|
The more I think about it the more that red/green thing annoys me. You can't see a red/green combination that isn't brown; it's a color that can't physically exist with light as we know it.
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2010 21:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 22:51 |
|
|
I just wanted to say that the fredmiranda forums loving SUCK. I saw a piece of equipment that I'm interested in on their buy/ sell forums, so I tried to register an account. First, they don't accept "free email addresses", including the obviously shady virus-spewing business that is Gmail, so I didn't think I'd be able to sign up at all. I tried a Mailinator address on a whim and what do you know -- it worked. If that's not loving broken I don't know what is. Then, as soon as it accepted my Mailinator email, the site tried to sell me a subscription that's required to post new threads in the buy/sell area. After I finished changing my email address, I realized that I had nine loving fredmiranda tabs open, because it opens every single link in a new window. Then, to top it all off, my "randomly-assigned" default password was "YajerK". I don't think I'll buy anything through that site just on principle. What a shitfest.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2010 01:56
|
|
|
orange lime posted:I don't think I'll buy anything through that site just on principle. What a shitfest. I think many photo forums start out with good intentions, but then end up "making GBS threads in their sandwich so no one will eat it". In other words, the sites end up unusable or downright hostile.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2010 04:12
|
|
|
The Dorkroom is perhaps the only (mostly) sane/balanced photography forum left on the net, a lot of great resources, information and even inspiration can be found in the various threads here. There is another photography forum I frequest (mostly for the classifieds section), and the discussions there really make me hate photography sometimes. I think the internet is both the best thing and worst thing to happen to photography. In summary, dorkroom rules 
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2010 04:33
|
|
|
orange lime posted:I just wanted to say that the fredmiranda forums loving SUCK. I saw a piece of equipment that I'm interested in on their buy/ sell forums, so I tried to register an account. First, they don't accept "free email addresses", including the obviously shady virus-spewing business that is Gmail, so I didn't think I'd be able to sign up at all. I tried a Mailinator address on a whim and what do you know -- it worked. If that's not loving broken I don't know what is. Then, as soon as it accepted my Mailinator email, the site tried to sell me a subscription that's required to post new threads in the buy/sell area. After I finished changing my email address, I realized that I had nine loving fredmiranda tabs open, because it opens every single link in a new window. Then, to top it all off, my "randomly-assigned" default password was "YajerK". photography-on-the.net uses captchas that were completely unworkable. Even when I definitely entered the correct letters, it still would not let me register and I gave up trying. But there's plenty of other reasons to hate FM apart from technical.....
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2010 04:36
|
|
|
This video is great: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=js7RzcdDcMs a wedding photographer uses a Digital Rebel with kit lens, doesn't know what aperture is, and prints her wedding photos at Walmart. Judge Joe Brown manages to name-drop his pelican case and tells the photog she should be using a 1-series Canon with 28-70L lens. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2010 05:52
|
|
|
That was enjoyable to watch, and I hate those judge shows. He thoroughly owned them, but was the lady the photographer or the owner of the company? It sounded like she would just shoot in green box and toss it off to be printed.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2010 06:05
|
|
|
Joe Brown is pretty woah. And a patriot with his ASA talk
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2010 07:02
|
|
|
Haha "What f-stop did you use?" "I used a tripod"
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2010 07:33
|
|
|
Shmoogy posted:He thoroughly owned them I'm sure the photographer and her partner had no idea of what he was saying though. Love the reaction of the women in the audience at 3:43!
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2010 08:01
|
|
|
trueblue posted:This video is great: That clip is awesome. This isn't an uncommon occurrence I'm sure. I just recently sat through a slideshow of atrocious wedding photos, where it was terribly evident that the photographer had messed up the ISO setting. She 'corrected' her mistake using b/w and film grain filters  . It also seemed pretty apparent that she lacked technical skills regarding aperture settings and such, although she was 'skilled' enough to do selective desaturation  . The collection was also minimally edited and consisted of over 600 shots, many of the same scene even when one frame was obviously better. Suffice to say, it was a terribly boring slideshow. I didn't have the heart to tell him that it all looked like poo poo, and restrained myself from strangling his roommate who was awed by the 50s look (b/w filter  ) and made comparisons to Renoir 
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2010 08:05
|
|
|
nonanone posted:Haha "What f-stop did you use?" "I used a tripod" You left out the judge's line! "An f-stop is not a tripod!"
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2010 08:08
|
|
|
Rated PG-34 posted:That clip is awesome. This isn't an uncommon occurrence I'm sure. I just recently sat through a slideshow of atrocious wedding photos, where it was terribly evident that the photographer had messed up the ISO setting. She 'corrected' her mistake using b/w and film grain filters I really feel sorry for the people that get photographers like this. All they have to do is show a select bunch of photos that look good. If you have no idea about photography then you wouldn't really be able to tell outside of those select few that look good. I guess thats why you say you should ask for the photos from the last 3 shoots they did including all the different parts of the wedding. Good thing that the judge thoroughly shut her down. She seemed pissed acting like she loving knew when she was obviously a retard. I own both their lenses and trying to use that 70-300 would be impossible unless its sunny as hell. Plus its a poo poo lens.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2010 11:19
|
|
|
trueblue posted:What is apparently a hilarious video. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2010 11:40
|
|
|
spf3million posted:drat you China and your blocking of youtube  - I'm a professional photographer shooting with a Canon XTi with the kit lens and a 70-300 f/idunno...Edit: Another lovely wedding photog http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IiSU_fy_lGI&feature=related Ringo R fucked around with this message at 12:20 on Mar 3, 2010 |
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2010 12:13
|
|
|
Ringo R posted:
I went to a wedding like that; guy had a Rebel, kit lens, and was using the pop-up flash. The bride said his pictures all sucked, but loved the C-list snaps I took with my 5D sitting at my table for the reception. I should try to find out if that guy wants an assistant or something, I've got a feeling he does all the Lao weddings around these parts.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2010 14:12
|
|
|
trueblue posted:This video is great: drat that was epic. He should have thrown the book (Understanding Exposure) at them!  Also, making them pay back $2,500 was just a huge bitch slap in the face. haha.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2010 15:13
|
|
|
trueblue posted:This video is great: Check out the reaction of the woman to the right in the background at 3:43. It's the moment she realises the defendant is an amateur. You could tell Brown's been doing photography for some time, he still refers to that lens as the 28-70 when it has already been upgraded for a quite long time.  I just noticed the defendants contradicted themselves. Early on, one said they've done hundreds and later the other said this was their first wedding show.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2010 15:43
|
|
|
AIIAZNSK8ER posted:drat that was epic. He should have thrown the book (Understanding Exposure) at them! The reason the people who are obviously going to lose go on these shows is, there's a pool of $5000 put up by the show. The parties split it, minus whatever the ruling is. So, in this case, the plaintiff got $2500 judgment, plus 1/2 of the $2500 left, which means the defendant walked away with $1250. I wonder if they thought the blow to their reputation was worth getting a small payout like that. The woman behind her when she says she doesn't know the speed of the lens is quite hilarious.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2010 15:49
|
|
|
Proof that the Dorkroom is the last place on the internet for sane photographers is the fact that we all seem to like to see lovely photographers get schooled.
notlodar fucked around with this message at 17:24 on Mar 3, 2010 |
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2010 17:21
|
|
|
torgeaux posted:The reason the people who are obviously going to lose go on these shows is, there's a pool of $5000 put up by the show. The parties split it, minus whatever the ruling is. So, in this case, the plaintiff got $2500 judgment, plus 1/2 of the $2500 left, which means the defendant walked away with $1250. I wonder if they thought the blow to their reputation was worth getting a small payout like that. Maybe they can use the money to buy a real lens. Putting out a request for a hilarious .gif of Judge Joe proclaiming "Where is your 28-70" for my avatar. Or anything else even funnier I haven't thought of. I'll love you forever and make it worth your while.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2010 17:29
|
|
|
notlodar posted:Proof that the Dorkroom is the last place on the internet for sane photographers is the fact that we all seem to like to see lovely photographers get schooled. Also, we seem to be more self-aware here. Not everyone here thinks they're god's gift to photography, and everyone seems to really want actual criticism. I just avoid the other photography forums now, except for comedy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2010 17:32
|
|
|
A real lens:
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2010 17:33
|
|
|
torgeaux posted:Also, we seem to be more self-aware here. Not everyone here thinks they're god's gift to photography... Like Model Mayhem?
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2010 17:36
|
|
|
Holy crap that was funny - made my day. I really want that lens.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2010 17:37
|
|
|
brad industry posted:A real lens: It looks like a travel mug.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2010 17:45
|
|
|
HPL posted:It looks like a travel mug. It's not? It looks like it has a spout or something on the top. That's why I want it, at least. That way I can be a real... *glasses* L-Coholic
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2010 17:59
|
|
|
Shmoogy posted:It's not? It looks like it has a spout or something on the top. That's why I want it, at least. Sweet. I'd get one and put it on a Holga.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2010 18:08
|
|
|
Shmoogy posted:It's not? It looks like it has a spout or something on the top. That's why I want it, at least. Apparently some guy got a collectors edition at the olympics. I've spent the last hour trying to find one, or something similar on the net. Found this, which while not exactly the same, is still awesome as hell. Heat Changing Coffee Mugs: 
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2010 18:37
|
|
|
forkbucket posted:Apparently some guy got a collectors edition at the olympics. I've spent the last hour trying to find one, or something similar on the net. Found this, which while not exactly the same, is still awesome as hell. All I could find was this bit of shoopery 
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2010 19:17
|
|
|
forkbucket posted:Apparently some guy got a collectors edition at the olympics. I've spent the last hour trying to find one, or something similar on the net. Found this, which while not exactly the same, is still awesome as hell. I had one of these that had parts of the world that 'sunk' into the ocean when you put hot liquid in it, a Global Warming mug (it was a gift). Don't put them in the dishwasher.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2010 00:32
|
|
|
DanTheFryingPan posted:You're accidentally playing Quake instead.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2010 06:32
|
|
|
JaundiceDave posted:The more I think about it the more that red/green thing annoys me. You can't see a red/green combination that isn't brown; it's a color that can't physically exist with light as we know it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2010 21:21
|
|
|
GWBBQ posted:That's why they call it an impossible color. I can see it, it's definitely unnatural, and I'm not sure how to describe it. When I do that thing, I just see red and green and they just sort of mask over each other randomly. Are my eyes broken 
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2010 22:31
|
|
|
Phat_Albert posted:When I do that thing, I just see red and green and they just sort of mask over each other randomly. Are my eyes broken It says in the description that everyone will see the random switching, and only some can also see the "impossible" color.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2010 22:44
|
|
|
Shmoogy posted:That way I can be a real... *glasses* L-Coholic BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. I'm lawlin over here. I posted this in the "post your awful pictures" thread, but I believe it's relevant to the current discussion: I did not take this picture. This couple didn't want to hire a photographer because "we have a camera that is 10mp". I tried to talk them out of it.  Here's a sample of what they got from their wedding. This is not a joke.  Click here for the full 453x604 image.  Click here for the full 474x604 image.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2010 02:07
|
|
|
Bahama.Llama posted:
 What was their reaction when they saw the photos?
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2010 02:39
|
|
|
coke posted:
Well she's very  and he was just glad that she wasn't leaving him... soooo they didn't really care (luckily).
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2010 03:03
|
|
|
Let me tell you about Epperson Photo Video in Oklahoma City. They're the last remaining "real" photo store in OKC, carrying studio lights, modifiers, bags, tripods, film and developing/printing supplies, and of course bodies/lenses. To give you a feel for them, here's the website: http://www.eppersonphoto.com/ Everything is priced at MSRP, but I'm told that's normal at local stores. I still find it ridiculous they don't discount A LITTLE. My experience starts in 2005. I was interested in the ultra-wide-angle DX Nikon lenses, so I visited to test it out, handle it, and look at the third-party variations. The salesperson, after letting me handle the ~$1000 Nikon variant, told me that I shouldn't even think about the Tokina or Tamron versions, about which I had read many good things, because she had sometimes "opened boxes to find them falling apart and held together with tape." Now. Either she is lying to me in an attempt to make the larger sale, or she is telling the truth and Epperson knowingly stocks and sells defective and poor-quality products. I left after she mentioned that part, politely indicating I was going to keep looking around. I bought the Tokina version online that evening. It arrived free of tape and was great. I sold it in 2008. I moved away for years. My next experience was in 2008. I needed a set of Manfrotto super clamps. There aren't many more ubiquitous and relied upon tools in photography than super clamps. I called: "Hi, I just wanting to see if you have any super clamps in stock." Reply: "Superclamps...? Well heck, I'm not sure I even have any normal clamps in stock! Hahahahahaha. No, I'm sorry, we don't have those." At the time I worked for a local photography company that insisted on purchasing equipment from Epperson. While waiting for an order to be filled I looked around. Less than 24 hours after speaking with a salesperson who didn't even know what I was talking about, I found a 6 of them on a shelf with a plethora of other Manfrotto grip equipment. I ultimately ordered the clamps I was using personally from Midwest Photo Exchange in Ohio (fantastic phone service, btw). I had similar experiences with finding a 60" umbrella and a large reflector. They ended up having exactly what I was looking for, at fair prices, but I was so amazed at their complete lack of knowledge that I chose to order online. Last year I was putting together a new tripod. Fine, I said, I'll give Epperson one more shot. I purchased the good ole 055PROXB (not even Epperson could gently caress that thing up, fantastic legs) and a Giottos ballhead. Two weeks later I was tightening the knob that secures the tripod plate. It sheared off in my hand. Clearly not Epperson's fault, but hey I can return it! I brought it back the next day, original box, packaging, and receipt, and was told that I dropped it and they would not replace it. I indicated there were no impact marks anywhere on the head, and the break clearly showed a twisted distortion in the metal. "I'm sorry, we can't replace everything that people break, we have to maintain a profit somewhere." I left the equipment on the counter and haven't returned. gently caress Epperson Photo Video in Oklahoma City. gently caress them. JAY ZERO SUM GAME fucked around with this message at 03:32 on Mar 5, 2010 |
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2010 03:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 22:51 |
|
|
Interrupting Moss posted:(review of Epperson Photo in OKC) And about the same time (July 2006), I also placed an order with them for the Nikon 18-200. They said it was on backorder, and it would take a couple months to get because they had a waiting list 30-people long. I explained my side of things and said I was looking forward to using it on a road trip coming up in three weeks. My sales rep mentioned that if I paid for it in advance, I would be moved to the front of the list. I was intending to purchase it then anyway, so that wasn't a problem. I got the lens three days later. I also used the same sales rep for every purchase, and I got little discounts on everything. It wasn't nearly enough to keep me from eventually migrating online, but we had a friendly rapport going for a while. (I still have the Nikon lapel pin and Nikon playing cards I got free with my orders.) Over the next couple years, little thing started to add up. I wanted to see how their printing service was, and they didn't even know what ICC profiles were. And the last few times I went in there, my sales rep was always "on vacation". Their death-knell for me was when I called them looking for another set of Cokin GND filters, to replace the ones I left at a photoshoot the week previous. The last time I was in there, they had a complete set of Cokin stuff on a spinning display, but now they said it would take a couple months to get anything. Their first excuse was that these filters were really inexpensive, and they needed to accumulate $4,000 worth of customer orders before they would buy anything from their supplier. I told them I didn't have a couple months and tried the whole pay-in-advance trick, but they didn't budge. They then switched to a limp-wristed excuse that Cokin was pulling them off the market because software like Photoshop and Lightroom was making these filters obsolete (which is utter horseshit on both points). I placed an order at Amazon as I was hanging up the phone. I'm sorry to hear that you had so many bad experiences from the get-go, but I agree they're dying just like old computer stores. Desperate, yet apathetic folks surrounded by a sea of generation-old items still marked at MSRP covered in a thin layer of dust -- the place isn't alive anymore. It's worse that they're in such a shady part of town. (I swear that neighborhood has been covered by that guy who videotapes prostitutes.) 2/5 and slipping ..which is the same rating they have on Google Maps.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2010 06:29
|
|
