|
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/picture/2010/apr/26/eyewitness-montpellier-france-fishing-carp This is being passed off as a "true" photo, but I can't see how he could do it without compositing, in which case it would have to be completely staged, wouldn't it?
|
#
?
May 14, 2010 19:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 20:35 |
|
|
I think it could be possible with a wide angle lens and water housing. That said, I don't really want to make a statement about *that* photo because it does look a little funny.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2010 19:23
|
|
|
scottch posted:http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/picture/2010/apr/26/eyewitness-montpellier-france-fishing-carp To the right of the photo -> Pro tip This photograph was obviously taken with specialist underwater equipment with a wide angle lens and a small aperture for a deep depth of field. However underwater protection boxes are now surprisingly inexpensive.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2010 19:29
|
|
|
Whitezombi posted:To the right of the photo -> Pro tip This photograph was obviously taken with specialist underwater equipment with a wide angle lens and a small aperture for a deep depth of field. However underwater protection boxes are now surprisingly inexpensive. Oh, well, then maybe I should just read things more closely. Still, it does look fishy. Heh.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2010 19:31
|
|
|
McMadCow posted:I think we'll steer this away from who's touching whom, and onto a little Flickr shenanigans. In fairness that group looks to be focused on a totally different style of photography, staged landscapey stuff. Still loll'ed at quote:Had Cartier-Bresson had the technology we do now he would have probably taken a completely different shot, especially knowing the audience he was shooting for. ie if he'd known about Photoshop's merge-to-HDR he wouldn't have bothered with all that snapshot poo poo!
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2010 19:33
|
|
|
scottch posted:http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/picture/2010/apr/26/eyewitness-montpellier-france-fishing-carp Over/under shots like this are fairly common in underwater photography. My buddy with a Nikkor 10.5mm fisheye and and an 8' dome port takes a lot like that. David Doubilet does it the best IMO  That flickr post about Cartier-Bresson made me remember that I hate most modern photography.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2010 19:52
|
|
|
Henry's just emailed me that they shipped my order. What order? I don't remember. Finally found it...the Canon telephoto thermal mug.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2010 20:07
|
|
|
McMadCow posted:I think we'll steer this away from who's touching whom, and onto a little Flickr shenanigans. That's a brilliant troll. I went through BBC's Genius Of Photography series a few months back and it's really amazing to see how sharp even a kit lens on a digital rebel looks in comparison to most of the first decade of film photography. Doesn't make the good stuff any less awesome though, especially when you consider the difficulty involved.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2010 20:08
|
|
|
McMadCow posted:I think we'll steer this away from who's touching whom, and onto a little Flickr shenanigans. quote:Vincent Boiteau Pro User says: Man, this guy's pretty pro. Clearly, he understands how to expertly compose a photo.  and knows the right applications for a ring light.  Bresson's got nothing on this dude.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2010 20:41
|
|
|
BeastOfExmoor posted:That's a brilliant troll. I went through BBC's Genius Of Photography series a few months back and it's really amazing to see how sharp even a kit lens on a digital rebel looks in comparison to most of the first decade of film photography. Doesn't make the good stuff any less awesome though, especially when you consider the difficulty involved. Stieglitz's photo club buddies gave him poo poo about this one because it wasn't a pictorialist shot and it wasn't sharp either. I guess he's nothing but a hack. I'm learning so much today! 
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2010 20:47
|
|
|
BeastOfExmoor posted:That's a brilliant troll. I went through BBC's Genius Of Photography series a few months back and it's really amazing to see how sharp even a kit lens on a digital rebel looks in comparison to most of the first decade of film photography. Doesn't make the good stuff any less awesome though, especially when you consider the difficulty involved. I was reading where some of the early Daguerreotypes are very sharp and captured a ton of detail. I'm not sure if this is quite the same, but http://stateoftheart.popphoto.com/blog/2009/01/chuck-close-photographs-brad-pitt-for-w.html was used because of its detail. And there have been debates throughout the history of photography over how 'sharp' or in focus a photo should be.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2010 21:12
|
|
|
AIIAZNSK8ER posted:And there have been debates throughout the history of photography over how 'sharp' or in focus a photo should be. Who's debating this? Why would they be debating this? It's like debating whether all cheese should be blue or brie. "Forget everything else, all cheese must be gorgonzolla, made from sheep's milk. You! Preen my moustache." Really, someone debated this?
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2010 00:05
|
|
|
Helmacron posted:Who's debating this? Why would they be debating this? It's like debating whether all cheese should be blue or brie. "Forget everything else, all cheese must be gorgonzolla, made from sheep's milk. You! Preen my moustache." I think he is probably referring to the whole pictorialist versus realist thing from early on. Basically a bunch of dudes said: "For photography to be a serious art form it needs to looks all weird and sort of like a painting. Quick, invent a fog machine or at least a lens that is completely uncorrected for abberation!" Then some other dudes said: " Whoa, gently caress that. A photograph should look like the really thing only on paper. Quick, get me a lens that stops down to F/bazillion!" There was much mustache preening on both sides.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2010 01:25
|
|
|
AIIAZNSK8ER posted:I was reading where some of the early Daguerreotypes are very sharp and captured a ton of detail. Have you ever seen one in real life? They are loving crazy looking.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2010 01:26
|
|
|
Whitezombi posted:I love Craigslist When I was right out of college a few years ago, I was broke and tried out for a Craigslist job. T'was a big wedding portraiture place with an actual office and a lighting studio, they have display cases in all the big hotels around here to promote themselves... and they wanted to pay someone $8 an hour to do pretty much all of their post-processing and retouching work. They also insisted that this $8/hr candidate should have several years of solid experience in Photoshop and a related 4-year degree. It was an independent contractor position, of course, don't want the tax man telling them to provide benefits. Did two days to cover a gap in rent, never showed up again.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2010 01:48
|
|
is go
|
brad industry posted:Have you ever seen one in real life? They are loving crazy looking. I haven't seen a daguerreotype, but I used to pick through boxes of what I believe were wet plates while organizing storage in my university's archives. Anyone know the best way to transfer those to digital? A scanning system of some sort, I'm guessing.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2010 17:06
|
|
|
Helmacron posted:Who's debating this? Why would they be debating this? It's like debating whether all cheese should be blue or brie. "Forget everything else, all cheese must be gorgonzolla, made from sheep's milk. You! Preen my moustache." yea I think there were some beefs between http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photo-Secession and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_f/64 it's gangster. brad industry posted:Have you ever seen one in real life? They are loving crazy looking. I have not seen one yet, can you explain more about how crazy it is?
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2010 19:05
|
|
|
AIIAZNSK8ER posted:yea I think there were some beefs between http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photo-Secession and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_f/64 it's gangster. Man, Photo-Secession sounds like they were a bunch of dicks.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2010 19:17
|
|
|
Photo-Secession are the guys who would have run everything through HDR merge if the could at the time.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2010 19:37
|
|
|
AIIAZNSK8ER posted:yea I think there were some beefs between http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photo-Secession and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_f/64 it's gangster. I've seen a couple, they're all super detailed and reflective, and then they're in these neat old glass cases. Tintypes are pretty cool too, and much less delicate, so it's basically like a tin photograph. I think my Hist of photog prof said that he got his off ebay, so they must not be that hard to find. It's worth holding one at least once.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2010 20:18
|
|
|
scottch posted:I haven't seen a daguerreotype, but I used to pick through boxes of what I believe were wet plates while organizing storage in my university's archives. Anyone know the best way to transfer those to digital? A scanning system of some sort, I'm guessing. Scan them as a transparency with a flatbed, like you do modern large format film. Epson's V700/V750 do up to 8x10, the 10000XL does 12x16 or so. I think you might need to make custom holders for the plates, but as long as they were the same size it wouldn't be too difficult or expensive, just a bit time consuming.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2010 21:23
|
|
|
HPL posted:Man, Photo-Secession sounds like they were a bunch of dicks. If it weren't for Stieglitz we probably wouldn't be posting on this forum right now. Martytoof posted:Photo-Secession are the guys who would have run everything through HDR merge if the could at the time. Ansel pretty much invented HDR so yeah. Fortunately the first step in the Zone System is to stop and think about what you want  Daguerrotypes look like there's a 3D image suspended in a mirror or something. You have to turn them in the light to kind of see it, which is why you should track one down yourself instead of viewing at a museum. They are amazingly detailed and sharp. Like creepily detailed. Tintypes and wet plates are sort of similar but a daguerrotype looks like nothing else.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2010 23:47
|
|
|
brad industry posted:If it weren't for Stieglitz we probably wouldn't be posting on this forum right now. I really want to make one myself one day.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2010 00:26
|
|
|
I wish I had a large format camera so I could do a 9-stop HDR with Velvia 50. Also if you could make a HDR from a daguerrotype, I totally would. Think of the instilled horror.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2010 00:46
|
|
|
Just saw this on lifehacker: http://www.diyphotography.net/the-battlefield-pinhole-camera The three-film thing looks a little gimmicky, but I'll be damned if I'm not going to try to build this!
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2010 07:50
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:Just saw this on lifehacker: If I had any ability to build things, I'd probably try to do this as well. I really like the alternating between color & b/w film.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2010 14:15
|
|
|
This camera is ridiculous. Pretty much all of these were servo focusing, too.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2010 18:51
|
|
|
dakana posted:This camera is ridiculous. Pretty much all of these were servo focusing, too. Wow, that's ridiculous. It also implies that you're going to hit your shutter's rated life after you've recharged the battery 20 times, right? Ouch.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2010 22:24
|
|
|
orange lime posted:Wow, that's ridiculous. It also implies that you're going to hit your shutter's rated life after you've recharged the battery 20 times, right? Ouch. Well I think it'd be 60 times...
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2010 22:27
|
|
|
20 times would be 100,000, so that's right isn't it?
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2010 22:29
|
|
|
fronkpies posted:20 times would be 100,000, so that's right isn't it? 1D mark III is rated to 300,000.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2010 22:29
|
|
|
TsarAleksi posted:1D mark III is rated to 300,000. Wow, that's one of the reasons you pay so much more then.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2010 22:33
|
|
|
And a shutter replacement doesn't hurt that much compared to the system costs.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2010 09:37
|
|
|
Helmacron posted:I wish I had a large format camera so I could do a 9-stop HDR with Velvia 50. I could be wrong here but daguerreotypes already have a much higher dynamic range than anything you get on digital. Tone mapping and then merging three daguerreotypes (how the gently caress would you tone map one?) would end up hitting the dynamic range limits of the medium you're merging the images together on, which, hey, is still more than you can get off a computer monitor. Though, I'm not sure anyone has published the dynamic range values for a plate of copper and silver iodine crystals so again, could be wrong here. So, I guess there you go. For the ultimate in HIGH DYNAMIC RANGE range range range, you GOTTA go with daguerreotype.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2010 18:12
|
|
|
squidflakes posted:I could be wrong here but daguerreotypes already have a much higher dynamic range than anything you get on digital. Tone mapping and then merging three daguerreotypes (how the gently caress would you tone map one?) would end up hitting the dynamic range limits of the medium you're merging the images together on, which, hey, is still more than you can get off a computer monitor. Though, I'm not sure anyone has published the dynamic range values for a plate of copper and silver iodine crystals so again, could be wrong here. Some materials scientists at Johns Hopkins did a pretty exhaustive study of daguerreotypes with electron microscopes, spectroscopes, the whole nine yards. I've got the book in front of me right now, actually: The Daguerreotype: Nineteenth Century Technology and Modern Science. I'm not sure about how it compares to film, but on pages 123-126 they do mention that the shadow saturation (and thus, overall contrast) varies depending on the viewing angle, since the daguerreotype itself is a polished surface. It also says daguerreotypes are the opposite of conventional image systems; areas of apparent maximum density have the smallest number of image particles, and vice-versa. They're also extra sensitive to blue light, so to get a properly exposed sky you'd have to mask it off and make two separate exposures.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2010 18:47
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
I'd be interested in hearing peoples' thoughts on that as well. A few of those are obviously pretty out-there possibilities, but I've run into a similar situation myself. The university photographer set up a room and lights for a series of portraits of students at an awards ceremony after they received their awards, but since he was one of them, I was the monkey tasked with pushing the button. He did all the work setting up the location, lighting, and camera settings, but I physically took the pictures. They looked nice, and he said I should include one in my portfolio, but I haven't because I'd feel weird claiming it as my own work.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2010 21:22
|
|
|
RangerScum posted:Fun topic for discussion: Copyright. I'm guessing the copyright is always yours, since you own both the equipment and the idea for the picture. Your friend in this case is just a "tool" to achieve your vision, he has no part in the creative process.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2010 21:23
|
|
|
RangerScum posted:Fun topic for discussion: Copyright. Your friend is a human tripod in this case. You wouldn't give a manfrotto tripod or a gorillapod copyright would you?
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2010 21:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 20:35 |
|
|
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
|
|