|
You know, by rewording my post and then DELETING IT, this was more or less exactly what I was hoping to avoid 
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2010 17:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 23:12 |
|
|
XTimmy posted:You know, by rewording my post and then DELETING IT, this was more or less exactly what I was hoping to avoid What? Getting poo poo for careless bigotry? There is an easier way of doing that, and it is as simple as being more careful with your language. Might I suggest: "Filmshittery" "That is so stupid" "Your photography is unmoving and poorly composed" The English language is wonderfully diverse and you can use all sorts of words to let others know of your disdain for something without making GBS threads all over their race, sex, sexual preference, etc. If there aren't enough words in English for you, substitute something from another language or why not make up one of your own! s'fun! 
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2010 17:39
|
|
|
Man, that is so squidflakes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2010 18:05
|
|
|
this poo poo womps.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2010 18:18
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Twenties Superstar posted:You might want to read that thread again. 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.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2010 18:35
|
|
|
Couple's holiday pictures recovered intact from the bottom of the sea - 16 months after digital camera was dropped overboard from QM2 cruise ship. Also PPIM takes good pictures, offers solid critique, and can love whoever he wants.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2010 18:37
|
|
|
this thread is a definitely fun stuff for dorkroom discussion but really, i hope people start realizing the possible implications of what they say. i think interrupting moss put it pretty well -- when you think about it, it's really not any different from old people that toss around crudities because it used to be socially acceptable to call people by those names. nowadays, i hope that we're a progressive enough society to not adapt a general insult from a pejorative that absolutely can and is used as a hateful name for a homosexual. just because you're not using it in that sense doesn't mean it isn't still a charged and blighted word. there's really no reason -- english is colorful enough to get your point across without stirring up cruelty and hate. tl;dr let's just  man
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2010 18:41
|
|
|
Speaking of "fags", my boyfriend just got me a not-in-print really nice Mapplethorpe poster (unfortunately, apparently it's impossible to find Man in polyester suit)....I've been looking for non-flower Mapplethorpe for ages. The guy he bought it from threw in a postcard of a Mapplethorpe self portrait too. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2010 18:41
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
nonanone posted:Speaking of "fags", my boyfriend just got me a not-in-print really nice Mapplethorpe poster (unfortunately, apparently it's impossible to find Man in polyester suit)....I've been looking for non-flower Mapplethorpe for ages. The guy he bought it from threw in a postcard of a Mapplethorpe self portrait too.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2010 18:44
|
|
|
Nope, the self portrait is the one in front of a pentagram with a machine gun. Too bad.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2010 18:47
|
|
|
Twenties Superstar posted:You might want to read that thread again. Again, my apologies if that wasn't you in the other thread - my memory is usually very good when it comes to these sorts of things, but I must be on crack today.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2010 18:48
|
|
|
So what's the deal, do we have to be PC now on SA? Are we going to jump on people who use the the words twat and retard too? How about calling idea dumb or a piece of software crippled? He wasn't gay bashing. Can we just go back to talking about photography?
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2010 19:10
|
|
|
Offensive language is not about words, but intent. That said the internet fosters an environment of anonymous strangers interacting. While my gay friends and I use these words, we know the context and intent. But I'm not going to use them around people I don't know because it's just common sense, I can't assume a stranger will not be offended, regardless of my intent. Internet communities are some weird mix of strangers and familiarity, and unless the community is very tight-nit you can't assume how other people that you've probably never even seen before, let alone met in-person, will react. Each screenname represents the same person you would have polite conversation with at work or the supermarket. Try to bring some of the same civility and discretion you would use there with you to the discourse online, however easy it is to abuse the privilege of anonymity. pwn fucked around with this message at 19:35 on Feb 11, 2010 |
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2010 19:29
|
|
|
It's a COMEDY WEBSITE what you don't think I'm funny? well
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2010 21:22
|
|
|
Welcome to The Dorkroom, somethingawful's photography discussion subforum!
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2010 21:37
|
|
|
FasterThanLight posted:And that's more or less what was trying to say in my last post. I'm an attractive and successful Crackhead-American and I resent your marginalizing and discriminating against us just to excuse your conversational lapse of judgement. People tell me that I'm the "soberest" crackhead they know; I know they mean it as a compliment but it still hurts... it still hurts. Please try to be more sensitive.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2010 22:56
|
|
|
DJExile posted:Couple's holiday pictures recovered intact from the bottom of the sea - 16 months after digital camera was dropped overboard from QM2 cruise ship.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2010 23:47
|
|
|
Too many fags fagging this thread up, it's pretty annoying. Can we get back to talking about fun stuff for dorkroom discussion?
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2010 23:55
|
|
|
Wait, only 5 images survived? A very kind deed performed by the Spaniard, but the lady seems a little over excited about getting a grant total of 5 pictures back. Especially if one of them was shot with the horizon at a 10 degree angle.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2010 23:56
|
|
|
Mannequin posted:Too many fags fagging this thread up, it's pretty annoying. Can we get back to talking about fun stuff for dorkroom discussion? now you've all done and awakened the Mannequin.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2010 00:09
|
|
|
Mannequin posted:Too many fags fagging this thread up, it's pretty annoying. Can we get back to talking about fun stuff for dorkroom discussion? Clicking your new custom title was pretty fun...
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2010 01:08
|
|
|
Hey lets stop with the fag talk. Here's camera stuff! http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/21/enthusiastic-shutterbug-immortalizes-nikon-on-his-forearm/
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2010 01:43
|
|
|
Four Banger posted:Hey lets stop with the fag talk. Here's camera stuff! He's going to regret that when the D4 comes out.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2010 01:56
|
|
|
The guy that posted the time lapse of him getting several cameras was much more awesome.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2010 18:56
|
|
|
spf3million posted:Wait, only 5 images survived? A very kind deed performed by the Spaniard, but the lady seems a little over excited about getting a grant total of 5 pictures back. Especially if one of them was shot with the horizon at a 10 degree angle.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2010 22:33
|
|
|
squidflakes posted:The guy that posted the time lapse of him getting several cameras was much more awesome. http://www.flickr.com/photos/bearandyeti/4027491253/ He is more awesome, mostly because he is a fellow Dorkroomer.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2010 01:18
|
|
|
Four Banger posted:Hey lets stop with the fag talk. Here's camera stuff! Not to mention... That's just an awful tattoo. I bet he is also a goon, but not the 'good' kind
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2010 03:56
|
|
|
That tattoo rules. also so does this I  edhttp://www.worldpressphoto.org/index.php?option=com_photogallery&task=view&id=1786&Itemid=257&type=&selectedIndex=0&bandwidth=high (sort of NSFW?)
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2010 03:58
|
|
|
I stumbled onto this the other day: http://cow.mooh.org/2009/07/plungercam-2-cheaper-and-more.html Has anyone tried anything like this? It seems like a fun project for an idle afternoon. EDIT: Do you think it could be done with a non medium format lens? Say a 35mm f/2? Wooten fucked around with this message at 04:42 on Feb 13, 2010 |
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2010 04:38
|
|
|
Wooten posted:I stumbled onto this the other day: Yep... I have a hard time finding one of those plungers locally though, I went to several different hardware stores. For the one I'm working on now, I'm planning on using the bellows from an old macro rail setup I took apart for other purposes, but if you can find one of those plunger things by all means go for it. One thing about those conversions is they're a bit inelegant: since you're going to be shooting wide open all the time and moving the lens physically to focus, there's no need to keep the focusing helicals and stuff, which make up the majority of a lens's bulk and weight. If you have the tools, it's better to remove the lens cells and shutter and mount those separately. It will give you more flexibility/range of movement and also cut down on weight. You can pick up those Bronica lenses cheap: KEH often has them for less than $10 with a broken shutter. Again, since you don't need the shutter, those lenses will work fine for your purposes. Look for the 75mm or 80mm Bronica lenses, those are the cheapest. The downside of the MF lenses is that it's hard to get wide-angle cheap.  You can also do it with a 35mm lens, but since they don't throw as big of an image circle you can't move it around as much without having the corners start to black out. I was waiting on an adapter to arrive for my Olympus 21mm f/2.0 and used it as a tilt-shift just handholding it in front of the camera, I liked the results I got. It does help to have a plunger or whatever kind of material though, otherwise you'll often get crazy amounts of flare from light coming in between the lens and the camera body. I've since sold the Olympus (it was way too expensive to use just for noodling around like that) but just got a beater Nikon 21mm f/2.8 in the mail I was planning on using as a T/S lens, because I miss the WA perspective I got with the Olympus.. Not sure if I can bring myself to take it apart though  I said I'd do a DIY thread but I've been busy, but I'm working on it! Pompous Rhombus fucked around with this message at 13:23 on Feb 13, 2010 |
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2010 13:20
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:Yep... I have a hard time finding one of those plungers locally though, I went to several different hardware stores. For the one I'm working on now, I'm planning on using the bellows from an old macro rail setup I took apart for other purposes, but if you can find one of those plunger things by all means go for it. After reading a bit about it since you offered to throw me a lens for DIY t/s, steering bellows and older gear shift bellows should work too. Edit: I just played around a bit with the nifty fifty and was like  when I got it to work. I know it's a terrible picture but pfft whatevah
Ringo R fucked around with this message at 17:44 on Feb 13, 2010 |
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2010 15:24
|
|
|
 I lol'd Ringo R posted:After reading a bit about it since you offered to throw me a lens for DIY t/s, steering bellows and older gear shift bellows should work too. It can be a gimmick but a useful one. I found it kinda refreshing when I was shooting really cliche stuff (Grand Palace, Angkor Wat, etc) because I actually felt like I was probably getting something original rather than the same picture everyone else was saying. Basically I was being lazy and it was an awesome crutch! 
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2010 20:08
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:I said I'd do a DIY thread but I've been busy, but I'm working on it! Please do! I love DIY photography. because it's usually all I can afford to do
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2010 22:46
|
|
|
Cyberbob posted:I did a quick cyberstalk and found your main photography website, what TTG products did you use to create that? I'm loving the fading etc. My site is built on Wordpress with a hacked up theme (fullscreen) from these guys: http://graphpaperpress.com/ I use the TTG stuff for the private galleries. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2010 14:38
|
|
|
This looks photoshopped to me, specifically as though he used the radial blur filter: I can't really see how you can achieve this effect in-camera. To do so you would have to be zooming out with your lens while exposing the shot, at the same speed the horse is traveling towards you. (I think). Hmm. I guess it's possible. Example radial blur/zoom filter:  What do you think?
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2010 19:50
|
|
|
Mannequin posted:This looks photoshopped to me, specifically as though he used the radial blur filter: Just looks like panning to me... Panning into a turn can do some odd stuff.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2010 20:10
|
|
|
Mannequin posted:What do you think? Probably took the photo from the back of a car in front of the horse or something.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2010 20:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 23:12 |
|
|
Well, this is... interesting? "Photographer Tony Stamolis takes food porn to new heights with the March release of his book "T&T&A" (the first "T" stands for tacos). The photos below speak for themselves, as does this endorsement by food writer and cookbook author Matt Lee: "Tony's ladies are kittens, good girls underneath the tattoos; his food images, on the other hand, are some of the raunchiest you'll ever have the pleasure to behold, and these hot tamales may arouse you more viscerally than you ever expected.""  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/16/topless-models-with-tacos_n_463067.html?slidenumber=DtA1%2FVVtRzg%3D&&&&&#slide_image
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2010 20:13
|
|