Rage Joe

Rage Joe

Lives in Antarctica unknown, Antarctica
Works as a Photographer
Has a website at just fine
Joined on Oct 2, 2010

Comments

Total: 530, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

stevo23: Innovation is when someone provides a solution to a known issue. Like Polaroid - provided instant images on paper. People wanted that. Like automatic transmissions (I don't use one) - people didn't have to fiddle with shifting gears. Like autofocus - people realized that they could get more keepers and better focus if somehow the camera could do it.

It's usually something that people thought about but didn't think was possible. But I can't think of anyone ever thinking it would be cool to be able to change the focus point of an image after it's captured - and that with sub-critical focus and poor image quality. It's not an innovation, it's just a novel idea but with no real market interest. It's not solving anything that people were looking for and it replaces nothing.

This is not the future for photographers. It's a novel idea looking for an interested party. I can't really think of anyone or any application for this that makes it invaluable. Can you?

" Imagine a light field digital frame in the future replacing your flat, dull prints."

Why would my prints be dull?

Btw. One of the main points of photography is that the PHOTOGRAPHER CHOOSES the point of interest and the point of focus. And he has to do it, or he's just being lazy and indecisive. Poor. Pictures where that's not accomplished are... dull, in black and white and in color, in 2D and in 3D, in 4D, and even in D4S

:rj

Direct link | Posted on Jul 26, 2014 at 11:06 UTC
On Leica T (Typ 701) First Impressions Review preview (2295 comments in total)
In reply to:

dale thorn: Got my first 'T' image today in b&w - the detail is amazing, and it really has the Leica Look (not kidding). Much better than I expected, and that was with the 18-56.

I bet that's all in your mind. :)

Direct link | Posted on Jul 25, 2014 at 20:37 UTC
In reply to:

Samuel Dilworth: Oh boy.

I bet you could use that only once. One or two photographers on different continents.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 25, 2014 at 20:33 UTC

Why don't they make the image all ready. So that you'd only have to take a picture of the background. That would be a vast improvement to this.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 25, 2014 at 20:31 UTC as 44th comment

Hmm. Sometimes things that you can think of and manufacture are not necessary at all.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 24, 2014 at 22:19 UTC as 17th comment
On Leica T (Typ 701) First Impressions Review preview (2295 comments in total)
In reply to:

Ulfric M Douglas: You wrote ; " I suspect that really, this is a camera for Raw shooters"
Surely the opposite is true : a fashion item for rich and mostly careless jpeg-wifi uploaders.

Jpg

Direct link | Posted on Jul 23, 2014 at 23:12 UTC
On Leica T (Typ 701) First Impressions Review preview (2295 comments in total)

Why is it "beautiful"? What other camera you think is "beautiful"? Sony NEXs? They already looked quite a bit like this.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 23, 2014 at 23:10 UTC as 19th comment
On Drone lighting could be coming soon to your studio article (123 comments in total)
In reply to:

Marty4650: In the future, one drone will take a photo, of another drone acting as the model, while a third drone hovers around with the lights.

You can file this nonsense under "we did it to prove it could be done, and we think it is very cool."

And the fifth watches the outcome.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 19, 2014 at 02:25 UTC
On Drone lighting could be coming soon to your studio article (123 comments in total)

This is just Stupid. When one of the main points of moving while taking photographs is to have different lighting. Just stupid.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 19, 2014 at 02:16 UTC as 8th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

Rage Joe: To be true, this doesn't seem like much. Not even for that time. Just being honest here. Poor job. But I guess the competition wasn't so hard back then.

Dear BkJP, only because he is "famous"...

But like I said the pictures are nothing special ...stiff and unnatural.... and in an unpleasant way. Clumsy backgrounds and lighting. That's about it.

You can see how Horst got lost in the technique he used.
Just compare his stuff to someone like Weston or Man Ray and you see the difference. Big difference, between an artist and a commercial photographer struggling to be artsy,

:rJ

Direct link | Posted on Jul 7, 2014 at 18:55 UTC
In reply to:

b craw: In a time when photography struggled to be seen as a legitimate art, Horst and others produced strange and beautiful images in the interstice of fine art and more popular culture.

Horst had wonderful control of the craft of photography, yet the ultimate reward is found in an astute understanding and application of illusion and abstract potentials, those principles so important to the trajectory of art in the wake of surrealism. And, while the images speak of that time (or times), they still feel fresh and, I imagine, still inspire in terms of playfulness and elegance.

"The mastering of lights is incredible"

Incredible.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 7, 2014 at 16:40 UTC
In reply to:

Rage Joe: To be true, this doesn't seem like much. Not even for that time. Just being honest here. Poor job. But I guess the competition wasn't so hard back then.

Oh my god guys. Of course I know my art history. Talking about Dali and Man Ray here. I would add Edward Weston. But they were in a way different league than this clumsy Horst guy.

Papa natas, I'm sure you'd try to explain the Grand Canyon to your dog. But could be that your dog understands the canyon already without your explanations. Could be it understands it better than you.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 7, 2014 at 15:57 UTC
In reply to:

Rage Joe: To be true, this doesn't seem like much. Not even for that time. Just being honest here. Poor job. But I guess the competition wasn't so hard back then.

Hmm. Can't you see how clumsily he has used those stripes. Awful.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 7, 2014 at 01:31 UTC
In reply to:

Rage Joe: To be true, this doesn't seem like much. Not even for that time. Just being honest here. Poor job. But I guess the competition wasn't so hard back then.

Let's see. Just look at this. http://1.static.img-dpreview.com/files/p/TS345x442~articles/8998153708/8._Dress_by_Hattie_Carnegie_1939__Conde_Nast_Horst_Estate.jpeg

wtf is that all about?

Or this. Wouldn't say there is anything here to write home about:

http://1.static.img-dpreview.com/files/p/TS354x442~articles/8998153708/3._Summer_Fashions_American_Vogue_cover_15_May_1941__Conde_Nast_Horst_Estate.jpeg

Direct link | Posted on Jul 6, 2014 at 23:23 UTC
In reply to:

Rage Joe: To be true, this doesn't seem like much. Not even for that time. Just being honest here. Poor job. But I guess the competition wasn't so hard back then.

This might have passed in its time, when it was kind of new to do this kind of clumsy photography. But now, come on. Just look at it. It is really clumsy. Pretty poorly lighted, and the persons in pictures are stiff and unnatural, compositions stiff and unnatural too.

I'm sorry but I have eyes, and that's what they see.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 6, 2014 at 23:16 UTC

To be true, this doesn't seem like much. Not even for that time. Just being honest here. Poor job. But I guess the competition wasn't so hard back then.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 6, 2014 at 22:19 UTC as 4th comment | 14 replies

Really sad. Rest in peace.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 3, 2014 at 23:30 UTC as 56th comment
On Walmart sues photographer's widow over family pictures article (200 comments in total)
In reply to:

Rage Joe: And then these stingy *astards offered $2000 for these unique pictures.
I would enjoy it dearly if all the people visiting Wal¤Mart would get this information.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walton_family

"The Walton Family Fortune according to The Forbes 400 Richest People in America

Christy Walton and family US$36.7 billion[4]
Jim Walton US$34.7 billion[4]
Alice Walton US$34.3 billion[4]
S. Robson Walton US$34.2 billion[4]
Ann Walton Kroenke US$4.7 billion[4]
Nancy Walton Laurie US$4.0 billion[4]"

Total US$148.6 Billion

http://www.therichest.com/rich-list/world/richest-family/

"The Walton Family is by far the richest family in the world"

I don't like the communists and I believe that my work shouldn't be socialised by anyone, not even by the Waltons.
I own my stuff and my copyright and they own theirs. Or is it so that they own my stuff and I own theirs likewise? I employ myself, and the waltons just PAY for me if they want my work. They just pay.

Direct link | Posted on May 22, 2014 at 15:18 UTC
On Lytro Illum in the hands of five leading photographers article (163 comments in total)
In reply to:

Michael Piziak: I looked at the pictures at https://pictures.lytro.com/

I don't see anything impressive. What's the big deal ?

Yeah, now I visited that site too, and i have to agree with you. Pretty horrible. feels like you would be looking at something that has been left unfinished, not thought of. This will NOT be the future of photography, or I'll just quit.

Direct link | Posted on May 21, 2014 at 21:46 UTC
On Lytro Illum in the hands of five leading photographers article (163 comments in total)

I don't understand the point of this. That focus change looks bad, at least in that video. To me that whole thing looks like a quite futile idea. Why not just take a decent video and focus it on different parts of the scene....if needed? I rather decide it myself what is important in the picture... be it video, or stills.

Direct link | Posted on May 21, 2014 at 21:41 UTC as 16th comment
Total: 530, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »