|
I think we're starting to get too mean in this thread. In the beginning it was funny to point out tacky uses of Photoshop, but now it just seems like bashing newbies. I don't think you should just point and go 'kit lens... loooser'.
|
| # ? May 28, 2010 02:17 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2013 21:08 |
|
|
When you see badly exposed, badly composed snapshots that were clearly done with a kit lens and bad/no post, that's a new photographer or a hobbyist figuring stuff out which is great. When there's a watermark in the corner that links to a "professional photographer" site, it's time to point and laugh. Also, is your username supposed to express a desperate fear of asian skaters or is it more an expression of pride?
|
| # ? May 28, 2010 02:53 |
|
|
AIIAZNSK8ER posted:I think we're starting to get too mean in this thread. In the beginning it was funny to point out tacky uses of Photoshop, but now it just seems like bashing newbies. I don't think you should just point and go 'kit lens... loooser'. I'm not sure I understand the kit lens hate either, but at the same time this is someone trying to pass off as a professional. No matter how many good shots I've taken, I'm still not at the stage where I can slap my name on the front of a photograph like I'm some kind of pro.
|
| # ? May 28, 2010 02:55 |
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:When you see badly exposed, badly composed snapshots that were clearly done with a kit lens and bad/no post, that's a new photographer or a hobbyist figuring stuff out which is great. Krispy Kareem posted:I'm not sure I understand the kit lens hate either, but at the same time this is someone trying to pass off as a professional. No matter how many good shots I've taken, I'm still not at the stage where I can slap my name on the front of a photograph like I'm some kind of pro. I see your reasoning now. I was just being cautious at being too much of a jerk and was feeling bad about putting other peoples work down. I'm struggling with myself to create a business from photography. Waay back in 1997 I needed a username for my brand new AOL account. At the time I loved skateboarding and I was big into the whole 'azn' thing. So I smashed those two together and I just never changed it as I got older.
|
| # ? May 28, 2010 03:33 |
|
|
A lot of newbies watermark the hell out their images because people (on the internet) scare them with the idea that their images are "going to get stolen."
|
| # ? May 28, 2010 04:32 |
|
|
TsarAleksi posted:A lot of newbies watermark the hell out their images because people (on the internet) scare them with the idea that their images are "going to get stolen." I do it for cheap marketing. You post a picture, guy A likes it, makes it his profile picture on facebook/twitter/Myspace, etc. Guy B sees it, and looks me up. It's gotten me some recognition already, and has gotten me into a few shows for free, and a few "Oh poo poo, I saw your XYZ pictures, etc, etc". It also makes me feel 1,000% less creepy to shoot candid shots outside the show. Plus I'm thinking about getting into Stand-up Comedy, hopefully the name recognition transfers.
|
| # ? May 28, 2010 05:48 |
|
|
AtomicManiac posted:I do it for cheap marketing. You post a picture, guy A likes it, makes it his profile picture on facebook/twitter/Myspace, etc. Guy B sees it, and looks me up. It's gotten me some recognition already, and has gotten me into a few shows for free, and a few "Oh poo poo, I saw your XYZ pictures, etc, etc". It also makes me feel 1,000% less creepy to shoot candid shots outside the show. Plus I'm thinking about getting into Stand-up Comedy, hopefully the name recognition transfers. Yeah really, there's no reason not to do it. Huge watermarks are dumb, but just putting your name somewhere can have some use. It's not like you automatically are trying to pass as a pro or something.I know I do it without shame, and it's not because I fear someone will steal my images. It would take half a minute of photoshop to remove my name from any of my pictures.
|
| # ? May 28, 2010 12:05 |
|
|
TsarAleksi posted:A lot of newbies watermark the hell out their images because people (on the internet) scare them with the idea that their images are "going to get stolen." I've had a few things stolen and I still won't water mark my photos. Maybe if I had something that didn't look like poo poo but I'm a terrible designer.
|
| # ? May 28, 2010 13:51 |
|
|
I'm more afraid of being known for my earlier lovely photos, so no watermarking for now.
|
| # ? May 28, 2010 15:18 |
|
|
AIIAZNSK8ER posted:I think we're starting to get too mean in this thread. In the beginning it was funny to point out tacky uses of Photoshop, but now it just seems like bashing newbies. I don't think you should just point and go 'kit lens... loooser'. We're pretty exacting of each other here, why should our demeanor instantly change when we're talking about pictures outside SA? If you are going to to watermark your pictures and offer your services for compensation period, you should have the equipment to do it. If you can't fill flash, don't have a piece of glass that isn't the kit lens, and can't properly exposure your pictures - you really shouldn't be operating a "business" or "studio." I like to think I'm better than that, and I still don't feel like I'm at the place where I want to market myself as a photographer for money. quote:I'm more afraid of being known for my earlier lovely photos, so no watermarking for now.
|
| # ? May 28, 2010 17:45 |
|
|
I use a crappy, generic watermark that's good in that it kind of gets lost in the corner, yet it's still somewhat visible in thumbnails so I can instantly see if someone's profile photo is a photo I took or not. What's interesting is that I purposely used my e-mail as the watermark because it would tell people my name, my website and my e-mail address all in one fell swoop. However it has failed miserably at conveying any of that because apparently people aren't clever enough to figure it out or something.
|
| # ? May 28, 2010 18:45 |
|
|
HPL posted:I use a crappy, generic watermark that's good in that it kind of gets lost in the corner, yet it's still somewhat visible in thumbnails so I can instantly see if someone's profile photo is a photo I took or not. I'm by no means at all a "Professional" (barely an amateur actually). But from where I am, it helps get you recognition, going out and meeting people, networking, telling them your name is what gets you the "Oh wow you should take pictures of me!". For some reason the average person is intimidated by emailing a photog I guess.
|
| # ? May 28, 2010 19:04 |
|
|
AtomicManiac posted:I'm by no means at all a "Professional" (barely an amateur actually). But from where I am, it helps get you recognition, going out and meeting people, networking, telling them your name is what gets you the "Oh wow you should take pictures of me!". For some reason the average person is intimidated by emailing a photog I guess. Oh, trust me, recognition isn't a big issue for me. I'll be out and random strangers will be like: "Oh hey, man, I love your photos! I saw the ones you did of (insert band/show here) and they were great! Do you have a web site or something?"
|
| # ? May 28, 2010 19:09 |
|
|
Mr.Radar posted:It's supposed to look like an illustration and it succeeds wonderfully at that. That doesn't stop it from looking like tasteless garbage!
|
| # ? May 28, 2010 19:39 |
|
|
HPL posted:Oh, trust me, recognition isn't a big issue for me. I'll be out and random strangers will be like: "Oh hey, man, I love your photos! I saw the ones you did of (insert band/show here) and they were great! Do you have a web site or something?" When I walk down the streets of Chicago I have to run from groups of screaming girls trying to corner and have sex with me. It's terrible.
|
| # ? May 28, 2010 21:30 |
|
|
RangerScum posted:When I walk down the streets of Chicago I have to run from groups of screaming girls trying to corner and have sex with me. It's terrible. They're probably just confused by the telephoto lens sticking out of your pants.
|
| # ? May 28, 2010 23:18 |
|
|
Looking at photographers back home I found this turd: http://www.mildunstudios.com/portfolio.html Among the many atrocities on his site was this "art" piece.  Under his senior portraits there was one of the sloppiest examples of selective color i have ever seen.  Additionally, I can't even understand the logic in this shot.  he also loves the sideways shots, my wife and i have taken to calling shots like that the Mildun shot. 
|
| # ? May 30, 2010 20:37 |
|
|
EvoDevo posted:he also loves the sideways shots, my wife and i have taken to calling shots like that the Mildun shot. i thought their natural habitat was under the bridge
|
| # ? May 30, 2010 20:54 |
|
|
 MMMMMMmmm  Someone found the blur tool! But at least this photographer knows when to admit it. 
squidflakes fucked around with this message at May 30, 2010 around 21:16 |
| # ? May 30, 2010 21:04 |
|
|
BUY MY ART PRINT GUYS
|
| # ? May 30, 2010 21:39 |
|
|
guidoanselmi posted:BUY MY ART PRINT GUYS  Thanks to Photoshop CS5 I'm about to go sell this poo poo for a million bucks. Better luck next time Mildun Studios. 
|
| # ? May 30, 2010 22:21 |
|
|
EvoDevo posted:Looking at photographers back home I found this turd: http://www.mildunstudios.com/portfolio.html If one insists on selective color, at least make sure the subject is the bit in color. Mildun needs to find more locations and poses. Also, seeing all of those railroad pictures reminds me of the arguments at another photo forum I read. When someone posts railroad pictures there is always a huge argument over the legality of shooting on the railroad's private property.
|
| # ? May 31, 2010 05:44 |
|
|
EvoDevo posted:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_mccjAnCOk
|
| # ? May 31, 2010 07:11 |
|
|
EvoDevo posted:Additionally, I can't even understand the logic in this shot. I love how a bit of her thumb is coloured too. This guy must work with his eyes closed or something. It's baffling as to why anyone would want to show these photos off in an attempt to get work.
|
| # ? May 31, 2010 10:15 |
|
|
Anmitzcuaca posted:It's baffling as to why anyone would want to show these photos off in an attempt to get work. Selective color is one of the coolest poo poo ever, it's so artsy! And don't argue against that, they did it in the schindler's list so it's automatically good. It's baffling how everyone on facebook and such loves many of my horrible pictures and other peoples horrible picture. Especially if there is some sort of "cool photoshoping" done to them. I'm sure I could make a fortune by opening a studio and using the worst photoshop effects ever created. KingColliwog fucked around with this message at May 31, 2010 around 13:45 |
| # ? May 31, 2010 13:19 |
|
|
KingColliwog posted:Selective color is one of the coolest poo poo ever, it's so artsy! And don't argue against that, they did it in the schindler's list so it's automatically good. I'll stick my head up and say that sometimes, I like it. I think part of the problem is that it is overused and often badly implemented so that it is now a bad cliche. It's like a catchphrase: done the first couple of times by a comedian, it can be very funny. Constantly repeated, it quickly becomes tiresome and grating. Or like Papyrus - it's not intrinsically a bad font, but you see if on crap artwork so many times that professional designers vomit at the sight of it.
|
| # ? May 31, 2010 13:56 |
|
|
I have one picture with selective color on Flickr and it's by far the most popular (that bar is pretty low though)
|
| # ? May 31, 2010 13:58 |
|
|
spog posted:I'll stick my head up and say that sometimes, I like it. Oh, I like selective color personally, I think it can serve some images really well. Unfortunately, most of the selective color pictures I see is like random mom take pictures of her kid and hears about selective coloring and does a bad job trying to do it. It's like HDR, it's an interesting tool but it doesn't make an image by itself and doesn't work with every image.
|
| # ? May 31, 2010 14:14 |
|
|
KingColliwog posted:Oh, I like selective color personally, I think it can serve some images really well. Unfortunately, most of the selective color pictures I see is like random mom take pictures of her kid and hears about selective coloring and does a bad job trying to do it. It's like HDR, it's an interesting tool but it doesn't make an image by itself and doesn't work with every image. My thing with selective color is that you can easily achieve what I think is a better effect by subtly desaturating some colors which places emphasis on your subject. What is also interesting is when you purposely shoot bright objects in drab areas.
|
| # ? May 31, 2010 15:19 |
|
|
squidflakes posted:are her gums bleeding?
|
| # ? May 31, 2010 17:50 |
|
|
Mildun Pro posted:gently caress this gay earth.
|
| # ? May 31, 2010 22:31 |
|
|
Glass Knuckles posted:gently caress this gay earth. I wonder if it'd be possible to design a lens aperture specifically to get cross-shaped bokeh...
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2010 04:51 |
|
|
The Wensey posted:I wonder if it'd be possible to design a lens aperture specifically to get cross-shaped bokeh... You could do it with a piece of black construction paper. Just make a "cap" over your lens that has the smallest cross you can make cut out of it, and go to town.  
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2010 04:56 |
|
|
AIIAZNSK8ER posted:I think we're starting to get too mean in this thread. In the beginning it was funny to point out tacky uses of Photoshop, but now it just seems like bashing newbies. I don't think you should just point and go 'kit lens... loooser'. This thread is fine as long as people still post in the 'post awesome photos from other photographers' thread. quote:Thanks to Photoshop CS5 I'm about to go sell this poo poo for a million bucks. Better luck next time Mildun Studios. I just did an upside down cross still life for my portfolio and have been having this internal argument about whether I should flip it 180 before I send it out for stock. I bet people who shoot lovely Jesus images make a killing selling to all those churches who do those terrible Powerpoint things for the music.
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2010 06:54 |
|
|
brad industry posted:I just did an upside down cross still life for my portfolio and have been having this internal argument about whether I should flip it 180 before I send it out for stock. I bet people who shoot lovely Jesus images make a killing selling to all those churches who do those terrible Powerpoint things for the music. I bet those churches use the images without paying any royalties at all.
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2010 07:06 |
|
|
spog posted:I bet those churches use the images without paying any royalties at all. I've met a few really...well, I wouldn't say "deeply", but definitely "strongly" religious people who believe that if something is related to their religion they should get it for free. Food for church dinners, parking when they go to church, advertising for church events in the papers...and undoubtedly images and music used in the services.
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2010 07:38 |
|
|
brad industry posted:I just did an upside down cross still life for my portfolio I really want to see this.
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2010 13:52 |
|
|
brad industry posted:
I die a little inside at church every time I see a ppt where you can see the STOCK PHOTO DO NOT COPY watermark across every picture.
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2010 14:33 |
|
|
TsarAleksi posted:I die a little inside at church every time I see a ppt where you can see the STOCK PHOTO DO NOT COPY watermark across every picture. Clearly we need to be more specific. STOCK PHOTO DO NOT COPY OR YOU WILL GO TO HELL.
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2010 23:31 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2013 21:08 |
|
|
http://www.mcr-photo.com There are no words.   
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2010 02:39 |
|
