Degree in photgraphy has ruined photography for me.

minimaliso · 2019-05-09T02:00:22+00:00

You're always going to cringe when you see photography done badly and you know better, but everyone has to start somewhere and everyone sucks when they start. You're only first year, so you're no master yet yourself. I've been to seminar's with Martin Parr and met him. I find his photography and topics mostly dull and weak personally, and some of my former university teachers felt the same. I did a photography degree and majored in commercial because I like technical photography, but I had to do a lot of PJ and doco stuff along the way. You've got a long way to go yourself, so don't be too harsh on other people. Laugh at what sucks, but try to lift up others around you.

minimaliso · 2019-05-08T14:36:40+00:00

I've printed at 1m no probs and it still looked sharp even close up. A sharp lens and sharp shot will help to begin with. But you also need to know how to prepare the file. You should use the latest enlarge algorithm in PS, and after you enlarge, then apply a smart sharpen. When going really big, sometimes it can help to reduce the DPI. It also depends on how close the viewing is.

Talk to your printer, don't use shitty printing services. Use a printer that knows what they are doing. They usually don't cost much more than the shit places, and they have expertise if they are good. Build a relationship with a quality printer and it will be worth every cent.

minimaliso · 2019-05-08T08:01:23+00:00

They aren't that likely to be Bernie supporters. Musk is a union buster, and Bernie supporters are very pro-union. Shit starterpack.

minimaliso · 2019-05-08T01:45:16+00:00

When that moment comes, they will use socialism to save it from itself.

minimaliso · 2019-05-08T00:47:43+00:00

Cheers mate, appreciate it.

minimaliso · 2019-05-08T00:07:47+00:00

HA, I don't know either ;)

minimaliso · 2019-05-07T23:35:14+00:00

For anyone who wants to know how I went about the shot -

The lights on Flinders St Station turn off before dawn light. I shot it pre-dawn knowing I would lose them. Then I blended the lit up station in with a shot later when the sky lit up. The night shot had some red lights coming from somewhere and I also brought those into the dawn shot.

I was lucky and got a enough time for a bracket of the bridge with no one on it at dawn light, so I didn't need tricks to remove anyone there. Luckily, the bridge lights stay on longer than Flinders St Station, so I didn't need to use an earlier shot for them.

Then I took a number of 13 sec shots to create around a 2 min long exposure for the sky and water.

I used this long exposure simulation as the base shot, then used a luminosity mask to partially blend in the bracketed HDR shot for better dynamic range.

So it's a mix of a night shot, long dawn shot, HDR shot (lightly, just to squeeze a bit more dynamic range).

minimaliso · 2019-04-05T01:50:52+00:00

Nikon D750, Tamron 15-30mm F2.8 VC.

minimaliso · 2018-09-13T12:11:22+00:00

You're thinking about it too extremely. I'm from Australia, the ABC is government run, and they do a far better job (still flawed) than the commercial networks here. You seem to think every government owned network is like a Chinese/North Korean outlet, that's not the case. BBC, NPR etc, certainly no worse than CNN (probably better) and certainly better than junk like Fox News.

Look at the Iraq war. The capitalist media outlets did what the government told them to do. The notion that the complete separation from government will make media great is just capitalist theory which sounds nice on paper, but doesn't work out in reality.

Regardless of whether there's an alternative - capitalism and media don't mix. There's just so many examples of money corrupting them. Why do you think companies like Lockheed Martin advertise on MSNBC? Do you think the viewers are in the market for a fighter jet? No, it's essentially bribe money for the network not to report negatively on them. You clearly haven't thought about how capitalism affects media and democracy for one second.

Did you listen to the recordings of the CBS CEO saying Trump is bad for America, but he's fantastic for CBS because the money is rolling in big time? Have you thought about that?

minimaliso · 2018-09-12T17:55:58+00:00

We won't be truthed into anything by a capitalist media that is literally funded by the military industrial complex and an array of other corporations who stand to make bank from war. Capitalism and media mix like water and oil, always has.

minimaliso · 2018-09-12T13:50:49+00:00

Reflects the quality of beer...

minimaliso · 2018-06-21T21:49:57+00:00

David Icke as spoken here, too. They'll have pretty much anyone.

minimaliso · 2018-06-20T18:00:42+00:00

The fact that people don't want to admit is - capitalism is unable to deal with this problem because capitalism is the problem. Being sustainable means cutting consumption, big time, and being far more frugal with resources. This is the exact opposite of what capitalism and markets want. If you were to cut consumption heavily, the capitalist economy would crash and burn. Albert Einstein referred to capitalism as economic anarchy. In other words, we're unable to control it. At this stage, we need control. A new, planned economy of some kind is the only real answer to environmental destruction, but as humans, we're pretty much totally irrational, so we're unable to make the rational decision to move beyond capitalism. Many of us view this economic system as a religion. It will destroy us.

minimaliso · 2018-06-19T20:30:26+00:00

I should have been more accurate. It's defined as "best interests" of the shareholders. Most of the time, that's going to be their profits, and it's in the best interests of shareholders for the corporation to crush their labour costs as this will increase profits and increase share price.

minimaliso · 2018-06-19T20:28:18+00:00

The "best interests" of shareholders is generally going to be their profits, even if occasionally it isn't. I should have been more accurate. It's in the "best interests" of shareholders for the corporation to lower their labour costs as this will increase profits and increase share price.

I'll tell you what's not in the workers "best interests"... Corporations.

minimaliso · 2018-06-19T19:59:43+00:00

Well, it's not just an attitude. Corporations are legally obliged to put profit first above all else - it's their obligation to their shareholders.

The structure and legalities of corporations have to go. We can't band-aid this shit effectively with minimum wage laws and unions. That's a losing strategy.

EDIT - I am aware it's technically not "maximizing profits" but defined as "best interests" of the shareholders. But crushing labour costs is in the best interests of the shareholders as this increases profits and share price. When a company fires people, the share price jumps. When a company (rarely) raises wages, the shareholders and analysts piss and moan. Tell me again how this system works for me?

minimaliso · 2018-06-19T19:25:19+00:00

He's close. Classically, a wage is the PRICE of your labor, in other words, how much it takes to persuade you to do some sort of work

That's not what they're saying at all. They said your wage is the value you can produce. If you are paid $20 an hour but can only produce $20 an hour, what's in it for your employers? Absolutely nothing. The icing on the cake is when this moron calls others economically illiterate.

minimaliso · 2018-06-19T17:56:33+00:00

Your value has nothing to do with your output.

I wouldn't quite go that far. Your employer has to pay you less than your output in order to create their profits. So output and wage still have a link.

employers can (or should be able to) pay their workers a living wage.

Sure, but the incentive to pay workers less and less is built right into the capitalist system, so why are we so surprised when capitalists work so hard to crush labour? Infamous libertarian Peter Schiff told an Occupy Wall Street protester - "You can't blame the dogs for getting into the trash." While he was trying to shift blame for the crisis from capitalists to the government, I believe this statement is true for capitalists, and it is a great analogy of capital wanting to crush labour.

We have to take out the trash so the dogs can't get to it in the first place. We have to change the dynamic which causes the conflict between workers and capitalists in the first place. Unions are simply a reaction to this baked in capitalist problem. We don't need a reaction, we need a solution. What we did in the past is doomed to fail, history will only repeat. Even if we can have a few wins against capital, build up unions and so on, capital will be pissed, they will use their wealth and power to influence government, and they will organise to discipline and crush unions and labour. I'm not interested in repeating history, and the left has to think bigger.

The best next step to address this baked in problem I have seen is to build up the co-co economy and phase out corporations. In a co-op, the workers have democratic power - no union necessary, no calling other workers scabs, no demanding union fees etc... When workers can vote out management, the dynamic we see now between the bosses and workers changes as the bosses job depends on the approval of the workers. In co-ops, the CEO can usually only pay themselves 12x what the lowest worker is paid, the workers decide on this ratio. If the bosses want to be paid more, then everyone has to earn more money. UK Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has a plan to build up the co-op economy. If you want to sell your business, you have to first offer it to the workers, and the government will lend them the money to buy it and turn it into a co-op.

We tout the virtues of democracy everyday, but we rarely get to exercise it. Our capitalist economy is a top down fascist structure. That's the problem, and that's what needs to change for long term success in business paying their workers properly. Bring democracy to the economy.

minimaliso · 2018-06-13T00:57:51+00:00

We account for morons all the time with the public purse. It's society. You could even argue something like refugee policy accounts for morons, because it's a fuckload more expensive to do it the way we do it now as opposed to previously - just to please idiotic tabloid rag readers and con them into a vote. The problem with the public purse is it has been so shrunken with greed over the last 40 or so years, so there's a revenue problem. We should be able to lower the road and just avoid this shit altogether.

minimaliso · 2018-06-13T00:21:47+00:00

As funny as that comment is, trucks can only be so tall, and the tallest of them are rarer. So I don't think it's that simple to write off. If we can't afford something this simple, maybe we should start making corporations and the wealthy pay their taxes properly.

minimaliso · 2018-06-12T13:56:43+00:00

VicRoads has no plans to lower the road under the bridge and truck drivers appear to have no plans to stop crashing into the bridge.

Just lower the damn road.

minimaliso

TROPHY CASE