|
evil_bunnY posted:If you can find an Olympus 35 RD they're pretty nice too. I'm pretty much set on the Pen because I want a half-frame SLR. I just don't dig on the rangefinders.
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2009 15:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 05:39 |
|
|
PORTRAITS OF POWER - http://www.newyorker.com/online/multimedia/2009/12/07/091207_audioslideshow_platon
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2009 18:47
|
|
|
wickles posted:PORTRAITS OF POWER - http://www.newyorker.com/online/multimedia/2009/12/07/091207_audioslideshow_platon This is great, thanks.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2009 23:00
|
|
|
wickles posted:PORTRAITS OF POWER - http://www.newyorker.com/online/multimedia/2009/12/07/091207_audioslideshow_platon Interesting how the only two guys on black backgrounds are Chavez and Ahmadinejad.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2009 00:15
|
|
|
and Evo Morales 
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2009 00:18
|
|
|
I appreciate the work, but I really dislike the feel it gives me. Which is probably a goal of it, so... I like it?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2009 00:23
|
|
|
A couple of the portraits are pretty distorted to the point of being unflattering but I guess if you're Platon you can get away with stuff like that. I missed another black background - HoS of Turkmenistan. The Mugabe picture is chilling - the commentary on that is awesome too. Do any of you remember that shitstorm when the Atlantic published a portrait of McCain on the cover, that the photographer later blogged that she shot him badly on purpose?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2009 00:30
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:Do any of you remember that shitstorm when the Atlantic published a portrait of McCain on the cover, that the photographer later blogged that she shot him badly on purpose? I think she basically sneaked the picture in as a lighting test, the other ones she were taking were all normal.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2009 00:33
|
|
|
That was Jill Greenberg. And she was a genius for doing it, an evil picture of McCain = goldmine not to mention all the free marketing she got out of that stunt. Also, Arnold Newman did the exact same thing to Alfred Krupp back in the day (see my avatar). Photographers really have no obligation to flatter their subjects anyways. edit: unless the subject is the one signing the check brad industry fucked around with this message at 00:51 on Dec 2, 2009 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2009 00:44
|
|
|
If anything, photographs like these always remind me that they are just people like everyone else. A refreshing point of view.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2009 00:51
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
HPL posted:It's a very tricky subject. It IS. Think about Matthew Jordan Smith photographing Star Jones. I can't find the image with 30 seconds of google, but imagine a thin Star Jones on a couch, looking almost sexy enough that YOU'D spike her drink at a party. In THIS case, we (most) all of us know she doesn't really look like this. I sat in on a lecture he gave in 2004 where he discussed this, and basically he said as a portraitist you have an obligation to your portrait subject to make them look their best. I then sat through a lecture by Russell Brown, famed Photoshop guru with a monotone voice, who said you have a duty to not remove things from your subject that make them who they are. Anything temporary or transient like zits or black eyes, sure. It's a slippery slope. I think the image of Krupp is called for. I think the image of McCain was uncalled for, spiteful and misleading. AND, I didn't vote for him. I did appreciate what it did for Obama's campaign, but then I died a little inside and got drunk. 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 also sat through one of Jill Greenberg's lectures at school, and when the shitstorm ensued, it was no surprise when I saw the byline. I laughed and thought back fondly upon my days at school. I'm surprised The Atlantic was surprised by the outcome of the shoot, given her End Times series. (BUSH SUCKS, HE WILL BE THE DEATH OF US ALL.) noss fucked around with this message at 04:06 on Dec 2, 2009 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2009 04:01
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
HPL posted: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. Well, that's a good question. I guess they'd have to justify it to their boss, who would have to sit down and think about it. Personally, I would probably email Jill Greenberg and say "Are you willing to sign a contract that says you will not purposefully try to photograph John McCain in a bad light?" only with more lawyerese. Either that or they could go to the Picture People. I hear they do good soul-less portraits there.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2009 04:21
|
|
|
Journalism is it's own separate thing. noss posted:I think the image of Krupp is called for. I think the image of McCain was uncalled for, spiteful and misleading. They are literally the exact same situation, down to how they tricked the subject into doing it with the modeling lights. Newman was actually permanently banned from Germany for that shoot. Actually I can't think of any situation where I wouldn't defend whatever a photographer chose to do, regardless of who the subject was or what they did to them (anyone see that Terry Richardson photo of Lindsay Lohan on a giant mirror right after she got out of rehab? I ed). A portrait can be a lot of things, and some people do the timeless-classic-graceful-flattering thing really well but I like seeing people do other things too and that is what makes editorial interesting, since there's no bullshit rules or pretense of objectivity.quote: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? Look, publicists haveruined everything that was good about magazines. The reason poo poo is so watered down now is because of those people pre-approving every tiny interview question, pre-approving shot lists, telling people what topics are ok to bring up, and only hiring sympathetic, well-known photographers who won't rock the boat. Go read some old, old issues of Rolling Stone or something where they used to actually try to get a good story out of an interview and have interesting pictures to go with it, not some bland promotional garbage picked at to death by people who write press releases for a living. Also I dunno if you guys remember seeing Greenberg on Fox News after she did her Apocalypse series, where the talking heads were calling for her to be arrested / labeled a child molester and everyone was so sure he career was OVERRRRRR... ...and then she immediately went on to book several massive, multinational ad campaigns involving children. brad industry fucked around with this message at 04:45 on Dec 2, 2009 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2009 04:34
|
|
|
Berlusconi is the definition of 
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2009 05:14
|
|
|
AIIAZNSK8ER posted:see guys, you don't need video to make kick rear end films, you can do it with 18.5TB worth of stills. http://www.pdnpulse.com/2009/11/fantastic-mr-fox-movie-shot-with-nikon-d3s.html
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2009 07:44
|
|
|
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jXRqQAlVQg&feature=related Here is a scene from the Stanley Kubrick movie "Barry Lyndon"- notice that it's filmed entirely by candlelight, no other light source was used. Apparently he accomplished this by using a superfast custom-built Zeiss lens with an aperture of f/.75. e: skip the first 45 seconds or so.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2009 17:27
|
|
|
 Winning the Neuman Prize for Liberating the Inner Evil in 2009, Nigel Parry's photo of Rush Limbaugh.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2009 18:14
|
|
|
Anyone have a 3ft UV filter handy?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2009 21:10
|
|
|
Augmented Dickey posted:Anyone have a 3ft UV filter handy? holy crap that's ridiculous. What's it for? In other news I watched a really interesting documentary called the botany of desire, http://www.pbs.org/thebotanyofdesire/ It's about how plants have used us to spread and breed them all over the world, like a much more capable bee. They focus on apples, tulips, marijuana, and potatoes. The documentary itself was really interesting, definitely worth watching, however I noticed a problem in the filming. For the most part the cinematography was well done, interesting shots, very well edited, but there was a fatal flaw. I think they used DSLR's to take the video for quite a few of the shots. And I noticed this because it had an awful problem with rolling shutter. It really was apparent when they panned, in some of the tulip and cannabis segments it got so bad it was all I could notice. The shots looked like shaky jello. The strange part is people in the same frame didn't seem to be affected noticeably, but the bright flowers and pot leaves shook like hell. It seems that no matter how good digital slrs get at video, unless they can fix that problem or come up with a new shutter entirely, they will never be very capable for film making. snowman fucked around with this message at 04:02 on Dec 3, 2009 |
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2009 04:00
|
|
|
snowman posted:holy crap that's ridiculous. What's it for? it's a canon 5200mm f/14 mirror lens. no idea what it was used for bit apparently the minimum focusing distance is like 300 feet and it weighs over 200 lbs.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2009 04:09
|
|
|
Augmented Dickey posted:it's a canon 5200mm f/14 mirror lens. no idea what it was used for bit apparently the minimum focusing distance is like 300 feet and it weighs over 200 lbs. Knowing Canon, that's for use from blimp on TV cameras for the Olympics, or for NASA to track the space shuttle on takeoff. Think of who would have a budget for a lens like that, and that's probably who it's for.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2009 05:38
|
|
|
from a google "This is the only ultra-telephoto lens in the world capable of taking photographs of objects 18 to 32 miles away (30km to 52kms away)"
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2009 07:54
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
How else are we expected to get photos of Jennifer Aniston sunbathing topless in Cabo?
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2009 08:35
|
|
|
Which leads to another question - where the gently caress do paparazzi photographers congregate on the internet? Is there even such a thing as a "paparazzi proper" or is it just some name for bottom-feeders who grab and sell whatever they can? I just think it'd be fun to read a photo forum community by paparazzi.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2009 09:15
|
|
|
FYI.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2009 09:33
|
|
|
I take it there's not an EF mount version, then? I think it would be hilarious to see this connected to a DSLR with a $20 ebay adapter.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2009 13:41
|
|
|
noss posted:Knowing Canon, that's for use from blimp on TV cameras for the Olympics, or for NASA to track the space shuttle on takeoff. Think of who would have a budget for a lens like that, and that's probably who it's for. Well, it is a mirror lens, so it's probably "cheaper" than you think. Also - is that a spotting scope on top of it? I'm sure you need one at that focal length.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2009 14:58
|
|
|
nummy posted:Well, it is a mirror lens, so it's probably "cheaper" than you think. Yeah, but it's got the Canon name on it, so it's more expensive than it should be. I think basically it's a telescope with a camera mount on it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2009 01:12
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9Et7UQh1tg Promotional video for the Olympus Pen. I've seen a couple other videos shot in this style before, but it's still pretty 
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2009 08:56
|
|
|
SLR lens on an iPhone lol; http://cow.mooh.org/2009/12/phone-o-scope-attaching-slr-lenses-to.html
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2009 12:12
|
|
|
noss posted:Yeah, but it's got the Canon name on it, so it's more expensive than it should be. I think basically it's a telescope with a camera mount on it. IIRC some forums said it cost like $27,000, which is just a fraction of what their modern EF 1200mm lens costs (I think B&H had one for like $120,000 a few months ago) e: lol nobody has bought it yet http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/800622963-USE/Canon_2527A001_Super_Telephoto_1200mm_f_5_6L.html
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2009 23:52
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Vincent Laforet Dec 2008 posted:I’m very very much against working for free. In fact I don’t like people working or interning for me for free. It’s just not good business. Period. Vincent Laforet Dec 2009 posted:I intend to take the income from advertising on this blog and put it right back into producing original content for the blog. If there is anyone in the LA area that is interested in volunteering for now - and getting paid when we get advertisers - please e-mail me at the same address. Hey why don't you just do this initial work for free, I'm sure it will lead to big things.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2009 17:55
|
|
|
Im usually against working for free, but in the case of Vincent Laforet, it might be a good way to step into the "biz" and work with a more high profile character that might get you some good networking connections. Also, sorry if I missed out on the google wave extravaganza earlier, but if anyone still wants to throw me a bone, i'd love to have an invite pogoschmiff AT gmail.com
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2009 18:38
|
|
|
I'd be happy (short term) to do some free assisting for Vincent Laforet too!Chim posted:Also, sorry if I missed out on the google wave extravaganza earlier, but if anyone still wants to throw me a bone, i'd love to have an invite
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2009 18:53
|
|
|
unixbeard posted:Hey why don't you just do this initial work for free, I'm sure it will lead to big things. Exactly- for some people starting out, getting some real experience is much more important than getting a paycheck.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2009 19:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 05:39 |
|
|
Augmented Dickey posted:Exactly- for some people starting out, getting some real experience is much more important than getting a paycheck. Mayhaps you just need to get your sarcasm meter checked out.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2009 20:38
|
|