked out the white embroidery from the strap so it says nothing. I'm too cheap to buy a new strap when the stock one works, and I want the whole thing to look as cheap as possible. I blinged out my strap with swarovski crystals so it looks like the strap alone is worth a few thousand dollars. It makes me look more professional because it means I'm rich.
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2010 13:29
|
|
|
InternetJunky posted:Thursday was Canada Day and I was in a national park chilling on a beach trying to get some pelican shots. Being a holiday, the place was packed with people, many of whom brought dogs. I was sitting in a folding chair with my (very expensive) tripod setup in front of me when a couple walked past and watched as their dog pissed on my tripod. It was only after I made a big stink about it that I even got a completely fake apology, otherwise they seemed content to walk off. I thought all Canadians were supposed to be nice? 
|
|
#
¿
Jul 3, 2010 19:08
|
|
|
That last photo is depressing as gently caress..
|
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2010 07:14
|
|
|
Augmented Dickey posted:Wait, I'm so confused. You bought a $5000 body before buying a single AF lens? And isn't the 28mm 2.8 like one of the smallest lenses out there? Yeah what the gently caress. What about a D3s attracted you? It's like buying an ultimate offroad vehicle and putting the little donut spares on for tires.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 20, 2010 03:33
|
|
|
brad industry posted:I had 2 archive drives fail on the exact same day and S3 saved about 4 years worth of images that I otherwise would have lost. I haven't had a failure yet but I do backup all my poo poo with jungledisk and it's awesome. I just backup my processed files.. my computer runs a raid 1 so I am not at a horrible risk of losing all my poo poo. The final products are whats most important to me anyway, I don't really ever go back and re-edit old photos.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 24, 2010 00:34
|
|
|
Those super-long-exposure pinhole photos are amazing, I'm surprised I hadn't ever heard of anything like that before.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 27, 2010 17:08
|
|
|
It would have been more exciting looking if the spriklers shot out fire instead of water.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 12, 2010 18:44
|
|
|
At the end of the video, the lady offered a free 30 minute session to everyone that signed up for her deal on groupon. I'm sure not everyone would take advantage of that, but still, she just offered to work 500 hours for free... and that's session time only. What the gently caress!
|
|
#
¿
Sep 23, 2010 14:11
|
|
|
Let's stop talking about math now, please.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2010 14:52
|
|
|
I have a friend on facebook who majored in photography from a state school. Below is some of her work: Click here for the full 608x819 image.  Click here for the full 1134x755 image.  Click here for the full 1136x756 image.  Click here for the full 1142x756 image. I guess during the course of her 4 year degree they skipped the basic lessons on focus and exposure and jumped straight to !*SeLeCtIvE CoLoRiNg*! I'm not shocked to learn that she is now a secretary and charges about $50 for senior sessions.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2010 20:22
|
|
|
subx posted:Sheesh. She spent money to learn to take photos like this I fixed that for you.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2010 20:33
|
|
|
poopinmymouth posted:Right now I'm going alone (Agust doesn't like these kind of trips) so I'll have to tag along with another group of strangers, but if I can get even one other person interested (long shot I know) we can have a photographer only group. I would but you never once complimented my looks in the show yourself thread so I'm afraid I can't help you out, Mr. Poopinmymouth. In all seriousness, it does look like a cool trip but I can't commit at this time due to uncertainty in where I'll be working come September and whether or not I'll have vacation time I can use. Ah, the life of an overworked American.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 12, 2011 15:40
|
|
|
I couldn't ever go on a photo tour.. having people taking the same pictures at the same place and time as me would make me want to just delete them and say "gently caress it." I'm a unique snowflake, damnit.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2011 06:59
|
|
|
I thought it was something poetic symbolizing that being married doesn't mean she can't still yearn for Mannequin.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2011 22:45
|
|
|
I'm thinking of switching to carbon fiber because the lens hood on my 24-70 is too heavy and isn't stiff enough.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2011 18:50
|
|
|
Random question, but does anyone own a copy of Terryworld? What do you think of it? I'm kinda intrigued by it but am currently on the fence as to whether or not it'd make for a nice, vulgar coffee-table book.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2011 20:04
|
|
|
William T. Hornaday posted:Did they borrow their music from Death To Smoochy? After I read this I was listening to the commercial and was thinking "is this guy crazy?" and then it started up.. hilarious!
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2011 23:45
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:Terryworld I did end up purchasing this book and watching people's reactions to it has been more than worth the $20 I spent on it. I've yet to see someone who started looking at it not go through the entire book at least once.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2011 22:30
|
|
|
Haha holy poo poo: "You have perfect color vision!" This is probably a crime because I've never used a calibrated monitor my entire life and having colors be an exact thing is something I haven't ever really had to worry about.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2011 18:56
|
|
|
Just pick it up in person: http://www.helixcamera.com/rental/Rental/RentIndex.html I work like a block and a half away from them and went into their rental dept and they seem to have a lot of poo poo and their prices aren't too bad.
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2011 21:58
|
|
|
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=rangefinder+camera
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2011 21:11
|
|
|
What makes absolutely no sense about it is that I'm pretty sure the big name professionals rent a lot/most/all of their lighting equipment. What gear someone owns is probably the least important factor out of the entire equation.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2011 21:22
|
|
|
Cross_ posted:Well you could put it in SAD, or even better put it in a photo book for the grandparents. He probably is the grandparent. 
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2011 15:23
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 2, 2024 04:21 |
|
|
Zooming to 100% is potentially pointless depending on what the photos will be used for. If you're going to be making a huge print out of them, then that's fine. If it's going on a website as an 800x600 image then it's completely unnecessary.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2011 16:33
|
|