|
I stumbled onto this the other day: http://cow.mooh.org/2009/07/plungercam-2-cheaper-and-more.html Has anyone tried anything like this? It seems like a fun project for an idle afternoon. EDIT: Do you think it could be done with a non medium format lens? Say a 35mm f/2? Wooten fucked around with this message at 04:42 on Feb 13, 2010 |
#
¿
Feb 13, 2010 04:38
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 25, 2024 17:07 |
|
|
torgeaux posted:Dumbest. Idea. Ever. That's really terrible. What market do they expect to reach with something like this?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2010 19:07
|
|
|
Helmacron posted:
I think these days its just about paying to do it yourself and trying to sell the photos later, unless you already work for some kind of publication. I think the trick is being independently wealthy or having the ability to get a hefty grant or loan.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2010 15:12
|
|
|
That photo makes me feel better. I keep the $100 protective filters on anything that has an L on it. The sad part is they cost so much I'm still afraid of breaking the filters. I'm also extremely defensive about them, I wouldn't want anyone to think it's a cheapo UV filter! It's like walking around with a pocket protector or something. I also notice slight halos on bright things from time to time and I blame the filters. There needs to be a better way. Like force fields or something.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2010 17:45
|
|
|
I always use a hood, what else would protect my protectors?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2010 18:35
|
|
|
Well my night is ruined. I've seen dozens of "apache killing people" videos, but the people on the radio really should be in jail for the nonchalant way they went about mowing down people who were obviously innocent. It was seriously like listening to the chatter in a multiplayer game of MW2.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2010 05:42
|
|
|
But, there's no grip, just a part where your fingers can slide off. Also, why do all these wacky concept designs seem to forget that you hold on to the lens when taking using the camera, not the body.
Wooten fucked around with this message at 02:20 on Apr 11, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2010 02:12
|
|
|
Rated PG-34 posted:Suffering for your craft builds character though. Just imagine how much more character that guy now has. Obviously character is measured by the amount of blood in ones stool. I do have to say that parasite man had better composure in his photos. It's probably hard to get the framing just right when you're trying to position the whole vehicle while it gets batted around like a toy. Almost as difficult as doing it with an rear end full of worms.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2010 02:35
|
|
|
I think the 35mm f/2 is pretty nifty myself. It's also cheaper than the sigma and wide enough for a crop body. Plus the AF sounds like an angry hornet! EDIT: I know it's not quite as wide and a lot more than 80 bucks. Still my favorite walk around prime for a crop body. Wooten fucked around with this message at 04:13 on Apr 25, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2010 04:09
|
|
|
I've been practicing with the 85 1.2 lately. It's such a huge challenge to get anything usable out of it when it's wide open. It's also extremely slow to auto focus, and forget trying to manual focus. It makes it feel really easy to get the focus with every other lens I own. I just love it so much though.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2010 23:30
|
|
|
I'm not saying its a useful lens for 90% of people. I was just commenting on how much I like the focal length and the ridiculously shallow depth of field. I actually did get it just because I shoot weddings and my biggest fear is dark churches. I wouldn't recommend buying it unless you have an actual need for it. The 1.8 is much more reasonably priced and also MUCH lighter. I still have no regrets about the 1.2, it's the most challenging lens I've ever used and it makes such pretty portraits. It's also crazy sharp if you stop it down even a little (which is true for the 1.8 as well).
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2010 01:15
|
|
|
Cyberbob posted:Just what the world of photography needs, more camera lenses shapped like rocket launchers. Maybe we need to start making lens hoods safety orange.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2010 02:15
|
|
|
For some reason the question I always get asked is "what are you taking pictures of?". My response is always "everything, man".
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2010 19:59
|
|
|
I visited my mom earlier this week, as I was leaving she handed me this dusty old box and said, "You like photography, would you want these?". It's full of glass negatives. I'm not really sure on how old they are but I'm going to say somewhere around 1900. Apparently a friend of hers found them in an old barn in the middle of nowhere. There are 14 in all, some are in better shape than others. They are all formal portraits taken in the same studio. Here's a few of the ones that I found interesting. The only post I did was inverting them, desaturating, and curves. Any ideas on how old they are based on the clothing?   
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2010 16:19
|
|
|
Bloody August posted:Think about it, because they're drugs, their tolerance would be through the roof, so they'd need more, right? When I got mine I decided to get all 16gig cards. You get ~550 per card which is great for events and such, otherwise my old 4gig cards are usually fine. Now that I'm starting to dip my toes into video I'm eying the 32gig.  EDIT: And then you realize you need a place to store all this data! Suddenly GB is replaced with TB and your wallet is replaced with an empty void. Wooten fucked around with this message at 20:45 on Jun 17, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Jun 17, 2010 20:42
|
|
Farewell, XTi/EF-S lenses! Also if you're curious, a 2GB card will hold exactly 27 RAW images on that camera(yes, those have been replaced now.)
|
I've found that when walking around with an oversized DSLR and lens I get a lot of random people asking me to take their photo with their point and shoot. Obviously if I have a nice camera I'm not going to walk away with theirs and they figure I know what I'm doing with a camera. The problem is that I usually manage to bump it into some awful mode that needs 3 menus to turn off and the person thinks I'm some kind of rear end in a top hat. I suppose the reason I bought my first DSLR was because I'm not good with complicated controls and I think everything should have its own button. It seems like a lot of manufacturers purposely make their lower end P&S cameras hard to operate. lovely menus and missing buttons. Kind like the Rebel not having a back wheel.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 7, 2010 17:51
|
|
|
Yeah, I drove 20 miles to a place with less light pollution just to watch the clouds roll in.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2010 07:20
|
|
|
I always read that misspelling as someone leaving the s off of lenses, which usually throws me off even more.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 2, 2010 04:48
|
|
|
Helmacron posted:I feel bad now, though. I should have just plied him with spiked drinks and pissed on him when he passed out. You say Nickon I say Nighkon, let's yell at each other until one of us leaves. How do you say bokeh? That's the normal photo nerd slap fight.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 2, 2010 06:32
|
|
|
I think you would be more likely to shake the camera trying to keep tension on the string than if you were just concentrating on not shaking the camera.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 2, 2010 23:30
|
|
|
Awkward Davies posted:This is kind of amusing I love how the comments on the photo go from "Great shot! This gets an AMAZING ART AWARD!! GOOD JOB!!" to "Hey look! Some asshat is learning how to fake HDRs."
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2010 17:01
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:You mean I'm not supposed to put the real ones in there? It's fine as long as you put a filter on it.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2010 03:10
|
|
|
The sad part is I have done a bunch of them by request for client's weddings. Then they refer me to their friends who demand it. People really wont shut up about them and it makes me die a little inside every time I have to make one. I even had one lady who posted to her facebook nothing but the 3 selective color photos I gave her, out of 400 photos of her wedding. Those three photos got dozens of comments from people saying "wow amazing". I rarely get that kind of response for any of my other photos. It's so goddamn soul crushing.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 22, 2010 23:26
|
|
|
spog posted:My images are either seen on my screen (so, if it looks good on my screen, that is fine)or on friends/family screens -which are usually so wildly miscalibrated, it doesn't really matter whether the image colour is completely correct. Yeah, but if you can match a known color space then you don't have to do anything to get a print that looks good from any printer. I use a spyder 3 pro every few weeks and I order prints from WHCC constantly. They always look really drat close to what I see on my monitor. It really takes out the guess work. It's also nice to know that my images are being displayed on the web the same way I see them. Obviously I can't help if everyone's monitors are way off, but at least I know I've done everything I can on my end.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 25, 2010 05:29
|
|
|
Cross_ posted:- this assumes that your printhouse is competent enough to calibrate their equipment and/or provide accurate ICC profiles; e.g. it's a good thing I requested a sample before approving a print run of 1000 copies once, their printer was seriously out of whack This has happened to me twice, with two different printers. I got my money back both times and I don't use their services any more.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 27, 2010 01:07
|
|
|
xzzy posted:I can't answer what he used, but I used to shoot bic lighters with a pellet gun and got cute little fireballs out of it. I'm not sure why you feel the need to be secretive about this. Blowing things up in your back yard isn't really a crime. More of an American pass time. I'm going to use my TFR powers to venture a guess that it was one of those little propane tanks. Like the ones you hook up to a coleman camping stove. The problem is you need an ignition source, if not all the gas just escapes in that white plume and disperses, most people will stick a road flare near by to solve this issue. I've done it a couple times myself with the bigger tanks. I've never gotten a decent photo though. I've always been too busy giggling like a school girl. Here's a pretty decent example. You don't need a .50BMG like those guys, just a decent velocity rifle round like a .308 or a .223.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 17, 2010 12:25
|
|
|
FasterThanLight posted:He's not being secretive, he doesn't know - someone else posted those. Oh, my apologies. I misunderstood his post.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 17, 2010 14:04
|
|
|
BobTheCow posted:Shot in the dark: any of you fine folks live in Portland, Maine, or near enough that you can find a copy (or two?) of the Portland Press Herald? I have between one and three photos running in tomorrow's (Monday, Nov. 21) issue that may get some good play that I'd like to have for my portfolio. However I live in Virginia soooooooooo... help? I can Paypal you $10 or something for your trouble (and postage). My wife's dad works in Portland, I'll ask if he can get me one.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 22, 2010 11:37
|
|
|
Yeah, I'm always jealous of people who have access to swanky places like that. I think I'm going to go photograph some of the offices around here. They were mostly built in the 60s and 70s and feature lots of yellow wall paper and rusty radiators. I think it might even turn out cool.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 22, 2010 18:30
|
|
|
BobTheCow posted:Thanks so much! Looks like I got some decent front page play, now I'm curious as to what I've got running in Sports: http://www.newseum.org/todaysfrontpages/hr.asp?fpVname=ME_PPH&ref_pge=lst He just sent me an email back saying he got it. If you want to PM or email, c (dot) clunie (at) gmail (dot) com, me your address I can mail it. I'll send you a photo of the sports page when he gives it to me. EDIT: Here are some terrible photos of the sports section. Looks like they used three of your photos.  
Wooten fucked around with this message at 04:16 on Nov 23, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2010 03:26
|
|
|
pwn posted:The actuarial sciences determined that my dad didn't do enough to prevent his death, leaving my mum with three thousand dollars of debt That's really awful man. This is one of those other times when you say gently caress the actuarial sciences.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2010 14:33
|
|
|
DaNzA posted:This week's 'The big picture' is amazing. That's a really incredible series of photos. It says in the last caption that the photographer lost a camera and two lenses to the harsh conditions. Those miners must die an awful lot.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2010 14:33
|
|
|
Dread Head posted:Destruction of Canon gear. http://paradoxoff.com/mass-destruction-of-the-canon-cameras.html I would rather look at goatse than that again.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2011 23:39
|
|
|
Moist von Lipwig posted:AMAZING I'm pretty sure THE BOSS was a 1DIII.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2011 04:26
|
|
wasn't THE BOSS a 5DII? I meant the D3X.
|
My wife and I had a kid about 7 months ago, I always feel like nothing is more boring than other people's kids so I rarely share the photos with anyone but facebook.  I also feel like photos of your own kid being cute are somehow cheating.
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2011 04:40
|
|
|
Casull posted:Which is weirder: that I haven't dreamed about photography until now, or that my first dream a couple nights ago was that my Vivitar 285HV could swivel and that I somehow hadn't noticed till now? I had this dream that I got hired to take photos of the president and my camera wouldn't take a photo, and then I switched bodies and that one wouldn't work either. Then I woke up in a cold sweat.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2011 03:40
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 25, 2024 17:07 |
|
|
A friend of mine just got turned down for a contract from some magazine in Boston, their reason was that while they really liked his portfolio, his 4 Alien Bee B1600s aren't good enough. They said he should invest in Elinchrom and call them back. Is this common in editorial photography or is that magazine run by a bunch of snobby dicks?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2011 20:13
|
|