Official Photography Thread: Vol. ICan'tFindTheLastOne

[ihustle]

<center> <a href="http://www.msplinks.com/MDFodHRwOi8vYndzcGhvdG9ncmFwaHkuYmxvZ3Nwb3QuY29t"><img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v466/airjap23/PENICHE X ARATAN/jparatan.jpg" border="0" alt="Image Hosted by ImageShack.us"/></a>

<center>

 

[airjordans4life]

Thanks ebay. I had the white balance set on fluorescent cuz i thought fluorescent light, use fluorescent white balance. I'll try the tungsten setting next time.

Here a few shots from yesterday....went to Golden Gate Park to walk around.

Kids again....

I know Jazmin's arm is moving but I just love her facial expression and Aaron looking at her like WTH?!?!

Couple floral shots:

And a couple random ones:

ebay Auctions To Come​

My Collection​

 

[ebayologist]

Yeah, I don't then if your using a florcent setting, if there is a tungsten setting I would try that too. But also I just checked on my iMac out of curiousity and they look better for whatever reason, I think its cause my MBP is color calibrated to print so things show up slightly different and what seems like definately a slight color cast on my iMac shows up alot of more signifcant on MBP. So probably less of an issue that I thought, so... also webhosting doesnt help anyone but anyhow I like the first two images in that set...

 

[ebayologist]

Over the weekend I bought an Andreas Gursky book (his MOMA retrospective) and I've seen this photograph in person, but I thought of NT when I saw it in the book. It a huge print 6ft by 14ft. Sorry for the bad quality but its not easy to find large images of artists work for obivous reasons...

 

[dunks206]

Quote:

---

Well, when first looking at the photo I can't figure out the problem right off the bat so this is just a guess. But maybe close down the lense i.e. higher f-stop and/or raise the pixel rate and/or lower the iso. The blue seems odd, but with film when you scan it a color cast is a given so. I would go about that the same way you do film and just color correct i.e. push the color more yellow until it looks correct but probably an easier solution, maybe white balance?

---

Team
Air Max Family and Pacific Northwest​

 

[fongstarr]

doping some longer ones when I get the chance. How many pics is this?
- Fong$tarr



E-mail: [email protected]
Member since: January 26, 2003
TEAM WARRIORS WE BELIEVE

 

[johnniem2nd]

Andreas Gursky I like his photo of the supermarket. I read somewhere that his gallery images are great to see in person.

 

[ebayologist]

^ Yeah, they're huge prints I've seen his work at the Met and MCA... most photographers who shoot with view cameras especially guys like him who use like 8x10 view cameras and combine negatives looking at books or the internet doesnt do them justice.

That one I posted is 14ft by 6ft thats absurdly enormous for a photograph. probably two 8in x 10in negatives atleast...

Also photographers like Gursky cake hardbody... There is no commercial professional photographer that touches the kinda money photographers like Wall, diCorcia, Gursky, and handful of others. Aside from the fact they get photograph whatever they want...

That Gursky that I posted on the last page "Untitled V" today goes for 500k+ a print. Mind you probably went for alittle less orginally and I'm willing to bet there are few then 10 prints and he probably doesnt have any other than the ap's which are worth signifcantly more. still I wouldn't at all be suprised if he owns both ap's and still made well over a mil one photograph's set of prints even at his probably 50% of total sale cut...

 

[masta euda]

anybody got those Hong Kong pictures from the earlier Hong Kong appreciation thread ?

 

[johnniem2nd]

Gursky photographs put you right there in the photo.

My top 10 favorite photographers

1.Jonathan Mannion - assisted Richard Avedon-
2.Estevan Oriol
3.Kareem Black
4.Gordon Parks
5.Jerry uelsmann
6.Duane Michals
7.Richard Avendon
8.Annie Leibovitz
9.Bill Owens
10.Ansel Adams

 

[ebayologist]

^only name I recognize on that list is the kinda obvious Ansel Adams and Bill Owens.

Philip DiCorcia has some work that reminds me of Bill Owens. I take it the rest are commercial photographers?

And Annie Leibovitz, but mostly just the name. I googled her and was like what the @#%$ because it was completely different body of work than I thought it was going to be...

I think had her and Laura Letinsky, whom I've met and I was thrown for a loop...

I don't think I could come up with a top ten photographer list. There are definately some people I know would be on my list but it would probably be pretty lengthy..

 

[johnniem2nd]

^ Anne shot the last vanity fair cover with jay and Alicia keys and others. The top 3 are from this era, great photographers they shoot film pretty much all on that list do. My list are who inspire me to shoot more.

 

[ebayologist]

^Yeah, I figured out who she was...

But yeah, I think my main issue with commercial photography is just the philosophy or lack there of behind it. You're essentially at the will of an art director most of whom are kinda eh... So unless your stupid famous your at the will of someone elses taste, like I'd put a million dollars when Cindy Sherman did photography for Marc Jacobs I bet the only person who called the shots of above her was Mr. Jacobs himself. I understand how the commercial art world works, and want my photography to have absolutely nothing to do with that. Honestly I think a lot of the commercial photography world is hack ridden, but I looked up some of those dudes and you can definitely see talent and great images, so I'm not dissing anyone of that caliber. And I definately respect that they keep it real and use film, But honestly I don't think I could give in my vision and while I'm sure guys on that kinda level have some say in things its completely different industry.

I look at their work and they have some great images but I honestly I have a hard time seeing the art in it. A picture of some rapper or actor or whatever, is a picture of that said person, clearly with dudes that caliber its well composed and perfectly good image but the concept behind it is lacking for me. There is little to no meaning beyond the portrait that it is... Its like they have no real bodies of work, they have lots of great images but beyond just generic ideas of portraiture, landscapes, etc. the images don't tie together on the same way artists that build bodies of work. Its one thing to make a great image its another to make a great body of images that all tied together and relate. I'm not trying to diss those dudes and if thats your aspiration more power to you and I can respect it for what is but I myself could never do that...

_________________________________


I remember a probably quite a few pages back someone posted pictures they'd taken of like gi-joes or some action figures and I was looking through an annual photography book I get called Contact Sheet that has select works of up and coming art photographers that they give grants and artist in residencies to produce the said works. Anyhow, I came across this guy Hank Willis Thomas had a great series called Winter In America. its explained more on his website hankwillisthomas.com

So for whoever it was who was taking photographs of action figures alittle inspiration i suppose...

 

[kdwallace]

Quote:

---

(all pics took are with flash)

---

TEAM SINISTER

Shopping at The Leftorium since 1977.
​

 

[ebayologist]

^ Yeah, I didn't even notice he was asking if there was anything wrong with them. But honestly I think you can keep the flash you because my guess is that its necessary to have a decent iso. you just have to use it different. I don't know if your flash is difused or not, I would guess its not and that right there is problem #1 is you need to disfuse the light or soften it. The fact that the foreground is lighted and the background is dark doesnt strike me as much as a problem as kdwallace see its. maybe for him its the harshness which I would agree with but just the dark vs light isnt a problem because your subject lies in the foreground and its a event photography so...

Ebayologist Solutions
1. Get a difuser for your flash
2. Don't take the meter or flash reading at face value, this is huge most of you guys trust the meter in your camera alot more than you should aside from it being not super accurate its a reflected reading which is why alot of you guys get unexposed shoots. It your case its more of the flash is too harsh but its a result of the reflected reading being inaccurate.
3. I don't know if your using the flash thats build-in if you are (that little thing is suprisingly powerful) but if your using an external one try bouncing it. I don't know how effective that would be in space like that but if you can over power the flash alittle and shoot it off the ceiling than that might work.
4. Along with using an external flash a flash bracket might be helpful, the further you can get the flash away from the lense the less harsh even at the same power it will look less harsh.

Honestly the pictures of the cars don't bother me. the woman on the stage there is def a problem, and I think that would be idea situation to bounce it off the ceiling. the last one you just need to soften the light, a difuser, maybe reduce the power on the flash slightly and you'd be set..

 

[johnniem2nd]

Quote:

---

^Yeah, I figured out who she was...

But yeah, I think my main issue with commercial photography is just the philosophy or lack there of behind it. You're essentially at the will of an art director most of whom are kinda eh... So unless your stupid famous your at the will of someone elses taste, like I'd put a million dollars when Cindy Sherman did photography for Marc Jacobs I bet the only person who called the shots of above her was Mr. Jacobs himself. I understand how the commercial art world works, and want my photography to have absolutely nothing to do with that. Honestly I think a lot of the commercial photography world is hack ridden, but I looked up some of those dudes and you can definitely see talent and great images, so I'm not dissing anyone of that caliber. And I definately respect that they keep it real and use film, But honestly I don't think I could give in my vision and while I'm sure guys on that kinda level have some say in things its completely different industry.

I look at their work and they have some great images but I honestly I have a hard time seeing the art in it. A picture of some rapper or actor or whatever, is a picture of that said person, clearly with dudes that caliber its well composed and perfectly good image but the concept behind it is lacking for me. There is little to no meaning beyond the portrait that it is... Its like they have no real bodies of work, they have lots of great images but beyond just generic ideas of portraiture, landscapes, etc. the images don't tie together on the same way artists that build bodies of work. Its one thing to make a great image its another to make a great body of images that all tied together and relate. I'm not trying to diss those dudes and if thats your aspiration more power to you and I can respect it for what is but I myself could never do that...

---

www.davidlevinthal.com/index.html

 

[ebayologist]

Quote:

---

For example besides his commercial work Estevan Oriol has some great photos on L.A and gang life and skid row which are very powerful and can be (I think) closely associated with the work of Dorothea Lange and her work during the depression.

---

Yeah, I think thats quite the reach in the comparison but I understand what your saying and there plenty of art photographers who do commercial work. There is Brooklyn photographer Boogie who did a series on brownsville and the gangs, drugs, etc. surround that area of Brooklyn and he sold some of the images to Nike for their geodome boot ad campaign, but the guy is an art photographer first and foremost. And clearly there will be people who do both and thats their move.

Quote:

---

True they may shoot a celebrity for a particular magazine but their style is consistent throughout. Now not saying its no art in them I have to disagree I mean I understand its your opinion but I look at(portrait and celebrity photography) it as another extension of photography.

---

See but their is an inherent arguement as to it not being art (which you can not agree with thats fine...) because it lacks a conceptual nature behind it. Like a portrait of a celebrity whats the concept? Idolization? somehow I doubt. But I would really be curious to know some of these people's answers to that question... The fact that its an extension of photography is irevelvant to me, because I think there are plenty of great photographs that lack an artistic nature but are still great photos. I think when great artists photographers to whatever conceptualize an idea in a body of work it goes well beyond the photograph used in a magazine for the interview of some actor.

They're great photographs and I don't want to take that from them, but there is legitimate arguement that a significant portion of commercial photography is not art or art as most of the art world defines art...

Quote:

---

What makes photography so interesting is that you can photograph whatever, whenever and manipulate it and make it your own.

---

I've always been told photography is the most democratic of arts and i'm not trying to say otherwise... I just think there is inherent conflict of interest in commercial photography as far as your buyer dictating your subject.

Like take an album cover, clearly there is a concept in most, but it putting the cart before the horse to argue the photograph dictates the album, you're just embodying some elses idea into a image, which I think is valid but is second rate to your own conception from an artistic stand point. and to argue the album cover is art beyond that of the album it think is a reach.

But anyhow, I don't really want to go on and on about this we can agree to disagree thats fine... it doesnt particularly bother me...

 

[johnniem2nd]

^ yeah im cool with that that. I didn't get offended by the discussion. Back to some photos

 

[ebayologist]

^ Yeah, I enjoy discussing the philosophy of sorts of photography but there is a point where its whatever...

But probably my favorite photographer when it comes to technical lighting standpoint Philip-Lorca diCorcia. Dude is crazy when it comes to lighting, covers the casts of incandescence lights with flashes puts flashes and strobes in crazy places, does lighting for film photography like no other...

 

[raburns04]

faux-hdr, adjusted the exposure in lightroom

myspacelast.fmflickr

 

[rgoya]

nothing special

a few pics of my trip to Holland

TEAM

Because we only have time for a couple quick things.​

​

 

[rawex5]

Roads? Where we're going, we don't need roads.​

TEAMLOSTPOWERCITY​

 

[areva1o 7]

Haven't checked NT in awhile but it's good to see these posts are still going.

portfolio

 

[irpstakid]

BUMP!

---

AY BAY BAY​

 

[kitrov]

Bump

i'm russian, if that matters.

079​

teamdecepticon​

T R A N S F O R M E R S​