I realized maybe day before yesterday, in the middle of a conversation, that at worst i always have at least one camera on my person, on my phone. There's also one on my iPod. And another one on my iPad. And there's my pocket Powershot. And then there's my DSLR Nikon. So when I show up to work most days, with my overstuffed backpack, I actually have six cameras on me, or eight if you count the two cameras on the iPad and iPod. So there are two good cameras, one middling one (on my Android phone), and four completely shit ones. And sitting at my desk here at home, I realize I have two MORE cameras -- the webcams on my iMac and my PC. I have a LOT of cameras. They have different functions, and only two of them take actually acceptable photos.
― cue "White Rabbit" (kenan), Saturday, 10 March 2012 00:42 (twelve years ago) link
all of those take acceptable photos imo
― flagp∞st (dayo), Saturday, 10 March 2012 00:48 (twelve years ago) link
The iCrap, even? Really? Maybe in special, perfect, mid-day circumstances.
― cue "White Rabbit" (kenan), Saturday, 10 March 2012 00:49 (twelve years ago) link
best camera is the one you have etc etc
― catbus otm (gbx), Saturday, 10 March 2012 00:51 (twelve years ago) link
love the one you're with
― catbus otm (gbx), Saturday, 10 March 2012 00:52 (twelve years ago) link
Right, assuming you're taking a picture of something that you could never take another picture of. The iPod camera doesn't have any white balance control, though, for one example of how it's shit. On a cloudy day, with none of the yellow sun that gives Superman his powers, everything is washed out and aqua. It sucks. Hipstamatic helps a little tiny bit, but not enough that it makes it a great camera all of a sudden.
― cue "White Rabbit" (kenan), Saturday, 10 March 2012 00:56 (twelve years ago) link
And I'm not going to spend more than two bucks to try to make a bad lens look like a good one. And ffs, the fray "old photo" effect is over, dead, buried, and stop using it plz.
― cue "White Rabbit" (kenan), Saturday, 10 March 2012 00:58 (twelve years ago) link
kenan the funny thing is that you despite having 8 diff cameras always take the same photo of your face over and over
― ⚓ (gr8080), Saturday, 10 March 2012 01:01 (twelve years ago) link
jk lol
you should check out some of the photojournalism done with iphones kenan
― flagp∞st (dayo), Saturday, 10 March 2012 01:01 (twelve years ago) link
xp It's the same face! What am I supposed to do?
― cue "White Rabbit" (kenan), Saturday, 10 March 2012 01:02 (twelve years ago) link
http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/21/finding-the-right-tool-to-tell-a-war-story/
― flagp∞st (dayo), Saturday, 10 March 2012 01:03 (twelve years ago) link
xp Ah see the iPHONE has a much different, much better camera in it. The iPod and the iPad2 both have low-rent garbage. Seriously.
― cue "White Rabbit" (kenan), Saturday, 10 March 2012 01:03 (twelve years ago) link
But of course the other cliche is that it's a poor craftsman who blames his tools. You can take a great photo with anything that captures light and records it somehow. But I'll stand my my point -- these Apple prodocts that are expected to be used for videochat as best have terrible, awful, no good, very bad cameras in them. The very least they could get away with and still call it a camera.
― cue "White Rabbit" (kenan), Saturday, 10 March 2012 01:07 (twelve years ago) link
In the case of the iPod especially, this camera was a waste of the Chinese people's time and effort.
― cue "White Rabbit" (kenan), Saturday, 10 March 2012 01:08 (twelve years ago) link
. . .
― flagp∞st (dayo), Saturday, 10 March 2012 01:09 (twelve years ago) link
That was a dark joke. Do you see?
― cue "White Rabbit" (kenan), Saturday, 10 March 2012 01:10 (twelve years ago) link
I'm very amused
― flagp∞st (dayo), Saturday, 10 March 2012 01:11 (twelve years ago) link
I'm not. People are jumping out the windows at Foxconn, and I still have a shitty camera. Someone died for THIS?
― cue "White Rabbit" (kenan), Saturday, 10 March 2012 01:13 (twelve years ago) link
That was an even darker joke. I'll quit while I'm behind.
― cue "White Rabbit" (kenan), Saturday, 10 March 2012 01:20 (twelve years ago) link
note to self: excellent thread revive
― lou reed scott walker monks niagra (chinavision!), Saturday, 10 March 2012 01:23 (twelve years ago) link
― flagp∞st (dayo), Saturday, 10 March 2012 00:48 (12 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
^^photos are weird, i think their value in having captured their subject far outstrips their proficiency in whatever other respects, exponentially, over time. i am here to tell the your cameras thread that you are too concerned about your cameras.
― john-claude van donne (schlump), Saturday, 10 March 2012 13:37 (twelve years ago) link
not me
― lou reed scott walker monks niagra (chinavision!), Saturday, 10 March 2012 14:22 (twelve years ago) link
for web display just about anything made now is acceptable, but if you want to print larger than 4x6, some cameras are better than others
― Kiarostami bag (milo z), Sunday, 11 March 2012 00:22 (twelve years ago) link
oh I should prob link to one of my favorite flickr photographers: http://www.flickr.com/photos/47477258@N04/page1/a lot of pictures that seem to be taken with digital point and shoots, cell phones (maybe?), as well as whatever else (all digital) and I think it looks fantastic. a totally different aesthetic from what I'm used to dealing with, but I think it looks fantastic. there's something I like about the really rough digital image, even though I'm too into film/my old cameras to go there myself.
― lou reed scott walker monks niagra (chinavision!), Sunday, 11 March 2012 01:24 (twelve years ago) link
shit I really didn't think I said fantastic twice. small vocabulary
man, they're great. http://www.flickr.com/photos/47477258@N04/6801902428/in/photostream.i don't have examples up my sleeve but it reminds me of something that came up when i was asking for lens advice; the maybe skewed priority of sharpness, and rendering, when there are photos in which those features aren't an advantage or an asset, when clarity isn't crucial or helpful.
― john-claude van donne (schlump), Sunday, 11 March 2012 13:59 (twelve years ago) link
yeah, it's sort of like how people trade exposing tips and talk about how to massage raw files to avoid ever blowing out highlights etc. and then one day you think, wait, why does this matter?? I've seen many good pictures in my day with blown highlights and it's never bothered me, digital or otherwise.here's someone else on flickr who has a lot of digital blown highlights, iso artifacts, etc., and I think her pictures are glorious: http://www.flickr.com/photos/elena_vidor/
― lou reed scott walker monks niagra (chinavision!), Sunday, 11 March 2012 15:05 (twelve years ago) link
matters bc it pisses off dayo iircwe should post some of our best bad photos!, i am gonna think, i really have quite a library.
― john-claude van donne (schlump), Sunday, 11 March 2012 15:09 (twelve years ago) link
yeah there's something very appealing about 'straight' photography - I think it requires a lot of confidence! I like this one:
http://i.imgur.com/iIqAZ.png
the flatness of which reminds me of
http://i.imgur.com/jyfcB.jpg
― flagp∞st (dayo), Sunday, 11 March 2012 15:09 (twelve years ago) link
lol I am going through her flickr now and I don't see anything that's explicitly about blown highlights?
― flagp∞st (dayo), Sunday, 11 March 2012 15:10 (twelve years ago) link
these are the kinds of blown highlights that piss me off:
http://i.imgur.com/3QxKg.jpg
the upper left part
― flagp∞st (dayo), Sunday, 11 March 2012 15:13 (twelve years ago) link
or something like this: http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/canon/powershot_sd850-review/IMG_0017.JPG
― flagp∞st (dayo), Sunday, 11 March 2012 15:14 (twelve years ago) link
ILP man shakes fist at cloud
― john-claude van donne (schlump), Sunday, 11 March 2012 15:16 (twelve years ago) link
lol. there's def a difference between blown highlights and blown highlights used aesthetically. like this pic from that photographer def works
http://www.flickr.com/photos/elena_vidor/5101410623/in/photostream
I don't begrudge high-keyed photos as a matter of principle - but I think when a photographer is aiming for an otherwise quotidian scene like a forest or a hallway like above and lets the highlights get blown it's very distracting. I guess maybe the Q is, are there other parts of the photograph that can distract the gaze.
― flagp∞st (dayo), Sunday, 11 March 2012 15:22 (twelve years ago) link
like the abrupt transition from dark branches to white sky is bad, it's not so bad here and there's plenty else to look at and it's even part of the image itself, the transition from midtones to highlights as the gaze moves upwards
http://www.flickr.com/photos/elena_vidor/6467002099/in/photostream
― flagp∞st (dayo), Sunday, 11 March 2012 15:23 (twelve years ago) link
I almost posted that one earlier as an example of a picture that I love. I had a hard time at first determining if the very bright values were technically blown or not, but whatever else I think it's a beautiful image.
― lou reed scott walker monks niagra (chinavision!), Sunday, 11 March 2012 16:06 (twelve years ago) link
got distracted by making & consuming oatmeal in the meantime
― lou reed scott walker monks niagra (chinavision!), Sunday, 11 March 2012 16:07 (twelve years ago) link
yeah there's a difference between an image being high-keyed and the highlights being blown. robert adams is an example of a photographer (who shoots in B&W no less) who prints to emphasize the bright values. shooting into the sun is probably going to result in blown highlights no matter what. but the effect is certainly striking! here's another from her stream
http://www.flickr.com/photos/elena_vidor/3998105339/in/photostream
― flagp∞st (dayo), Sunday, 11 March 2012 16:11 (twelve years ago) link
Yeah that one's great.I could have sworn I had become accustomed to seeing a number of pictures on that stream that had clipped highlights but I'll have to go back and look again.
― lou reed scott walker monks niagra (chinavision!), Sunday, 11 March 2012 16:27 (twelve years ago) link
actually I think a lot of them do, just in ways that don't really jump out per se
http://www.flickr.com/photos/elena_vidor/5404290027/in/photostream
http://www.flickr.com/photos/elena_vidor/5735950919/in/photostream
― flagp∞st (dayo), Sunday, 11 March 2012 16:30 (twelve years ago) link
ah yes, and the green to white transition on the trashcan is definitely a digital 'thing' that you probably either love or hate. I kind of love it just since it's so brazen and casual.
― lou reed scott walker monks niagra (chinavision!), Sunday, 11 March 2012 16:36 (twelve years ago) link
random q: any of u dudes use a soft release on yr leicas?
― catbus otm (gbx), Tuesday, 13 March 2012 14:12 (twelve years ago) link
nope. kinda wondering about their magic effect.
― lou reed scott walker monks niagra (chinavision!), Tuesday, 13 March 2012 14:17 (twelve years ago) link
I've used a couple on various cameras, I didn't see a big difference. I did like it on my Canonet that has a heavy release, though.
I've read that Sherry Krauter (Leica repair expert) sees more damaged shutter assemblies from using SoftReleases than any other reason.
― Kiarostami bag (milo z), Tuesday, 13 March 2012 14:34 (twelve years ago) link
but it's just like a lil screw dealie
― catbus otm (gbx), Tuesday, 13 March 2012 14:37 (twelve years ago) link
thinking is that if you drop/bang your leica, the softrelease will damage the shutter since it's screwed in?
I used to use one - led to more blank frames than anything else since it would go off in my bag
― flagp∞st (dayo), Tuesday, 13 March 2012 14:38 (twelve years ago) link
o I c
― catbus otm (gbx), Tuesday, 13 March 2012 14:39 (twelve years ago) link
eh ok forget the magic effect then, I'm doing fine
― lou reed scott walker monks niagra (chinavision!), Tuesday, 13 March 2012 14:41 (twelve years ago) link
personally I think yr photos could be softer, china, yr aggro tude towards shutters in general really comes across, every traffic cone I see conjures visions of a man jamming the button down just ~angrily~
― catbus otm (gbx), Tuesday, 13 March 2012 14:55 (twelve years ago) link