Archive for category Internet stuff
Photographer Jeff Cremer has succeeded in doing the thing that every photographer, no matter what the subject, should be aspiring to do: Find things that are interesting to shoot and that haven’t been seen umpteen times.
Cremer has worked in the Amazon jungles of Peru, but he’s not taking the usual photos you’ll see of the Amazon rain forest. Take these three examples.
Although this photo is called Donald Trump’s Wig, it’s actually the caterpillar of a megalopygid moth. The yellow hairs are spikes that inject painful poison when touched.
This photograph shows a giant fake spider made of debris and dead insects, sitting on a web. Made by a spider of the genus Cylosa, this is the only creature known to build a larger version of itself to attempt to increase its chances of survival.
And this is the beautiful woven lattice cocoon created by the urodid moth. This photo was shared thousands of times on Facebook in just a few days.
Pretty cool, eh?
My two cents: You don’t have to do to the Amazon to be a creative photographer. This is why the black and white shot of the young couple walking down the railroad tracks was so cool and inspiring, the first time I saw it (in 1989), but now, that same photo makes me throw up. It’s the same reason that the first time I saw a photo of a male model, all in black and white except for vibrant red underwear, was cool; but the hundreds of mimics I’ve seen since are all uninspiring.
I could follow this advice more often, too. We all get into ruts where we do the same thing. It’s time to be unique.
All photos in this post by Jeff Cremer.
If you need a good 90-second cry this afternoon, watch this ad about hate crimes and bigotry.
I was supposed to be in New York a couple of weeks ago, and then again at the end of this month. But I don’t think I’m going. I’m kind of just not feeling that trip right now, and I haven’t gone anywhere since 2011 that wasn’t New York or Los Angeles, I’m kind of feeling the need to visit somewhere new.
I thought I”d made a decision recently. I thought I’d decided that wherever I decide to go/live next, New York is off the table. But then I saw this video and I was reminded how much I love this city.
I don’t know what the “Harlem Shake” is, nor do I care. I’m less than thrilled about the stupid videos of it that seem to be polluting every corner of the Internet. But this one slides, because anything that gets Jensen Ackles to do a little dance move is all right by me.
Chip Tanner notes that many of his YouTube videos are flagged and deleted as being inappropriate, even when other videos of women doing the same thing are left online. Facebook is also notoriously homophobic and discriminatory against men: I’ve had my photos deleted by Facebook multiple times for “nudity” (this, despite the fact that I have never posted a nude photo on Facebook). The deleting is always followed by a sanctimonious email about how the Mark Zimmerman police want to keep Facebook “safe for everybody.” And then, 10 minutes later I find some skanky girl in a bikini rolling around on the hood of a car. That, apparently, meets Facebook’s standards.
To prove his point, Chip Tanner made a new video with Reese Rideout.
I’m sure that somehow this is related to the article I posted on Wednesday. I don’t think that Facebook and YouTube are homophobic, in practice; it’s more likely that viewers are flagging the videos and Facebook and YouTube have shitty review standards and deleting things are aren’t really offensive. It speaks to the core of the article: Attach a penis to something that’s a bit provocative and it suddenly becomes dirty.
Here’s another video by Chip and Reese.
The art/imagery in this video is amazing. People have asked me before if I’m at all interested in directing video. The answer is no — unless I could make something like this.
This is beautiful. But this diver is insane.
Jeremiah made a video tape of himself when he was 12, and now 20 years later he’s carrying on a snarky conversation with himself. We’ve all thought about going back and meeting ourselves, this is kind of a cute rendition of how it might happen.
Thanks to my friend Jen for the link.
Do you have your Facebook friends divided into lists? I am a maniac when it comes to lists — I love making lists. So my friends are not only categorized by list, but they are broken into lists to an almost obsessive degree. But between my real friends, and coworkers at my “day job,” and fans of my photography who I don’t really know, and potential models or photo subjects, I kind of feel like I have to be like this.
Still, I know that I am list crazy and I always thought that if I confessed this, people would be horrified. But when I had dinner last week with a friend who told me that he has five different Friend Lists (Tier One through Tier Five, each with different levels of access to his posts), I thought that maybe I’m not so alone, after all.
Here’s the breakdown of my Friend Lists:
- A Friends: These are my tried and true, friends with a capital F. My A List friends know me well, know my secrets, etc. They are my “besties,” if you’ll excuse my talking like a 14-year-old for a minute.
- B Friends: These are the friends that I am close enough with that I have their numbers in my cell phone and we occasionally hang out, text, have dinner, etc.
- C Friends: Acquaintances, the people I know well enough to greet by name and converse with when I see them at a party or out in public, but I don’t really hang out with them.
- D Friends: People I have met, but don’t really “know.”
- E Friends: People I have talked to online, but have not met.
- F Friends: People that I don’t know who sent me a friend request. (I accept pretty much everybody, because of the photography business.)
- Guys I’d Like to Shoot: Anyone who I have added or talked to that I’d like to photograph, sometime. (In hindsight, I should rename this list because there are also women on it.)
- Past Photo Subjects: Anyone who I’ve photographed in the past.
- Photo Shoots that Didn’t Happen: People that I was going to photograph but didn’t. They got nervous and backed out, or for some reason we decided not to go ahead with the shoot.
- Photographers and Artists: Other photographers who I learn from and admire, artists who inspire me, gallery owners, people who make a living in art, etc.
- Prudes: This list exists mostly for my family and for coworkers that I am not close to but who sent me a friend request. This list is locked down and those on it can’t really see anything on my Facebook page. I get along better with my Republican family when they don’t see the political articles I post, and while my employer and coworkers know about my photography business, I prefer to keep those two thing separated.
- Stalkers: There have been a handful of people who added me as a friend and became way too familiar too fast, or started showing up at places I checked in to, or posting excessively on my page. This list is for people who didn’t do anything creepy enough to be defriended but who I decided to steer clear from. They also can’t see anything on my page.
In a way, writing all of this out makes me feel like I spend too much time compartmentalizing people. But if you’re like me and have a lot of Facebook connections, and have them for myriad reasons like work and photography and your real life, Friend Lists really are helpful. There are times when I’ve wanted to contact all of my past subjects at once, or all of the guys I’d like to shoot, or tell all of my best friends some news, or ask all of the photographers I know for a bit of advice. For that, I think Friend Lists are good.
I’ve seen a couple of blogs reporting that these images are of Kellan Lutz from a recent photo shoot.
I want to see Kellan Lutz’s balls as much as anyone else, but I don’t for one second believe this is him.
For one thing, if an actor as prominent as Kellan was going to do a photo shoot like this, there would be more than two photos in the set. And celebrities don’t hide their faces during photo shoots. During provocative shoots, they hide it even less (otherwise, what’s the fucking point?).
But then there’s the photos, themselves. Look at any other photo of Kellan Lutz on the Internet and it’s pretty obvious that he’s not as hairy as this guy — not his chest, not his legs. Upon closer inspection, I don’t even think the musculature matches.
So, not Kellan. But they’re nice photos, all the same.
The real question: Does anyone know who this model really is?