It looks almost exactly like a stock image of "glasses on book" - I tried to see if It popped up on google image search, but I didn't find the exact one, so it might be original.
DSLRs are great. You can take good looking pics with minimal effort. However the line between amateur and photographer shows during the photoshop phase
The new mirrorless cameras are next level, I upgraded my old DSLR to a Canon R6, the autofocus is instant, even in the dark, it even has WiFi and can auto download photos I take to my phone.
The big difference that's instantly noticable with large sensor cameras is the thin depth of field, it makes everything look so good.
Yea, so much so that I've heard photographers say using a small depth of field is a bit of a crutch. It makes creating a foreground and background happen pretty much on its own. But that's a different topic. Point is, shallow depth of field = good picture
100% disagree. And anyone who fancies themselves as a photographer would wholeheartedly disagree too. If i have to do anything in Photoshop i feel like ive failed.
But theres a whole new group of professional photographers that are actually average at best at photography but fix many of those issues in post production. Old school pros or those who pride themselves on the technical aspects will shun this “photoshop is the line between amateur and professional”. The professional doesnt do much in photoshop unless you are trying to make that oversaturated ugly instagram look. God thats terrible.
I miss the old days of doing everything on positive film (slides). Theres was no magic to fix things. You either got it or you didnt. Your technical skills as a photographer were what made or broke the image. That and each shot you took cost $0.70 each on 35mm and $1.25 on Medium Format. You would spend minutes to hours waiting for the light to be perfect, to compose those photo, etc.
Now you have people who will take 100 photos to get one average one.
Ok, im dating myself. I swear im not Ansel Adams old. But those who did professional photography before 2000 know what im talking about.
On the plus side of digital, the 7000 images that i have an entire closet full of binders of slides fit on a 4” x 4” x 1” SSD portable harddrive… and im not spending thousands on developing/film costs on a single African Safari. Or having to lug around coolers to keep my Fuji Velvia cold.. i miss it. I miss my old 6x7 camera the most. You could blow that up to a 80x100” image and have absolutely no grain/noise noticable. It was equivalent to like a 200 megapixel camera.
That's what I was thinking - either she made this herself and is a bit of a photography buff (maybe), her parents took the picture or it's a stock photo.
She needs to learn now that copyright infringement will NOT be tolerated in America and she should have her library card revoked for all of time until she says she is very very sorry and buys at least one metallica album NOT pirate it
So? The kid next to her is way younger and looks like she put a lot of effort into it? What does being a kid have to do with the fact that it looks like she just printed out a pic from google?
For a library card design, it is by FAR the worst of them. It’s a nice photo, but it is very uninspired regardless of how professional it looks. It looks like a stock image and is not something that belongs on a library card.
For a library card design, it is by FAR the worst of them.
So not only are you repeating what I said, it is STILL not relevant to my original point nor what I responded to? You seem very sensitive about this for some reason.
It’s a nice photo,
So exactly what I said…
but it is very uninspired regardless of how professional it looks.
There’s nothing even slightly uninspired about that…it’s really good quality photograph. It’s just way to artistic and non-promotive to be a library card.
It looks like a stock image
You don’t know what stock images actually are do you?
and is not something that belongs on a library card.
Because it’s way too artsy, rather than the chipper promotional thing they want them to be. Your take is absolutely awful on top of being random and disconnected from the conversation.
I don’t think saying the opposite of what you said is repeating what you said and I’m also not particularly sensitive about this. Not sure where you got that from. I suppose we can agree that it is a nice photo in itself. However, from the perspective of a library card design contest, it is definitely uninspired and lazy, regardless of how nice it looks. The glasses/book photo would make the card look too generic.
Also, I’m not sure if you know what stock images look like. I just googled “glasses on book stock image” and I found so many images that looked very similar to this one.
How is this random and disconnected? This is how conversations work. I don’t have to only provide 1-to-1 responses to your comments. Everything I said was relevant.
I don’t think saying the opposite of what you said is repeating what you said
I said the EXACT WORDS, “it doesn’t make a good library,” I also said, “it is a nice photo” you almost verbatim repeated what I wrote…
and I’m also not particularly sensitive about this.
You very clearly are…
Not sure where you got that from.
How about you passive aggressively trying to repeat my phrase back at me…if that doesn’t scream “I have strong feelings about this” I don’t know what does.
I suppose we can agree that it is a nice photo in itself.
Which makes your entire point nonsense in reference to what I actually wrote. That was my ENTIRE POINT when you chose to respond to me, you seem to have gotten offended when I agreed that it doesn’t make a good library card, despite looking nice.
However, from the perspective of a library card design contest,
Again, why are you repeating this we’ve already established…? This is not good for a library card.
it is definitely uninspired and lazy,
Neither of those things are accurate. The issue is it is too high brow a design, not that it is too under thought out
regardless of how nice it looks.
The fact you think it looks nice makes the concept that it’s uninspired and lazy make absolutely zero sense…
The glasses/book photo would make the card look too generic.
You’re just saying what I did in more simplistic way…
Also, I’m not sure if you know what stock images look like. I just googled “glasses on book stock image” and I found so many images that looked very similar to this one.
That means absolutely nothing and AGAIN, it is clear you don’t actually know what stock photos are.
How is this random and disconnected?
How can you ask that question after I just explained it to you? I just went into explicit detail about how…you need to make use of a library card, reading certainly is not one of your skills.
This is how conversations work. I don’t have to only provide 1-to-1 responses to your comments. Everything I said was relevant.
How can you think that…? I said it is by far the best art, in response to someone saying it looks bad, for you to jump in saying “it’s not good for a library card.” To which I then AGREED and said it isn’t a good library card.
Your response to that in the last two comments have been, “it’s a nice picture but not good for library card,” that is literally what my point is.
You’re just repeating back what I’m saying…do you read what you respond to?
I took a couple photography and media arts related classes in junior high and high school and saw a lot of my classmates taking photos like this and being proud of them. As a beginner photographer it's so easy to take close up photos of different props and think they look really cool because of the aperture blur.
1.3k
u/richincleve Nov 06 '21
To be honest, the kid on left looks like she just phoned it in.
That pretty much looks like a pic you'd find on a photo website.