That first is mildly interesting, but the animation is necessary to make the image interesting...That second just makes me dizzy. Help, I want to get off this ride!!
jm67: From the viewpoint of a wedding photographer...Yes I know it doesn't quite fit all five but #s two and four do so frequently.
'It will mean great exposure for you.'--No, it won't. I'm on the wrong side of the camera to be exposed. 'If you don't want to do it for free, I know other photographers who will.'--Then why are you asking me?'We could just find a stock photo if you're not interested.'--I can recommend a few companies if you'd like to save time.'My cousin has a DSLR and I think I can get him to do it if you don't want to.(My personal favourite, the cousin, aunt, uncle and I get this alot),--You'll cry when you see the results so I recommend hydrating first.'If all goes well, it could lead to paid opportunities with our company.'--I love betting on "maybes" and "ifs". Sign me up. I mean, pass.
For a wedding photographer, the last one would me:"I'm sure to divorce at some point and then maybe I'll pay you to shoot my next wedding."
Ventil: My favorite, although not a quote asking images for free:
"Wow, great cameras, sure they have to take good pictures!"-- "Yes, of course, we've taught them everything we know..."
People seldom talk to a painter like this:"Wow, great brushes - they must make splendid paintings"Roel
SemperAugustus: The new loaded word is "donation"... amounts to the same with the same arguments:- Good exposure, good marketing- Networking, etc.My answer is "not interested", if you donate or work for free you are marketing yourself as cheap/no cost resource. Your work will be appreciated as such.
I do not agree, at least not totally.See my later reply to the article itself.I don't think using those conditions "cheapens" my work.And I can tell it is highly appreciated.
I do the occasional pro bono job, but under my conditions:* only for good causes that I support and know don't have the budget* editorial and creative control* no fees, but expenses reimbursed* copyright remains with me: only a licence for a well specified use that is exclusively for the good cause (all commercial use excluded)* guaranteed exposure (no images for internal use : they must be used for specified publicly distributed ends (book, brochure, exhibition, ...)
Approached like that, pro bono work can open doors and be a win-win.
RoelHendrickx: Corny but fun...
I did give it a try.Quick pic of my daughter here:http://roelh.zenfolio.com/p402011222/h69147d19#h69147d19Using this thing has a kind of "craft" feeling to it (which is a strange thing to say with anything digital, I guess), and it is also a bit random (like Hipstamatic) but in a fun way.I'll leave it on the Phone for a while I think...
Corny but fun...
So much for Josh Orter's 15 minutes of fame.
One of the most interesting articles so far on DPR.This is really value beyond this-or-that camera (or Phone) is so-and-so.
CollBaxter: Given the choice between a gold plated toilet and a gold IPhone I would probably take the toilet.
I adds new meaning to the word bling.
Collin,Trust me : gold plated toilets are very cold to sit on.;-)Roel
SRT3lkt: I've been thinking those were CG.
Well, they are post-processed to a very large extent, and there is a finet line between that and full CG
Required reading: "Light. Science and Magic".But what baffled me most, was how much photo-processing work was done AFTER the shoot, including the virtual addition of the whole visible screen content.
This was already discussed in a thread from right after the incident:http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/51299024and more specifically:http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/51299746Roel
Frankly, I don't care about the controversy.When the results look THAT bad, why bother?It seems almost like the controversy is sought, to make up for lack of inherent interest.Like the photos from the photographer who installs a trapeze everywhere in the vicinity of landmarks and then shoots while doing a sommersault (I am making this up, but I am sure someone will pick up on the idea).I would be willing to take (a certain amount of) risks or be provocative for the sake of art, but not for the sake of such boring and random results.
Great idea!!Now finally I will know what it is I am photographing.;-)
Great story, and it was pleasant to see that that first frame was apparently shot on stock from Gevaert in Belgium. My late father-in-law used to work there.A bit of trivia with regard to the second photograph featured here (Hemingway is in the full article): listen to the song "Taro" by Alt-J.
RoelHendrickx: I would NOT want my every move to be recorded.Seriously.The Truman Show, anyone?What amazes me most about all those evolutions, is that it is not some extraneous power (the proverbial Big Brother) that wants to control people 24/7 and annihilate their privacy, but that the lemmings are doing that themselves, and willingly.Big Brother is watching you? No.All those Little Brothers are allowing themselves to be watched.
Yes, you are right of course.Him too.But NOT ONLY him...
I would NOT want my every move to be recorded.Seriously.The Truman Show, anyone?What amazes me most about all those evolutions, is that it is not some extraneous power (the proverbial Big Brother) that wants to control people 24/7 and annihilate their privacy, but that the lemmings are doing that themselves, and willingly.Big Brother is watching you? No.All those Little Brothers are allowing themselves to be watched.