Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
brad industry
May 22, 2004

Augmented Dickey posted:

goddamnit why is it that every day I feel like going out and shooting it decides intermittently rain

gently caress houston

Best part about living in California: it never rains. Ever. When it does do what people from here refer to as "rain" it's more like some foggy poo poo that's gone before you even notice. When I work shoots that have weather days factored in I'm like :psyduck:


When I lived in Savannah it was awful, I could never get anything done because of the flash-flood monsoons that happened every 15 minutes or so.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

brad industry
May 22, 2004
Weddings are pretty much the only time most people hire a professional photographer in their lives, so it doesn't surprise me that lots of them don't know how to pick someone good.

brad industry
May 22, 2004

guidoanselmi posted:

PT Barnum is posthumously patting this guy on the back

It's kind of genius, he's basically just doing a big marketing project where people pay him for it. The real goal of it I'm sure is to have all these people hire him down the line for something else. Most of the people probably buy the CD or prints anyways.

brad industry
May 22, 2004

Knux posted:

This is what was created. You guys should also get a kick out of the subject matter of the actual sleeve.

That is loving awesome.

brad industry
May 22, 2004
FACT: all girls go through a photography stage. It's usually right after horses.

brad industry
May 22, 2004
It's an H2 or H3.

brad industry
May 22, 2004
I would love to do the photography for a film. Film industry people know so much awesome lighting poo poo it's ridiculous. I constantly rip off lighting ideas from movies.

brad industry
May 22, 2004
Mad Men has really great photography, lots of dramatic mixed light sources.

Only registered members can see post attachments!

brad industry
May 22, 2004
Was it Bravo did that god loving awful "Next Top Fashion Photographer" (or something) show? I couldn't watch it because the guy judging it was some no-name pervy lingerie photographer and they kicked someone off the first episode for moving the lights around on a studio photography competition. :doh:


Hopefully this one will be better, Markus & Indrani are actually really good. Except they've been in the news recently for something else....

The Wall Street Journal posted:

both Markus’ and Indrani’s studios sought Chapter 11 protection from an angry creditor earlier this week. In court papers, both studios - Markus Klinko Photography Inc. and Double Exposure Studios LLC - say they turned to the bankruptcy court because they could no longer afford to defend themselves in a lawsuit the creditor filed to collect on its claim.

Creditor All Points Capital Corp., which leased and financed certain photography and equipment to Klinko’s studio, as well as a “luxury convertible Porsche sports car,” first sued Klinko and his studio in 2007 after the studio didn’t make its required payments under the financing and lease agreements. All Points sued Klinko in 2007 to force him to pay up. Despite a New York Supreme Court judge’s ruling in May 2008 that the studio owed All Points more than $335,000 (on which the judge slapped a 9% annual interest rate), the creditor says Markus Klinko Photography has refused to pay up. So All Points filed the latest lawsuit this past April, bringing Indrani and Double Exposure into the fold.

Wait, it gets better. All Points is accusing Indrani (also known as Julia I. Pal-Chaudhuri) of forming Double Exposure last year to be the “alter-ego” of Klinko’s studio, effectively shielding it from All Points’ collection efforts. The duo’s argument that they don’t have enough funds to pay up (both reported assets $0 to $50,000 in their bankruptcy petitions) doesn’t cut it, All Points said, because surely they’ll be compensated for their new TV show. Think the bankruptcy court would let a film crew in? Hey – we’d watch it!

They did those hosed up/awesome Hello Kitty Lada Gaga photos that have been floating around

Only registered members can see post attachments!

brad industry
May 22, 2004
I found it, it wasn't Nigel Barker, who is at least personable and has pretty good work, it was Russell James and it was called "The Shot" on VH1.

http://www.nppa.org/news_and_events/news/2007/10/the_shot.html

Only registered members can see post attachments!

brad industry
May 22, 2004
Hahahhahaha

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0toBw68L5Y4&feature=player_embedded

brad industry
May 22, 2004
At 13x19 that doesn't really surprise me, what does surprise me is that someone would bring a H2 out into the woods to shoot with. That would be so annoying.

brad industry
May 22, 2004

Mannequin posted:

E: I think it also has to do with subject matter.

Yeah if he had shot something with skin tones there would have been a huge difference.

brad industry
May 22, 2004
Peter Parks was the guy they got to do the microscope photography stuff.

http://norb.homedns.org/nwp/storycode/ppk-web/index.html

brad industry
May 22, 2004
I think your problem is going to be that they will accept it, along with a ton of other coffee images, because coffee is an easy subject that everyone has laying around.

brad industry
May 22, 2004
XA's are the poo poo, best pocket camera ever.

brad industry
May 22, 2004
The XA's are full 35mm, not half-frame. They are still loving tiny though.

brad industry
May 22, 2004
and Evo Morales :lol:

brad industry
May 22, 2004
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

brad industry
May 22, 2004
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 :lol: 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.

Only registered members can see post attachments!

brad industry fucked around with this message at 04:45 on Dec 2, 2009

brad industry
May 22, 2004

Verman posted:

I agree, if the magazine is making a profit off of their publication, then you should be entitled to some sort of compensation for your photo.

Even if they're not making a profit, you are still entitled to some kind of compensation.

brad industry
May 22, 2004
It'll be good exposure.

We'll have lots of paying assignments in the future if this works out.

You'll get a great tearsheet.


:(

brad industry
May 22, 2004

pwn posted:

Dorkroom: Do you think you're entitled to be paid every time someone makes money off your work? If so, why? Sub-question: Would you find it fair to send the maker of your camera a portion of the profits every time you make money with it?

Every time you license a work for use you are creating value in that instance for your client, and as the creator of that work you are entitled to a piece of that under your terms.


When I work in some production aspect (whether photo assistant or digital tech or whatever) I'm being paid for my time and labor, not my creative input. I don't have any stake in the final image or it's creation so it would be silly for me to be paid royalties for it. Boom operators are the same way.

brad industry
May 22, 2004
He would own the images he took.

brad industry
May 22, 2004

Paragon8 posted:

Isn't there a thing in regards to second shooters and assistants where the primary photographer owns the copyright? Is that built into the contract the assistant signs?

I remember something to do with the Olympics and some assistant getting credit for a shot that the primary shooter had the rights to, and it was seen as a nice gesture by the main shooter.

In these situations the second shooter/assistant signs a 'work for hire' contract.

brad industry
May 22, 2004

Cyberbob posted:

I'm not sure about elsewhere, but in New Zealand, on top of this, (unless specified otherwise via contract etc) the copyright is held by the person/people in the photo. So if someone took a photo of you, they couldn't sell it or distribute it without your permission.

This would be so ridiculously impractical and bizarre in the real world I can't believe this actually existed, so I googled it and it looks like New Zealand has the same copyright laws as every other first world country:

http://www.copyright.org.nz/viewInfosheet.php?sheet=339

The only difference I can see between US law and NZ is that people commissioning works default to owning the copyright. Canada has the same law, but in actual real-world practice contracts are written to respect the creator of the work so this never actually happens. I'm sure it's the same in NZ.


I think you may be confusing model releases and copyright which aren't really related at all.

brad industry
May 22, 2004
http://www.aphotostudent.com

He posted his MFA reading list and keeps updating with the articles/books they're reading and discussing. A lot of the shorter articles are online for free. I read a lot of the same stuff when I was in school and I've picked up a lot of others from his recommendations that I hadn't and they've all been really good.

edit: here's the reading list, with links
http://www.aphotostudent.com/photo-readings/

Other than that I would either take some art history classes or at least pick up some overview of western art books and from there go to photo history (which is obviously short and easy to put into context once you are familiar with the broader background).

brad industry fucked around with this message at 00:37 on Dec 18, 2009

brad industry
May 22, 2004

Defecting to Nine posted:

So anyone have any tips on moving an image library from Aperture to Extensis Portfolio?

One of the reasons I refuse to use Aperture is it locks up your image library in a proprietary format.

brad industry
May 22, 2004

Haggins posted:

Can't you set Aperture to not manage your library? I know some people use Aperture that way and have access to the folders and what not where the files are located. I think it's kind of like how you can set iTunes to manage your files and put them in it's file system or just tell the program where your files are on disk.

It's the metadata, ratings, etc. that's locked up not the actual image files. Kind of like if iTunes kept your ID3 tags hostage.

brad industry
May 22, 2004

Pompous Rhombus posted:

Hey brad, would it be :filez: if I linked to a ZIP file of all the articles available online from that reading list? It's all linked from the reading list, but it's more convenient if it's all in one place.

No go for it, that would be rad actually.

brad industry
May 22, 2004
Hay guys thought you would like this useful tip

Only registered members can see post attachments!

brad industry
May 22, 2004
I also use moo cards and love them. Good quality and being able to get a bunch of different images on the back is awesome.

brad industry
May 22, 2004

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 :sweatdrop:

When I get angry I kick a wall or throw something not rip my art in half, what the hell is wrong with you? Especially an Eggleston, drat son.


I spent this week moving into my friend and I's new live/work studio in an old cookie factory. I'm soooooooooooo fuckin pumped to have a massive amount of space to shoot photos in :woop:


downstairs work cave

upstairs hang out area, darkroom gonna be built soon behind where I was standing when I took this


I am going to be productive as gently caress this year.

brad industry
May 22, 2004
Fort Baked :2bong:

brad industry
May 22, 2004

Hot Cops posted:

What kind of scrilla are you paying for that place, Brad?

Also, are there any issues one has to worry about when renting (I assume you're renting) a live-in commercial space?

It's about $2000 (split with a roommate who is also an artist) which is really loving cheap in the Bay Area considering it's about ~1800sqft.

It's zoned live/work so there aren't really any legal issues with me living out of here and also having a studio. Some of the other units in my building are being used as office only, some are only being used as living space, most are both. Insurance wise my professional stuff covers my equipment/liability here. I can deduct a portion of my rent relative to what space is being used as work-only as a business expense. Other than that I'm not open to the public or anything so I don't need a business license or a permit or any of that poo poo.

We just finished building my bedroom up in the rafters which is pretty sweet, I'm basically living in a treehouse. Will post pics of the studio portion after I get settled and start doing some shoots.

brad industry
May 22, 2004
I've assisted stylists and they always used small A-clamps or pins to hold clothes together. Mostly pins.

brad industry
May 22, 2004
I love those people, they subsidize the R&D.


If only they would buy H3's....

brad industry
May 22, 2004
The reason the medium format digital stuff is so expensive is almost no one actually buys them. Everyone gets it from a rental house, outsources it through their digital tech, or puts them on a lease from Phase One. Or if they do buy it, they get a used P20 or P25 and never think about upgrading unless it breaks.

90% of the time when I digital tech it's a P20 stuck on a Mamiya or Contax and that's a good enough file to do basically anything.

It is fun working with a brand new H3D+P45 rental though.

I'm pretty sure my next camera upgrade in a year or two is going to be a P20/P25 to stick on my 500c/m. The used prices have dropped to not much more than what a 5Dmk2 is new, at that point it doesn't make sense to me to stick with 35mm.

brad industry
May 22, 2004
It's several stops better than 35mm because of the larger sensor size. I believe the original 5D is around 8-9 stops whereas a P20+ is 12 (and the newer backs are more like 13 especially on the H3D).

Bigger sensor = better everything, even if the pixel size is equivalent.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

brad industry
May 22, 2004
Which one of you did this

Only registered members can see post attachments!

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply