You’re looking for an image to illustrate your ad promoting child-care services and find a portrait of an adorable tot, obviously free for the taking because it’s on the Internet. What could wrong?
More than you could dream up in your worst nightmares, as promoters of the Montreux Jazz Festival have learned after misappropriating an image of a child who turned out to be the victim in one France’s most notorious murder cases of recent times. Read more…
A Brazilian model named Nana Gouvea is the latest person to feel the scorn of the Internet. After Hurricane Sandy plowed through New York City this past week, Gouvea decided that the wreckage presented the perfect opportunity to further her career. Going out into the devastation with her husband as a photographer, she posed for a photo shoot amidst downed trees and smashed cars. She then shared the resulting portraits through her Facebook page.
Needless to say, people didn’t respond very positively to the pictures. They quickly went viral, but in a bad way. Read more…
A couple of weeks ago, we shared the sad story of how one hiker was killed after venturing within 50 yards of a grizzly bear to snap photographs. One of the biggest rules for photographing wildlife is to make sure you’re a safe distance from the wild animals. This distance varies depending on the animal you’re photographing. For grizzly bears, you’re supposed to stay at least a quarter of a mile away.
We’re not sure what the safe distance is for wild bison, but one thing we do know: it’s way farther than what we see in the video above. In it, a tourist family visiting Yellowstone National Park come across a bison standing next to the trail they’re on. Instead of finding a safe way around, the people somehow come to the conclusion that walking straight up to the horned animal with outstretched cameras is a good idea. They quickly learn what a bad idea it is. Luckily, no one gets hurt and everyone ends up having a chuckle, but it’s startling to see how much our culture of online photo sharing has eroded common sense in some people.
iPhone photography app Hipstamatic was the king of retro filters before Instagram came along and stole its crown. Now, the developers are hoping to capitalize on the retro photo app craze with a new idea: delivering a disposable camera experience on an iPhone. Pocket-lint reports,
Hipstamatic D-Series is set to bring back the film feel to your digital photography by preventing you from actually looking at your pictures the second after you’ve snapped them. Working like an old disposable camera, you have to finish all 24 shots before it’ll let you go back and review how they all came out. Sounds crazy to begin with but try not to think about coming almost full circle and it might just be crazy enough to work.
“It’s an opportunity to bring back the idea that you have this roll of film and you shoot with it, and you think about what you’re seeing in the moment, more so than snapping a photo and looking at it, deleting it or taking another one,” said Lucas Buick [founder of Hipstamatic]. [...] “It really is a completely different way to experience photography that a lot of people have forgotten about, but it wasn’t so long ago that people don’t remember it, and that’s the key.”
So basically, it’s an app that restricts its users — like an app that only lets people shoot in black and white. While it may sound like a lame idea to the general population, the market for this type of thing (e.g. hipsters) might just be big enough for it to attract a following. They do have one thing going for them though: the app will be free once its released later this month.
Deal of the day website Groupon is the fastest growing companies in web history and a popular way for local businesses to generate some buzz in their areas, but some independent photographers are finding out the hard way that offering special deals through Groupon might be the worst marketing decision they ever made. Read more…
Remember Wafaa Bilal, that NYU professor that decided to have a camera implanted on the back of his skull? Well, turns out the human body doesn’t like it when random electronic devices are fused with it, so the cost of having the camera on his nogging has been antibiotic and steroid treatments to get the body to ignore the thing. Despite the treatments, his body still decided to reject one of the three posts onto which the camera is screwed, forcing him to have the camera and one of the posts surgically removed. In the meantime he’s strapping the camera to the back of his neck, something he probably should have done since the beginning.
The moral of the story for the rest of us is that cameras belong in hands and in front of the face rather than embedded into heads.