you are not a photographer

I have another window open to some Jean Michel Jarre as I am reading this thread.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kbpx7Uyfric&feature=related

At least I have one window open to something good on the web.

The "you are not a photographer", basically falls into the "Who the hell are you and why are you bothering us anyway" category.

Used that phrase in the early 1980s on the Internet, still holds true today.

I first started using the Internet in 1980. For optimizing atomic structure codes written in FORTRAN for first-generation Supercomputers. Paid my way through school. Yet another use for the Internet. Where did it all go wrong...
 
Last edited:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66A0hEe1AUo&feature=related

Now that is a Synthesizer!

I used Analog Computers that looked a lot like that.

picture.php



picture.php


Used at about the same time I was using the Internet.

A case where Digital is easier than Analog, but the world would have less of "You are not a photographer" web sites if the world had stayed Analog.

Stupid Digital World. I may have to move this to the Digital vs Analog forum.
 
jwc57 said:
This thread reminds me of a thread on another forum, made up of digital photographers.

In a discussion that began about photoshop being abused to make people look thin and bypass actually taking care of themselves, it turned to abusing tools to enhance portraits, such as smoothing skin, removing wrinkles, and removing blemishes even pores.

The comments have been that digital is much better than film, that digital is too sharp. Film was more forgiving, I guess meaning that film wasn't as sharp. Another stated that photoshop was needed to remove anything distracting in a portrait such as a piece of clothing out of place etc. Things we used to pay attention to before hand, things that made us slow down and think before hitting the shutter.

After reading those comments, I wondered if these new digital pro photographers have even used a film SLR or was film experience solely a P&S from the 1990's..
Click to expand...
Do you really think that? These are just tools that people can use. Some people wield them appropriately and skillfully while others are still learning.
 
PKR said:
First let me state that I may be incorrect in the following: One of the local art students mentioned that it's now possible to graduate with a degree in photography from the "big art school" in town, without ever touching a camera. I guess it means with PS and images "procured" - assignments can be met. I know that this school dropped any necessary studio time from the course work. Things have changed..
Click to expand...

When my daughter took P/S Art at a local college, images were from scanners....not cameras....scanography.
 
hxpham said:
Do you really think that? These are just tools that people can use. Some people wield them appropriately and skillfully while others are still learning.
Click to expand...

I do believe that these people on the other forum have not tried film and don't see the need because digital is so much better. These are paid photographers and some have their own studios in their homes or use co-op studios. Since the are only in the mid-twenties though, I'm sure they didn't run a photo studio shooting only film.
 
jwc57 said:
I do believe that these people on the other forum have not tried film and don't see the need because digital is so much better. These are paid photographers and some have their own studios in their homes or use co-op studios. Since the are only in the mid-twenties though, I'm sure they didn't run a photo studio shooting only film.
Click to expand...
Sorry, that was not what I meant. I was referring to your thoughts on Photoshop.
 
Brian Sweeney said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ek5u...CwVVULXfM6dvpz_DJDAbaaJo3Ql7i&lf=list_related

This thread is getting deeper and deeper into Digital vs Film.
Click to expand...

Really...because I don't see it that way. I see it as people who go into business as photographers with limited skill or knowledge. When I went to college, we were required to shoot B&W only and only with a 50mm (or standard for the format) lens at the start....while almost all the business at the time was done in color. It gave us a background that we could call on when needed.
 
hxpham said:
Sorry, that was not what I meant. I was referring to your thoughts on Photoshop.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I think we abused it, I did. I shot pageants and that led to shooting headshots for the contestants. All photos were enhanced, some more than others, those being called "glitz". It wasn't unusual to go to a show and hear the girls say that the photos didn't look like them, or that they wished they looked like that in real life.

I made an effort to shoot "natural" photogenic, ones that noses, chins, cheeks were not changed. The only enhancement I did was remove pimples, smooth the skin, remove scars, removed cuts/scratches, and softened the hair.

The problem is you have so many options with photoshop that we didn't have in the darkroom, economically or realistically, that you don't know when enough is enough.

Google "medical AMA photoshop" and you'll see articles about the AMA denouncing photoshop and its affects.

At any rate, the type of photos on the linked website are just a by-product of trying to use photoshop to by-pass skill and knowledge about photography. To slim a person, change the pose and lighting; to correct skin impections, use a filter and do it before, not after the shoot.
 
Last edited:
Soooo how do we let these people know their work sucks, but encourage them to get better?

More importantly how to we talk people out of believing their idiotic work is good or, blasphemously, pay money for it?

The website has one thing right, these people need to be exposed for their false claim to be a worthy photographer. I just do not believe telling them no is the only answer.
 
Field said:
Soooo how do we let these people know their work sucks, but encourage them to get better?

More importantly how to we talk people out of believing their idiotic work is good or, blasphemously, pay money for it?

The website has one thing right, these people need to be exposed for their false claim to be a worthy photographer. I just do not believe telling them no is the only answer.
Click to expand...

I've come to the conclusion you can't tell them. A photographer on the other site will tell them honestly what he thinks...and he is accused of being negative and a trouble maker. Pats on the back go further than criticism.
 
Brian Sweeney said:
This thread is getting deeper and deeper into Digital vs Film.
Click to expand...

Dear Brian,

Not really. You could do pretty much the same with scanned images.

More 'darkroom' v. 'Photoshop', I'd say. And even then, think of the great old Soviet airbrush artists, or for that matter, Hollywood portraits.

Cheers,

R.
 
Brian Sweeney said:
I have another window open to some Jean Michel Jarre as I am reading this thread.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kbpx7Uyfric&feature=related

At least I have one window open to something good on the web.
Click to expand...

In the late 80's, I was on shore leave in the Navy in Sasebo Japan, I think I was 19. All my other shipmates liked to go and get drunk and chase tail, I like to make photographs. I worked on Jet aircraft on a carrier, joined specifically so I could photograph life aboard a carrier, being a "Nose Picker" practically insured it.

One day, I was walking around with my OM-1 and a few lenses shooting Kodachrome. I would sometimes listen to a tape in my Walkman, a bulky thing back then, but it really made the whole picture taking thing much more theatrical. That day, the kids were getting out of school, they wore brightly colored clothing, it was a sea of joyous chaos...I was listening to Jean Michel Jarre....still have the cassette tape around somewhere.

I don't think I am going to be on here that much anymore...
Don't think I am going to be on any forum much at all for that matter.
Reason being is that there are just too many untruths, too much photoshop, too much arm chair expert opinions and not enough raw talent, too much bull plain and simple.

So go on and live your internet lives, I live a photographic one, every day too. And I call the shots, like the two very nice magazine assignments I just landed that will take a year each, my style, my ideas, my life.

But don't you worry much now, you will hear about me, read about me, see my images, because that is what people on the internet do, they watch, talk, argue and day dream.....

Take care and keep it real folks, and thanks Brian for mentioning a musician that stirred a memory of when I wished more than anything I were living half the life I get to live now......behind a camera, day in, day out..... every moment of my life.

db
 
Last edited:
I'm too sexy

I'm too sexy

I'm too sexy for my shirt too sexy for my shirt
So sexy it hurts
And I'm too sexy for Milan too sexy for Milan
New York and Japan
And I'm too sexy for your party
Too sexy for your party
No way I'm disco dancing

I'm a model you know what I mean
And I do my little turn on the catwalk
Yeah on the catwalk on the catwalk yeah
I do my little turn on the catwalk

I'm too sexy for my car too sexy for my car
Too sexy by far
And I'm too sexy for my hat
Too sexy for my hat what do you think about that

I'm a model you know what I mean
And I do my little turn on the catwalk
Yeah on the catwalk on the catwalk yeah
I shake my little touche on the catwalk

I'm too sexy for my too sexy for my too sexy for my

Cos I'm a model you know what I mean
And I do my little turn on the catwalk
Yeah on the catwalk on the catwalk yeah
I shake my little touche on the catwalk

I'm too sexy for my cat too sexy for my cat
Poor pussy poor pussy cat
I'm too sexy for my love too sexy for my love
Love's going to leave me

And I'm too sexy for this song

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vziUC1IT0wo

Chill?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=faSYGHYmdQ0
.
 
Last edited:
jwc57 said:
Yeah, I think we abused it, I did. I shot pageants and that led to shooting headshots for the contestants. All photos were enhanced, some more than others, those being called "glitz". It wasn't unusual to go to a show and hear the girls say that the photos didn't look like them, or that they wished they looked like that in real life.

I made an effort to shoot "natural" photogenic, ones that noses, chins, cheeks were not changed. The only enhancement I did was remove pimples, smooth the skin, remove scars, removed cuts/scratches, and softened the hair.

The problem is you have so many options with photoshop that we didn't have in the darkroom, economically or realistically, that you don't know when enough is enough.

Google "medical AMA photoshop" and you'll see articles about the AMA denouncing photoshop and its affects.

At any rate, the type of photos on the linked website are just a by-product of trying to use photoshop to by-pass skill and knowledge about photography. To slim a person, change the pose and lighting; to correct skin impections, use a filter and do it before, not after the shoot.
Click to expand...

I think that poor use of a tool shouldn't affect your opinion of it. I'd say a mastery of both what happens before the camera clicks as is as important as what happens after the camera clicks .
 
KM-25 said:
...
So go on and live your internet lives, I live a photographic one, every day too. And I call the shots, like the two very nice magazine assignments I just landed that will take a year each, my style, my ideas, my life.

But don't you worry much now, you will hear about me, read about me, see my images, because that is what people on the internet do, they watch, talk, argue and day dream.....

db
Click to expand...

I can recognize a classy exit when I read one...
 
hxpham, it isn't the poor use of the tool, but the over use of the tool....the pageant head shots are a fine example. But, it has become such a part of that style of photogenic shot, that judges take off points if you don't use it...because it doesn't look "professional". A local photographer here would take photos (can't even call them portraits) and shots of her roses, then combine the two so that it looked like the backdrop was a big rose. I still tend to believe in the KISS rule. Photoshop is just the easiest way for good photography to become bad and bad photography to become horrible. Some of the new style backdrops appear to be straight from the walls of those romantic getaway motels of the seventies...the ones with red crushed velvet walls and heart-shaped beds.

KM25...I agree. I've narrowed my forum visits to this site and one car enthusiasts site. The photography here is better and the participants are more knowledgeable and, in my opinion, have more talent. I think hobbyists tend to produce better work because they love photography and see it as more than just a business. I still don't post that much. I'm just stuck right now because of recovering from Irene. I guess I should get a website though, but I'm still working off of "word-of-mouth".
 
Field, I feel your pain. Maybe one way is putting out good work - as much as one can.

On the other hand I wouldn't call those photographers dishonest - the majority have websites where they show exactly what they do - and potential clients can decide if it's worth their money.


Field said:
Soooo how do we let these people know their work sucks, but encourage them to get better?

More importantly how to we talk people out of believing their idiotic work is good or, blasphemously, pay money for it?

The website has one thing right, these people need to be exposed for their false claim to be a worthy photographer. I just do not believe telling them no is the only answer.
Click to expand...
 
Field said:
Soooo how do we let these people know their work sucks, but encourage them to get better?

More importantly how to we talk people out of believing their idiotic work is good or, blasphemously, pay money for it?

The website has one thing right, these people need to be exposed for their false claim to be a worthy photographer. I just do not believe telling them no is the only answer.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure we have any obligation or justification for intervening at all. If someone shows someone samples of their photography and gets a job out it, nothing particularly tragic has happened. If we think the photos aren't up to par, that the customer is getting ripped off, then we might show our photos to the customer and see if he likes them and likes our prices. Beyond that, it's just a case of some people selling and some people buying.

We ought not to assume that the kind of photos that typically appeal to folks here also appeal to everyone else, or that they would choose to buy photos made in that style, if only they had the chance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom