|
NoneMoreNegative posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swqFA9Mvq5M Thanks for that, that guy does amazing work. I actually saw some of my usual locations in his shots.
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2009 22:52
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 02:24 |
|
|
notlodar posted:How do you guys feel about cinematography? I think I could make some real bank being a director of photography I love cinematography, I did that before I got into still photography. And yeah, there's a lot of really uninspired camera work in lots of movies, but hey, who am I to complain about it from my cubicle? 
|
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2009 01:39
|
|
|
JaundiceDave posted:This dude has 199,537 photos on his flickr. And not one of them I saw is anything beyond a snapshot. How is that even possible? You would think after almost 200K photos he would have at least tossed out something halfway decent by accident.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 9, 2010 05:36
|
|
|
Sounds pretty half-baked to me.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2010 23:00
|
|
|
squidflakes posted:I really wish DSLRs were built with with an eye toward being upgraded. Though, I would assume the sensor is a major factor in the cost, so there may not be any sort of cost savings. I actually read an article not too long ago about a team at Stanford making a modular/upgradable DSLR. So it's in our future.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2010 23:16
|
|
|
GOD drat IT, I hate the Model Mayhem forums sometimes. I was posting in a critique and someone cut apart a montage for a model. I suggested that perhaps the original photographer is the only one who should be editing the photos they own, and a model claimed that it was "well versed" that models have the right to edit shots they're in. It pisses me off because I've had to deal with that in the past and it's such a prevalent misconception I can't believe how many people have got it so dead wrong. 
|
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2010 02:33
|
|
|
If any Bay Area Dorkroomers are into checking out a local exhibit, I have about a half dozen pictures up as part of a group show. The opening is Friday 3-19 at 7PM at the Backstage Salon and Gallery on Polk Street in SF between Broadway and Vallejo. 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2010 17:35
|
|
|
Interrupting Moss posted:This may be worthless sentiment, but I wish I were in the SF area so I could see this. I really like your stuff. I hope it goes well for you. Not worthless at all. Thank you!  I take all the support I can get.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2010 18:50
|
|
|
I figured this would be a fun one to post here. Behind-the-scenes shot from a location shoot I was on two weekends ago. It pretty much summarizes what I put models through. Slightly  for a model's bare back.http://www.flickr.com/photos/thegreattiny/4481186284/
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2010 17:02
|
|
|
tuyop posted:I refuse to participate in the evil Japanese photographic hegemony so I only shoot with my own cameras. It looks like something out of a David Cronenberg movie.  Also: http://gizmodo.com/5515136/swankolab-iphone-app-lets-you-play-around-with-dark-room-chemicals-all-over-again iPhone app that lets you work darkroom magic on your photos.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2010 18:25
|
|
|
tuyop posted:So is film at all like digital where you can take like 150 shots in a couple of hours and have only eight that are anything but mediocre and only three that are worth showing anybody? Isn't that insanely expensive? Yup. The more I shoot, the fewer final cuts I make. When I started shooting I'd get a roll back from the lab and be in love with 20+ out of 36. These days if I'm shooting a model for a particular project, I count on getting one final shot to post in my portfolio. It's expensive but not insanely so. It doesn't really matter though, it's my chosen format and the one where the final product best reflects my desired look.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2010 20:00
|
|
|
REDACTED in favor of fun Dorkroom discussion! 
McMadCow fucked around with this message at 20:29 on Apr 30, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2010 19:26
|
|
|
squidflakes posted:I've never heard of him either, and I've always made a habit of not touching the models. I'm pretty sure the industry standard is not touching the models. Especially not stroking their legs. Eh, I used to be 100% against touching, but like most things it's flexible. You tell them what's wrong and show how it can be fixed. If they can't do it on their own after you tell them, you get a stylist to do it if one is available. If not you ask if you can do it yourself, and don't make a big deal about it. I've never been told "no", I can't pick a fuzzy of someone's dress. Or whatever. Don't ASSUME you can just touch them and you'll be fine. After you've worked with someone a few times even that goes out the window. I've had model friends ask me to help them get out of undergarments. It's all a matter of your actions being appropriate for the relationship you have with the model.
|
|
#
¿
May 13, 2010 19:58
|
|
|
ease posted:So McMadCow, what we all want to know is, how many of these girls make passes at you when you are done photographing them? 126% of them 
|
|
#
¿
May 13, 2010 20:55
|
|
|
I HATE CARS posted:Well Terry is one of the most famous pros and he does more than just touch them! I never really cared for his work, but the new Pirelli Calendar looks really good.
|
|
#
¿
May 13, 2010 23:09
|
|
|
I think we'll steer this away from who's touching whom, and onto a little Flickr shenanigans. http://www.flickr.com/photos/andrerabelo/70458366 A guy posts a classic Cartier-Bresson shot in a critique forum, and the overwhelming response is to trash it because it's not sharp.
|
|
#
¿
May 14, 2010 17:28
|
|
|
BeastOfExmoor posted:That's a brilliant troll. I went through BBC's Genius Of Photography series a few months back and it's really amazing to see how sharp even a kit lens on a digital rebel looks in comparison to most of the first decade of film photography. Doesn't make the good stuff any less awesome though, especially when you consider the difficulty involved. Stieglitz's photo club buddies gave him poo poo about this one because it wasn't a pictorialist shot and it wasn't sharp either. I guess he's nothing but a hack. I'm learning so much today! 
|
|
#
¿
May 14, 2010 20:47
|
|
|
dakana posted:My Mark III has my Rebel's strap on it (...because it didn't come with one, mostly) My Leica has a Canon strap because I didn't want to take the original out of the red-velvet-lined case.
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2010 16:42
|
|
|
tuyop posted:So what's the big deal with Leicas anyway? Good glass. And I mean good. I can see detail in my grain focuser that just isn't there on even the best Nikon glass. The problem is that they have a cult following as well, so not only do you pay for the extra performance, you pay to join the club. And if that wasn't bad enough, they're apparently the only company ever that can discontinue a product and drive prices UP. The R SLRs were discontinued last year and now all the R glass has more than doubled in price. At this rate I'm never going to be able to afford the 90mmf2 that I lust after.
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2010 18:22
|
|
|
^^^^ Although they're not as well known for it, their SLR glass is pretty much the same quality, with the difference being that rangefinder glass mounts closer to the film plane for improved sharpness.orange lime posted:In the 50s they were the main professional camera. Then the Nikon F came out and all the pros switched to SLR and haven't looked back. Leica never realized this, and has continued to pretend that they are the only company making professional quality cameras today. They keep their prices high, and that, plus the fact that a number of famous photographers used them, plus the usual "lens feel" masturbation, has turned them into a fetish object. This is all true, but they do really make the best 35mm glass. Sharpness, contrast, color correction, you name it, they pretty much take them all hands down, with the added bonus that most of their lenses can be shot wide open with no penalty. So while it's true that just about everyone out there makes faster, more robust systems, Leica wins in the actual image quality category every time. I really didn't believe in the degree of the difference myself until I had to do my last couple of shoots with my Nikon. As nice as they both are, the 50mm1.4 and 85mm1.4 Nikons don't make negatives as nice as my Summicron 50 or even my Vario-Elmar 35-70.
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2010 18:34
|
|
|
Leica screwmount lenses aren't nearly the optical quality of the M-Bayonet lenses. Chances are any decent SLR glass will outperform those by a good margin. Those are mostly valued by collectors, not by people looking for high performance.
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2010 20:30
|
|
|
oncearoundaltair posted:You mean, the 'Leica glow' is just...bullshit? Oh no. I've never heard of this "Leica Glow". In fact, what I appreciate most about my Leica glass is the fact that it gives me the sharpest, most neutral negative to start with. I'll add the bullshit in the darkroom.
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2010 20:34
|
|
|
Tziko posted:I might have the possibility of acquiring a Leica M6 for a good price. Are there any quality 50mm or 35mm lenses available for it that don't cost more than a car? A 50mm Summicron (f2) will run you around $7-800 used and it's pretty much the sharpest 35mm lens ever made. Not cheap, but not actually L-Glass pricey, either. EDIT: spallink McMadCow fucked around with this message at 22:46 on May 19, 2010 |
|
#
¿
May 19, 2010 22:41
|
|
|
Augmented Dickey posted:My ancient Sony Mavica had an f/1.8 lens, I always wondered why they couldn't pack similar lenses into modern point and shoots. I assume it has something to do with the ancient sensors being about the size of a frame of 8mm movie film.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2010 17:00
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:An aperture is not sensor-size specific. Are you sure about that? I was under the impression that smaller film/sensor size= less glass needed to go super wide. I have an Angenieux f1.4 constant aperture zoom lens for one of my s8 movie cameras an that has a tiny light path vs a 35mm f1.4. Or are we talking about two different things here...?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2010 20:35
|
|
|
That shot reminds me of a picture by R. Michael Walker. I went to a talk he put on a month or so ago and his work was really amazing. https://wi.somethingawful.com/79/79a0ff8fb02bc64ed5c61df2990cdd20066bc5fe.jpg
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2010 20:36
|
|
|
Jahoodie posted:Don't know, that's where I pulled it from. There is really something for everyone up in that. I only know him through Model Mayhem http://www.modelmayhem.com/28107 You have to be a member to see most of the shots in there (nudes), but his work used by Ilford is all accessible.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2010 18:19
|
|
|
KennyG posted:Will you be pouring them out of this? Someone showed up to my trap and skeet club with one of those this past weekend and we exchanged knowing glances. 
|
|
#
¿
Jun 17, 2010 17:01
|
|
|
DevNull posted:Getting some pictures at the club could be fun. I would do it, but my shooting with my camera is just as skilled as my shooting in skeet. You've seen how bad that is. The photographer that I assist has got the OK from the club to do a high fashion shoot on the skeet fields.  MODELS WITH GUNS!!!
|
|
#
¿
Jun 17, 2010 19:32
|
|
|
Rated PG-34 posted:Not really. It's not terribly improbable if they came from the same batch. Or if the same underspec'd/overworked PSU was powering them both.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 23, 2010 21:54
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted: I feel your pain.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 26, 2010 17:55
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:I'm glad I'm running a policy of only doing location tests with models I haven't worked with before. Studio time in London is expensive! Ouch, I can imagine. Sorry to hear about your flake though. It happens quite often when you're not dealing with agency models.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 26, 2010 19:05
|
|
|
This is an interesting article on how DOF is a property of the magnification of the subject, NOT the focal length of the lens. The guy sets up a series of targets and keeps the main one at the same size at focal lengths from 400 all the way down to 17. The aperture remained constant and the result is that the DOF was identical in every shot. Of course you're still going to get more dramatic bokeh with a long lens because of distance compression, but the fact that DOF is magnification dependent is important to remember when composing shots. http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/dof2.shtml Article posted:In fact, if the subject image size remains the same, then at any given aperture all lenses will give the same depth of field.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2010 19:11
|
|
|
HPL posted:I love distance compression. It's such a mindfuck. I was messing around with it with a Canon S90 yesterday. Steven Spielberg really blew a lot of minds when he did the dolly zoom on the beach in "Jaws". Such a great effect. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolly_zoom
|
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2010 19:55
|
|
|
HPL posted:It appears sharper because it's smaller. The point of the article is that if you zoomed in on that smaller object, it would be just as blurry as it is at 400mm when it's all embiggened. Exactly. The DOF remained constant throughout all those shots regardless of the shape of the bokeh.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2010 20:12
|
|
|
Hop Pocket posted:I had no idea that was how that effect was created. Thanks. Seems like it would be fantastically hard to get right/smooth. It's actually really easy to do if you run through it a few times. The first time I ever made a short on Super 8 (zombie movie, of course), we did a dolly zoom. Start zoomed in, walk towards the subject pulling wide so that the subject stays the same size. Instant exploding background!
|
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2010 20:17
|
|
|
Beastruction posted:I guess I just don't see the use of thinking of depth of field in those terms. If you zoom in far enough anything will be blurry, but there's always an intended final size that determines what counts as sharp. If you blew up the 17mm shot until the background appeared as blurry as the others, you'd have to blow up the others to keep the subject the same size and there would still be a difference. What you're talking about is why people generally go by "the longer the lens, the more shallow the DOF." Which obviously isn't technically true, but is still a perfectly good guidepost for practical purposes. The point of the article is to think of your DOF coming from the apparent magnification of the subject, not from the focal length of the lens you're using.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2010 21:40
|
|
|
Whitezombi posted:I know this is video but it's pretty drat cool. That's a pretty amazing test roll. It's also a pretty good example of just how little exposure latitude you have on reversal film. The hand-cranked camera was making blown out highlights at a specific point in the operator's rotation two times a second.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 24, 2010 17:31
|
|
|
Helmacron posted:I just stared longingly at the smokin' 20's women. That too.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 24, 2010 22:52
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 02:24 |
|
|
HPL posted:If I won the lottery, I'd buy that then use old Russian M39 lenses with it. HAH! The joke is on you! It doesn't even TAKE a screwmount!
|
|
#
¿
Sep 22, 2010 00:03
|
|