Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 195 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: "Grunge" photos: Faux or legitimate art? #12110
    stef
    Participant

    I’m not a fan of edits that either distract or detract from an image. But that doesn’t mean I don’t like grunge or filters of some sort, or even certain tilty angles as long as they add to the image.

     

    I don’t mind textures done artistically. Textures are something that painters have, so why not photographers? I have no issue when a photographer adds some texture into his work, provided that’s not the only thing that makes it interesting. If it adds to the work, great. If that’s all it is, however, not so great.

     

    As an aside, I will often shoot interesting textures I come across. Walls, wood, blocks, clouds, strange wind-blown shapes in dirt, etc. I’ve developed my own library of them.

    in reply to: friend of fauxtographer #12108
    stef
    Participant

    Shoot some good stuff first, then you can shoot all the bad you want. Just ask Annie Liebovitz

    Hah, that stuff was awesome! In a strange, disjoint way. But I shoot a bit of fashion, and that was kind of funny to see models scattered around the area like mannequins that got lost in the hurricane.

     

    I’m a fan of graveyards, but not a fan of photography in them unless it’s a really, really good concept. Playing with concepts, even if it’s trite, is still valuable. Duplicating images you like, even if they’re cliche, will still teach you stuff. Valuable stuff, like how to duplicate someone’s lighting and posing. That’s something you can take out of the graveyard and apply anywhere later.

     

    And yeah, the first thing I thought of was Pocahontas taking a dump. There are ways to make squats look better, like a feeling of motion or getting rid of the “squat” look by leaning back on something or dropping a knee, or having a REASON to squat. If there’s no reason, the mind assumes you’re squatting for the reason you used this morning.

     

    in reply to: Run-In With A Rude Photog (assistant?) #12106
    stef
    Participant

    Sounds kind of rude, although shooting weddings with the guests participating is pretty difficult. Projecting them on a screen at the reception means there was minimal editing involved. They’ll usually edit and cycle maybe a dozen images, and all the editing was done in the space of an hour or so. You’ll see reflections and such, although exposures should be good.

    Here’s some perspective: Wedding photographers, especially in a large wedding which this sounds like, get maybe 30 minutes with the couple and their parents. Poking your head in, if your camera flashes or the couple to glances over at the door, can cost them a minute of time which the B&G paid for, along with some annoyance. When 5 people do that, they’ve lost a lot of time… this is time the B&G paid for. Ultimately, you’re costing the B&G time away from their reception, their drinking, their dancing, their party which you should be at. Whose wedding is it anyway? If they say don’t enter the area while the paid photographers are shooting, doing so is disrespecting everyone involved and costing time and money to the bride and groom. As a relative, isn’t it in your best interest to respect the B&G’s wishes at their own wedding?

     

    I’m not convinced he was rude, but I’m not convinced he wasn’t. He very well might’ve been, from your description. Sounds kind of rude to me, but when you’re herding cattle and trying to control a situation involving 150 people to get a good picture, you have to be a bit loud (usually interpreted as rude) just to get heard.

    Yeah, pics like that “hands over eyes” pic are cheezy. But it’s the moment captured in time which often tells a story not as bad as the cheezy action. If he’s any good, it’ll look fun. If he’s not, it won’t. Many people have their own signature pic. I have mine (which is definitely non-cheezy!), and I rarely shoot weddings.

     

    I wouldn’t even pack my gear for $60/hr. That’s definitely fauxtog pricing. But most fauxtogs don’t attempt to involve the guests. That takes a slightly higher level of skill and confidence, so I’m thinking you misheard.

    in reply to: County Fair rant- terrible judge! #11499
    stef
    Participant

    Hah. All I can say is get used to it. Judging is difficult, even for experienced photographers. Bad judging is not only inevitable, it’s commonplace.

     

    in reply to: Inappropriate album title #10553
    stef
    Participant

    My problem is what he titled the 16 year old younger sister’s album. Keep in mind that he is a middle aged man. I found this unprofessional and just plain creepy.

    Do you find it creepy that she’s capable of having sex and producing children?

    Is it creepy when a 16-yo voluntarily engages in sex, versus an 18-yo? Is it creepy when a 16-yo voluntarily dresses up in sexy clothes because s/he wants to? Do they suddenly become sexual at 18 when it’s not creepy, but not 16? That’s what the law says, but now you’re equating LAW with MORALS. And who makes laws? Politicians, who are not known to have good morals. So here you are, espousing what politicians say, and telling us that our morals as photographers should be dictated by them.

    That’s creepy.

     

    I’ve shot a ton of models, many as young as 15. I require a parent be present and agree to all wardrobe. A while back, being unmarried at 18 was a spinster. And today’s teens are reaching puberty faster, some in the single-digits. That doesn’t mean they’re emotionally mature, but “sexy” is only a physical description. Is it creepy that 16-yo’s listen to the Beatles song, Sexy Sadie?

     

    I’ll agree that it would be extremely creepy if she had not hit puberty, or was somehow emotionally or mentally incapable. That’s obviously not the case. It has parental buy-in, it has her buy-in, and she’s not emotionally challenged or pre-pubescent. There’s clearly no possibility of exploitation going on, so I find your objection objectionable.

    in reply to: Here Goes Nothing… Critique (+ Intro) #10129
    stef
    Participant

    You are quite literally miles and miles ahead of the other two photographers you talked about.

    He did say he was a grammar freak. He might be figuratively miles ahead, but it’s highly unlikely he’s literally miles ahead in a photography race.

     

    in reply to: They can't take friendly competition! #10126
    stef
    Participant

    I’m Canadian and don’t know what 4-H is… I’m also feeling too lazy to google it. Care to clarify?

    It’s like an agricultural group for kids. Field trips, teaching, contests, etc… mostly based in rural areas.

     

    But seriously, too lazy to google it? It would’ve taken less effort than typing in your question. At least you weren’t too lazy to use punctuation, which is the only reason I replied.

    in reply to: I Like This Warning…… #10070
    stef
    Participant

    I can’t comment on the pic without “Liking” the page… and I can’t bring myself to like that abomination.

     

    But I’ll reproduce her warning here for posterity:

    Michelle Warthman
    Any use of this photo on any “foxtaugraphy” site or any other photo bashing site for use of slander or foul comments or rude comments will not be tolerated. If this photo is used for ill commenting for any reason you will be subject to a fine of $5,000. Consider this my one an only notice. There will be no warnings.

    edit: whoops, I see Jim already reproduced it.

    in reply to: They can't take friendly competition! #10065
    stef
    Participant

    Kick ass, take names, fuck ’em.

     

    But there will be a point where it becomes no fun for everyone else, and county fairs aren’t for one person to dominate. I would keep submitting, but don’t get upset when they ask/tell you to stop competing.

     

    in reply to: I Like This Warning…… #10037
    stef
    Participant

    lawls

    foxtographer alert

     

    in reply to: Let's Talk Lenses! #9987
    stef
    Participant

    Cameraclicker, I’m going to disagree with you saying that it doesn’t affect DOF. Try punching some numbers into a dof calculator and you’ll see what I mean.

    Differences are only due to the sensor density, and you’ll notice they’re still extremely close at the same distance. An 18Mpx 7D has smaller pixels than a 22Mpx 5D mark II. If the 5D2 were the same density but with an APS-C sensor, it would be 14Mpx. Thus, the circles of confusion must be smaller to be as sharp, increasing the DOF slightly.

    in reply to: Some Self Portraits I took. #9948
    stef
    Participant

    I went through a miscarriage a few months ago and my therapist thought it would be a good idea if I used photography to illistrate how I was feeling.

    I figured that one out before you posted it, so in that case, I believe your shots conveyed your anguish well. That’s good. They were emotionally involving and only bordering on over the top. Glad you didn’t do something obnoxious like selective color.

    As far as the shots themselves, this section (am I a fauxtog?) isn’t really appropriate. I can’t judge your technique or skill from self-portraits, because that style shoots so differently from most other photography. I chuckled at the remote in your hand, though.

    Some of the shots are good, some are meh. I like the first two a lot where the desolation and anguish come through; not so much the last few which looks like a high-schooler taking pics of a friend.

    in reply to: Moral Dilemma… #9944
    stef
    Participant

    Years ago we used to not charge until they picked up their album and we knew they were happy.  But we got so fed up of couples splitting up before they had chosen their pictures that we now charge in full up front. One couple actually split up on honeymoon!

    I didn’t know how common this was until recently. It’s happened to me, too.

    in reply to: Got Emailed by a Faux about Copyright Laws! #9941
    stef
    Participant

    Really? -> http://www.awardwinningphotography.com/Wedding%20Photos%20183.jpg

    Holy crap. I literally said “Oh, man…” out loud when that came up.

     

    They responded thanking us for our time and response, and that they understand now.

    So, it’s not often that someone gets schooled and actually learns. That’s actually impressive. Good for them.

     

    in reply to: looking for some honesty. :-D #9874
    stef
    Participant

    What’s scary is that flowers are the most overshot subject, and they still sell. Lots of people make livings shooting objects that don’t earn money.

    Of those shots, #5 is interesting. I like the composition of #1, but it’s still a boring subject.

     

    “i don’t have people to photograph or the equipment to do it with.”

    That’s perhaps the dumbest thing I’ve heard on this forum. Nobody is buying your bullshit.

     

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 195 total)