Monday, January 30, 2012

This is the Best Flow Chart ~~ Wait for it!

Cracked

Posted by at No comments:

Sunday, January 29, 2012

Je suis content de moi!

Les Simpsons imiter l'art!

Did You See This? The Simpsons Imitates Art

By
 | Posted Friday, Jan. 27, 2012, at 5:25 PM ET
Share1
8
Simpsons / Norman Rockwell
Two side-by-side comparisons of Simpsons stills and a Norman Rockwell painting. Simpsons stills © 2011 FOX BROADCASTING
Over the course of its 23 seasons, The Simpsons has assembled quite a portfolio of allusions to fine art. French fan site The Simpsons Park compiled dozens of stills of these moments—from borrowed compositions to classic oils rendered by Matt Groening’s hand—and  set them beside the paintings that inspired them.
Which artists are the writers’ and animators’ favorites? Early episodes allude to French Impressionists like Monet and Manet, but later references skew towards Americana (esp. the work of Norman Rockwell and Andy Warhol) and Leonardo Da Vinci. The Last Supper alone makes a whopping 6 appearances, both in the form of paintings within the show and through compositional homage. (Of course, The Simpsons’ creators are far from the first to pay tribute to the painting.) Other allusions are remarkably subtle—allusions I haven’t caught even though I’ve seen the episode a half a dozen times.
It’s always exciting to see Simpsons creators reveal their inspirations. A few months back The Atlantic assembled a catalog of The Simpsons’ many literary references, including shout outs to everything from Thomas Pynchon to Walt Whitman. Of course, Rockwell and Whitman and The Simpsons all have something in common—they’re all American classics.

For the complete gallery, head over to The Simpsons Park. [Via The Short List.]

 ****************

Wes Is More: Moonrise Kingdom and the Elements of Wes Anderson's Style

By Forrest Wickman

Brow Beat

Credit: All stills from trailers. Top left: Bottle Rocket © Columbia Pictures. Top center: Rushmore © Buena Vista Pictures. Top right: The Royal Tenenbaums © Buena Vista Pictures. Center left: The Life Aquatic With Steve Zissou © Buena Vista Pictures. Middle: The Darjeeling Limited © Fox Searchlight Pictures. Center right: Fantastic Mr. Fox © Fox Searchlight Pictures. Bottom: Moonrise Kingdom © Focus Features.
 
 

< Episode précédent > Saison 23 < Episode suivant >
 S23E16 - Exit Through the Kwik-E-Mart
Code : PABF09 | N° : 502 | 11-03-2012 | inédit

Pas de résumé disponible


11-03-2012inédit
Titre original : Exit Through the Kwik-E-Mart

Cliquez sur la saison de votre choix pour consulter la liste des épisodes qui la composent puis sélectionnez l'épisode dont vous voulez tout.
Mais, j'ai faim.

plus tard,
Posted by at No comments:

YANAP: Guts





70 thoughts on “He’s Got Guts”

  1. I’ve seen a guy with that icon on Flickr, and he thinks he knows everything there is to know about photography. He has no problem ripping other people’s photos to shreds but gets REALLY mad if someone says anything the least bit negative about his work. His attitude reminds me of that one SNL sketch from a couple of weeks ago “You Can Do Anything”
    Reply ↓
  2. If the original photographer is okay with it (and maybe under creative use) even if they aren’t – I don’t see a problem with what he is doing.
    Ginger and Mary Ann – you really need to consider that not all share your tastes – again – GIMP is not a pro tool, but who gives a F***? I’ve seen amazing drawings done in chalk on sidewalks, Amazing photos taken with iPhones… Not everything has to be done by the same tool in the same manor – jeesh…
    That’s why it is called ART.
    And we can choose whether or not we like it – If I was buying a picture of my kids – would I want this? No. If I was buying it for wall art – then maybe. But someone else may love this style – not for me or anyone to judge.
    Another example: I personally hate Warhol’s work…but it sells for millions. Just a matter of style and taste.
    Reply ↓
    • The original photographer is my sister, and she is just fine with it.
      I know that pretty-much ALL of my work is not hugely popular, hell I’ve only ever sold one print. But then I don’t create images to make anyone happy but myself.
      Reply ↓
  3. I posted this image on RedBubble simply to show the possibilities of post production work – even with a low-res image… as was explained in the accompanying text.
    1. Its not a washed-out photo… have a look at the original image on that page… that look is from the post-production work.
    2. Its not a random child… I actually know this person and her family very well… but even if they were “random”- so what?
    3. “Ballsy” to put it up for sale? Why not? If someone wants to buy it – then hooray, and I make a few dollars out of it.
    4. GIMP, Photoshop… what does it matter? if it works for you and you like to use it then that is all that matters.
    But thank you for at least noticing my work.
    Cheers,
    -Byron
    Reply ↓
  4. a final comment….
    Its kinda funny to get posted on this site “Just because you own a camera, you are not a photographer”
    hahahaha, if only you knew, if only you knew.
    But I agree, equipment does not make the image. That’s why I use an 8 year old 6mp DSLR… its all I need. That’s why I use GIMP… because its all I need. Thats why my first cameras were 25 year old hand-me downs… because that is all I need, and that is why I use a notepad computer- because that is all I need.
    But when it comes to being a photographer and an artist, sunshine… I would piss all over you before you could get your lens cap off!
    Reply ↓
    • “But when it comes to being a photographer and an artist, sunshine… I would piss all over you before you could get your lens cap off!”
      DUDE. Major props.
      Reply ↓
    • I never said it was art… just showing how you can do some rather cool post-production work on a rather ordinary original image.
      You must admit, if you have a look at the full sized image, the post work is pretty tidy for a low-res image.
      Reply ↓
  6. Pretty Ballsy indeed to grab an image off of RedBubble, don’t pay for it, or get the permission of the photographer and then offer it up as a “fauxtographer”.
    Yep – Pretty Ballsy…
    Reply ↓
    • Yeah, under the new proposed SOPA/PIPA laws in the USA – this whole site could be shut down for stealing another artist’s work.
      Now wouldn’t THAT be a shame…
      Reply ↓
        • Actually, he is not advocating SOPA/PIPA. Look up the definition of “advocating”. He’s simply making a statement that neither endorses nor condemns the proposed legislation.
          Reply ↓
          • Being sarcastic and seemingly happy about a site being taken down due to SOPA/PIPA seems to be more for the law than against it.
          • I am in favour of any site that hosts stolen images being shutdown… at least if they dont remove the infringing work first.
            If you steal from one artist, you steal from all of us!
          • I’m not sure if you know how copyright law works or not, but the Fair Use clause says this isn’t stealing.
            However, when you charge outrageous prices for poor “art” … you are stealing from people. You did steal many laughs from me too.
  7. Looks like the girls running this site don’t have the balls to respond to Byron. Ah yes, how could they. They literally don’t have balls.
    Reply ↓
  8. Even funnier than this guy charging nearly $100 for a frame is him coming here and posting under different names to make it seem as though people are defending his ~art~!
    Reply ↓
    • I’m not pretending to be anyone other than me.
      BYRON is my name, and you can find me anytime at REDBUBBLE.
      I’m not the one hiding behind “anonymous”…
      Reply ↓
    • And…. I am not charging $100 for the frame… RedBubble charges $80 for their production costs, and I charge $10 for the image…
      But that is ok, you weren’t to know… its not like research is your strong suit!
      Reply ↓
  9. Wow, this is an interesting post today. I agree that it’s not the camera (or post production tool) that makes a good image, it’s the person holding the camera or using the software that makes the difference. That being said, I don’t agree with the sentiment that you can do “some rather cool post-production work on a rather ordinary original image.” Why would you want to? I’m not going to comment on the actual image in question here, it could be any image in anyone’s portfolio for the purpose of this discussion. My point is that you should hold yourself to a higher standard than just “ordinary”, we all should, that’s the only way to get better. I’d much rather have someone say that an image I produced was good on it’s own than hear that the image is ordinary but the post work is cool. No one is going to hold our work in high regard if we don’t think it’s good to begin with and even then self-belief will only go so far.
    Reply ↓
    • Hiya Shauna,
      Why would I do post production on an ordinary photo?
      To see what I could do with it.
      Most people don’t like it. Its a bit freaky – the eyes are very heavily worked on. But I kinda like that it is a bit freaky.
      Its certainly not THE best work I have done, it was just an excercise to see what was possible.
      Personally, I think that the post-production work on that image is quite good considering what I had to work with, but certainly – I have done better work since then.
      Cheers,
      -Byron
      Reply ↓
  10. OTOH although I’m not a huge fan of his PP style or the original pic, it’s in a different ballgame to most of the completely horrid crap that this site is aimed at. This is one of the few posts here that DOESN’T make me feel like throwing up a little. It doesn’t belong here; I don’t like it, but I don’t hate it enough to bitch about it. IMO, YANP got this one wrong.
    P.S. look at my post history. I, for one, am definitely not the shooter or ‘shopper.
    Reply ↓
  11. Its just an excercise in post production work everyone, it aint the mona lisa!
    To be fair also… that was done a long time ago on some quite antiquated equipment. But go to my site, check out the large version, for what it is – its not bad.
    Why is it available for sale? Well the parents actually liked it and they wanted to buy a copy.
    Am I “ballsy” – you betcha! I am no shrinking violet when it comes to my art – I put it out there. If you don’t like it – that’s fine… I didn’t put it out there for you, I put it out there for me.
    Check out the rest of my portfolio sometime and tell me that I don’t know what I am doing….
    or even better,…
    Come play with the big boys, join RedBubble, upload your work, see if you are up to scratch.
    Reply ↓
    • lol @ playing with the big boys on Redbubble. That site is full of bad quality art and photography, mixed in with some of the good stuff. You want to play with the big boys? Go see if your work gets accepted on 1x.com, then we’ll know you’re serious.
      And I’m also curious – you say the parents wanted to buy a copy, why not sell directly, as you knew them and get a decent commission rather than $10 you say you get per commission?
      Reply ↓
  12. I’m a fan of this site, but I think you got this one wrong. It’s clearly not meant to be straight-up portrait photography. It’s art, and it’s kinda nice. Who cares what’s done with the camera and what’s done in post-production? Art is art, not matter what the medium.
    It’s in a different category than the hilariously ridiculous shots you usually post, taken by people claiming to be portrait/wedding photographers. Just my opinion.
    Reply ↓
  13. The hostesses of this site really need to check out people’s portfolio’s before posting stuff here.
    If they had taken 10 seconds to look at the rest of Byron’s portfolio they’d realize he does know his stuff and has some (a lot) of high quality work out there.
    But like a couple of weeks ago – they took the easy / lazy way out.
    Reply ↓
    • Nope, it’s all bad. I couldn’t find a single photo that made me stop and think, “This is passable.”
      To boot, much of the wedding portfolio looks like Byron was just there with a camera snappy what the pro did. Many of the photos have the people obviously looking at another photographer, some even have people looking all over the place though they are posed well.
      Byron is not photographer though most of his “work” does not need to be here. Some of it, including the photo in question, does.
      Reply ↓
  14. I actually think this photo is interesting. I wouldn’t pick this out as a fauxtog at all. I’d really like to see a larger version of this so I can see the detail in the childs eyes, and whether the vignette is as dark across his/her forehead as it appears to be in the above photo. I don’t think the screenshot does this photo justice at all.
    Byron, I would honestly like to see more of your work.
    Reply ↓
  15. Byron – are you really complaining about people “stealing” when you are selling t-shirts on your site that feature phrases and movie titles that you, yourself, are not the creator of?
    Reply ↓
  16. The site is called you are not a photographer…well…sorry but you are not. You are an editor of sorts , but you are not a photographer. Some would call you a photoshopographer . A photographer needs no software to make the image look good. A photographer captures an image that looks good at the time of exposure. So, in fact, no one got this wrong.
    Reply ↓
    • It’s interesting you should mention that. Ansel Adams wrote three books called “The Camera”, “The Negative” and “The Print”. If you ever get a chance to look at his images up close, you can see where he did some dodging and burning. Admittedly, that isn’t using software but it is basically the same thing that some does in Photoshop now. But then again, there were probably people back then that said, “Oh he does some funking around in the dark room…He’s no photographer either”.
      Reply ↓
        • It wasn’t work when I did. A few (well many) years ago, I took a year of photography. Much of that was putzing around in the dark room and I seem to remember there was a bunch of photo manipulation that you could do in the darkroom. maybe not quite to the level of photoshop and it certainly wasn’t as easy as in photoshop, but alot could be done.
          But that wasn’t really my point…my point was that photography is the whole process and not just what you do in the camera.
          Reply ↓
    • “A photographer captures an image that looks good at the time of exposure”
      Really?
      You know a lot about photography, huh?
      Uncle Ansel, Aunt Annie, Litchfield, Maplethorpe, Greenway, Lik, [I could go on and on] – so these people are NOT photographers?
      Uncle Ansel was actuallu very very famous for his darkroom skills, he manipulated his work to the point it barely resembled his negatives.
      Photographs have been manipulated to one extent or the other since photography was invented. I would guarantee you that you have never looked at a photograph that has not been altered in some way. Lens choice, filters, digital colour space, B&W or colour, Digital file compression, adjusting contrast & brightness, Cropping, removing dust specks… these all alter the original image too – yet none of this reduces the fact of someone being a photographer.
      A photograph is the end result of a process, it is not simply what was captured at the time the shutter release was pressed… allthough it can be.
      Reply ↓
      • Photographs have been manipulated to one extent or the other since photography was invented. I would guarantee you that you have never looked at a photograph that has not been altered in some way…
        I think you may want to rethink what “alteration” is. Removing a dust spot does not “alter” the photograph. Taking twenty pounds off a model does.
        If you don’t see the difference I don’t know what else to say…
        Reply ↓
    • “a photoshopographer”
      hahahahaha
      dude, where did you get that from?
      I have been mixing in photographic circles for ooooh …. a WHILE now, and never ever heard THAT word used.
      hahahahaha
      Reply ↓
      • Ansel Adams created the Zone System. Starts at the camera. If you want to get in a pissing contest with me…you chose the wrong person. I was raised on fixer dude. I can print circles around you, my nose hairs were burned with acetic acid. You are but a halide crystal to my knowledge of this art.
        Reply ↓
  17. I generally enjoy this site. However, it’s a little ignorant to turn your nose at GIMP. It’s just opensource Photoshop, MINUS a lot of the ‘single click’ conveniences. Its rougher around the edges, so you have to -gasp- learn a little more. But just because it’s opensource doesn’t automatically make it bad. It seems as if the poster is trying to compare it to certain apps that are frequently used by fauxtogs.
    Reply ↓
  18. Fair use. Google it.
    The original snap shot wasn’t so bad but to mangle it and turn a cute kid into a creepy ghost-thing and then offer it for sale? At least you didn’t put a trite saying in a wacky font on the picture.
    Reply ↓
  21. Epic fail in all terms and purposes. Keep up the great work hosts. Love seeing this stuff.
    Cost of the image : $100
    Cost of GIMP : Free
    Cost of a fauxtographer trying to pass as a photographer : priceless.
    Bryon do yourself a favour , Google “Top photographers” and look at their work. I know we all have to start somewhere but hell, selling that!! Mind you, you are trying to sell it on Redbubble, the home of the Fauxtographers
    Reply ↓
  23. Dear Byron you make me laugh so much. Posting this in your group for support. How lame! Yes, there is a big wide world outside RedBubble that has real photographers that take real photos. Not a bunch of fauxtographers who “lovely” and “nice work” every photo but photographers who can give proper critique.
    “Its just an excercise in post production work everyone, it aint the mona lisa!”
    Hell yeah, you got that one right. It ain’t the Mona Lisa and you failed this exercise. No matter what your buddies on RedBubble tell you, it is a fail.
    “Come play with the big boys, join RedBubble, upload your work, see if you are up to scratch.” – haha that is the biggest laugh of this all. RebBubble and big boys… like I said, there is a big wide world outside little redbubble.com
    “I never said it was art” – so then why are you posting it on an art site?? Oh sorry I forgot you posted this on RedBubble.
    “I am in favour of any site that hosts stolen images being shutdown… at least if they dont remove the infringing work first. If you steal from one artist, you steal from all of us!” – So you wouldn’t mind if your beloved RedBubble was to be shut down for copyright violations? They have tons and they sell it. Especially tees and iPhone cases (again this is RedBubble we are talking about not an art site)
    “But when it comes to being a photographer and an artist, sunshine… I would piss all over you before you could get your lens cap off!” – this is why nobody knows of you and you have only sold one print? You must really know your stuff.
    Taken off his RedBubble forum topic : “Frankly I think you should get a whole lot more pissy, including the DMCA notice!” – so that is why you were going on about SOPA?
    “I have been mixing in photographic circles for ooooh …. a WHILE now, and never ever heard THAT word used.” – Didn’t know that you were good friends Gerd Kluge, Richard Vantielcke, Andre Gunther? or are you talking about the RedBubble Fauxtographers Meet Ups?
    As a matter of interest, how many exhibitions have shown off your work? If you are such a great photographer as you would “piss all over us (you) before we (you) could get our (your) lens cap(s) off” you must have been in some exhibitions.
    Reply ↓
  24. Some things things that stuck out and I am not too sure who said what but :
    1) Redbubble being the “big boys” what a joke. As said try 1x or even 500px (just to name a few) (who ever said that, GOLDEN comment) Lately there is more porn/trash than art on that site.
    2) As for the copyright issues – Redbubble has more copyright issues than other “photography” sites. Anyway they are not profiting from this as the artists on Redbubble do.
    3) As for this site – over 24 000 people on Facebook like it and agree with what is posted. Much more than the “big boys” on Redbubble.
    4) Going through your work on Redbubble , as somebody posted, what jumped out the most was the selective color. (From previous posts here you are lucky as they don’t do spot color so nicely)
    5) As said, it doesn’t matter what you use, GIMP, Lightroom, Photoshop etc it is the image.
    6)Why charge it through Redbubble when you can sell directly to the parents – again GOLD!!!
    So that brings me to the image, and I saw it on Redbubble on full screen,
    1) The purple/blue color in the eyes make it look like a demon and is not at all natural.
    2) The crop is wrong – where is his chin?
    3) What is that blob thing on the right hand corner? the shadow makes it look like half of him has been cut off.
    4) The white from the flash could have been removed from his eye.
    Why be average? why post average work? No matter what you program you use it is the photographer and the initial image. You can’t make a bad photo a good one regardless of the processing.
    Reply ↓
    • So , what do you really think of it ?;-)
      My Father always said you can polish a piece of tin all you want, it may get shiny, but it is still tin , not silver. In modern terms, garbage in garbage out.
      Reply ↓
      • What do I really think? It is a bad photo. I agree with what you said, you can polish tin all you want but it will never be silver. This image should have been sent to the recycle bin long ago. How can you make a kid look so terrible? All kid shots have some form of cuteness.
        Reply ↓
  25. There are an alarming number of people calling themselves “photographers” who don’t understand the fair use for commentary exception to copyright law. Take a basic media law class, people. SOPA wouldn’t shut this site down, because it’s made to COMMENT on bad photography.
    And sorry, Byron, that is an awful photo.
    Reply ↓
  26. I guess we can at least be glad he’s not using a pirated copy of Photoshop.
    Probably because he can’t figure out how to modify his Hosts file to block Adobe’s activation.
    Reply ↓
  27. I’m not sure this photo belongs on this site but the commentary is very interesting. The photographer is actually trying to defend his (if Byron is indeed a male) work and his very poor processing. Interesting in that the photo/final product is just plain bad. It is poorly processed and many folks here have indicated so. If in fact the image was any good at all, it would not have appeared on this site at all. The fact that it has appeared here should indicate to the photographer that it is a poorly executed piece of work. If Byron were truly a photographer, he would not try to defend the work or make excuses. A professional photographer (or indeed even someone that wanted to be a pro) would not have posted this picture anywhere on the www as it does such a disservice and is so unflattering to the child. I think it is unfair to continually harangue the photographer as it is clear he will never “get it” and has an over inflated sense of his capabilities. Posting his images on Redbubble.com is hardly the place any serious photographer would showcase his work. Byron, you should be embarrassed rather than defending the piece. Seriously.
    Reply ↓
Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)