|
nonanone posted:I'm just bitching, but after I shot a fashion show last weekend, the show coordinator already lifted my pictures off of facebook to post as her own photo album. I left a nice little note "reminding" her to credit me, but here's to remembering to watermark the poo poo out of everything even if you think no one but friends is going to see it. That's the thing with Facebook. It's too easy to do that kind of stuff. At least if it's on Flickr or something like that, the person has to make a conscious effort to gank your photos. Facebook also makes it easy for a person to crop out the watermark when they make a photo a profile picture. Facebook also strips off all the EXIF info from the photo so you can't embed stuff like copyright in the photo. That and it recompresses photos and makes them look like crap. If you're going to post photos on there, post one or two photos with a link to your web site for the rest of the set. HPL fucked around with this message at 21:20 on Nov 11, 2009 |
#
¿
Nov 11, 2009 21:18
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 25, 2024 17:19 |
|
|
Cyberbob posted:With LR3 directly exporting to a flickr photostream, it's going to be more and more of an effort to involve facebook in the workflow. Barely makes the effort worth it. The key to having a Facebook page is to keep fans updated and on top of what's new and what's coming up. Use it to drive traffic to your web page, don't use it AS your web page. LR can also directly export to SmugMug as well.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2009 21:30
|
|
|
squidflakes posted:So are we now at the end-times for the digital SLR? Will the only people using them be quaint old fogeys who have to struggle with things like focus and making sure some fiddley settings are correct while the real photographers are getting 35 shots of the same cypress knee in the same amount of time? Only if you're taking photos of old fogey subjects. For stuff that requires speed and low light performance, the DSLR will be king for a while yet.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2009 08:29
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:Just saw this on NPR. I, also, would love to turn a truck into a camera obscura. Where have you been the last little while? We discussed this earlier and one goon even went and interviewed the guy.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2009 01:36
|
|
|
squidflakes posted:Alright! A Nikonos V! Those are pretty excellent cameras for above water shooting if you mount the 35mm amphibious lens. You don't have to freak out if it rains, the camera gets stuff splashed on it, or you drop it in water. Haha. I should buy one for punk shows.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2009 22:49
|
|
|
brad industry posted:Photographers really have no obligation to flatter their subjects anyways. It's a very tricky subject. If you're photographing for a media outlet, it's your job to try to be relatively neutral, just like any other journalist. If you intentionally photograph someone in a negative way, you are exerting your bias over the story, which is unprofessional in journalism, or at least it used to be. Of course, if you submitted several different styles of photos and the editor picked the negative one, that's a different thing and it's out of your hands. Likewise if the editor tells you to go out and get a negative photo of the subject.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2009 02:17
|
|
|
noss posted:My opinion, for what it's worth is that if you are hired to photograph someone, you use your creative and technical talents to create a striking portrait. No more, no less. Would I have done McCain's portrait any different? Well it probably wouldn't have been quite as good, but yeah I'd have made him look bad. But if the PR people had been earning their paycheck, they'd have approved neither of us, after researching our political slants. I guess the question then is what if they know your political slant, but have seen your previous work, like your photographic style and assume that you'd be enough of a professional to do the job properly? Now granted we've veered away from the "journalist" thing and moved more into "hired gun" territory.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2009 04:17
|
|
|
The image quality must be crap. Not so much from the lens as from haze, miraging, vibration and other factors associated with such long distances.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2009 08:11
|
|
|
psylent posted:SLR lens on an iPhone lol; http://cow.mooh.org/2009/12/phone-o-scope-attaching-slr-lenses-to.html Someone did similar things years ago with small security camera-type lenses, which would probably be more suitable given the tiny image circle required. Plus CCD camera lenses come in ridiculously wide and fast versions, often with apertures in the f/1.2 neighborhood.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2009 00:59
|
|
|
I think two things that would probably help is to google up how burlesque dancers keep their pasties on and how female wrestlers keep things from accidentally bouncing out of captivity. I'm pretty sure they use either gaffers tape in a loop or foam double-sided tape.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2010 01:39
|
|
|
DJExile posted:To play devil's advocate for a second, a lot of P&S cameras, and things like the Powershot G11 and Olympus EP-1 and EP-2 have shown a lot of promise compared to full-bore DSLRs. They're not equivalent, and may never be, but they're getting a lot closer in some aspects. Many P&S cameras can take great photos in broad daylight. It's in low light and fast action where they fall off badly. They're considerably better than they used to be though. I hope it eventually reaches the point that film did where a small autofocus point and shoot like the Olympus Stylus Epic could deliver pretty much the same quality as an SLR in all conditions if you used it right.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 16, 2010 19:26
|
|
|
If I ever win the lottery, I'm totally getting a Phase One 645DF and P65+ back. For concert photography.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2010 08:02
|
|
|
Must be a Republican photographer, being a fan of small government and all.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2010 16:09
|
|
|
Penpal posted:You think that's cool? I've been watching this video for months, it's toronto photographer filming himself riding a bike, no handed, with a 12-24 on his 5d2. It's so loving wide, and it's soooo loving cool: That's actually insanely unsafe if he's looking through the viewfinder, which on second thought he probably isn't. One time I tried walking around while looking through the viewfinder with my Tokina 11-16 at 11mm and I nearly fell in a ditch because it's hard to see which direction you're actually walking in, strange as that sounds.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2010 17:33
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:Someone want to ID the Nikon body and lens they keep in the net at NHL games? Was watching hockey and this brought out the camera nerd in me A D2 of some sort. I would have thought they would use a D3 because it's a high ISO monster.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2010 19:47
|
|
|
Do your research thoroughly before you go to a camera show to buy stuff. Don't just look up what you want, look up variants of it too. If you go in just looking around with no real idea of what to look for, you've got a good chance of getting the wrong thing or paying a lot more than you should have.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2010 23:12
|
|
|
Brozekiel posted:True. Most likely I wont be purchasing anything, but I'm excited to look around at all the gear and maybe play with a few things. Even if you don't plan on buying, do your research anyway on stuff you're thinking of buying just in case you see a good deal. The key is to find exactly what you're looking for or better and not to buy the crappy version of whatever you're looking for. For instance, if you're looking for a Mamiya 645 Pro or Pro TL, don't end up buying a 645 Super by mistake.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2010 23:27
|
|
|
spf3million posted:New aerial photos of 9/11 released. Some of these are just unbelievable. I can't even imagine what was going through the photographer's mind. Probably something involving "holy gently caress" and "poo poo".
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2010 06:07
|
|
|
Haggins posted:I certainly don't think everyone in a Jane Austin is a homosexual. Not to mention cigarettes and bundles of sticks.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2010 16:52
|
|
|
Man, that is so squidflakes.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2010 18:05
|
|
|
Four Banger posted:Hey lets stop with the fag talk. Here's camera stuff! He's going to regret that when the D4 comes out.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2010 01:56
|
|
|
Mannequin posted:What do you think? Probably took the photo from the back of a car in front of the horse or something.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2010 20:12
|
|
|
I think it's from the back of a car because the lines don't radiate out from the subject like they do when you mess around with zoom.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2010 21:05
|
|
|
brad industry posted:A real lens: It looks like a travel mug.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2010 17:45
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Probably makes them look less weird when you take a photo up close at a wide angle.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2010 09:13
|
|
|
Haggins posted:Anyone going to Photoshop World in Orlando this year? I live close by and there is a free expo only pass for the last two days of the show. I'm thinking about going the second to last day. Why bother? You can just Photoshop yourself in there.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2010 04:19
|
|
|
The annoying thing is that all Nikon has to do is figure out how to make a bigger die fabrication machine and bam, cheaper full frame sensors.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2010 21:54
|
|
|
orange lime posted:Not really, no. Every time a chip wafer is completed, there are a certain number of chips on it that for some reason (dust speck, micro-impurity, flawed crystal structure) just don't work. I was under the impression that the main reason full frame sensors cost so much is because they have to be marked out multiple times per sensor whereas APS-C sensors are small enough that it only takes one go to mask them on the silicon, so you've got the difficulty factor in lining everything up for one sensor as well as the yield factor.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2010 22:34
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:The ISO war is definitely the new megapixel war. It'll be interesting how they approach it due to the technical difficulties involved. I'd like to see more APS-C sensors in compact cameras. If that happens, it will mirror the end of the film era when we had great cameras like the Olympus Stylus Epic with autofocus and sharp lenses in a compact package.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2010 22:45
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:I'm not sure why my S90 goes up to 3200 when my old rebel only did 1600 (shittily at that) - I haven't tested it at 3200 yet, but I can't imagine the results will be encouraging. There's a CHDK firmware for the XTi that'll allow 3200. Haven't tried it yet myself.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2010 23:34
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:What I was trying to say is that usually the upper ISO levels on cameras are almost unusable, and the ISO wars might just end up adding more useless levels just for the sake of competition rather than making the lower ranges usable. 1600 on a good point and shoot today is a hell of a lot better than it used to be. Heck, point and shoots rarely went past 400 back in the day. What I want to see is an f/1.8 lens for a small sensor. With a P&S sensor, depth of field should be pretty good even at f/1.8.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2010 23:42
|
|
|
The store near me is kind of weird because it's a mall store and it's small but they can bring in just about anything and their prices aren't fantastic by online standards, but they're not stupidly stupid either so it works out if I want just a small item or something in a hurry.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2010 19:42
|
|
|
AIIAZNSK8ER posted:So I think I need to start carrying a step ladder with me or get platform shoes because I am just too short. I'm at 5'4" and the people I photograph who are taller than me I catch a weird lower angle. I'm not quite eye level, when I happen to get to a taller vantage, I think the photo comes out better. Get a TLR and hoist it over your head.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2010 03:58
|
|
|
Sometimes when I'm shooting a show at a venue with a low stage, I'll just sit on the floor in front of the stage.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2010 20:46
|
|
|
Phat_Albert posted:You could just get a hood. The lens hood says you're serious.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2010 18:29
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:Just get a point and shoot, y'all. 35mm point and shoots are awesome because they usually have nice lenses and are a lot better at low light high ISO stuff than digital point and shoots.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2010 19:40
|
|
|
GWBBQ posted:Plus, if I get it working, imagine the looks on peoples' faces when I tell them how little I paid for it. Or turn it into a mug.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2010 19:54
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:Speaking of point n shoots, I don't think I'll ever actually buy one. I'll just keep pining for a Contax T series, but never actually shell out the money for one. I use a T2 extensively. It's awesome. Not perfect, but I like it. It's kind of bulky and heavy for what it is, but the lens is tack sharp and you have some control over the shutter speed and aperture, but not totally. If you can make do with something similar, but with less control, get the Olympus Stylus Epic. Decent quality in a smaller, lighter package. Make sure to get the Epic because it has the good lens, not the crappy zoom lenses that other Styluses have.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2010 21:16
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 25, 2024 17:19 |
|
|
DanTheFryingPan posted:Ansel Adams: The Mural Project 1941-1942 I love that Canyon de Chelly photo. Makes me wish I could go back to the Alberta badlands to take photos again.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2010 17:27
|
|