Slogan Ideas

[DaptoFunlandGuy]

okay guys, as many of you know I am a photographer. I need to come up with a T-shirt that says photographer on the back of it for a few events I have planned soon, and I want to tie it in with roller coasters, the thrill industry and such. essentially on the front, i wanna put a catchy slogan thing on the front that ties in with both photography and the thrill industry. something like Superman's promo of 0-100km/h in 2 seconds, but less ride-specific, more thrill-in-general, but I want it to tie both with thrill and with photography as well. the best I have been able to come up with (which is really really crap) is: "upside down, 3 times the force of gravity, over 100km/h..... sheer terror captured on film" And i wanna know what you guys can come up with. My deadline is short, as I need to have several of these made up in time for Sydney's biggest thrill event - the Royal Easter Show.... and I will need at least 5 days to have it produced..... so.......... GIVE ME YOUR IDEAS!!!!!!!!

[ozshowkid]

Side show alley is full of memories, but without a camera what have you got photography is a roller coaster all of it's own. take a ride, do a coaster, have a camera. all the fun of the fair, without a camera you weren't there only a few quick ones but i'll keep thinking.

[Gold Coaster]

"From lift hill to final thrill" "Rollercoaster shots that won't cost lots" (ok this one sucks a bit IMHO)

Edited March 30, 2006 by Tony Teulan

[Adam]

"Thrill Photographer". "Royal Show Photographer". "I'll take your photo for free but charge you heaps to retrieve it later-grapher".

[thillseeker]

One Shot.... One Breath.... I better get this right Or everyone will think I'm crap. The Heart beats.... The breaths are Deep... Quick on the Button... For the One in a Millon Shot Why are you refering to film? A Pro-Photographer would be using a digital. Using a High ISO with a High Noise Filter. Using a High ISO film is going to make your photos look crap.

[DaptoFunlandGuy]

One Shot.... One Breath.... I better get this right Or everyone will think I'm crap. The Heart beats.... The breaths are Deep... Quick on the Button... For the One in a Millon Shot Why are you refering to film? A Pro-Photographer would be using a digital. Using a High ISO with a High Noise Filter. Using a High ISO film is going to make your photos look crap.

ok firstly, i am referring to film because "sheer terror captured on a memory card" doesnt have the same ring to it secondly, how many pro-photographers do you know? in todays world, most photographers shoot digital when they are time-limited to their shots. the grainiest film on the consumer market - which is Kodak Max 400 (YUK) is still equivalent to 18 megapixels. and since the closest you can get to that in digital is a $17,500 Canon Eos SLR (which shoots at around the 17 megapixel mark) doesnt come close to a nice roll of FujiFilm Velvia Daylight 50. Colour reproduction, sharpness, reproduction ability thirdly - who said I am using a high iso film.... why would i need to use a high iso film? Besides if I wanted to use a high iso film, i'd use fujipress professional, which is what I plan to use on my next trip to QLD this week, and it comes in 400, 800, and 1600, and even at 1600, the noise is still far less than any damn digital sensor that is freakin a quarter the size of a 35mm piece of film. TWO WORDS - CHROMATIC ABBERATION Now - i am not time limited, so digital convenience is out. I want the highest possible quality - so digital sensors are out. I AM A PRO PHOTOGRAPHER, so using a high iso digital setting with a high noise filter is pointless when i can use a medium iso FILM and negate the need for a noise filter. A FILTER is designed to REMOVE things. By using a High Noise Filter, the filter will remove the noise, but in doing so will REMOVE elements of the picture that the sensor saw - thereby creating a shot that is not as the sensor saw it. I have the use of a complete photo minilab. it is film and digital capable, and if i really need the images digital, I can burn 16Base Raw, Tiff or Jpeg files, with filesizes far exceeding the current 8 megapixel standards of todays digital world - at 147Mb, 41Mb and 6Mb files respectively. Just for your information, when scanning film, "BASE" is the standard scan - 1000 lines across a piece of 35mm film. 16Base is 16,000 Lines. That means that one line is recorded every 0.00021875 centimetres. The human eye can see at 330DPI. anything higher is only for reproduction at a larger scale. Before you would see any "pixelation" in any of my "Scanned" images (since we're talking film, its called grain, not pixellation, but still) - you would need to print one of my images approximately 4.8 metres at the shortest side. At a ratio of 4:3 which most digitals record at, that means 6.4 metres at the longest side. so I ask you - FIND ME A DIGITAL CAMERA THAT CAN PRODUCE A 6.4M x 4.8M image without any visual loss of quality or content... and what if I dont reproduce from the scanned neg??? well find me an enlarger big enough, with a light strong enough, and paper big enough and ill print one of my images large enough to cover a football stadium... because an image reproduced by light, rather than by pixel enlargement can be magnified as many times as you want, without noise, and without loss in quality or pixelation. you are limited only by the size of the enlarger. Now I challenge you to show me your best. You think film is going to make my photos look crap? I'd like to see what you have achieved using your digital - without digital manipulation, without guided modes or crap like that -full manual, full set. show me what you have - in the meantime attached is a shot i took on film at this years easter show - and this shot is a muck around shot, at low res. Its noisy because net compression requires it to be so small, and R-C.com.au can't handle a 3 meg image for some reason - which is usually the smallest my pics get. The colours are intentional, as it is cross processed sensia slide E6. Yes guys - this is another patented AlexB "rant-at-a-moron-who-thinks-he-knows-everything" post. I await your reply. I am a pro photographer, i sell cameras, print photos, and take photos for a living. I have the authority and qualifications to call myself an expert. So idiots with too much time on their hands who just choose to criticise what others do, and no apparent ability other than to shoot one's mouth off - their opinions are worthless. Also - if you read this thread, you would note i was after suggestions for the easter show - which has since been and gone. I also asked for a catchy slogan - one liners etc, not some braindead crap that looks like a mini novel. "Everyone will think i'm crap" - im not a wannabe photographer, and even then no photographer would put "everyone will think i'm crap" on their advertising space. what kind of moron are you??? thats my input for this month -join us in june for more exciting, heated banter from you're local Dj and Photographer.... Dj Alex B

Edited May 15, 2006 by AlexB

[thillseeker]

Sorry for giving you an Idea. I am a pro photographer. I know a lot of Wedding, Sports and School photographers. And reading your reply, they laughed at you. Now with "Everyone would think I am Crap". Let's see. You want to take photos in a theme park, Correct. Theme parks are based around having fun, Correct. A joke on a shirt catches peoples eyes. But i guess your are a wanker who can't joke. Now I'm sorry I can't fit your tight deadline, for your ideas, However you did not post that you had found a slogan. Also your first post does not state that it had to be a one liner. You are taking photos out a ride in action, you are going to need a fast shutter speed, but of cause you know that. And if you are taking photos on the ride??? Many of my friends, use jokes on there shirts. People ask them about them then a business card is then given out. By the way, I can't show you any of my photos cause I don't waste my time to take photos of rides unless i'm getting paid. As well as the hassle of getting the parks consent to allow them to be used for my private use. Forget it. They will not pay the $6,000 a shot that I ask, for photos freely placed about. A theme park is the last place I will take 20G's worth of photographic equipment unless that area is closed off. Yes I own that Canon Camera you talk about 16.7 mega FULL FRAME not a quarter. If you sell cameras you would know that the smallest DSLR senser is Half not a Quarter, that is found in an Olympus Camera. "CHROMATIC ABBERATION" - is only caused by Wide Angle Film Lens on Digital Sensers. but thats a whole new topic. Yes my camera can shoot 6.4x 4.8mm on RAW file very easly. By the way No Kodak or Fuji mini lab can burn RAW files off a Film. Tosser. RAW files are for RAW data, You can't get RAW data from a Negative cause it has already been processed, thats how you get your print. In your printing you correct one of 3 colours. But how a digital Works allows RAW files. But I will allow you to tell me how they work. The Human eye can only see 300 DPI in a print hence Kodak machines at 400 DPI and Fuji at 310 DPI I have firend of mine who managers a mini lab and they confirmed this information. Maybe you should cheak your information, before you look like a total ass. Luckly for myself and the people i buy my equipment from know what a camera is. Not a wanker like you, who would feed me bull****. By the way you need a Tlit shift lens if you are going to take photos like the one in your picture. I guess you are just a staff member in a camera store, who thinks they are a pro photographer.

[aidan]

Here comes a fight....

[DaptoFunlandGuy]

I couldnt be stuffed redoing all the quotes, so im just going to type in between By the way, I can't show you any of my photos cause I don't waste my time to take photos of rides unless i'm getting paid. I never once asked for a ride shot, i just wanted to see what you could do A theme park is the last place I will take 20G's worth of photographic equipment unless that area is closed off. which is why you're a bloody wedding photographer. Photography is about creativity, and creativity is chucking the lowepro on your back, and hoofing it to god knows where in search of a vision, a creative inspiration to click off that one in a million shot that you so verbosely talked of in your first post. Yes I own that Canon Camera you talk about 16.7 mega FULL FRAME not a quarter. If you sell cameras you would know that the smallest DSLR senser is Half not a Quarter, that is found in an Olympus Camera. i said "any damn digital sensor". Yes, DSLR predominantly do have a larger sensor than compact, but I was generalising - as you were. you generalised about noisy film, i generalised about small sensors. The bottom line is that any digital sensor will pick up less information than film, because of the size and division of the sensor sites. the fact the each sensor site is divided, and separate, means there are gaps. Modern manufacturers fill these gaps by getting each adjacent "site" to talk to each other to compare information, and then fill in the holes. The problem with that is that the fill ins aren't always right, and that means loss of detail. The Olympus camera(S) that you talk of use the fourthirds system, and are the E300, the E500 and the E330. This is know. I also know that a full frame sensor is still nowhere near film quality... and at 187 Megapixel average for the worlds top professional films (18 is for consumer grade ISO400)... that quality gap is a long way off. "CHROMATIC ABBERATION" - is only caused by Wide Angle Film Lens on Digital Sensers. but thats a whole new topic. So lets start a new one - "wide angle" - that is if your definition of wide angle is anything up to 70mm. Yes my camera can shoot 6.4x 4.8mm on RAW file very easly. fantastic. and you would need a magnifying glass to see it. I SAID METRES YOU IDIOT By the way No Kodak or Fuji mini lab can burn RAW files off a Film. That depends on what lab I use now doesn't it? Also - seeings as how you have done your "Research" it might interest you to check out what Fuji Frontier and NoritsuKoki have come up with in a software patch for those labs - it just depends on if the individual lab is prepared to pay what they want for it. RAW files are for RAW data, You can't get RAW data from a Negative cause it has already been processed, thats how you get your print. NNNNNNNGGGGTTTTT! Wrong. Film has been processed - yes. But that is a chemical process whereby exposed silver halides are removed or enhanced, depending on the light that has hit them. A negative IS a RAW product. Digitising a negative is done in pretty much the same way that a digital sensor takes a photo. Its just that the sensor sites are much bigger, and and the sensor itself is much better quality than whats in a DSLR. The processing that is undergone in a DSLR is a computer interpretation of what the sensor has seen - which is what a film scanner does too - Hence you CAN get RAW data from a negative. The Human eye can only see 300 DPI in a print hence Kodak machines at 400 DPI and Fuji at 310 DPI Sorry mate but this is where you need to check your facts. 330DPI is what the human eye can see. But you ARE correct that the Fuji Frontiers print at 310... hence fuji labs do not have the quality of a Kodak Lab. Then again having said that - if you are printing fuji - you're using a frontier. If you are printing kodak - theres a high chance you're using NortisuKoki, but not necessarily. Kodak chemistry can be used in a variety of labs, which gets kodak out there a bit more, but also means if you're using an inferior lab, your DPI count may not be the same. Personally, if you are using agfa film with agfa paper and agfa chemical - agfa will blow them both away - but if you use any other product, you are better off processing elsewhere. By the way you need a Tlit shift lens if you are going to take photos like the one in your picture. Firstly.... WHY? who says I need a tilt shift lens? it depends on the shot the photographer is going for now, doesnt it? Secondly I TOOK a photo like the one in my picture - and several more - without a tilt shift lens. I guess you are just a staff member in a camera store, who thinks they are a pro photographer. Check out the daily telegraph sports section, and other popular sports publications for my credits on NRL and other sports photography. Oh - and by the way - since the sports reports normally hit the papers on MONDAY - every one of us (we have about 35 photographers) use film. And no Adam - there isnt a fight here. In the end of it all - a $17,500 camera body means NOTHING. ANY - i repeat - ANY photographer will tell you that the entire profession stems from a lens. Stick a crappy ass lens on a $17,500 body - and you still have a crappy shot. I still carry around an old Olympus OM-1. its not my main camera, and by no means the best, but the shots I have gotten on this camera (FYI for those who don't know it - the Olympus OM-1 is one of the best SLR's ever made. It is completely manual - no point and shoot for this one, no autofocus - NOTHING). I would like to see THILLSEEKER try his hand with this baby at a wedding shoot and see what he turns up. Set your own apertures, your own shutters, your own focus, even your own film speeds - SHOCK HORROR - THERE ISN'T EVEN A WHITE BALANCE (you moron). everything is done by eye. Just because I have a day job - he thinks he is superior. The lesson is a true wedding photographer who does weddings will have one day a month of work, (which is why wedding photographers charge so much) and then not work the next 29 days. Yes thillseeker - you're a pro - and you're no doubt on the dole as well... you're right up there with musicians and buskers. And the real reason you won't show me any of your photos is because you aren't a photographer. you have a friend or two who work in photolabs, and a great google ability to discover factoids you www.ant, www.hich aren't necessarily correct

[Adam]

Guys, I found something that may be of interest to both of you.

[T-bone]

If I may just put my 5 cents worth into this, I believe the Normal, Filmed SLR's are far much more superior in terms of Quality, as tell me what happens with a digital every-time you expand it, or blow it up via your computer? It Pixel-ates. OK, what about when you would like to blow up a filmed photograph using the negative, after putting the negative into an Enlarger? You can change the size of the print, and sure at first it may go abit blurry, but there is a thing called the (looks back at Black and White Photography Notes) Focus Control, in which you can adjust the focus, thus getting a much clearer print. Anyone in the Business able to confirm this? Alexb? Myself, I couldn't care less about "Professional Photography" as I am more of a Radio Head who has his foot in the door.

Edited May 25, 2006 by T-bone

[DaptoFunlandGuy]

lol. It never ceases to amaze me Paul, how you can summarise my entire point in one line. THIS IS MY POINT EXACTLY. thanks Paul.