|
Augmented Dickey posted:goddamnit why is it that every day I feel like going out and shooting it decides intermittently rain 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 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.
|
# ¿ Sep 11, 2009 21:02 |
|
|
# ¿ Mar 29, 2024 08:24 |
|
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.
|
# ¿ Oct 8, 2009 05:31 |
|
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.
|
# ¿ Oct 8, 2009 22:34 |
|
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.
|
# ¿ Oct 21, 2009 00:42 |
|
FACT: all girls go through a photography stage. It's usually right after horses.
|
# ¿ Oct 21, 2009 23:49 |
|
It's an H2 or H3.
|
# ¿ Oct 23, 2009 22:40 |
|
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.
|
# ¿ Nov 6, 2009 04:32 |
|
Mad Men has really great photography, lots of dramatic mixed light sources.
|
# ¿ Nov 7, 2009 20:55 |
|
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. 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. They did those hosed up/awesome Hello Kitty Lada Gaga photos that have been floating around
|
# ¿ Nov 13, 2009 03:49 |
|
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
|
# ¿ Nov 13, 2009 06:00 |
|
Hahahhahaha http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0toBw68L5Y4&feature=player_embedded
|
# ¿ Nov 13, 2009 20:48 |
|
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.
|
# ¿ Nov 16, 2009 01:18 |
|
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.
|
# ¿ Nov 16, 2009 10:46 |
|
Peter Parks was the guy they got to do the microscope photography stuff. http://norb.homedns.org/nwp/storycode/ppk-web/index.html
|
# ¿ Nov 17, 2009 20:28 |
|
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.
|
# ¿ Nov 19, 2009 09:48 |
|
XA's are the poo poo, best pocket camera ever.
|
# ¿ Nov 30, 2009 23:48 |
|
The XA's are full 35mm, not half-frame. They are still loving tiny though.
|
# ¿ Dec 1, 2009 02:33 |
|
and Evo Morales
|
# ¿ Dec 2, 2009 00:18 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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.
|
# ¿ Dec 17, 2009 02:35 |
|
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.
|
# ¿ Dec 17, 2009 02:53 |
|
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.
|
# ¿ Dec 17, 2009 05:19 |
|
He would own the images he took.
|
# ¿ Dec 17, 2009 20:08 |
|
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? In these situations the second shooter/assistant signs a 'work for hire' contract.
|
# ¿ Dec 17, 2009 20:36 |
|
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.
|
# ¿ Dec 17, 2009 23:40 |
|
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 |
# ¿ Dec 18, 2009 00:33 |
|
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.
|
# ¿ Dec 20, 2009 20:07 |
|
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.
|
# ¿ Dec 21, 2009 03:10 |
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:Hey brad, would it be 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.
|
# ¿ Dec 22, 2009 19:29 |
|
Hay guys thought you would like this useful tip
|
# ¿ Jan 5, 2010 04:17 |
|
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.
|
# ¿ Jan 8, 2010 04:27 |
|
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 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 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.
|
# ¿ Jan 9, 2010 01:58 |
|
Fort Baked
|
# ¿ Jan 13, 2010 23:15 |
|
Hot Cops posted:What kind of scrilla are you paying for that place, Brad? 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.
|
# ¿ Jan 14, 2010 09:45 |
|
I've assisted stylists and they always used small A-clamps or pins to hold clothes together. Mostly pins.
|
# ¿ Jan 15, 2010 21:36 |
|
I love those people, they subsidize the R&D. If only they would buy H3's....
|
# ¿ Jan 18, 2010 22:09 |
|
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.
|
# ¿ Jan 18, 2010 22:36 |
|
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.
|
# ¿ Jan 18, 2010 22:55 |
|
|
# ¿ Mar 29, 2024 08:24 |
|
Which one of you did this
|
# ¿ Jan 26, 2010 20:23 |