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: 523, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On Drone lighting could be coming soon to your studio article (117 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 (117 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 5th 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 (162 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 (162 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 15th comment
On Walmart sues photographer's widow over family pictures article (200 comments in total)
In reply to:

Peter CS: Here is the irony - they are offering only $2000 for ownership, yet are willing to pay hundreds of thousands, if not millions in legal fees to litigate and intimidate? If this is not an all out assault on copyright ownership, then what else could it be? Maybe it is an exercise to see, if absurd amounts of inherited wealth can change/overthrow existing laws, buy false justice, and provide a ticket to our polarized/political Supreme Court, that has a huge pro- corporate agenda?
Time will tell...

* So the judge says: "Case closed. And you Waltons just think a little before you act."

Direct link | Posted on May 21, 2014 at 18:33 UTC
On Walmart sues photographer's widow over family pictures article (200 comments in total)
In reply to:

Peter CS: Here is the irony - they are offering only $2000 for ownership, yet are willing to pay hundreds of thousands, if not millions in legal fees to litigate and intimidate? If this is not an all out assault on copyright ownership, then what else could it be? Maybe it is an exercise to see, if absurd amounts of inherited wealth can change/overthrow existing laws, buy false justice, and provide a ticket to our polarized/political Supreme Court, that has a huge pro- corporate agenda?
Time will tell...

The whole case is really simple. When the Waltons offered $2000 for the pictures they in effect proved and confirmed themselves that they don't own the pictures. Case says the judge.

Direct link | Posted on May 21, 2014 at 17:55 UTC
On Walmart sues photographer's widow over family pictures article (200 comments in total)
In reply to:

Rage Joe: I'm pretty sure this pathetic greediness has costed the Waltons already much much more than $2000. Hope they lose big time.

:) This simple for the judge, if they think they own the material why did they offer to pay anything for it then? Stupid Waltons. Losing big time.

Direct link | Posted on May 21, 2014 at 13:13 UTC
On Walmart sues photographer's widow over family pictures article (200 comments in total)
In reply to:

Steve in GA: I suppose there have always been folks who saw themselves as victims of vicious economic brutality by those who are more successful. But, the odd thing is that I can’t recall ever hearing anyone express such views before internet blogs came along.

Yes, there have always been a few muckraking press reporters who would try to blame someone’s misfortune on, “the evil rich”. But for the most part, most people saw business success as something to aspire to and emulate, rather than as something to hate and tear down.

Now, internet blogs are filled with, “destroy the Waltons” and “kill the Koch brothers”. I hope comments like these in this blog are not coming from Americans, but I know many of them are.

What a sad country we have become.

@ renault5

I guess chiane means that he is an untrained and uneducated monkey. At least that's the impression you get.

:rJ

Direct link | Posted on May 21, 2014 at 12:13 UTC
On Walmart sues photographer's widow over family pictures article (200 comments in total)

I'm pretty sure this pathetic greediness has costed the Waltons already much much more than $2000. Hope they lose big time.

Direct link | Posted on May 21, 2014 at 12:09 UTC as 24th comment | 2 replies
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"

"The widow or widower owns the author’s entire termination interest unless there are any surviving children or grandchildren of the author, in which case the widow or widower owns one-half of the author’s interest."

page 127 - Copyright Law of the United States

§ 304 · Duration of copyright: Subsisting copyrights

page 134 - Copyright Law of the United States

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/circ92.pdf

Direct link | Posted on May 20, 2014 at 21:46 UTC
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"

If I was a widow I would believe in the free market and ask at least a million for the pictures. That would be only 1/148.600 of the wealth of these guys believing in the free market themselves. Just a fair game.

Direct link | Posted on May 20, 2014 at 21:22 UTC
Total: 523, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »