[ebi]

it’s pretty good. but your side light is really warm but the key light is really cool. This is the result of using flash and tungsten. As Nesgran said, you need to gel the flash to match the tungsten. Happy to see you simplifying your shots. Keep working it.

[ebi]

you are an ok frog photographer. Was there anything else you wanted to know?

[ebi]

when i go on meetings with potential clients and they flip through my book that I spent hours meticulously editing and arranging, I occasionally cringe at images that I thought were good hours ago. It has nothing to do with their reaction either. I don’t know why it happens. Regardless I pull it, if only for the piece of mind for the next appointment.

[ebi]

in regards to your two wedding photographs: I wonder how much better they would have looked if you’d just shot them straight?

[ebi]

can i just suggest that you get rid of your watermark completely? You don’t need it.

I also don’t mind the flare from the light. you should work more on posing. If you rotated this photo clockwise 90 degrees she’d look like she was holding the down position on a push up…but with incredible poise.

[ebi]

i see a little cliche. The dumbo shot of the Manhattan bridge for instance – i’ve got that shot too. it’s an outtake. I wouldn’t use it. I don’t think you should either. And not much in the way of people shots that I haven’t already seen on the Humans of NY fb page. I don’t like his photography that much btw. I think you do capturull ye some occasional interesting moments, but you need to cull your photographs down into something more concise and meaningful….and keep shooting b/c you aren’t bad.

[ebi]

ebi was one of those things I would eat from a sushi bar back when i was young and couldn’t fathom the raw stuff. It’s probably best that I did. i lived in ohio – never eat raw stuff inland. This was a lesson hard learned.

[ebi]

like ladders?

[ebi]

Jesus, OC, the photos are really bad. Curious to see what your film work looked like. The technical issues aside, it doesn’t appear you know how to light, pose or, really, take photographs at all.

You really seem to favor this photo, since you decided to make it your profile picture: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=638585066185531&set=a.592053060838732.1073741827.591852427525462&type=1&theater

It’s not good. Shooting digital doesn’t mean you enhance photographs with shitty graphics. You can let publications do that for you.

I don’t really come from a film world. I learned on film. This means that I shot film, developed B&W in the beginning and then eventually started paying someone else to process negatives. Then I switched to transparency b/c it was actually saving me money (and time) while on a college student budget and then transferred those transparencies to digital by scanning on a drum scanner. My transition into shooting digital was made very easy by the fact that transparency and digital were very similar. Transparency was incredibly sensitive to exposure compared to negative film. In a lot of ways it still is. So while I don’t have decades of experience with film, I can say that I truly and completely understand it.

That being said, film is completely dead. Aside from a few magazines, it’s not being used at all. Conde Nast Traveler was using it, but they just fired almost their entire photo team…and I think that means that film photography won’t be used anymore. It doesn’t matter if that is a good or bad thing. Magazines are dying a slow death anyways. In the meantime, photographers have to shoot digital these days. It’s not even a real question anymore. The most important aspect is whether a photographer can shoot amazing photographs. From what I’ve seen, you cannot. And given that there isn’t that tremendous amount of a learning curve anymore, because digital can be amazing even with super cheap cameras and shitty photographers with a little bit of good luck, you gotta bring it, man. And you aren’t.

I agree with the naysayers here. Your work is very bad. It’s fauxtog/front page material.

Don’t take it too personally though. It’s not like you are the only one. There’s an entire fucking website devoted to it.

[ebi]

@Tiradia, finally someone got my moniker!

[ebi]

I’m not going to go back to search through the post of where your work was introduced. I don’t feel like wasting my time b/c it appears that you aren’t really listening to what anyone is saying in THIS thread. But I’d venture to guess that no one said the words that you think they said. It honestly sounds like something I would say, but i don’t recall seeing your site and I’m still relatively new to this community so I’m certain I didn’t see it.

That being said, I don’t think you will go anywhere. Your work has gotten marginally better than it was. But it’s your attitude that will hold you back above all else. You really shouldn’t tell ANYONE to suck it, regardless of who they are and what they’ve said. It’s just not very professional. It makes me wonder what you’d say if a client didn’t like a photo you took. Your lack of being able to comprehend what anyone on this thread has said also says you probably don’t listen to your clients either.

You’ll probably forever be a small town part time faux, trying to make ends meet. But, please, feel free to prove me wrong.

[ebi]

the general consensus is that your work is dull and unoriginal and I’d agree. I didn’t really want to look past the first few images. You’ll do great if your clients are also dull and unoriginal.

I don’t really understand why you would stop scheduling. You need to KEEP shooting if you are going to learn anything. What you need to do is stop CHARGING.

The consistency of behavior among fauxtogs is quite interesting. They know their work sucks, but rather than fix it they make excuses for it. They all seem to be victims of circumstance. I blame Natalie Portman’s portrayal of a photographer in that movie she did in the early 2000’s. I think that helped propel the novelty of MWAC.

This isn’t so much a criticism of you Erika, as much as just me noticing repeating patterns.

[ebi]

agreed. his live performance stuff is bad. his weddings are pretty decent…except the fisheye stuff. i really don’t like that.

it’s a shame he’s so obnoxious during performances. he may not be taking horrible photos during those events but he sure acts like he is. It’s also very run and gun and if he took some time to actually compose a shot he might actually get some better photographs.

[ebi]

you think this work is just ok???? lol maybe i need glasses.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=561437820576531&set=a.561427137244266.1073741871.229987970388186&type=3&theater

No I don’t think it’s just ok. I think it’s just bad. Looks flashed, harshly. bad pose. And her groom is your dumb watermark. It holds more interest than the image itself.

I think it’s great that you think you are awesome. But telling people that you are awesome just makes you look like an asshole. Expecting people to tell you that you are awesome is just incredibly pathetic and it makes me feel a bit sad for you.

[ebi]

my god, what the hell was he doing. I LMFAO at the camera on the head and all that machine gun rapid fire spraying and praying. wow.

[Author]

Posts