I should start reading other shorts and crits. I really want to write short stories so they won't suck, like all mine do.
[QUOTE=3v3ryb0dy;27755933]As in value of art(in my opinion)
[img_thumb]http://images.travelpod.com/users/jamiemeasures/1.1262397590.the-writing-s-on-the-wall.jpg[/img_thumb]
this stands on a higher place than some nametag that took hours to make with colours and shit.[/QUOTE]
[IMG]http://i291.photobucket.com/albums/ll320/Mysterypegnuin/11262397590the-writing-s-on-the-wall.jpg[/IMG]
[QUOTE=Mystery Penguin;27802502][img_thumb]http://i291.photobucket.com/albums/ll320/Mysterypegnuin/11262397590the-writing-s-on-the-wall.jpg[/img_thumb][/QUOTE]
You obviously give a fuck.
If another CC art competition is done, who would like to help organise and would anyone be willing to donate prizes? I'm willing.
[QUOTE=Greeneyes;27830749]If another CC art competition is done, who would like to help organise and would anyone be willing to donate prizes? I'm willing.[/QUOTE]
I could help organize but I don't have anything to donate besides money.
To keep this bumped:
What methods do you guys use to colour in photoshop (and/or other programs), I curious about what alphas and colour selection procedures people use. I've been practising recently and I normally shade in grey scale then colour over the top at a lower alpha or just cell shade with gradients, similar to my flash works.
I hate DA sometimes, their definition of art is so fucked up.
Stuff on the frontpage angers me, lots of anime crap and wolves. Fuck try out something new.
Sorry if this is off-topic (Is that possible in here?), but I need to resize an image in photoshop CS5 without it blurring the edges after I finish transforming it. Is there a good way to do that?
My friend linked me this picture of his band playing last night, taken by some guy I know who was doing the photography for the night for the dude who set up the gig:
[img]http://a6.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/hs068.snc6/167845_494498802381_511642381_6606238_6907796_n.jpg[/img]
I was linked this at 17:52 being told that the guy had been editing the photos since 2pm ... after 4 hours of work this is the shit he comes out with? Holy shit it's terrible. I was in that room and it was well lit and not horribly coloured like this photograph.
And don't even get me talking about the composition.
[editline]6th February 2011[/editline]
And to quote the photographer:
"hey got afew lighting was crap only got afew of your band camera cept playing up"
What a fucking injustice.
Every goddamn idiot could have walked in with a simple p&s and have taken that photo.
[QUOTE=ChestyMcGee;27896061]My friend linked me this picture of his band playing last night, taken by some guy I know who was doing the photography for the night for the dude who set up the gig:
[img_thumb]http://a6.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/hs068.snc6/167845_494498802381_511642381_6606238_6907796_n.jpg[/img_thumb]
I was linked this at 17:52 being told that the guy had been editing the photos since 2pm ... after 4 hours of work this is the shit he comes out with? Holy shit it's terrible. I was in that room and it was well lit and not horribly coloured like this photograph.
And don't even get me talking about the composition.
[editline]6th February 2011[/editline]
And to quote the photographer:
"hey got afew lighting was crap only got afew of your band camera cept playing up"
What a fucking injustice.[/QUOTE]
unless it was paid work, there isn't really a reason to be so angry.
Only I could have done the same job and had fun doing it and produced images of superbly better quality which would have been more beneficial for my friend's band.
Some metal band is paying me and a friend a tenner each to take "band portraits" of them. In a way I'm excited but in a way I'm scared as fuck that we're gonna take shit photos and they'll hate us. Oh well.
If they don't like it, don't make them pay for it.
I have a whole bunch of stuff. Should I do an art dump thread?
Make sure they are good quality or people will tell you to post them in the 'creative work that doesn't deserve a thread' thread.
Okay guys, photography question. I'm doing a bachelor of communications in media production at uni this year, and one of my elected courses is introductory photomedia. I've only briefly dabbled in photoshop and I like taking photos, but I've never made a hobby of it - I dont see this as an obstacle though.
Here's the question - I can go traditional or digital, which do I go? Traditional as in, darkroom producing, or digital for photoshop and the like? I have a feeling that traditional is losing a lot of market to digital so maybe its more viable as a career option to elect to do digital, but traditional would also be interesting. Suggestions?
I would go with digital, but traditional sounds pretty fun.
[QUOTE=killerteacup;27911953]Okay guys, photography question. I'm doing a bachelor of communications in media production at uni this year, and one of my elected courses is introductory photomedia. I've only briefly dabbled in photoshop and I like taking photos, but I've never made a hobby of it - I dont see this as an obstacle though.
Here's the question - I can go traditional or digital, which do I go? Traditional as in, darkroom producing, or digital for photoshop and the like? I have a feeling that traditional is losing a lot of market to digital so maybe its more viable as a career option to elect to do digital, but traditional would also be interesting. Suggestions?[/QUOTE]
As fun as traditional would be, no one looking to hire a photographer wants someone who uses old film cameras. So go digital as that will set you up better career wise.
its apples and oranges.
but yes for practical reasons digital is what you should use.
Digital may be practical, but from the classes I've taken and sat in on at a few colleges, it seems digital [i]classes[/i] focus more on two things: [i]Art History [/i]and [i]Homework[/i]. You learn about the same old pictures you've seen on every photography special on TV, then you get told to go and take a bunch of pictures of X subject. There's a little generic "this is the rule of thirds" and "this is how RAW works in photoshop", nothing you don't find out with a 10 minute romp through google, but there's no detailed work, just busywork. Film classes are much more oriented on technique, on composition and the proper use of manual settings, on developing and printing. Those methods are well applied in the digital realm, knowing [i]that[/i] kind of stuff is worth more in the long run if you ask me.
Daijitsu hits it hard
One reason why I never took any art class xD.
History, is not really useful in my point of view.
HW, I can do those on my own...
[QUOTE=daijitsu;27927077]Digital may be practical, but from the classes I've taken and sat in on at a few colleges, it seems digital [i]classes[/i] focus more on two things: [i]Art History [/i]and [i]Homework[/i]. You learn about the same old pictures you've seen on every photography special on TV, then you get told to go and take a bunch of pictures of X subject. There's a little generic "this is the rule of thirds" and "this is how RAW works in photoshop", nothing you don't find out with a 10 minute romp through google, but there's no detailed work, just busywork. Film classes are much more oriented on technique, on composition and the proper use of manual settings, on developing and printing. Those methods are well applied in the digital realm, knowing [i]that[/i] kind of stuff is worth more in the long run if you ask me.[/QUOTE]
Thanks heaps for that, really helpful advice from everyone.
Unfortunately it turns out that the pathways handbooks suggest an introduction to professional writing, and I can see the logic in that - its important in media to be able to write in a media-orientated manner, and unfortunately photomedia is run on the same semester. Maybe next semester I can do the follow-on course.
EDIT; Buttfuck it, I'm a motivated human being at the age of 18 and if I can't do introductory photomedia I'll teach it my fucking self and it'll look fantastic on my CV. Let's go Creationism Corner. Does anyone know some good starting places, tutes and maybe a cheapish affordable camera that could be usable?
[QUOTE=daijitsu;27927077]Digital may be practical, but from the classes I've taken and sat in on at a few colleges, it seems digital [I]classes[/I] focus more on two things: [I]Art History [/I]and [I]Homework[/I]. You learn about the same old pictures you've seen on every photography special on TV, then you get told to go and take a bunch of pictures of X subject. There's a little generic "this is the rule of thirds" and "this is how RAW works in photoshop", nothing you don't find out with a 10 minute romp through google, but there's no detailed work, just busywork. Film classes are much more oriented on technique, on composition and the proper use of manual settings, on developing and printing. Those methods are well applied in the digital realm, knowing [I]that[/I] kind of stuff is worth more in the long run if you ask me.[/QUOTE]
In any of the photography classes I've taken at university, all you do with film is spend an exorbitant amount of time learning how to develop the film, the physical process and then almost no time on what actually makes a good picture. Most of the students are using newer film cameras with auto everything so they are taking pictures no different than they would with their coolpix and then spending hours in the darkroom developing their snapshot photos. I personally think it's a dead technology. It would be better to teach people in the medium they are going to be using. Anyways, throw your DSLR camera on all manual and learn the basics and you'd get more out of it than a photography class. I'd like to see some classes that actually emphases more of the techniques and tricks used by professional photographers rather than grunt film development.
Damn, I feel like complete shit. I was supposed to go out with a mate, and do some night photography, but my nose is running, I've got a gigantic headache and my eyes are watery.
Now I'll sit down on my couch, get hammered, then listen to Pink Floyd until I fall asleep.
That's it, I'm writing everything I know about photography in easy-to-understand terms to bring light back to the auto-reliant generation :argh:
[QUOTE=daijitsu;27954832]That's it, I'm writing everything I know about photography in easy-to-understand terms to bring light back to the auto-reliant generation :argh:[/QUOTE]
The people who take photography seriously will already use manual settings, the ones who don't, fuck em and let them post shitty pictures on their facebook.
I dunno it might be kind of useful for some impatient types who wanna learn photography.
I have a friend who has a canon 500d and we were looking at examples of cool ways to use long exposures. The conversation ended up on letting a certain amount of light into the lens and he had some long ass complicated way that it would be possible to change the amount of light going in, and I said "well, what's wrong with changing the aperture?" and he just looked at me blankly and said "er... what's that do again?" :sigh:
[QUOTE=Ajacks;27954863]let them post shitty pictures on their facebook.[/QUOTE]
I will not sit idly by and let this atrocity continue :black101:
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
