Oh lawd those XPan shots on the latest episode of digitalrev.
[QUOTE=roflcakes;44909535]Oh lawd those XPan shots on the latest episode of digitalrev.[/QUOTE]
I always wanted the XPan but that format is pretty situational and a pain in the ass to scan and print because it's so odd.
[QUOTE=FlippR;44909467]posting from mcdonalds parking lot
[editline]25th May 2014[/editline]
1 week with no ISP[/QUOTE]
are u ready for hell
It appears the 6D's weather sealing isn't as good as expected
Was out shooting in a bit of rain, now half the buttons don't work or only work intermittently
Sitting in an airtight box with a few packets of silica gel, should be alright hopefully
[editline]26th May 2014[/editline]
I swear half of my posts on here are about me losing or damaging or breaking stuff
Pentax and Olympus (the E5 anyway) are pretty much the only companies with very good weather sealing. That sucks to hear about your camera though, I've never had troubles with rain but I've never shot in it too much. You do get a lot of gear problems lol
I'm very happy with my Pentax K-5's water sealing. I've shot in the rain a few times, and even had the camera out in the rain on a tripod for about 2 hours on an auto interval timer, and it was fine. Next time I'm gonna put it under an umbrella just to keep water off the lens messing with the photos. Gotta make sure you have a weather sealed lens too
I'm quite surprised/disappointed really
I've had my 60D out in the rain for like an hour before with a non sealed lens and it's been fine
6D with a L lens in the rain for 10 mins and this happens
What lens were you shooting with? Not all L lenses are sealed, many require a UV filter. Regardless your camera should have been fine though.
Canon just call it "dust and drip proof", I guess that's not rain proof.
Neither Nikon or Canon make any bodies which they explicitly say are rain proof.
If you find yourself shooting in the rain a lot, your only options are something from Pentax or Olympus OMD line, and I think the Fuji XT1 is rain proof too.
~is rain not just a drip from the sky?~
lens was 24L II, lens is fine though it's just a few of the buttons on the body
phone has been broke for quite awhile now, finally bought a new one. was a tough call between the Moto X and the Nexus 5, but i decided to shoot for the Nexus.
and with that, what phone does everyone use?
I got a Nokia Lumia 920
I found the website of some local dude who apparently has shot over 100 weddings
jesus christ, i mean I have never shot a wedding so I can't say much
but a lot of weird angles, harsh lighting, unflattering/straight out of camera images, distracting backgrounds, cheesy selective coloring
and that was just what was in the sample gallery on his website, which should mean its his best work.
reminds me of how some girls in my school paid some 13 year olds with rebels to photograph her sweet 16 and they didn't do anything to the white balance in post so the skin tones are all messed up and everyone in the pictures looks like they have been dead for a day their skin is so grey
[QUOTE=dwt110;44920276]I found the website of some local dude who apparently has shot over 100 weddings
jesus christ, i mean I have never shot a wedding so I can't say much
but a lot of weird angles, harsh lighting, unflattering/straight out of camera images, distracting backgrounds, cheesy selective coloring
and that was just what was in the sample gallery on his website, which should mean its his best work.
reminds me of how some girls in my school paid some 13 year olds with rebels to photograph her sweet 16 and they didn't do anything to the white balance in post so the skin tones are all messed up and everyone in the pictures looks like they have been dead for a day their skin is so grey[/QUOTE]
shit like this gives me hope for the future man, if they can make it in the industry then so can I.
also, im rockin a HTC Desire HD thats like 5 years old or something. Rooted and updated to Android 4.2.2 awww yus.. Had a Nexus 7 tabled too for about 3 months but I cracked the screen so I'm gonna replace that when I'm home in ~2 weeks, for now I have no front facing camera device so my snapchat game has been blown back to the stone ages.
got a nexus 7 tablet a couple of days ago and maaaan it's awesome, pretty much almost completely makes up for my lack of a properly working laptop
[editline]27th May 2014[/editline]
if the source engine ever gets ported to android like valve appears to be planning and i could play tf2 on this thing, my life would be complete
[editline]27th May 2014[/editline]
only downside is that when i look at the creative photo thread, landscape stuff is [I]still[/I] too wide and ends up being scrollable side to side like on my phone
[QUOTE=dwt110;44920276]I found the website of some local dude who apparently has shot over 100 weddings
jesus christ, i mean I have never shot a wedding so I can't say much
but a lot of weird angles, harsh lighting, unflattering/straight out of camera images, distracting backgrounds, cheesy selective coloring
and that was just what was in the sample gallery on his website, which should mean its his best work.
reminds me of how some girls in my school paid some 13 year olds with rebels to photograph her sweet 16 and they didn't do anything to the white balance in post so the skin tones are all messed up and everyone in the pictures looks like they have been dead for a day their skin is so grey[/QUOTE]
It's because the bar of quality photography has been lowered all the way down ever since the digital camera hit the consumer market, and now with phone camera and social media it's on an all time low.
This does make the quality photographs pop out a lot better though!
[QUOTE=Uber|nooB;44921912]got a nexus 7 tablet a couple of days ago and maaaan it's awesome, pretty much almost completely makes up for my lack of a properly working laptop
[editline]27th May 2014[/editline]
if the source engine ever gets ported to android like valve appears to be planning and i could play tf2 on this thing, my life would be complete
[editline]27th May 2014[/editline]
only downside is that when i look at the creative photo thread, landscape stuff is [I]still[/I] too wide and ends up being scrollable side to side like on my phone[/QUOTE]
source was ported to android by Nvidia
yeah, with Portal and HL2, i believe.
oshit really
[editline]27th May 2014[/editline]
what a time to be alive
[QUOTE=Slippery-Q;44922206]yeah, with Portal and HL2, i believe.[/QUOTE]
yeah, but for now i think they only run on Nvidia's shield thing. but they should be opened up to other devices soon (or already have been)
[QUOTE=Slippery-Q;44920251]phone has been broke for quite awhile now, finally bought a new one. was a tough call between the Moto X and the Nexus 5, but i decided to shoot for the Nexus.
and with that, what phone does everyone use?[/QUOTE]
just ordered the HTC One M8 as my ~*corporate mobile phone*~
[QUOTE=Zeemlapje;44922093]It's because the bar of quality photography has been lowered all the way down ever since the digital camera hit the consumer market, and now with phone camera and social media it's on an all time low.
This does make the quality photographs pop out a lot better though![/QUOTE]
is this satire??
[QUOTE=FlippR;44922487]just ordered the HTC One M8 as my ~*corporate mobile phone*~[/QUOTE]
i wanted that phone :(
too much dosh tho
[QUOTE=Eltro102;44922580]is this satire??[/QUOTE]
One can hope.
Hey is anyone aware if it's possible to lock/hide/password protect a collection of photos (or all of them) in Lightroom? I got a few shots which I'd rather not show up in the "all photos" category unless it's me who browses it :v:
[QUOTE=Eltro102;44922580]is this satire??[/QUOTE]
Ok let's put it like this, 100 years back the average photo had thought trough composition, lightning and exposures simply because photography wasn't something average Joe could do both financially and technical. Photographers had to put more time in developing their shots, there was no such thing as rapid fire, just photographs that were thought trough.
Now in the digital era the average photo isn't as good because anyone can take pictures now without going trough a lot of the theory and practical experience photographers 100 years ago used to go trough.
These days anyone with a digital camera, pc and internet connection can make a social media account and label themselves photographer. 100 years ago you would not only have to own a camera but also the knowledge and tools of developing and printing.
Starting to see my point? I'm not saying photography now is shit and everything else used to be better before digital era. I'm just saying you're bound to see a lot more so-so and not WOW photographs these days because almost everyone owns a camera and an internet connection to share these photographs. Before we started sharing photographs on social media most of us saw photographs in photo books and magazines, which means there's an editor who only puts in the crème de la crème in there because he'd lose subscriptions if he'd put the so-so photographs in there.
Facebook, Flickr, 500px and other photography social media platforms don't have to worry about losing subscriptions and $$$ so anything goes!
[editline]27th May 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=Oicani Gonzales;44922791]i need to take my camera with me more often, but i go to the same places most days of the week
how do you fix this[/QUOTE]
Take alternative routes?
you could kind of argue that the quality of photographs has technically gone down because the quantity was went up, but it's still all subjective to any degree as to how much it degraded
[QUOTE=Zeemlapje;44922928]Ok let's put it like this, 100 years back the average photo had thought trough composition, lightning and exposures simply because photography wasn't something average Joe could do both financially and technical. Photographers had to put more time in developing their shots, there was no such thing as rapid fire, just photographs that were thought trough.
Now in the digital era the average photo isn't as good because anyone can take pictures now without going trough a lot of the theory and practical experience photographers 100 years ago used to go trough.
These days anyone with a digital camera, pc and internet connection can make a social media account and label themselves photographer. 100 years ago you would not only have to own a camera but also the knowledge and tools of developing and printing.
Starting to see my point? I'm not saying photography now is shit and everything else used to be better before digital era. I'm just saying you're bound to see a lot more so-so and not WOW photographs these days because almost everyone owns a camera and an internet connection to share these photographs. Before we started sharing photographs on social media most of us saw photographs in photo books and magazines, which means there's an editor who only puts in the crème de la crème in there because he'd lose subscriptions if he'd put the so-so photographs in there.
Facebook, Flickr, 500px and other photography social media platforms don't have to worry about losing subscriptions and $$$ so anything goes!
[/QUOTE]
People were still taking snapshots with film. Disposable/simple cameras and film labs meant that anyone could take photographs. Professional and fine art photography was distinguishable from other photography, and it still is (albeit subjective.)
This new era obviously changes the playing ground but artists still have to [I]want[/I] to be an artist, or at least pursue an artistic goal. Your facebook friends will not have their selfies hanging in the MOMA. Whether or not it's "easier" to become an artist is kind of a moot point really. I guess it's all about intent, not the process itself.
you could also argue that because good cameras are much more easily available now and you don't need to pay for photo dev and printing, more "good" quality content is produced by people who would not have had the chance to make that content if it wasn't for decent, cheap cameras
Thought you guys would be interested in this. My friends over at Photojojo just launched their Engineer Printing service! 3ft x 4ft half-tone b&w print for $25 w/ free shipping!
[URL]http://photojojo.com/engineerprints/[/URL]
[QUOTE=Zeemlapje;44922928]Ok let's put it like this, 100 years back the average photo had thought trough composition, lightning and exposures simply because photography wasn't something average Joe could do both financially and technical. Photographers had to put more time in developing their shots, there was no such thing as rapid fire, just photographs that were thought trough.
Now in the digital era the average photo isn't as good because anyone can take pictures now without going trough a lot of the theory and practical experience photographers 100 years ago used to go trough.
These days anyone with a digital camera, pc and internet connection can make a social media account and label themselves photographer. 100 years ago you would not only have to own a camera but also the knowledge and tools of developing and printing.
Starting to see my point? I'm not saying photography now is shit and everything else used to be better before digital era. I'm just saying you're bound to see a lot more so-so and not WOW photographs these days because almost everyone owns a camera and an internet connection to share these photographs. Before we started sharing photographs on social media most of us saw photographs in photo books and magazines, which means there's an editor who only puts in the crème de la crème in there because he'd lose subscriptions if he'd put the so-so photographs in there.
Facebook, Flickr, 500px and other photography social media platforms don't have to worry about losing subscriptions and $$$ so anything goes!
[editline]27th May 2014[/editline]
Take alternative routes?[/QUOTE]
film esp at the start was used way more documentary purposes and its high cost hampered fast artistic development, now due to near zero cost of taking a photograph it means that there is a much greater number of good photos than before
[editline]27th May 2014[/editline]
and if you're seeing a lot more so-so rather than WOW photos that's on [I]you[/I], what you consume is - now more than ever - decided by choices you make rather than limitations on things being made
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
