|
I figured this would be a fun one to post here. Behind-the-scenes shot from a location shoot I was on two weekends ago. It pretty much summarizes what I put models through. Slightly  for a model's bare back.http://www.flickr.com/photos/thegreattiny/4481186284/
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2010 17:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 07:05 |
|
|
Looks like Borrow Lenses has a pretty nifty new telephoto lens for rent http://www.borrowlenses.com/product/canon_super_tele/Canon_5200 
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2010 19:52
|
|
|
Haggins posted:Looks like Borrow Lenses has a pretty nifty new telephoto lens for rent http://www.borrowlenses.com/product/canon_super_tele/Canon_5200 First April 1st joke to get a smile out of me today. Thank you, sir.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2010 20:26
|
|
|
Haggins posted:Looks like Borrow Lenses has a pretty nifty new telephoto lens for rent http://www.borrowlenses.com/product/canon_super_tele/Canon_5200 bwhaha "Filter Size: lol" Love it
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2010 23:15
|
|
|
hybr1d posted:Not that I have even heard of Loinel Lum Quick Google seems to reveal a photostream with over a thousand pages of anime conventions and action figure photos. Whoa Now fucked around with this message at 23:43 on Apr 1, 2010 |
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2010 23:40
|
|
|
I just got back from a week of travel for business (doing it for years). My wife, without thinking, pulled a bunch of laundry from the suitcase and put my kit lens that was wrapped in a t-shirt. She found it after a full wash cycle. It's got water inside, but looks to be ok otherwise. I'm guessing it's going to need to be serviced 
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2010 02:56
|
|
|
hybr1d posted:I just got back from a week of travel for business (doing it for years). My wife, without thinking, pulled a bunch of laundry from the suitcase and put my kit lens that was wrapped in a t-shirt. Perfect time to throw out the kit lens and upgrade to the Tamron 17-50. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2010 03:27
|
|
|
DRP Solved! posted:Perfect time to throw out the kit lens and upgrade to the Tamron 17-50. I'm renting a Nikon 17-35 2.8 for the week of my vacation. If the kit lens is really dead, I will likely not keep the Nikon past fall, when I may switch over to Canon.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2010 03:58
|
|
|
Got a 70-200 2.8 IS, threw it on my 7D. Took about 560 portrait shots of a girl, and then went out for a night on the town with a 430x and the battery grip. Fairly certain I tore my rotator cuff.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2010 07:36
|
|
|
http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/02/showcase-147/ Jeff Jacobson is a photojournalist and cancer survivor who used his final rolls of Kodachrome to document his illness and what he views as the end of his life.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2010 17:23
|
|
|
There's a topless march going on in my city today. Female toplessness is legal in Maine. Coincidentally, I don't think I've ever seen so many skeevy dudes with telephotos roaming the streets.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2010 18:55
|
|
is go
|
Dr. Cogwerks posted:There's a topless march going on in my city today. Female toplessness is legal in Maine. Which lens did you use?
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2010 18:56
|
|
|
Whitezombi posted:Which lens did you use? I didn't. I wore a bowtie though. VVV I doubt that any filter would protect an electronic lens through a wash cycle. Except for a UV, of course. Pop one of those suckers onto a lens and it'll be invincible. In ye olden tymes, the strongest knights always wore suits of UV filter-mail. Dr. Cogwerks fucked around with this message at 22:11 on Apr 3, 2010 |
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2010 19:29
|
|
|
hybr1d posted:I'm renting a Nikon 17-35 2.8 for the week of my vacation. If the kit lens is really dead, I will likely not keep the Nikon past fall, when I may switch over to Canon. Oh yeah, it's dead. Not only does it have copious amounts of water still inside, but it also was impacted on the front so hard that the front glass element is pushed in on one side about 5 degrees. And that's with a CP filter, maybe I should have used a UV?
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2010 20:11
|
|
|
ZoCrowes posted:http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/02/showcase-147/ I like his quote at the end: "I'm less interested in pictures that give me answers than in pictures that ask me questions."
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2010 02:52
|
|
|
ZoCrowes posted:http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/02/showcase-147/
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2010 06:57
|
|
|
 Click here for the full 1200x800 image. Love the wear on this camera. Looks... manly.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2010 08:49
|
|
|
Has anyone read that new-ish Ken Rockwell article about the research of photography hobbyists being due to the easy availability of internet porn? Really kinda turned me off the guy. I knew he was always a bit off his rocker, but that one takes the cake. http://kenrockwell.com/tech/death-of-photography.htm
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2010 17:10
|
|
|
Radbot posted:Has anyone read that new-ish Ken Rockwell article about the research of photography hobbyists being due to the easy availability of internet porn? Really kinda turned me off the guy. I knew he was always a bit off his rocker, but that one takes the cake. Uh... if you read the article that's not even remotely what he's talking about. That's actually a pretty reasonable article for Ken-- he makes a good if somewhat obvious point: that we get too caught up with the tools to actually get out and use them to make good pictures.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2010 18:00
|
|
|
TsarAleksi posted:Uh... if you read the article that's not even remotely what he's talking about. That's the most hilarious thing about it though. He might be talking about skill over technology but all he is is technology over skill. I really hope he's self aware and trolling his fanbase of gearpigs.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2010 18:23
|
|
|
Well, the statement in it is his usual "technology doesn't matter, it's all about being at the right spot with the camera" (and because you were there at the right spot when the exposure was perfectly balanced for your sensor you only need to shoot JPEG). I love how every article has at least one blatantly false or contradictory statement, though:quote:If it sucks, who cares if it's GPS geotagged? If it's great, it's because of the lighting and timing, which has nothing to do with the location. Yes, lighting has nothing to do with the time of day or your geographical location. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2010 18:34
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Twenties Superstar posted:Dont be obtuse, he's just pointing out the obvious that there is no reason why any photo needs a geotag to be good. His article is moronic on its face, as always. quote:Hobbyists are so distracted by wondering which raw converter to use, worried about printer and camera profiles, wasting hours doing gigapan and HDR and pan-focus captures, and then wasting even more hours in front of their screens putting these all together back into photos and then screwing them up further with more plugins, that no hobbyists have any time left to look for better pictures. He presents a false dichotomy here. One can have equipment enthusiasts who are also good, even great, photographers. Do some people obsess more about the equipment than the photo? Sure, and god bless 'em. Their hobby is different from mine, but I bet they have as much fun as I do. but, some photographers are capable of using the best equipment to acquire images that were not possible with lesser equipment. To ignore the fact that better equipment equals more flexibility is no less a sin than to worship the equipment to the exclusion of other considerations. Every time I see those snide, "it's almost like the lens doesn't matter" comments, I think, sure, unless you want sharper or faster or better color reproduction or any of a number of legitimate improvements that some equipment has over others. Great pictures can be taken with lovely, basic equipment. But not as many as can be taken with the best equipment. Geotagging...what a loving moronic thing for him to comment on at all. When someone argues the other side of that equation, that is, a geotagged photo is better somehow, then I'll entertain the contrary argument. Until then, it's just another stupid "I'm better because I don't care about equipment!" arguments.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2010 19:05
|
|
|
I don't think most hobbyists are concerned with taking "great" pictures even if that's what they say. Photography serves more social and personal functions than that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2010 19:11
|
|
|
brad industry posted:I don't think most hobbyists are concerned with taking "great" pictures even if that's what they say. Photography serves more social and personal functions than that. A different point, but one I agree with entirely. My point is, assuming his person exists, i.e. a hobbyist with gear lust, he can still be a great photographer. The gear lust could interfere, but it isn't the necessity he implies. quote:If you take more than a half-second to fire all the shots you need to stitch and stack, you cannot possibly create a photograph as powerful as can be captured in one snap of my Powershot. So, according to Ken, if you already know how to shoot great photos, it's ok to do this poo poo he hates. I could even agree with the basic point that one should learn photography before learning the techniques he rails on, but it can certainly go the other way. A gear head loves the stuff, loves the techniques, then learns composition and lighting. My point is, the sneering at equipment is no worse than the worship of equipment, if it's as broad a generalization as he makes here. torgeaux fucked around with this message at 19:16 on Apr 5, 2010 |
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2010 19:13
|
|
|
Honestly, there are 100's of better, more successful photographers who write quality blogs for me to give a gently caress about what this idiot has to say. He is only a clown to be made fun of.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2010 19:57
|
|
|
Oh Ken, you silly goose you. I wonder how he fits the lomo kids in to this rant. Is it also bad to spend a lot of money on lovely cameras because they are lovely cameras and then go out and take sometimes random, unplanned, from the hip shots but oh by the way they are on film and "saving the industry?"
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2010 20:48
|
|
|
torgeaux posted:He presents a false dichotomy here. That's the fundamental problem. He makes it seem as though you're either an ARTIST who only needs to shoot in green square mode or with a point-and-shoot because you always inherently make beautiful photos -- or you're a gear weenie who buys a lens to shoot 50 different test charts, returns it three times to get the "middle of the week" model, and then leaves it on a shelf forever. The reality of course is that photography has always been a scientific art and it's not totally complete if you try to exclude either side. I personally love the science and process of photography just as much as the artistic aspects. Even though we now have cameras that can automatically set everything but the framing of the shot, meaning that you're supposedly "free" to think about the artistic aspects of the photo, I'm perfectly happy to get rid of them and use my old manual-focus lenses and preset exposure. When I look at the modifications I've made to my 5D, and the way I use it, I'm basically trying to create a Pentax Spotmatic with a digital sensor in it. Why? Because "free to be creative" to me is a false premise. I don't feel trapped by the technology of photography; I like working with my camera instead of seeing it as some kind of device that is getting in the way of "my artistic vision". For instance, I can take a photo with my old Powershot at ASA 400/monochrome and it's a lot like shooting Tri-X. I point at what I like and press the button. Photo is recorded and the camera is ready for another. Alternately, I can take my Argus C3 and load it up with real Tri-X. Then this is how I take a photo: - guess exposure, or meter externally - set aperture on lens - set shutter speed on body - cock shutter - use rangefinder to set focus - switch to viewfinder to set framing - press shutter release - toggle winding catch - wind film one exposure I can take the same photo with either system. I'll end up with roughly the same resolution and tonality, less depth of field on the Argus, maybe slight differences in flare because of the older uncoated lenses. But, despite the nine steps required to make a single photo with the old system versus two with the new one, I actually prefer the Argus. I get real enjoyment from the actual process of working out all the parameters to make that one nice image, something you can't get if you shoot in green square with an AF lens. [e] I don't know why I said color while talking about Tri-X 
orange lime fucked around with this message at 21:23 on Apr 5, 2010 |
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2010 20:49
|
|
|
I wonder if invoking Ansel Adams is the photography community's version of Godwin's law. For any argument about photography, as the post count increases, the probability of someone comparing their preferred gear, shooting style, methods, workflow, or software to that used by, endorsed by, pioneered by, or would have been, had the technology been available, used by Ansel Adams approaches unity. That and its almost to the point where someone is going to write the laundry list of True Ansel Adams Photography Facts a la Chuck Norris.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2010 20:59
|
|
|
squidflakes posted:I wonder if invoking Ansel Adams is the photography community's version of Godwin's law. I saw a poster with the following: "ansel had a 12th zone that he kept secret just for himself"
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2010 21:07
|
|
|
squidflakes posted:That and its almost to the point where someone is going to write the laundry list of True Ansel Adams Photography Facts a la Chuck Norris. There are already a pile of Ken Rockwell facts, which I think got posted in this thread a few pages ago. Things like "Sure, Ken Rockwell deletes his bad photos. Other people call these Pulitzers." "Ken Rockwell can take self-portraits of you." "Ken Rockwell has a custom-designed version of Photoshop; its only control is a close button." VVVV Haha, wow. I posted them in this thread.
orange lime fucked around with this message at 21:38 on Apr 5, 2010 |
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2010 21:33
|
|
|
orange lime posted:There are already a pile of Ken Rockwell facts, which I think got posted in this thread a few pages ago. Yep. orange lime posted:I found this site: Ken Rockwell facts (a la Chuck Norris)
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2010 21:35
|
|
|
orange lime posted:Agreed. I bet there isn't a Ken Rockwell of carpenters that tells people not to buy power tools when people have been making great furniture for centuries with hand tools.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2010 23:08
|
|
|
That's a pretty poor analogy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2010 23:33
|
|
|
Especially since there are probably a lot of carpenters who do exactly that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2010 23:34
|
|
|
Someone should offer to buy KRock an account here.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2010 00:01
|
|
|
Twenties Superstar posted:Especially since there are probably a lot of carpenters who do exactly that. That's exactly what I was thinking.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2010 00:02
|
|
|
poopinmymouth posted:That's exactly what I was thinking. Yes.. like the Amish.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2010 00:07
|
|
|
You guys are right. No real craftsman uses bandsaws, drill presses, nail guns, routers, sanders or any of that bullshit.  Go turn 20 screws by hand then tell me you don't want a Dewalt. A camera is a tool just like any other. The better the camera, the less annoyances/tedious work you have to deal with. I could shoot awesome photos on my completely manual Pentax K-1000, however, I'm going to work a lot harder to achieve the same results than on my 50D.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2010 00:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 07:05 |
|
|
Phat_Albert posted:Someone should offer to buy KRock an account here. We already have a Ken Rockwell of something awful.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2010 00:52
|
|