|
So how does everyone handle their gear in public? I went to a local pub quiz tonight and some guy was there taking photos for something. He left a Canon 70-200 2.8 IS I in the corner with his bag of gear and then wandered around the bar taking pictures. Is this normal? He had a friend helping him but neither of them seemed to be paying particularly close attention to his stuff. I was sitting there shooting random photos with my 7D in the table right next to the corner so maybe he figured I'd watch it for him. I don't know, is this normal and I'm just over-protective of my stuff? I keep my poo poo on or around me at all times. If I was leaving it somewhere to take pictures of the bar I'd probably leave it behind the bar or at least leave my $1500 lens in the bag and not right out in the open. I don't know, Maybe I'm paranoid, but I thought it was weird. I wouldn't leave my 50 1.8 just sitting around in public like that.
|
#
¿
Nov 17, 2010 06:39
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 17:02 |
|
|
moron posted:Does anyone happen to have a link to the thread where woot fatigue (?) detailed his workflow for getting those amazing interior shots? I'd love to have a crack at trying it out myself. Wow. Did he ever get around to posting part II? It isn't in that thread.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 22, 2010 15:48
|
|
|
moron posted:Not as far as I'm aware. I'd love to see a part II though....the first part was fascinating. Same here. You should post what you come up with.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 22, 2010 16:43
|
|
|
BeastOfExmoor posted:I've tried it on a few office buildings I've traveled to and been pretty happy with the results. I certainly haven't gotten into the detail that Woot Fatigue does, but I've loved the results and actually learned a lot about Photoshop in the process. Goddamn, where are all these fancy, modern offices? I need to find a job in the private sector. Nice work.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 22, 2010 18:18
|
|
|
So I bought a 580 EX this afternoon (1 year no interest financing!) and bought what I thought was a NIMH charger with 4 AA batteries, but it turned out to be 2 AA and 2 AAA (those cocksuckers did that on purpose) so I head back out to the store to pick up some more AAs and while I'm there I get to talking on the phone with my mom so instead of just rushing in and grabbing the batteries I wander around the store for a while and I eventually end up in the clearance section and sitting in the pile of camera crap (mostly P&S junk) is a Canon 100mm 2.8 marked at $455 because it's been returned and I think "gee, I know I get a good employee discount on clearance poo poo" so I ask how much it is and she tells me there's no employee discount but there is a big banner ad sitting over the cart that says all items are an additional 20% off so I have her look up why it was returned and the person who bought it said it took photos too far away (I'm guessing it was sold to a first year photography student along with her Rebel, whatever, salesman should have known better) so I open it up and look at it and it doesn't have so much as a smudge on it, so all in all I got a brand new 100mm 2.8 for $380 after tax. Wooooooooooooooooooooh.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2010 02:47
|
|
|
^^^ Good deal you should jump on it imo. Saw someone doing the same poo poo for a 7D a couple days ago.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 24, 2010 23:03
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:*does D200 green button reset* To buddy: "Hey ha ha it would be funny if I reset this thing but I forgot to change some stupid setting and all my photos come out looking like poo poo, huh? I look at my LCD after every single shot unless I'm trying to get action shots and I don't have time to check in between shots. Going an entire afternoon without ever looking blows my mind. I can't imagine ever being that confident, but I'm still a huge newbie so maybe that comes with experience.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2010 05:03
|
|
"
|
woot fatigue posted:Does anyone know of a screen recording program for OS X (10.5), that will give me decent quality video, yet will run in the background without affecting Photoshop performance too much? I hate writing, but I'd be willing to record my process, edit it down, and post it. I just have to figure out how to do it without hindering my ability to get the photo done on time. Couldn't find anything free but this seems like it could fit the bill if you plan on using it for other projects and feel it's worth buying. You could always try doing it with the free trial. http://www.ambrosiasw.com/utilities/snapzprox/
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2010 18:47
|
|
|
guidoanselmi posted:There's a lot I can post, but here's a few - not even my favorites: Why don't you post your favorites? And these are nice but none of them really makes me go "wow" which seems like what you'd be looking for with a contest.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2010 04:08
|
|
|
spog posted:I respectfully disagree. That fee is solely so that they can make money. That is silly. I'm sure they do make money off of it, but to say that that's the sole reason is absurd. They do need some barrier to entry if they don't want to be going through millions of photos, and a monetary fee is probably the easiest way to weed out those who aren't serious about it without a stipulation like "must have previously published work" that would defeat the purpose of having such a widely available contest.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2010 05:33
|
|
|
brad industry posted:No dude most photo magazines (and increasingly a lot of other photo organizations) use contests to generate revenue and that is the main reason they do it. I would go as far as saying certain photo magazines are almost entirely funded by entry fees to their contests. Even one as well-known and established as National Geographic? E: This only throws me because I'm more familiar with writing, and a lot of smaller journals charge submission fees for entry which is an obvious ploy to make money, but to me NG asking for money to generate revenue is akin to Harper's asking for a submission fee as a sole means of revenue, which seems crazy with their distribution. mr. mephistopheles fucked around with this message at 05:52 on Nov 29, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2010 05:48
|
|
|
spf3million posted:So I just went on a little photo outing with a friend and he asked for all of the pictures after we got back. I gave him unedited 500kb copies of everything. Then he posted the good ones (and some not so good ones) on his facebook. What would Jesus do in this situation? I know he doesn't mean anything by it, he just wants his friends and family to see where he's been. And I know I can improve most of them with a little post processing and all of our mutual friends will know I shot everything when I clean them up and post them, but still... it feels like plagiarism and I don't like it Are you worried he's going to claim them as his own or what? Is he a photographer too? Why do you care if people mistakenly think they're his on facebook? It's facebook, not a portfolio.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2010 15:23
|
|
|
spf3million posted:I guess I do care that by not giving me credit, someone is offhandedly claiming something that is mine as his own creation. Would I be alone in this feeling? Maybe I'm being a big girl. Now that I think about it, I post my pictures online because I like getting positive feedback about them. Why does anyone else? You're thinking like a photographer and not a "normal" person. Look at your friends facebooks. Chances are they have anywhere from a dozen to hundreds of horrible P&S photos of them and their friends and the places they've been. Normal people post photos to share their experiences, not to show off their technical skill. If someone commented on one and was like "hey, awesome picture!" and he just said "thanks!" then you might have some justification, but as it is I think you're over-thinking it.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2010 17:22
|
|
|
I HATE CARS posted:http://vimeo.com/11516546 If I dress and act like a homeless methhead will it improve my photography?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2010 01:31
|
|
|
ZoCrowes posted:I did not watch the whole thing but I did not see any of that here. Yeah, you didn't miss much. Other than a rant about how much being a designer sucks and how some girl is never going to make it as one because she missed a class. The only part worth watching in that video was the part where the kid tried to explain how the ice cream was used as a tool to promote blind patriotism. That was pretty hilarious.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2010 03:37
|
|
|
Oprah Haza posted:A good teacher will not tell you what to see though. He or she should acknowledge your achievements and tell you what isn't good but to expect a teacher form vision for you(the most important thing for a photographer) isn't good. Telling a student how to do something the right way is also the hallmark of a lovely teacher. A great teacher is someone who leads the student through the process that leads them to coming to these conclusions themselves by getting the student to think for themselves rather than memorize bullshit from textbooks. People who take crappy pictures are probably trying to emulate something they think is considered good, rather than trying to see anything in a scene themselves, and they end up completely missing the point of photography.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2010 22:55
|
|
|
Twenties Superstar posted:GBS and every other big forum is pretty much indistinguishable from 4chan You've never been to GBS or 4chan.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2010 05:06
|
|
|
m4mbo posted:They equated what I had lost, body wise, to a Canon EOS 500D and an Olympus E-620 I don't know what you said to go from a 500D to a 7D, but nice work. That's awesome.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2010 22:43
|
|
|
Awkward Davies posted:Is it bad that I immediately recognized whose girlfriend this is from SAD? I did too.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2010 22:51
|
|
|
HPL posted:Conversely, I was never keen on how teachers and professors insisted on giving assignments as if students were taking one class only and could dedicate every single free moment of their time to them as opposed to managing a full class load and working part time to cover the bills. I remember taking an intro to drawing class in my sophomore year just for a generic fine arts credit. She expected us to put 20 hours minimum into our weekly projects, and despite having 6 hours of class a week, we never got to work on our projects in class. Of course this is what she said, but she went really easy on the non-art majors, so it wasn't too bad. I know some professors won't give a gently caress what your major is or why you're there, though, and will just expect the same level of work from anyone in the class.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2010 17:05
|
|
|
8th-samurai posted:Too much guidance from the teacher would only lead a student to making images that the teacher liked or found interesting. Isn't that all you're going to find in an art class anyway? If a professor doesn't like a shot or find it interesting then why would he give it positive feedback? Which means that you're going to end up making photos to suit his tastes whether he says "great work" or gives you a lengthy, detailed explanation of why he thinks it's good. Really, what you said highlights the problem with formally studying art. Art is so highly subjective as it is, and the stuff one professor loves another professor might think is crap, and there are so many ways to approach art. You can judge art on its own terms, on your terms, on the average viewer's terms, on the well-studied viewer's terms, etc. There's also the problem that art that is considered quality by other artists tends to be less commercially viable than "bad" art that's marketed to the masses. It's especially strange with photography, where a photo that even an amateur photographer could point out a multitude of flaws in, might be considered amazing by someone who has no idea about the technical aspects and no interest in learning them. Do you tune your work to satisfy your own artistic needs, or do you tune it please the people who will pay you money for it? Can you find a happy medium? I think woot fatigue has found a way to make very technically good photos that even someone who knows fuckall about photos will think are awesome and his style also happens to be very distinct and difficult to emulate. But there are a lot of people who take really technically good photos that the layman isn't going to be able to distinguish from something they could get from Sears portrait studio.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2010 18:43
|
|
|
rockamiclikeavandal posted:I'm not a professional, not even a college photogrpahy student, just a rank amateur so I've never had anyone really critique anything I've shot. These are really fascinating. Thanks for posting them. Anyone know of any other places with real time audio critiques of portfolios? It's really insightful.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2010 04:28
|
|
|
Man, this doesn't look like a scam at all. http://omaha.craigslist.org/pho/2112229117.html
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2010 17:26
|
|
|
Do people honestly send money orders for thousands of dollars to strangers they meet on the Internet? I mean, really, this poo poo has to work for it to keep happening, right?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2010 21:51
|
|
|
AIIAZNSK8ER posted:I'm not going to complain about my 85 f/1.8 I got for $150 on CL. drat, I thought I was going crazy when I saw one for $250 a month or so ago. I messaged the guy like two hours after he posted it and it was already gone. How fast did you see the $150 that it was still there? But then I guess I was pressing my luck after getting a brand new 100mm 2.8 Macro (non L, obviously) for $360.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2010 04:30
|
|
|
If you want to smooth things over, just say you took pictures of them but they were too blurry or whatever.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2010 23:56
|
|
|
psylent posted:The No, you still sound like an rear end in a top hat. I mean, you're totally justified, but office politics isn't usually a game you want to gently caress around with. I'm telling you, I've used the "they came out bad" excuse before and people are always understanding. Then you look like you try to maintain the integrity of your work, which anyone can sympathize with, rather than just not giving a poo poo because you're not getting paid.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2010 14:58
|
|
makes it less bitter.
|
McMadCow posted:Sometimes you just need to suck it up and look like an rear end in a top hat, though. A consultant in my office went to my BOSS to get me to take headshots of him for a magazine in which his article and bio was being published. They of course wanted me to do it for free. I said absolutely not and they had someone else do it. This is a completely different scenario, though. This is asking you to do published work for free, which is insulting, frankly. All the other guy did was say "hey, maybe you could take more pictures of everybody so they don't feel left out." If you're not an rear end in a top hat about the first one then you're an idiot, but being an rear end in a top hat about the second just makes you look like an rear end in a top hat. "I just don't want people feeling left out." "gently caress YOU IF EVERYONE WANTS A PICTURE PAY SOMEONE TO DO IT." One is being asked to do professional work for nothing, and one is asking you to consider that people might feel like you don't like them. Having some awareness of other peoples feelings doesn't make you a pushover. And it wasn't like the guy said, "HEY DON'T DO THIS" he just was making a friendly suggestion. Goddamn. Martytoof posted:I don't think anyone's suggesting otherwise. Nobody should let themselves be pressured into doing what is essentially a paid job for free just because you happen to own a camera and know how to use it. This thing.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2010 00:07
|
|
|
I found this ad on craigslist that I thought was amusing. I know this sort of attitude is far from limited to photography, but eh.entitled baby posted:I'm looking for a new, or very good condition slightly used Canon BG-E2N battery grip for my Canon 50D. Will deal locally only. I'm looking to spend around $100 for a good condition used one, or $125 for a brand new unused one. It MUST be the "N" version, and genuine Canon-brand, with box, and not a generic Chinese-made copy There's nothing wrong with trying to score a deal on something, but being so goddamn demanding when you are trying to snake an item for $20-30 less than the cheapest price I can find it online isn't how negotiating works. You either pay more than an item is worth and get to be as picky as you want, or you try to pay less than the item is worth and accept whatever you can get. You don't demand top quality at bargain prices. I kind of want to be a dick and post an ad looking for the same thing and offering $10 more. I don't care that much, though. I thought about sending him the amazon link so he could see what he should be offering, but he probably already knows and is hoping to find some hobbyist who never uses their camera and is just like "$100? yippee!"
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2010 20:00
|
|
|
poopinmymouth posted:Who wants to go with me to Mongolia? Finally found the absolute perfect tour package, and got a nice windfall of money to pay for it. That sounds awesome. How low does the cost get if you can get 8 people?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 12, 2011 16:30
|
|
|
Probably going to get a 16-35 2.8L I with my refund. Then sell my Tamron. We had good times.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2011 06:02
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:I'm pretty sure that Dez-something chick with the tight knit community is some kind of suicide girl/alt porn model. She's also crazy as gently caress. I didn't realize that thread had veered off into discussing photography rights, but thanks for posting about it here. It's hilarious.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2011 00:51
|
|
|
brad industry posted:This is my favorite quote in the history of everything I got a three day probation for calling someone a douchenozzle (and a sweet custom title!). That guy says literally the stupidest thing I've ever read and nobody gives a poo poo. WHERE IS THE JUSTICE?!
|
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2011 01:59
|
|
|
McMadCow posted:Sorry guys. Don't be sorry. I found it highly entertaining, and I appreciated your ability to not just bow down to absolutely infuriating levels of stupidity just because you were outnumbered. I guess being objectively right helps with that.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2011 03:36
|
|
|
I think he was pretty classy in how he handled things. I feel bad for the guy. He really has put a lot of work into making a business and even if he sucks, he's honestly doing things to the best of his abilities and he acknowledges that. He could have easily come on the forums and said that all the people commenting know nothing of photography and he's a super-pro but he's just a guy trying to make a living. I respect him for that, even if he sucks at his chosen profession. Also his wife sounds awful (based on what little information there is, but being notably angry about your husband being poo poo talked on an Internet forum is pretty pathetic) so I feel bad on that front too.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 16, 2011 07:40
|
|
|
surgical scar posted:It is neither pathetic nor awful of Mrs. Hicks to take offense at what people have said on the forums. Words matter, even when they come from bitter, vitriolic goons. Caring what random strangers on the Internet think of you to the point where it influences your emotions is, in fact, sad. Especially when the disparagement amounts to "you husbands photos aren't that good." Boohoo people have opinions. And I saw zero "bitter, vitriolic" goons in that thread. The main person knocking on the photos was trying to give him advice on finding someone who would do a better job recording one of the most important days of his life. There was no mean-spiritedness and it's ridiculous to imply that there was.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 16, 2011 08:46
|
|
|
Amazon, keh, ebay, and used stores should all provide receipts. If you do a cash transaction in person or like paypal someone on a forum then a picture would probably work.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2011 01:38
|
|
|
Dread Head posted:Destruction of Canon gear. http://paradoxoff.com/mass-destruction-of-the-canon-cameras.html The amount of poo poo companies throw away is mind-boggling. They could have easily sold this with no warranty at a massive discount and been better off than just smashing it all. So wasteful.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2011 23:43
|
|
|
HPL posted:The problem is that scammers would buy that stuff and eBay it. The company has probably been through that whole song and dance before and that's probably why they're smashing that poo poo. Shoe companies do this all the time and punch a hole in the sole in case you try to resell it. They could very easily put some sort of unremovable mark to indicate what it was.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2011 23:50
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 17:02 |
|
|
HPL posted:Ah. Makes sense. If Canon sold it after the fact, it would basically be Canon defrauding the insurance company. You say that like it's a bad thing. Who hasn't committed a little insurance fraud here and there. "Oh, that scratch two feet away from the spot where the guy rear-ended me? Yeah that wasn't there before the accident, better fix it."
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2011 06:14
|
|