I found the best photographer: "Christy, get down on your knees"

The Something Awful Forums > The Finer Arts > Creative Convention > The Dorkroom > I found the best photographer: "Christy, get down on your knees"

torgeaux: Dec 31, 2004; I serve...

Hocus Pocus posted:

Can somebody explain to me how people can think this kind of HDR looks good? Because I honestly can't find anything aesthetically pleasing about it. Its oily, blurry, it glows in weird places, the colours are gross, the actual composition is boring, and the perspective seems kind of stretched and hosed up. So what's going on in a person's brain where they can look at this and think "that's beautiful"?

I understand that people have different tastes, but this is just top to bottom ugly?

The answer to your question is no.

# ¿ Jun 29, 2015 02:24

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 28, 2024 08:35

torgeaux: Dec 31, 2004; I serve...

KinkyJohn posted:

It looks like our friend Bill Barber went on a trip to france and had a loving blast.

IMG_6506 by Bill Barber, on Flickr

IMG_6508 by Bill Barber, on Flickr

His photostream does end in a dark alley though, so maybe we should be worried... he was last seen in 2015

Consider for a moment if he hadn't done extensive post-processing on those images. Neither is bad as a snapshot, which is all they were clearly intended to be when he took them. And, no one would pause for a split second as they flew past those mundane images. But now, they invoke a much greater emotional impact. Sure, it's all negative, but look, look what he did. Instead of dismissing him as another thousand shot per trip family man, I now hate him intensely.

# ¿ Apr 24, 2016 15:54

torgeaux: Dec 31, 2004; I serve...

Bill Barber posted:

Bugger off.

You have validated my very existence.

# ¿ Apr 24, 2016 20:15

torgeaux: Dec 31, 2004; I serve...

mAlfunkti0n posted:

Don't forget the argument for Program mode article and the (IMO) awful street photography photos within.

At least the comments to that article showed some intelligence.

# ¿ Apr 25, 2016 14:26

torgeaux: Dec 31, 2004; I serve...

Choicecut posted:

You aren't kidding. I just noticed a pedophile that's following me. This dudes pictures are of him doing poo poo in his underwear:

https://m.flickr.com/#/photos/25249413@N02/

It weirded me out a bit so I started looking at the people he is following. Every single one I looked at has young kids in their stream. Families, young girls, etc. I'm gonna have to spend the next couple days switching most of my poo poo to private. I'm probably a dumbass for leaving pictures of my kids and family public, but it really has me weirded out.

Name no picture of a child anything that a search for children will show them. I shoot lots of elementary school kids for birthday headshots. Date only for the name. Too scary, otherwise.

# ¿ Jun 22, 2016 04:47

torgeaux: Dec 31, 2004; I serve...

HookShot posted:

This was my favourite, I can't stop laughing at the completely out of focus bunny.

It's a photo of GRASS you doofus. Look at that sweet bokeh on the bunny.

Great, what a snype.

# ¿ Jun 24, 2016 01:47

torgeaux: Dec 31, 2004; I serve...

I read it and can't help think it sounds like a 14 year old, not a 21 year old. Of course, he is going to Christian college, so there's that.

# ¿ Jul 18, 2017 20:04

torgeaux: Dec 31, 2004; I serve...

Sorry, I just can't get around the lumpy bra. I have to dispute they're the best photographer, they didn't help their model with her clothing choice very well. Otherwise, A+ would hire them for any shoot of flying fries.

# ¿ Jul 29, 2017 22:23

torgeaux: Dec 31, 2004; I serve...

Helen Highwater posted:

I absolutely wasn't making fun of her weight, I was just commenting on the likely thought process that went into the decision to shoot there with that model. You could make her look feminine and cool or punk and scary or whatever but they went with fast food.

Her weight is a legitimate source of criticism, not because she's overweight, but because of the nature of the shoot. Who would care if the same girl had a typically cliched shoot in a field, throwing up daisies? But it's McDonald's and loving French fries.

# ¿ Jul 30, 2017 13:45

torgeaux: Dec 31, 2004; I serve...

Helen Highwater posted:

Well yes, that was the entire point that I was making (apparently not very well).

Sorry, I was responding to the other guy, and agreeing with you.

# ¿ Jul 30, 2017 18:16

torgeaux: Dec 31, 2004; I serve...

Hey, I actually like this work, but can't find our thread for that.

https://www.sapporo-creation.com/

# ¿ Jan 30, 2018 13:37

torgeaux: Dec 31, 2004; I serve...

President Beep posted:

That’s an oddly specific use.

Me? I specialize in forced perspective shots where it looks like I’m pinching a tiny person’s head but they’re actually normal sized. Which camera should I get? I have a $5,000 budget.

On that budget? Nothing. For that kind of photography you need medium format, minimim.

# ¿ Apr 18, 2018 03:17

torgeaux: Dec 31, 2004; I serve...

President Beep posted:

Slow down, guys. I'm taking notes here.

Here you go.

https://petapixel.com/2018/04/17/largesense-unveils-worlds-first-single-shot-8x10-digital-camera/

# ¿ Apr 18, 2018 18:19

torgeaux: Dec 31, 2004; I serve...

The fact that it's only black and white, and only 12 mp, well, why? Why?

# ¿ Apr 19, 2018 00:18

torgeaux: Dec 31, 2004; I serve...

xzzy posted:

"This picture has the coolest imagery going on. In front of perhaps the ugliest background, I took this photo with the reflection at the perfect level. Right at the top of my subjects head is the beginning of the reflection of the trees all around us. There is also a perfectly placed ray of sunshine gleaming down to the perfect spot on his forehead. It creates powerful imagery and turns an ugly background into the perfect background of a photo with this much complexity."

https://www.getfractals.com/gallery/creative-portrait-camera-filter

Jesus, now what am I supposed to do? I've got that burned into my retinas now, and it comes with douche voice included.

# ¿ Aug 3, 2018 14:31

torgeaux: Dec 31, 2004; I serve...

xzzy posted:

"This picture has the coolest imagery going on. In front of perhaps the ugliest background, I took this photo with the reflection at the perfect level. Right at the top of my subjects head is the beginning of the reflection of the trees all around us. There is also a perfectly placed ray of sunshine gleaming down to the perfect spot on his forehead. It creates powerful imagery and turns an ugly background into the perfect background of a photo with this much complexity."

https://www.getfractals.com/gallery/creative-portrait-camera-filter

I propose a contest thread of portraits imitating this thing. Bonus points for selfies.

# ¿ Aug 4, 2018 01:38

torgeaux: Dec 31, 2004; I serve...

I keep comments because i dont post to any groups (occasionally to the benches group because they seriously like benches, and I find it so innocent). I basically get an occasional comment from one of you guys, or someone who follows me. I ignore invites and badges the rare occasions they occur.

# ¿ Sep 30, 2018 14:46

torgeaux: Dec 31, 2004; I serve...

rio posted:

Large parts of Flickr are total cesspools for a mix of bad photography and fetishes.

All photography sites enable the worst of photographers. No exceptions. Either regulate them to death, thereby excluding some great photos that happen to have tits, or live with the fact that a furry photography group will exist on your site.

# ¿ Oct 1, 2018 17:47

torgeaux: Dec 31, 2004; I serve...

mAlfunkti0n posted:

"realistically"

I am not sure he knows the meaning of that word. Nothing about that photo looks real to me.

This guy lives near me (sort of). I went to his facebook page....they're all HDR tonemapped crap.

Oh, and those leaves are green or yellow. That's it, the only two things that occur on them in nature.

# ¿ Oct 12, 2018 19:00

torgeaux: Dec 31, 2004; I serve...

Helen Highwater posted:

The very next day he asks if he can meet me at lunchtime because it's an emergency - my office is close to where he lives so he can be there in a few minutes. I go down to the lobby to see wtf. He tells me that the adapter (just a dumb mechanical adapter) is stuck. He can't get it off the camera. I take a look, and he's somehow managed to put it on upside down. It's a super cheap Polish bit of cast metal, but it has the EF/EF-S red dot/white square registration marks on the body side - just like every lens that he's ever attached to his camera - and it has laser etched text on the front that is the right way up when it's mounted properly. By applying a lot more force than I'm really comfortable in using on a $4000 camera that doesn't belong to me, I get it off and explain to him how to mount lenses. He is honestly astonished by this, it had never occurred to him that lenses would only fit one way, or that adapters would fit exactly the same way as lenses do. Apparently he had to hammer it on to make it fit and it didn't occur to him that this was a bad thing.

I reached this part prepared to be sympathetic...i have an m42 to fuji adapter, and it can go on wrong, it just won't click into place....so if you put the lens on without looking, it can just not be on right, and i could see someone jamming it too hard to try to get it to engage. Nope, you've got a winner there. If I could offer some small advice? Stop lending him gear.

# ¿ Oct 26, 2018 12:53

torgeaux: Dec 31, 2004; I serve...

pseudorandom posted:

Putting your giant watermark on your crappy photo of someone else's painting.

I can only assume people think it's his painting he took a photo of. What else would they be commenting on?

# ¿ Dec 22, 2018 00:00

torgeaux: Dec 31, 2004; I serve...

EL BROMANCE posted:

Yeeeeeeeeah I think I�m gonna decline this gracious invitation, not solely based on the fact that I�m not sexy, a teen, or a girl.

Ok, what the gently caress pictures did you take, and how did you tag them?

# ¿ Jan 17, 2019 00:05

torgeaux: Dec 31, 2004; I serve...

SMERSH Mouth posted:

While I was in the Northernmost of Japan, I realized that the real worst of worst issue of the Sony Alpha E mount and A too is the lens build quality without any proper weather sealing.
They are very fragile, their bodies are actually not as weak or fragile as many Nikon Canon fanboys think they are, they could take a lot of abuse, my A7R3 is actually quite tough, even my A7R2 is very tough-never had any issue even shooting in a minus 20c cold winter mountain. But their lenses even the expensive GMasters are very very weak. I realized I actually collected 3 dead GM lenses when I was leaving Hokkaido...
So I ma no longer buying any of their AF lenses any more especially these expensive ones. I am hundred percent Batis , Loxia and Voigtlander now(these are way more durable than the weak GMaster junks). It is really liberating to be Sony-lens-less now. Sony should sick with just the sensor and camera body part of this game and should buy lenses from Tamron , Zeiss and Km since they cannot make any lens properly sealed. Their weather sealing is a joke.
The near future state of the mirrorless market(updated 9):
Does the high end ILC market have enough rooms for all the current 6 FF players?
In last year 2017, I thought Fuji was really doomed , maybe even more doomed than m43, and now many people think Fuji is equally doomed as m43 or Pentax, but now I actually think we are all wrong on that.
I think Fuji will definitely survive and maybe if we have to pick the one will definitely survive as a camera maker besides Leica , I will have to pick Fuji or Canon. Why?
It's because Fuji is a distinct case. People will buy Fuji not because it's better than Nikon/Canon/Sony, but because it's more ritzy, or maybe more accurate to put it this way -it is more film-like or retro? We have many hipster old men that love Fuji , they do not care if Sony beats it in a specsheet war,or Canon has more lenses or Nikon betas all with the biggest future proven Z mount.......
You can see that in any camera forum, where people rave about Fuji's image quality, which, frankly, isn't really distinctively better for anyone other than a photophile pixel-peeper. Plus, anyone interested in making larger prints (which is really the only place a difference might appear) APS-C is basically as good as FF, and the differences will close as technology matures. I would suggest that Fuji is a special case, as Leica has been for a while. The images will be fine, but that's not really the reason to buy Fuji. But: fashion goes on forever -- see Leica. It's simply cooler to younger people than Sony, Nikon , Canon or especially Panasonic.
So Fuji is just fine although some Nikon Sony fanboys dismiss it just because it does not have FF or does not choose to go FF. As I said already, the 24, 26 or 30mp is more than enough of a high resolution sensor for most of screens and prints. And most of people cannot tell prints from a 24mp APS-C vs a 42 or 45mp FF apart in a smaller than a A2 print.
And with the XT3 , Fuji has just proved that they can do video as well as any one else, now at least spec and IQ wise they are one of the best hybrid video camera maker .
I am sure that has shocked quite a few of Sony Panasonic hybrid camera fanboys.
And for those people who think APS-C is not good enough for their needs, Fuji has the G mount system.
So I think Fuji seems to be the most logical guy in the FF obsessed film term loving crazy conservative camera industry. They will survive regardless of what Canon Nikon Sony Panasonic will do.
So the real competition for mainstream FF market share is Nikon/Canon/Sony/Panasonic Leica, and of the 4 , I now think the L mount is the most vulnerable one due to the very high initial entry cost of the system. We all know every thing Leica is very expensive , but as a boutique brand Leica will always be able to get away with it, but Pansonic? No. They are a huge home appliance maker and as such they have no brand power in this market although they've actually shown they have the best tech in this industry both in optics and electronics.
Besides the L mount consortium,I have the least faith that Sony cameras will be here in ten years. Because Sony is sorta..unfashionable. It's common. For the past few years, Sony's been doing well, because it's been innovative. But the products of the three main FF manufacturers are quickly converging, to the point where the only distinctive factor may be some subtle ergonomic preferences and cost effective mid range quality lens selection. Once the technology shakes out, and they're all selling the same thing, then fashion reasserts itself. Historically, Sony has not been willing to struggle for minor profits on what is to them, marginal products. See the various Vaio PC products, or the portable audio systems. If they dropped cameras entirely, it would make no visible difference in their profit as they are basically a insurance and entertainment business company.
IMHO, Sony just misjudged the Canon and the Nikon future mirrorless strategy, so they felt the E mount would be powerful enough to keep it going well for them.
But , any one old enough to remember Minolta A7000, it was a huge hit and because of its huge success Minolta dominated the 35mm AF camera world in the late 80's until Canon entered into that market with the revolutionary all electronics ILC system EOS.
I was a little kid when my father bought Minolta A7000 for my older sister, who just disliked the camera and gave it to me in 1989. I think it was 1987 or 88 when Minolta announced it and every body called the industry shakeup that occurred after the A7000 introduction as 'Alpha shock'.
Minolta suddenly became no1 35mm SLR maker. But its success did not continue long, Canon came up with the EOS that featured a completely new all electronically controlled wide mount system. I think this very brief history of the 35mm AF SLR tells us the history will repeat itself again, the Alpha shock was great for a couple of years and made Minolta the winner of the AF 35mm format for a couple of years or so, but it did not change anything in the long run. Canon took the back the lead very soon with much more efficient future proven mount system and extremely fast electronically controlled mount system.
Nikon decided to keep the old (already old in 1989)F mount even in the coming AF era, and that decision really hurt Nikon. They could not compete with Canon in super fast prime and TS lens design , and as a result Canon became the indisputable market leader since then.
So I think Nikon really knew and understood importance of the big enough core mount design, that's why they designed the widest 35mm FF mount for the Z.
Sony may have thought it would not chance much, but we all know it will in the long run , Sony will have to play a hard uphill battle, with the very restricted small E mount.
The wider mount allows Nikon to design smaller and bit better lenses cheaper.
We already see it in their new 35mm f2.8S and 50mm f1.8S, they are truly Otus class optics in a tiny plastic barrel that costs almost 1/5th of the Otus price.
But still Sony fanboys defy against it as 'big, heavy, fast lenses are facing an uncertain future anyway'. Many Sony diehards seem to believe the big mount advantage is that allows CN to design a line of super fast say f1 lenses, and that is all.
'If somebody actually makes outlandish f/1-ish lenses, and if people actually flock to pay big money for them, and if Sony's mount actually starts to impose limitations in that area, expect them to counter with alternative computational photography approaches that close the gap at lower cost, weight, and bulk. In other words - this is no big deal and never was.
Well what can we say about the claim? The above guy is really a moron, even with computational approach , a better lens is always better, he does not seem to understand that.
And Big fast lenses, as the main advantage of a wide lens mount, are actually a bit of a red herring.
As a marketing benefit they may indeed have some advantage but few actually buy them. Nice to have in the line up though, especially if it induces some to buy into the system, which I think there is no doubt it does, even if they never buy such lenses like the RF50mm f1.2L or the Z58mmf0.98S. The Nikon one may not be very practical, but the Canon RF50mm f1.2L is a very practical lens, which is a tiny bit bigger than the Sony FE50mm f1.4ZA ,which is already a superb lens , but the Canon is definitely a much sharper lens, there is no doubt about it.
But the real benefit the wider mount gives Canon and Nikon is the advantage in the flexibility of designing and manufacturing many mid level lenses, not just the exotic ones. That's not to say that very good lenses can not be designed for a narrow mount (witness Leica for example) but the complexity and cost of doing so in is increased. Thus, all Leicas are much more expensive than similar class CN optics.
When Canon introduced the wide EF Mount (compared to the relatively narrow Nikon F Mount) there was an immediate optical advantage for certain fast tele lenses. But although those might have captured some attention in the professional market relatively few of such lenses were ever sold compared with the vast numbers of more modest lenses that sold to the majority of the buying public. But what that wide lens throat did do was make many designs simpler and therefore cheaper. And that in turn increased Canon's margins compared with Nikon's, which enabled more to be spent on R&D and marketing, etc., etc and that partially accounts for the difference in market share we see today. Even 3rd party manufacturers like Sigma admitted that some of their lenses were more difficult to design for the F mount because of this.
So don't get too hung up on the likes of the RF50 f/1.2 and 28-7- f/2.0, these are interesting though, only to those who are interested in the Otus class optics at the big cost of size , price and weight. The real advantages the Z and the R mount give us are more modest lenses like the Z50mm f1.8S(sharper than the Otus 55mm f1.4 at 1/5th the Otus price and weight), the RF35mm f1.8Macro(a fantastically sharp lens, maybe as sharp as the Zeiss Batis 40mm f2CF in the E mount and the Canon is cheaper faster and more versatile with real 1 to 1 macro capability).
In other words, the real advantage of the wider mount may well be the cheaper or more cost effective middle class lens lineup that easily rivals the GM line of Sony.
Even the most aggressive Canon Nikon hating Sony fanboys will see this very fact and realize who wrong they are at it, but I doubt they will ever change their opinion on this issue even then, since they are simply haters , nothing else.
But for the majority of us, the Z and the R will be a much more cost-effective system , now it is not better yet, but give them a several or even a couple more years, the Z and the R will grow up to be a great system.
Since the sensor tech for sheer image quality is not getting any better since about 2012, it will be all about lens quality and how they each will deploy the computational part of image tech into their chosen system.
And even in the best possible scenario for them, Sony's unwillingness to develop a good lens lineup for the APS-C E mount system will eventually hurt them seriously.
The APS-C market is about 7 times bigger than the 35mm FF market now and many industry analysts think the FF is now at the peak of its life.
I agree the small FF mirorrless market will not have enough rooms for the current 6 players , and that means some guys will have to die soon.
Most analysts seem to think the market has 3 or 4 rooms for those players but not 6 rooms for all the 6.
I think Panasonic will be the first one to give up this game. The 4500 US S1 and S1R will not help them much, as I already pointed out , they have no brand power to ask that kind of money for their very first FF camera.
They may think their decision to teaming up with Leica allows them to price everything like Leica , but no.
They are not Leica , not even Nikon, not even Canon or Sony or Fuji.
They seem never understand why their great GH line failed,and before that,the technologically even more advanced Samsung NX line (the most technologically advanced camera system back then) also failed.
It's because of their weak brand name or brand recognition in this conservative market.
If GH or NX1 were a Canon or a Nikon , or even a Fuji or a Sony, then it would have become a big hit, for sure. The only one reason they did not do well was they were not from one of those more respected traditional photo brands.
Sony will do well in the short run, but in the long run ? I am not sure, as Canon R and Nikon Z get more lenses and adapter support, many of those actually concern about high quality optics at a decent price point , will move to CN or Fuji.
It is already occurring here , in Asia , I think the American market will follow that trend here.
Sony thinks most of us are rich enough to buy a 7k fullframe system every year, Panasonic thinks most of us easily afford a 4.5k 24mp camera, but that 'we do not care about the price but the innovation' kind of crazy gearhead market is not big enough to sustain their ILC business. And those really rich will always prefer Leica or MF systems over overpriced Sony or Panasonic FF system.
Many people do not just buy something they just slightly want , especially when the sensor tech is in total stagnation, no dramatic IQ difference between a few iterations of bodies......................................................

It goes on for 5300 more words.

New forum title?

# ¿ Mar 2, 2019 11:36

torgeaux: Dec 31, 2004; I serve...

Helen Highwater posted:

I too set my black point in the middle of the histogram.

Jesus, thank God he did. Do you think this would look better with more detail in the shadows? This way, you can focus on a black point and let the rest fade out of your consciousness like the nightmare it is.

# ¿ Mar 2, 2019 15:36

torgeaux: Dec 31, 2004; I serve...

Hello Spaceman posted:

Do any of y�all have friends/family who say �oh wow beautiful photos you should sell prints�?

I do and I hate the adulation because I know my stuff is middling, at best. But then I see things like this, which make me doubt my self loathing:

From: https://www.facebook.com/344060799761184/posts/379112326256031

I have a friend who asked if I could shoot her wedding. Hard no. I told them, a, I'm not equipped for it, b, I'm not experienced at it, and c, even though they like my photos, look at the subjects...animals, kids, landscapes.

But, drat, I could do that poo poo.

# ¿ Mar 21, 2019 20:19

torgeaux: Dec 31, 2004; I serve...

He's got some pretty good stuff in his LA liquor store series. He also does commission work both writing and photographing.

# ¿ Apr 9, 2020 13:33

torgeaux: Dec 31, 2004; I serve...

Nigel Tufnel posted:

Baker Street by Lana Pahl / Country Star Photography, on Flickr

Good job they watermarked this or I would have stolen it for my portfolio.

Terrible photo, but I want to go there and take pictures at that location, because one of the reasons I hate this is I think good opportunity is there.

# ¿ May 20, 2020 23:40

torgeaux: Dec 31, 2004; I serve...

Thom12255 posted:

The fake blur of phone cameras is getting hilarious, it just deletes stuff in the scene. But people still post pictures using it so shame on them.

I think what you meant was, "Phone cameras can now do anything an expensive changeable lens camera can do, and we're all photographers now!"

# ¿ Jul 27, 2020 14:46

torgeaux: Dec 31, 2004; I serve...

https://twitter.com/Apple/status/1293622943725973504?s=19

# ¿ Aug 24, 2020 00:41

torgeaux: Dec 31, 2004; I serve...

CodfishCartographer posted:

From the cursed images thread:

Great. I'll need a pdf instead of a photo to use this to get those hot model chicks.

# ¿ Oct 26, 2020 16:03

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 28, 2024 08:35

torgeaux: Dec 31, 2004; I serve...

Thom12255 posted:

I'm sure he had a lawyer review that.

As a lawyer, let me say, that seems totally legit and will keep him out of jail and he will win every lawsuit.

Actually might help him in some rape cases where juries want to punish sluts (surprisingly frequent, and a winning tactic for some defense counsel) but that thing has the legal efficacy of toilet paper. Single ply.

# ¿ Oct 26, 2020 23:25

The Something Awful Forums > The Finer Arts > Creative Convention > The Dorkroom > I found the best photographer: "Christy, get down on your knees"