This Guy Knows How To Use An X100

fdigital said:
2w65m4y.jpg
Click to expand...

More like :
stirringpot.jpg
 
I think this guy is doing an excellent job of getting people to pose in ways that I suspect the clients are really happy with! It takes talent to be able to make subjects feel comfortable with what you're asking them to do. And I think the images are really successful showing what's going on with these couples.

I doubt it really matters what camera this guy uses. I suspect he could do these with just about any rig. :)

Thanks for the link, Willie.
 
Initially I was not struck by the pics but after going back and having a second look I think he's done a great job with the subjects and the camera.

Personally they are not the type of pics I would take but he was the photographer ... not me!
 
Krosya said:
Why do you say that? Its easy for you to say something negative. But it would be interesting to see WHY you think that.....
Click to expand...

Because they are crass, vulgar, stereotype-reinforcing, superficial pictures that tell us nothing about the subjects but that pander to an esthetic convention –"ABC Bachelorette era"– constructed by media and industry to be self-serving.

Oh, never mind, they are not that bad and the clients are surely happy because they buy in to the whole esthetic. The images are just fodder, visual swill, infinitely forgettable.

Since you asked, that is my opinion, and yes, it was easy to say. I hope you find it interesting and I fully expect not all will agree, which is perfectly fine.

Anyway, the post was about the camera. I'd have to agree they look "sharply focused" and they have "smooth tonalities."
 
^^ Ok - I don't like that type of shot either, but lots of people do. Not the point. When the OP said the guy knows how to use an X100 I took that to mean he had used it well, and to his intent, to produce successful images. He did. Looking at them I was impressed - the photographer knows what he's on about and has demonstrated that the X100 is a great tool.
 
It happens that a certain breed of client comes to a photographer with preconceived notions of how the pictures should be staged ... and the photographer simply obliges.

Did the photographer do the posing/staging or was this the client's idea? Just looking at the results makes it difficult to know what exactly happened.

Nevertheless, the pictures are crisp!
 
Lawd, the snooty sneers are all out today!

Those photos are not art. They are craft. And they are superior to the vast majority of wedding photos, which are usually taken with flash. They are not HCB, or Martin Parr, or James Ravilious, but to my knowledge none of the three shot weddings.
 
they were paid for .....

they were paid for .....

Paul T. said:
Lawd, the snooty sneers are all out today!

Those photos are not art. They are craft. And they are superior to the vast majority of wedding photos, which are usually taken with flash. They are not HCB, or Martin Parr, or James Ravilious, but to my knowledge none of the three shot weddings.
Click to expand...

As near as I can tell from reading the posted link, these photos were paid for. By people willing to use the photographer as a teacher. We can't tell if this guy makes a living at it or not, but in that sense, it does not much matter if I like them or not, the clients clearly did. Having worked with more than a few clients in my day job, they [clients] may be dumb as a post, but they are always right.

Dave
 
Looking only at the sharpness (not the aesthetic), I didn't think that they were particularly impressive.
 
Those photo's rubbed me wrong with the very first shot when the photographer wrote,
1. I shot this confrontational portrait with a Fuji X100 compact camera with it's fixed 35mm equivelent lens. I thought this camera would make a good street and cafe portrait camera.
Click to expand...
Confrontational? Bah! It was posed. A fake expression by a hired model.

I feel duped. Hustled by his lead in.

Now, even though the shots are technically and aesthetically fine, although not memorable, I can't lose the taste of that vague deception in my mouth.

I realize this is an emotional reaction on my part, but there it is. My first impression.

Beyond that, I'm sure the X100 is a fine camera, but that photographer didn't sell me on it. He may as well have been selling beer or viagra. Just another deceptive and annoying commercial to filter out like traffic noise.

Basically spam.
 
I really don't think the content of the pictures is germane to the discussion. The question is really whether the camera can do what you want it to. Sounds like the original photographer was happy with the results. They seem snappy -- a little less mid-tone than I like with my portraits, but that is a matter of personal taste.
 
Some of these comments in here have made me laugh, quite literally, out loud.
To call the shots vulgar or deceptive - really? :eek::rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Welll.. a close family member has an album of his wdding. THe cover is a photo of the happy couple looking at a bottle of champagne. And on the label of the bottle of champagne is... a photo of the happy couple.

It ain't Magritte.
 
Don't quote me, but I believe I heard the photographer say he didn't really know how to use the the X100, but did a good job of faking it.
 
DavidX said:
Hang on... didn't HCB shoot Brad and Angelina's?
Click to expand...

Come on, we all know Kertesz did that one.

I'd love to know what he got paid for the shoot.
My ex gal gets $10,000.00 to start a wedding. I would think he's doing good. His images are made for the client, not shooters.
At any rate the camera nailed the gig. It's not my cup of tea but for the right $$$, I'd do it.

Oh, Kertesz used a 3F Red to do the Wedding.
 
$10,000.00!!! that ALMOST makes me consider shooting weddings.

echoing a few here, i have seen so many of these particular photographs it makes my eyeballs burn

PS 'hi' Don!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom