|
"Hey man, he was in my viewfinder!" "I'm in your viewfinder!"
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2011 03:09
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 05:52 |
|
|
Mannequin posted:I got this form letter in my flickr account the other day: Can you give us a link to this photo? I grew up near Morristown, and I'm trying to figure out if they're referring to the area by Hennessy's, or the current condo/eyesore thing next to Cluck U.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2011 20:41
|
|
|
So I was supposed to shoot with an aspiring model today. She contact me first, because she needed to build up her portfolio. Since I could always use the practice and am trying to go pro with this, I agreed. We met yesterday for coffee to sketch out where and what we'd shoot, what times, looks, themes, etc. She wanted to shoot in vintage clothes in some abandoned buildings. At no point did we discuss money, which is probably my fault. Today she calls an hour before the shoot and wants to know how much I'm going to pay her. I said I would get her lunch and gas, because it was a trade shoot. She doesn't know what that is, but she thinks I should be paying her like a hundred bucks for 3 hours of shooting. What the gently caress? I get that she's skinny, blonde and attractive, but you don't get to demand money when you've never modeled before and your 'portfolio' is a handful of self-portraits taken on your iphone with instagram filters. Especially considering that she contacted me to shoot her concept, shouldn't she be paying me? Two weeks ago, I was contacted by another model who wanted headshots, and even offered to pay me, great. We met up to plan, and she wanted me to walk her through where and how I'd be shooting her. So we walked over to a nearby park, then a back alley with some neat graffiti, and I showed her how I was going to pose and frame her up. I don't hear from her again. I tracked her down on facebook, and it turns out she got her boyfriend to shoot the EXACT same photos with their lovely p&s and are passing it off as professional headshots. I'm mostly just venting because this girl ruined my day, but how do you guys deal with this stuff?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2011 02:46
|
|
|
HPL posted:And me... I had the same realization when someone mentioned a Rolling Stone photographer was selling his F3 and assorted accessories. Why can't I shoot like *iconic photographer*, when I have the same gear? Back to the drawing board  On the plus side, it stopped Gear Aquisition Syndrome dead in its tracks.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2011 17:04
|
|
|
PREYING MANTITS posted:HotNSweaty222 Sounds like a profile on Adult Friend Finder.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2011 23:55
|
|
|
It probably belongs in the terrible photography thread, but this got a good chuckle out of me: Pro internet photographers critique actual pro photographers
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2011 06:15
|
|
|
Santa is strapped posted:I really like this image, mostly because it's hard to find the real subject at first. And it's different than most photos of the same subject. A few weeks ago I was walking down the street, and saw a cop step over a homeless guy sleeping on a subway grate for the warmth. Hell of a day to forget to carry a camera  quote:Jessica met a drug dealer and that got her in the door of a drug den, she documented it. There's a similar story in freakonomics, where a sociology student has a chance meeting with a drug dealer and gets let into the inner sanctum. Turns out this dealer (former accounting student) kept meticulous books, and this sociologist discovered that while the average street dealer makes less than minimum wage, something like $3.00/hour, while the lieutenants and higher-ups make the crazy Scarface money.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2011 20:33
|
|
|
Four Banger posted:Yeah I severely doubt there were ever any RAW images taken. Considering the "photographer" in the Joe Brown clip also used a kit lens and an entry-level Canon (XT?), perhaps she should take them to small claims court? Show the JB clip and exif data from her wedding (which should say what mode the camera was in (AUTO)), and press for a refund because the photographer is lying about their level of professionalism and grossly negligent. Subpoena their gear, go hog wild.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2012 00:13
|
|
|
Anti_Social posted:Did anyone else get that terrible email from PPA about how we should support SOPA? Trey "Patient Zero of HDR" Ratcliff has a nice response.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2012 06:25
|
|
|
His articles are like a less-articulate K*Rock that uses rage faces & memes to communicate bad opinions.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2012 15:17
|
|
|
email from an rear end in a top hat posted:400 A new low for a pristine D7000 on CL. KEH offers $650 for UG D7000s.  .
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2012 03:19
|
|
|
Someone from craigslist just let me know they WON'T buy my camera, because I did not get a Best Buy extended warranty with it. 
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2012 05:49
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:lol never pay money for this boudoir workshop that's live on creative live right now. I'm going to run to the store and try watching this. I always forget to check creative live for the upcoming seminars. It's in intermission right now, what's so bad? E: Haha, 2 more days of this? red19fire fucked around with this message at 22:31 on Feb 10, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2012 21:49
|
|
|
Wow, this is pretty bad. Am I the only one that thinks she holds the camera weird? And doesn't seem to know what she's doing? It seems like her business plan is to get rich women tipsy, who then pay her for the experience of a glamourous photoshoot, rather than a quality end product. And now she's parroting the workshop attendees as if their ideas are hers during the hands-on session. E: Oh come on, MIRROR AWARENESS! E2: Oh hey there's a chatroom lets see what they have to s quote:spread your legs a little please.. thats what would i tell to my model 
red19fire fucked around with this message at 00:25 on Feb 11, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2012 00:09
|
|
|
"Don't worry, I'll fix it in photoshop." Welp, time to move this discussion to the terrible photographer thread. E: I think she just let slip that she outsources all her post-processing. red19fire fucked around with this message at 00:54 on Feb 11, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2012 00:33
|
|
|
Well I learned that the key to a good shoot is confidence with the model/subject, so there's that. And the only real way to learn that is just shooting and shooting and shooting. I can see how it might be good for a beginner that maybe hasn't shot with a model before, or is intimidated by it.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2012 04:11
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:
I also don't get the the weird settings, but I think it's because she outsources her PP, so she's not really concerned with noise and such. I assist a photographer who shoots at ISO 2000, f/8 250, with flash  Uncle Creepy Biker, all he does is hold the fan, adjust Christa's settings for her, and move a $5000 KinoFlo light that hardly anyone watching would be able to afford. At least make it a little bit realistic for the average photographer watching, pull out a couple of Alienbees.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2012 00:53
|
|
|
CarrotFlowers posted:Did anyone watch the Posing and Lighting one by Bambi Cantrell? I'm just watching the intro, and it seems like it would be a helpful general guide for posing. Books and such are great for some people, but I don't learn well from books and reading, especially for posing. I tried reading the posing guide in the portrait thread and I made it about 1/100 of the way through before I quit. I need to see and watch someone do it. She has another one coming up in 2 weeks, I think. Might be worth a look, the first wasn't so bad.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2012 01:32
|
|
|
A model contacted me yesterday. "Hi Chris, do you have availability on Friday? I'd like to shoot some lingerie work for my portfolio, I have a great location at my place." "Sure, I'm available 4-6, can you tell me more about the look you have in mind?" "Ok, Great! I'm only looking for paid work right now, let me know if you're still interested." Who does that?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2012 06:02
|
|
|
I remember reading something about a photographer that staged some photos of a Palestinian (Israeli? Iraqi?) officer amid some ruins after an earthquake (bombing?) that ended up on the cover of Newsweek. I think that 'officer' ended up being an actor, or just some guy with an official-looking uniform, posing heroically on rubble. I also remember reading that the photo of a half-burned teddy bear in the rubble of a burned house is the go-to cliché for local news photographers.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2012 05:51
|
|
|
Clayton Bigsby posted:Found this page via TOP, love love love these photos. Is that a large format TLR in the self-portrait? Or a comically large prop camera?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2012 02:41
|
|
|
I thought magazines always wanted the largest possible image and best resolution, because their art director and designers do their own crops to fit the text of the story.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2012 13:44
|
|
|
Augmented Dickey posted:Saw this in AI- anyone know what lens this is? I want to say it's the 50mm 1.8 Series E, a tiny pancake lens, but might be from the wrong era. The 'bubble' element in the middle makes me think of a wide angle lens. E: The vibration from racing must make photos from that setup unusable, unless it's able to shoot at 1/1000 minimum, right? red19fire fucked around with this message at 02:06 on Apr 26, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2012 01:57
|
|
|
GWBBQ posted:The ability to take criticism professionally and not personally is an increasingly uncommon trait. Good for you. Gordon Ramsay's show, Kitchen Nightmares, has some fantastic advice in it. In one episode he says he throws away customer comment cards that are 10/10 positive ratings, because he believes that 90% of them are just sycophants blowing smoke. What he cares about are the 10% that are negative reviews, because those are telling him things he needs to improve upon. Of course, the arrogant restaurant owner in that episode did the exact opposite, clung to the positive ratings as proof his lovely restaurant was good, and disregarded the sea of negatives as 'haters'. It applies to everything.
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2012 02:18
|
|
|
Steve McScene posted:You don't need to go quickly. Just use nd filters and slowly roll. Wide lenses distort and its pretty much done by everyone. I looked at the under mounts but that's no good for supercars and racecars with no clearance really.  Here I am thinking the rig has to stand up to a ton of force as the car flies down the highway.Why not use a chase car with a similar camera setup so you don't have to use photoshop on all the suction cups and steel stuff in the photos? A pickup truck with a tripod should be way safer than a 25 foot steel contraption, and it would be easier to match the speed if they're rolling slowly. Are there flashes or strobes involved?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2012 17:38
|
|
|
DJExile posted:Why would this ever be a requirement of a photographer? People who hire photographers are insane sometimes. I've been told I need to shoot on someone else's CF card for both weddings and events, and hand them over afterwards. Or transfer RAW files immediately to the event company at the end of the event. Or shoot small JPG's only, to be uploaded to their website (facebook page) within 24 hours. I've been contacted to shoot weddings, and the bride demands all RAW files before I leave the venue. I think people just want control of every little thing, or they want to be the first to release a photo publicly.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 20, 2012 21:46
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:You're arguing against what is standard in almost every part of the photography industry. This is the important part. I'll gladly shoot on someone else's CF card, if I'm hired as a second shooter at a wedding by the main photographer. That's covered under a 'Word Made For Hire' agreement. The problem arises when the bride demands my CF card in order to put her own editing on it, because they read in Shithead Bride magazine that they should demand jpg's from their photographer so they can run all the photos through instagram themselves and save on editing. There's also shady event promoters that hire naive photographers with promises of nationwide exposure on their website, demand immediate jpg's for the website with no watermarks, and never link to the photographer; so they've essentially worked for less than free. But these are bottom of the barrel, worst case scenario examples of shady clients.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 21, 2012 01:40
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:It's either that or I dream about really mundane things like replying to emails (which is incredibly confusing when I wake up) Ever have one of those inception dreams, where you wake up from a dream while still dreaming, and you're dreaming about reading your email on your phone and procrastinating? Dreams are weird.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 23, 2012 13:45
|
|
|
Suicide Watch posted:Here's an idea, how about a Facebook cover photo thread? For inspiration I suppose. There was one in PYF a while ago.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2012 05:47
|
|
|
Tincans posted:Decisions Are you being paid by the model for the shoot? If he's got some skin in the game, I could understand cutting him some slack, but I wouldn't even load the car without a confirmation. Models are the worst. On the plus side, if you're shooting for something specific, you could probably find a replacement without too much trouble.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 1, 2012 21:17
|
|
Decisions
|
spog posted:What the hell does a collective do? Oh no, are (lovely) photographers becoming the new furries?!? I'm being Pho-secuted!  I think the 'taunting' refers more to r/pics downvotes and critical comments. Because as we all know, there is no such thing as constructive criticism, just haters hatin'.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 7, 2012 16:43
|
|
|
NoneMoreNegative posted:Yeah, I think it's aimed at the 'home user' market rather than something like Xtrafolio or Portfolio: for Ipad, but for free it seems to make decent results. Is there a good, preferably free portfolio app for android? I've been using the normal, boring gallery app, but I think my photos need to be at a higher resolution first.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2012 01:08
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:It's more his lighting than the gear. I had the same thought. "Model with Gun" is straight out of model mayhem; and the whole bit about the only subject he would shoot is his kids is straight out of mommy photographer blog #2684. I would bet he has a long statement to make about a photo of train tracks, I get the sense that Platon and Seliger put on the kid gloves a bit. The part about Larry King and the Clinton photo was interesting. I look at that picture and got the sense that Clinton was confident and proud of finishing his term, as well as a bit relieved, whereas King thought the photo was borderline pornographic.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 29, 2012 18:41
|
|
|
JAY ZERO SUM GAME posted:Whether or not he legally purchased the appropriate rights from the copyright holder of the images, not including "I take images others have made and manipulate them" in your artist statement is deliberately misleading and the audience is right to assume the artist has created everything in a piece unless stated otherwise. Calling yourself a "photo media artist" and expecting anyone to know that means you find images on stock websites and edit them with a Wacom is so shady I don't know where to begin. That's called a derivative work, and you have to disclose it when you register a copyright to the copyright office. If that guy is taking others' work essentially whole cloth for his own work, he's way in the wrong.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 4, 2012 06:51
|
|
|
Casull posted:I'm in such a rut. I love going out and taking pictures, but the more I take, the more I don't want to go over and process them. I still have pictures from three months ago that I just haven't gone through. I haven't even touched the few pictures that I've taken recently either. I think it's important to gut through the work when you have those kinds of feelings. Especially if you're feeling unmotivated and down on yourself creatively, that's the best time to process photos, because you'll be your own harshest critic. That's when you'll do the best job at weeding out the bad photos, and you'll be left with what you truly think is your best work.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 10, 2012 16:44
|
|
|
Clown posted:
Take screencaps first, then send him a link to any of the various wedding photographers that have been busted for stealing others' work. Then report him to Stop Stealing Photos anyway.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 10, 2012 23:55
|
|
|
squidflakes posted:Also, hey. Some guy is trying to rub his expensive camera cock on some friends of mine, and he's claiming he gets SUPER ADVANCED BOKEH because his camera costs $5000. K*Rock has a whole section of his blog for it, but your guy is talking out of his rear end. The 'artistic' quality of bokeh depends on the smoothness of transition and uniformity of the OOF areas. The upper right corner (for example) has football-shaped bokeys with hard edges, there's also reasonably well-defined lines in the bokeys elsewhere. If it's distracting, it's bad, basically. It's also possible he did some kind of circular blur since all the oval bokeh shapes are perpendicular to the center of the frame, and probably sharpened the poo poo out of the in-focus areas. If he wants to  out about the 'quality' of his $5000 bokeys, he should just buy a Leica. But the best bokeh-riffic lenses are the Nikon DC twosome, 135mm and 105mm.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 21, 2012 07:38
|
|
|
Of course they'll be okay, it's a Hasselblad.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 27, 2012 21:16
|
|
|
There was also a study that showed pets get adopted 2-3x faster if they have 'pro' photos done.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 20, 2012 16:31
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 05:52 |
|
|
InternetJunky posted:I would love to do photo work for the local shelter but I fear I'd be one of those crazy cat people with a thousand cats if I did. Kudos to SKULE123 for doing it. This is the hard part for me, because my gut instinct is GIVE ME ALL OF THE DOGGES. I'm always minutes away from adopting every dog I shoot. Good shelter portraits are fairly easy. Most of the animals' current photos are taken upon intake, when they're locked in a cage, covered in their own excrement and terrified, so they look awful. So a day or so after intake, I grab the Nifty Fifty, let them run around a bit outside and warm up to me, then take a headshot in the shade from 2 feet away and about 2-3 inches above eye level. It's the same concept as the '15 inch gaze' in portraits, you want to mimic the look that the adopter is going to get snuggled up on the couch with their pet. It's Easy Mode for pet portraits.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 26, 2012 19:30
|
|