|
Put this up in the General thread a while ago, but loved it too much to let it go away: Weegee talking about his brand of photojournalism in NYC. http://tedbarron.com/BWF-June-2009/22-Weegee.mp3
|
#
¿
Sep 2, 2009 01:52
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 19, 2024 08:30 |
|
|
TsarAleksi posted:That's really interesting, he makes some really good points. I love the guy, just the accent and the completely jaundiced view he had by then, but considering he basically covered the crime beat, it's amazing he was as normal as he was. I love his shots, too. He's like a Cartier-Breson without hope or joy.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 2, 2009 02:04
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:Has photography as a serious hobby ruined casually looking at pictures for everyone else? I can hardly look at facebook snapshots anymore. Also, whenever a friend links me to a babe I immediately try to guess what lighting is used and how to recreate the shot. Everyone does this to some degree. I commented in the general thread that "The Girls Next Door" is a great show, because each episode you get to see them setting up photo shoots. Not the naked chicks, but the gear and setups...sweet.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2009 18:17
|
|
|
forkbucket posted:Just went through a whole bunch of photos from some horse show thing that happened right outside my window. Turns out every single one was out of focus, even the ones that were taken (relatively) close. Which is...annoying...to say the least. I'm fairly positive this is the handy work of my 18-55 kit lens, but goddamn it. I've got a photo-day planned soon, too. Maybe if my buddy decides he doesn't want to go I can borrow his lenses. Look thru viewfinder. Let camera autofocus. Does the subject appear in focus to you? If not, you can adjust the diopter so it does appear in focus to you. This permits accurate manual focus. It has no impact on how the camera autofocuses.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 15, 2009 20:59
|
|
)
|
dunkman posted:Kind of a random question, but is a point of discussion among my friends. Not as simple as brad makes it out to be, i'm afraid. He would own the images to a degree, but he would have not right to get the electrons, and I don't think he could demand you produce the card, or copy the picture, or not delete it if you wanted to. He could control what you did with the images, but not necessarily the electrons, if you see the difference. You couldn't publish or use the photo, but you could destroy the card or delete the image. i think.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2009 20:12
|
|
|
notlodar posted:I went to William Eggleston's new show, got his autograph, and then ripped in in half when I got in to the first fight with the girl I'm in love with Just remember, you were wrong and apologize...all will be well. And frame that picture just the way you have it displayed here, torn in half and canted apart.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2010 13:54
|
|
|
brad industry posted:
Who cares about the studio portion? I want to see pics of that sweet living space. Don't disappoint us, man.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 14, 2010 13:53
|
|
|
Cultural Imperial posted:Wired thinks your DSLR is yesterday's news. Hilarious, quote:There’s a new camera category in town. It’s EVIL, and it’s going to kick your DSLR’s rear end. EVIL stands for Electronic Viewfinder Interchangeable Lens, and is our favorite acronym for cameras like the Olympus Pen, the Lumix GF1 and the Samsung NX10. These small, mirrorless, finderless cameras can fit in a pocket and outperform bulky DSLRs. Here’s why your next camera will probably be EVIL. They never mention the "outperform" in the subsequent comments. Not to mention, how exactly are they going to give us a 17-50mm equivalent (the "kit lens") without making them too big to put in your pocket, the sole advantage these seem to offer? Sure, these are great second cameras.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 16, 2010 12:55
|
|
|
I'm not sure much can be done minus a revolutionary change in optics. Until we aren't limited by glass/ceramic optics and the defraction/distortion problems inherent to it, you can only make a 400mm lens so compact and retain any quality. Right now, I'm not sure you can make a 70-200 much smaller than the f/4 of canon, and how important is it that your camera can fit in your pocket if it's stuck on the end of that?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 16, 2010 15:06
|
|
|
I thought of putting this in the wedding photography thread, but it fits here more aptly. http://thereifixedit.com/2010/02/09/epic-kludge-photo-hart-break/#more-6974
|
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2010 18:58
|
|
|
quazi posted:How to take better low-light photos (nytimes.com) You should have then quoted this bit: quote:What’s the difference in light between shooting film and digital? Seems like he was willing to "adjust lighting" in film, but not digital.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2010 14:31
|
|
|
Dumbest. Idea. Ever. http://cloakbags.com/
|
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2010 19:03
|
|
|
TsarAleksi posted:You should have then quoted this bit: My guess is, then, that he's talking about substantial manipulation, then, rather than global adjustments/dodge & burning. [/quote] You can get to a reasonable place, but you really do have to ignore what he actually says, including his conclusion that if you manipulate lighting you can't call it art. If he had said, you can't call it a photo, or "it's not reporting" or "it's not accurate" but "it's not art?"
|
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2010 19:38
|
|
|
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
|
|
Also, making them pay back $2,500 was just a huge bitch slap in the face. haha.
|
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
|
|
|
ZoCrowes posted:35mm is 35mm though. The focal length is not changing from crop body to full-frame. Just what the camera is able to "see" along that focal legth. Not really. This plays into the problem. What is accurate is "focal length is focal length" it's not 35mm specific. As you say, the focal length is not changing from crop to 35mm to MF. An 80mm lens on a medium format camera is the same focal length as an 80mm lens on a 35mm camera or an 80mm EF-S lens, the only thing that changes is field of view. When people talk about how it's all relative to 35mm they are incorrect.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2010 14:34
|
|
|
ZoCrowes posted:That's exactly what I said. Where are you disagreeing with me? The field of view (what the camera "sees" as I originally put it) changes but the focal length does not. Not quite. You said ZoCrowes posted:35mm is 35mm though. The focal length is not changing from crop body to full-frame. Just what the camera is able to "see" along that focal legth. If you are referring to 35mm the focal length, we're in agreement. If you meant, as had been used earlier in the conversation, 35mm as a film size, it's starkly different. If you were using 35mm as a focal length, then while we agree, I'd suggest you use a different focal length to make the point, given its confusion with the film/sensor size. Your use of "crop body to full-frame" made me think you meant 35mm as sensor size, though. edit: I raise this because so many people do the "equivalency" thing, with 35mm film as the "base" field of view. It's a great shortcut for people who know how it works, but it's really misleading to the new folks in photography. torgeaux fucked around with this message at 17:39 on Mar 11, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2010 17:34
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:You agree with him. This whole debate started when orange lime pulled ZoCrowes' post about getting a 35-70mm f2.8 lens and saying he didn't shoot wider than 35mm. Ah...In that case, nevermind. Carry on with your day to day activities please.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2010 18:17
|
|
|
So, a colleague at work has a jazz ensemble. Wanted me to come to their practice to do some shots for them. Great, I enjoy the opportunity to practice myself. "Don't worry about lighting, there's stage lighting there so it's fine." Yeah, I know better. I took AB800, a Sigma 530DG Super, couple of umbrellas and stands. "Meet us at 7:30, just google where the place is." Sure. Easy, except that there's no parking, but I got there a bit early, and after searching for parking, I'm on time. I set up, tell them to just keep practicing, I'll shoot around a bit before we do anything more formal. Fiddle, mess with the trigger, which is screwing up, test some exposures to see how I'm going to set up my second light. At 7:50, I ask how much time they have for the pictures, they say, "We have to be out at 8." I just can't WAIT for these beautiful, well staged shots. gently caress me.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2010 02:13
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:If only you'd had a $100 filter, you would have busted that instead of your
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2010 18:48
|
|
|
TsarAleksi posted:If you are just someone who likes to go cool places, and likes to take pictures, then it would probably be a lot of fun. I'd imagine most of the folks on these trips are not going to make earth-shattering images. Yeah, but why not just go with some photography friends? I see what you're saying, and I see the appeal, but I think I'd be irritated out of my mind by hour 2. On the other hand, a photography road trip or vacation would be fantastic. My wife, I believe, might disagree.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2010 13:09
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:2 things I like about shooting in groups (no matter the size): 
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2010 14:43
|
|
|
Twenties Superstar posted:Dont be obtuse, he's just pointing out the obvious that there is no reason why any photo needs a geotag to be good. His article is moronic on its face, as always. quote:Hobbyists are so distracted by wondering which raw converter to use, worried about printer and camera profiles, wasting hours doing gigapan and HDR and pan-focus captures, and then wasting even more hours in front of their screens putting these all together back into photos and then screwing them up further with more plugins, that no hobbyists have any time left to look for better pictures. He presents a false dichotomy here. One can have equipment enthusiasts who are also good, even great, photographers. Do some people obsess more about the equipment than the photo? Sure, and god bless 'em. Their hobby is different from mine, but I bet they have as much fun as I do. but, some photographers are capable of using the best equipment to acquire images that were not possible with lesser equipment. To ignore the fact that better equipment equals more flexibility is no less a sin than to worship the equipment to the exclusion of other considerations. Every time I see those snide, "it's almost like the lens doesn't matter" comments, I think, sure, unless you want sharper or faster or better color reproduction or any of a number of legitimate improvements that some equipment has over others. Great pictures can be taken with lovely, basic equipment. But not as many as can be taken with the best equipment. Geotagging...what a loving moronic thing for him to comment on at all. When someone argues the other side of that equation, that is, a geotagged photo is better somehow, then I'll entertain the contrary argument. Until then, it's just another stupid "I'm better because I don't care about equipment!" arguments.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2010 19:05
|
|
|
brad industry posted:I don't think most hobbyists are concerned with taking "great" pictures even if that's what they say. Photography serves more social and personal functions than that. A different point, but one I agree with entirely. My point is, assuming his person exists, i.e. a hobbyist with gear lust, he can still be a great photographer. The gear lust could interfere, but it isn't the necessity he implies. quote:If you take more than a half-second to fire all the shots you need to stitch and stack, you cannot possibly create a photograph as powerful as can be captured in one snap of my Powershot. So, according to Ken, if you already know how to shoot great photos, it's ok to do this poo poo he hates. I could even agree with the basic point that one should learn photography before learning the techniques he rails on, but it can certainly go the other way. A gear head loves the stuff, loves the techniques, then learns composition and lighting. My point is, the sneering at equipment is no worse than the worship of equipment, if it's as broad a generalization as he makes here. torgeaux fucked around with this message at 19:16 on Apr 5, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2010 19:13
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:That's a pretty poor analogy. It's a great analogy, because it makes both sides of the argument. You can make fantastic furniture by hand, and you can make it with modern tools. I have a friend who is a blacksmith. He uses tools from the mid-1800's to the late twentieth century. He doesn't care when it was made, just whether it helps him get the job done. Brian May used a cheap rear end electric guitar for years, because it had a unique sound, but it wasn't better than a more expensive, more tonally accurate guitar, just the tool suited his purpose. Screaming "the tools don't matter" is just as stupid as pixel peeping, trading in lenses until you get one that reproduces news print with 100% accuracy then shooting charts with it.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2010 02:41
|
|
|
dissss posted:What is the dude in center frame from about 3.38 holding? It does look a lot like a rifle. It is a rifle. Carrying a rifle there is not indicative of anything, though, every day people carry AK47s without being part of the insurgency. Not to mention, there was a recently revealed incident where a local chief of police and another official were killed when they came out of their homes carrying AK47s in response to gunfire. I know lots of guys who kill people for a living. They're normally pretty normal, stable people, and they can be trusted to do the right thing. Put them on their third deployment, in an urban environment with a hostile (with good reason) populace, and bad things happen. The thing is, the fog of war is such that, as a rule, I'm not quick to condemn the trigger pullers, although the chatter in this case and the video make me much less sympathetic to that argument than normal. There have been a lot of civilian casualties in this conflict, and it's tragic not matter what else is going on.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2010 15:30
|
|
|
Mannequin posted:
Ha. that's exactly what I'm talking about, but talking out my rear end, apparently. I had a buddy who was a bigger Queen fan than me (and I'm a fan), and he went on and on about how May used this cheap guitar he liked the sound of. Jesus. I read up on that guitar...sweet. Of course, it's made the other end of the point, that is, the best equipment has it's advantages.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2010 13:34
|
|
|
pwn posted:They're. Contraction of they + are. They're. Alright, how did GBS leak in here?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2010 17:38
|
|
|
fronkpies posted:Please forgive me, I have brought shame upon myself and my family. Don't empower them. Just make the corrections, say a silent mea culpa and move on.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2010 19:31
|
|
|
tuyop posted:
No. Most primes are f/2.8s in the canon line, anyway. The 50 and 85 are the two cheaper ones that are faster. After that, the default max aperture seems to be 2.8. The 14, 15, 20, 24, 28, 100, 135 and 200 are all available in f/2.8 as the cheap version. 35, 50 and 100 are 2/1.8/1.8 respectively.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2010 22:15
|
|
|
DaNzA posted:
That needs to be in the OP of the gear thread.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2010 13:14
|
|
|
DaNzA posted:*sees a public bathroom* Yes. Point well made.  Oh, and did anyone see the new camera commercial, I think for a panasonic point and shoot that was on the Big Bang Theory on Monday? Starts with eagle in nest...pan to man with tripod, taking telephoto lens out of bag to put on camera...couple walk into frame, say, "Hey, look at that!" pull P&S from pocket, take a quick shot (clearly on auto) look at the LCD and say, "That's a keeper!" as the bird flies away. Man with SLR holds lens, looks ashamed. But for the reaction I had of, "You fuckers, I sat here waiting for him to come back, you walk up and scare him away with your lovely POS camera and I'm going to kill you" it hits the right notes of convenience. Talks about the great 16x zoom. torgeaux fucked around with this message at 13:34 on Apr 15, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2010 13:29
|
|
|
brad industry posted:How much would you charge for this? We may be able to take up a collection here to pay you to take this job. I'm willing to pitch in.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2010 12:59
|
|
|
fronkpies posted:You could put a 5d mkII sensor in a camera phone and it still wouldn't make dslr's obsolete, sure it would give you better quality pictures out of your camera phone but that doesn't mean everyone is going to give up there fully functioning camera. I propose an organic photo sensor, we can plant it in our heads, right above the nose (make it two, so we can do stereoscopic imaging) and a massive storage system for the full size images (put that behind the sensors). We just need a way to get those images out of the storage medium. Maybe paint brushes and canvas?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2010 14:08
|
|
|
You know, the picture below is nothing special, just another shot of the boy at the park (just before he tried to get down from there and fell and hit his head on the concrete apron...no injury, but oh the crying). But, I was putting the pictures up on flickr and noticed it looked really sharp, and I thought I had shot wide open. I checked, and I had, in fact, shot wide open. 85mm f/1.8 at 1.8. Just a great lens. I love this lens. 
|
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2010 20:14
|
|
|
orange lime posted:
I do not think this is correct. Apparent aperture and actual aperture are not the same, and the apparent aperture is the important figure, in particular with zoom lenses. http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=0000Wf
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2010 16:07
|
|
|
Augmented Dickey posted:Yeah, this is basically what my question boils down to. The physical aperture doesn't change (with a small exception). The apparent aperture changes because of the amount of available light for the wide end...the light path is NOT the same for each focal length. At the very widest end, in some lenses, there is some small change in the physical diameter to make the f/stop be constant. In other words, the aperture ISN'T constant, the F/stop is. The physical aperture of a 70-200/f2.8 lens is ~71.4. It's still 71.4 at the 70mm end, but it's not an f/.9 lens. It hasn't moved down to be 25mm, but it's apparent aperture has changed. torgeaux fucked around with this message at 16:35 on Apr 26, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2010 16:29
|
|
|
guidoanselmi posted:i used an HDR photo of mine for an old GBS PS thread where I turned it into a scene from stalker. like a dozen people emailed me to ask for the original Depends on the penance you did after.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2010 03:12
|
|
|
ease posted:
Insufficient halos.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2010 14:46
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 19, 2024 08:30 |
|
|
Whitezombi posted:I think poo poo works best. Pastel colored poo poo.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2010 16:49
|
|