So called "Wedding Photojournalism"
Cronus44
photographers. It seems that since "Wedding PhotoJ" has become so popular with
the brides lately, almost every wedding photo Photographer that I have seen (
and i have looked at quite a few in my area), has added some "PhotoJournalism"
photos to their portfolios.
I would just write these photographers off as taking advantage of a major trend
except for the fact that most of these "PhotoJ" photos are nothing more then
crappy candid photos that any wedding photographer will get at a wedding.
Now, I have been a photojournalist shooting for a paper in my area for seven
years, and a "Wedding Photojounalist " with my own business for four years,
having shot about 50 weddings in that time.
My question is this:
I would never try to pass myself off as a commercial or fashion photographer
because I have never done those things before. Dosen't the fact that most of
the "Wedding Photojounalists" out there have no PhotoJ expirence whatso ever,
(and I am just talking about the 20 or so that I have seen), bring down the
business as a whole? As far as I am concerned, they should not be trying to
pass themselves off as something that they are not.
Comments?
Thank you for your time,
Lee
Studio II (DIGITAL) Photography
then the public with catch on quickly and then they will be finished. If on the
other hand the customers like it then I guess they really are PJ's.
Let me play devil advocate here for a second. Some photographer in your area has
been shooting weddings now for four years and he his company has competed no less
then 600 weddings in that time. How would you react if he made a post that said How
can someone attempt to pass themselves off as a wedding photographer when in only
four years time he has only done 50 weddings in the entire four years?
When you really break it down so called wedding PJ style pictures are in fact
nothing more then snap shots............after all that is all that a
photojournalist who shoots for any paper is, the slight difference is he has the
freedom to wait to take the snapshot at the correct moment. Were as at a wedding
since it is a very limited event as far as time goes you might have to settle for a
less them perfect image.
You say you would never pass yourself off as a commercial photographer because you
have never done it. You say that they are passing themselves off as PJ shooters and
you have seen the images and they are nothing more then crappy candids, so with
that at least they are shooting the images so in your own words I guess really they
are PJ shooters, maybe not as good as you would like them to be none the less
PJ........
Eric
Dan Moore
-fl1.aol.com>:
>There has been a disturbing trend that I have found involving wedding
>photographers. It seems that since "Wedding PhotoJ" has become so
>popular with the brides lately, almost every wedding photo Photographer
>that I have seen ( and i have looked at quite a few in my area), has
>added some "PhotoJournalism" photos to their portfolios.
>I would just write these photographers off as taking advantage of a
>major trend except for the fact that most of these "PhotoJ" photos are
>nothing more then crappy candid photos that any wedding photographer
>will get at a wedding. Now, I have been a photojournalist shooting for a
>paper in my area for seven years, and a "Wedding Photojounalist " with
>my own business for four years, having shot about 50 weddings in that
>time. My question is this:
>I would never try to pass myself off as a commercial or fashion
>photographer because I have never done those things before. Dosen't the
>fact that most of the "Wedding Photojounalists" out there have no PhotoJ
>expirence whatso ever, (and I am just talking about the 20 or so that I
>have seen), bring down the business as a whole? As far as I am
>concerned, they should not be trying to pass themselves off as something
>that they are not. Comments?
>
>Thank you for your time,
>Lee
>
I think the term is used more to describe the style of shooting, rather
than the experience the photog has. Kind of like "painterly" doesn't mean
a photog can paint. But I agree with the quality issues you bring up. It
can only serve to smear an entire profession when these buttwads trot out
thier rejects and call them Art. Problem is, there are a lot of wedding
photographers that have a rulebook they live by, and never stray from. I
recently visited the website of a quite prominent wedding photoguy. He
crowed about how cool and different his shots were, proceeded to explain
the technique used to get the shots (which incidentally were almost no
different for each shot), and told us all about how the client thought he
was the GREATEST!
All I could think was.......wow, these suck. Technically they suck, and
aesthetically they REALLY suck. I would be pissed off if I had to pay for
them. I don't think this is entirely his fault tho. We have been as a
profession very inbred. We all think we're super-creative and cool, while
we churn out the same images year after year. And given the manner most of
us learned photography in, we only know how to shoot a certain way (3/4
turn to the face, head in the feminine tilt, hands posed just so, slight
smile, goood. Damn I'm an artist). This I suppose is the roundabout way
of posing a question to you and others. Is it really just thier WPJ that
sucks?
zeitgeist
products that really come from a different tradition. The
term 'candid' certainly doesn't mean anything close to the
dictionary concept as it is practiced by traditional wedding
photographers. Some use the term 'controlled' candids which
for one guy meant that he would interupt the couple dancing
so he could control the exact way they were dancing so he
could get a good shot of 'the bride and groom dancing."
BTW, I have a unique position to critique the practices of
other photographers because, besides being one, assisting
others occasionally, I also officiate weddings as a ULC
minister and see other photographers in action.
However, I would like to point out that just about every
good compelling true PJ wedding photo adheres to the overal
guiding principles of making good images commonly called
'rules." An image is still a 2 dimentional graphic
depicting a 3 dimentional world and whether you set up a
studio or shoot on the fly totally on auto, the images that
capture the eye are subject to the same 'rules.' A
portrait stylist like Monte takes control of the situation
like a farmer shaping his fields and pruning the orchard and
a true PJ hunts for their prey, anticipating the target and
(I just can't resist, loading up their M-16 and spraying the
hillside to see what falls out of the trees.)
anyway, a poorly lit image is still poorly lit, but great
impact doesn't depend on it, just as composition helps more
times than not.
Keep in mind that Rules are Not Laws, they percentages,
chances are if that is like this the image will look
better. often the percentage is clearly one sided, some are
rather iffy 50-50. There is fashion and style changes that
swing the percentages. It is my experience that the top
guns of the PJ world are as aware of the rules as the most
careful traditionalist, or, like the many hacks in both
camps, are doomed to mediocraty.
as for the 'bad' photographers bringing down the rep of the
industry, that has been with us from the beginning, when the
first guy that saw what that fine art's graduate was getting
for the glass plate images in the upstairs northlight studio
and figured that he could get more business by using a
street level storefront and using that new fangled
electrical light.
That is one of the reasons that the Pro associations are so
open, anyone can join, take their workshops and seminars to
become better photographers and competitors.
this post is echoed in the z-prophoto list at onelist.com
Perluipix
I'm feeling in a charitable mood today.
I've been a fashion phtographer for about twelve years. About five years ago I
saw a "Wedding" fashion spread in Town & Country. It was the first time I had
seen not only a "Wedding" fashion shoot done in B/W, but it was shot in a
photojournalistic style. A few months later, I decided to do a similar thing
for a magazine assignment . Over the next several years, I was approached by
several of my friends (all of whom were models), to shoot their weddings based
on this "new style". I had never taken wedding photos previous to this, but
after a while I had compiled enough pictures for quite a portfolio.
Now here comes the problem. One day a non-model approached me to do their
wedding. Needless to say the photos didn't quite turn out as impressive. So,
for me, here lies the secret. It helps TREMENDOUSLY to be photographing people
with experience in front of the camera. I tried a few more times shooting the
weddings of non-model people, but never achieved the results I had with my
"model" friends. It's like choreographing a dance with people who don't have
any dance experience.
One might get lucky perhaps, but one's chances seem pretty slim. I now refer
weddings to others and just stick with fashion.
SPECTRUM
> As far as I am concerned, they should not be trying to
>pass themselves off as something that they are not.
>Comments?
You're right. They shouldn't. They are neither photographers
not photojournalists. They are simply cashing in on a fad.
Regards,
John
SuperSquid
>photographers. It seems that since "Wedding PhotoJ" has become so popular
>with
>the brides lately, almost every wedding photo Photographer that I have seen (
>and i have looked at quite a few in my area), has added some
>"PhotoJournalism"
>photos to their portfolios.
>I would just write these photographers off as taking advantage of a major
>trend
>except for the fact that most of these "PhotoJ" photos are nothing more then
>crappy candid photos that any wedding photographer will get at a wedding.
You are correct in your notice of this trend. You will also find that these
photographers have "rules" of their PJ. These rules are laughable at best.
Some of them are: 1. PJ is B&W only. 2. Only available light. 3. Only 35mm.
4. Camera must be tilted (how do you know when you have tilted too far? - when
the b&g tilt there heads when looking at the photos) 5. You have to have a
college kid shoot your PJ for you.
What has happened is that PJ has caught on and the traditional studios are
thinking they are losing customers because so many b&g's are coming in asking
about PJ. So they say they do it and show images from the above school of
thought. Seminars are being taught by traditionalists saying -- this is pj /
this is how to add pj to your business. So, they are teaching their "PJ" and
creating a group of photographers who are living a lie. One such photographer
says that people don't look good if they aren't posed, so here's how to pose
those PJ shots. It's very laughable but at the same time, it's very bad for
the true PJ photographers.
So, now you ask what is PJ? PJ is the capturing of the wedding without
interrupting the wedding. There is no stopping the action to pose the
participants. Just like a sporting event, you are shooting from the sidelines
and sometimes you have to get out of the way of the play. But you can't call a
timeout and tell them how to play the game.
In my wedding coverage, I shoot color, b&w, and IR b&w. I also use flash and
available light. But the one thing I don't do is stop the action to take a
picture. I capture the emotions of the day because I don't interrupt people
from having them. This is something that the traditionalists can't comprehend.
They base their coverage on what they were taught when they started shooting.
Sidney Smith
Eustis, FL
©2000
SuperSquid
>not
>then the public with catch on quickly and then they will be finished. If on
>the
>other hand the customers like it then I guess they really are PJ's.
>
How are the public going to catch it when the non PJ studios are all showing
the same stuff and calling it PJ? Remember, the public that is hiring wedding
photographers is only hiring them once. They have no prior experience with
wedding photography and don't know what it is.
SuperSquid
Hey John, guess what! I finally agree with you on something! LOL. Just
thought you could use a laugh. Catch ya later.
Digital - Studio II Photography
the craft better then you but are also doing it financially better then
you.............
Until you open your mind to change you will always be a loser in the area of taking
great work and making great money at it.......
I will say it again, the reason your work does not sell is because it
sucks..................
King
SPECTRUM wrote:
> On 24 Jan 2000 22:51:45 GMT, super...@aol.community (SuperSquid)
> wrote:
>
> >What has happened is that PJ has caught on and the traditional studios are
> >thinking they are losing customers because so many b&g's are coming in asking
> >about PJ. So they say they do it and show images from the above school of
> >thought. Seminars are being taught by traditionalists saying -- this is pj /
> >this is how to add pj to your business. So, they are teaching their "PJ" and
> >creating a group of photographers who are living a lie.
>
> And who has essentially pushed this along for the past 3 years
> ? Oh yes, one of Mr.Rosen's dear friends. What's her name Rosey ?
> Machine Gun Annie ?
>
> > One such photographer
> >says that people don't look good if they aren't posed, so here's how to pose
> >those PJ shots. It's very laughable but at the same time, it's very bad for
> >the true PJ photographers.
>
> Who are really just outgrowths of the "shoot more - sell more"
> mindset.
>
> > I capture the emotions of the day because I don't interrupt people
> >from having them. This is something that the traditionalists can't comprehend.
>
> While I don't doubt that you believe this, I can't fathom how
> one would shoot some 1000 frames of film without "interrupting" the
> mood of the day.
>
> > They base their coverage on what they were taught when they started shooting.
>
> But at least they were taught. That is to say that they
> learned. OTOH, most PJ shooters are simply amateurs with motor driven,
> frame pumping wannabe's that can't pose and light a couple to give
> them a truly classic image.
>
> Regards,
>
> John
Jerry Hammond
comput...@home.com says...
> But at least they were taught. That is to say that they
> learned. OTOH, most PJ shooters are simply amateurs with motor driven,
> frame pumping wannabe's that can't pose and light a couple to give
> them a truly classic image.
>
>
Pre-Realphlite Brotherhood of the 1840s...not everyone appreciated what
they were doing, and there were a lot of wanna-be, but the true believers
were a master of a genre that few could master or understand.
Case in point, John Waterhouse.
Jerry
Cliff Hawker
SPECTRUM
wrote:
>How are the public going to catch it when the non PJ studios are all showing
>the same stuff and calling it PJ? Remember, the public that is hiring wedding
>photographers is only hiring them once. They have no prior experience with
>wedding photography and don't know what it is.
>Sidney Smith
Not to mention that the lovely educational system in the
United States rarely addresses the photographic image or the many
facets of it's practitioners styles.
Regards,
John
SPECTRUM
wrote:
Oooops ! Of course to every rule there is an exception. Sidney
seems to be one such exception !
Regards,
John
SPECTRUM
wrote:
>What has happened is that PJ has caught on and the traditional studios are
>thinking they are losing customers because so many b&g's are coming in asking
>about PJ. So they say they do it and show images from the above school of
>thought. Seminars are being taught by traditionalists saying -- this is pj /
>this is how to add pj to your business. So, they are teaching their "PJ" and
>creating a group of photographers who are living a lie.
And who has essentially pushed this along for the past 3 years
? Oh yes, one of Mr.Rosen's dear friends. What's her name Rosey ?
Machine Gun Annie ?
> One such photographer
>says that people don't look good if they aren't posed, so here's how to pose
>those PJ shots. It's very laughable but at the same time, it's very bad for
>the true PJ photographers.
Who are really just outgrowths of the "shoot more - sell more"
mindset.
> I capture the emotions of the day because I don't interrupt people
>from having them. This is something that the traditionalists can't comprehend.
While I don't doubt that you believe this, I can't fathom how
one would shoot some 1000 frames of film without "interrupting" the
mood of the day.
> They base their coverage on what they were taught when they started shooting.
But at least they were taught. That is to say that they
learned. OTOH, most PJ shooters are simply amateurs with motor driven,
frame pumping wannabe's that can't pose and light a couple to give
them a truly classic image.
Regards,
John
SuperSquid
>? Oh yes, one of Mr.Rosen's dear friends. What's her name Rosey ?
>Machine Gun Annie ?
It's pretty bad when I can't even read past the first sentence of a post and I
have to hit reply.
No, Mr. Douglas, the woman you are referring to is a photojournalist. She has
been doing photojournalism for years, dating back to before it became so
popular. And, no I don't believe that she is one of Rosen's "dear" friends.
Btw, she has been doing seminars and such for way more than 3 years.
>> One such photographer
>>says that people don't look good if they aren't posed, so here's how to pose
>>those PJ shots. It's very laughable but at the same time, it's very bad for
>>the true PJ photographers.
>
> Who are really just outgrowths of the "shoot more - sell more"
>mindset.
Ok, Mr. Douglas, it's true, the more I shoot the more I sell. Why you ask?
Why do you shoot multiple poses? So you can sell more. It is not a case of
the more you shoot, the higher chance you have a good image. I know when I
click the shutter I have a good image, unless someone blinks or changes their
facial expression to quickly. But then again, you have to worry about that too
don't you?
>While I don't doubt that you believe this, I can't fathom how
>one would shoot some 1000 frames of film without "interrupting" the
>mood of the day.
>
Well, let's see.......Does the photographer on the sidelines of a game
interrupt the game? It's a matter of how you shoot those images Mr. Douglas.
If you bring attention to yourself, you will interrupt the flow of the wedding.
But if you just do your job, after the first few minutes, people totally
forget you are there.
>> They base their coverage on what they were taught when they started
>shooting.
>
> But at least they were taught. That is to say that they
>learned. OTOH, most PJ shooters are simply amateurs with motor driven,
>frame pumping wannabe's that can't pose and light a couple to give
>them a truly classic image.
Oh, so I guess I'm an amateur. I never worked for a studio before starting my
business. I never worked for a newspaper either. I did go to school with the
intention of majoring in photojournalism, but after I earned my AA and then
started on my bachelors, I decided that the time, effort, and money that I
would be spending to get that wasn't worth it for the time and lack of pay that
I would get for doing the actual job. Similar to the reasons why you moved
according to what you have said in the past. So, my cameras sat dormant for
many years, and now I am using them again and shooting the style that I grew up
shooting.
About the comment that I can't pose and light a couple to give them a truly
classic image -- I have to say that one of the people who viewed my work has
said that I have a classical look to my photos. All the photos he viewed were
PJ shots, not posed.
SuperSquid
>United States rarely addresses the photographic image or the many
>facets of it's practitioners styles.
>
>Regards,
>
> John
So, is this the reason you have moved out of Jersey? The educational system
didn't educate your clients for you?
RICK5347
>>? Oh yes, one of Mr.Rosen's dear friends. What's her name Rosey ?
>>Machine Gun Annie ?
>
You never miss a shot do you Mr Douglas. When, in search of the truth,
everyone cuts through all your rants, the simple truth is that you are faced
with a level of success in your wedding work that has not gotten you the
success you want so, among other things, you are moving from New Jersey to
Nashville and truing to blame all the more successful photographers for your
failures.
>It's pretty bad when I can't even read past the first sentence of a post and
>I
>have to hit reply.
Just consider the source Sid, consider the source.
>No, Mr. Douglas, the woman you are referring to is a photojournalist. She
>has
>been doing photojournalism for years, dating back to before it became so
>popular. And, no I don't believe that she is one of Rosen's "dear" friends.
>Btw, she has been doing seminars and such for way more than 3 years.
>
Sidney, as you know our photo friend will never "get it" so don't bother
trying. For him to recognize the accomplishments of others would mean he would
have to self-examine.
>Sidney Smith
>Eustis, FL
>©2000
>
>
>
>
>
>
Best regards,
Rick Rosen
Newport Beach, CA
www.rickrosen.com
SPECTRUM
wrote:
>So, is this the reason you have moved out of Jersey? The educational system
>didn't educate your clients for you?
>Sidney Smith
Nah. Taxes . High cost of living. Depleted income potential.
New Yorkers moving down. Homes being built on 55 foot lots. Traffic
conditions are particularly atrocious. we lived near a 2 lane highway
(state) with a 35 mph speed zone !
Essentially New Jersey has become a retirement area for New
York's less-than-rich.
Regards,
John
SPECTRUM
>>> And who has essentially pushed this along for the past 3 years
>>>? Oh yes, one of Mr.Rosen's dear friends. What's her name Rosey ?
>>>Machine Gun Annie ?
>>
>
>You never miss a shot do you Mr Douglas.
Bulls Eye Johnny . That's me !
> When, in search of the truth,
>everyone cuts through all your rants, the simple truth is that you are faced
>with a level of success in your wedding work that has not gotten you the
>success you want so,
What in the world gives you that idea ? Success is not just
measured in dollars. You may think otherwise but I assure you that I
don't. IMO success is a level of achievement. Attainment. Am I
successful ? Of course !
> among other things, you are moving from New Jersey to
>Nashville and truing to blame all the more successful photographers for your
>failures.
Man are you confuzeled ! My move to Tennessee is based on
many, many reasons not the least of which are :
1) Cost of living vs. income - In New Jersey if your gross
earned income is less than $100,000 then it's time for the wife to get
a job.
2) Taxes - It annoys me to no end to think of the thousands
and thousands of dollars each household pays in taxes (like CA from
what I've ben told) to support the incredibly high bureaucracies that
have developed over the years.
3) Population density - As most know, NJ has the highest
population density in the US.
4) Poor road planning. - Try getting to a wedding on Long
Beach Island on a Saturday morning in June !
>>It's pretty bad when I can't even read past the first sentence of a post and
>>I have to hit reply.
Oh I think it's pretty good !
>Just consider the source Sid, consider the source.
Yeah buddy !
>Sidney, as you know our photo friend will never "get it" so don't bother
>trying.
Eeewwwwww ! If "it" is what you have then I certainly don't
want any !
> For him to recognize the accomplishments of others would mean he would
>have to self-examine.
Well I constantly evaluate my work and occasionally even
compare it to others. But I don't know anyone who thinks it reasonable
for a person to carry 6 cameras at once !
>>>> One such photographer
>>>>says that people don't look good if they aren't posed, so here's how to
>>pose
>>>>those PJ shots. It's very laughable but at the same time, it's very bad
>>for
>>>>the true PJ photographers.
>>>
>>> Who are really just outgrowths of the "shoot more - sell more"
>>>mindset.
>>
>>Ok, Mr. Douglas, it's true, the more I shoot the more I sell.
Of course. If you only shot 200 frames then chances are that
your clients would settle for about 40% of what they normally select
as you simply didn't canvas them in film.
> Why you ask?
No. Not really.
>>Why do you shoot multiple poses? So you can sell more. It is not a case of
>>the more you shoot, the higher chance you have a good image. I know when I
>>click the shutter I have a good image, unless someone blinks or changes their
>>facial expression to quickly. But then again, you have to worry about that
>>too
>>don't you?
Certainly. But you digress. Can you pose and light a good
wedding portrait ? Nope.
Regards,
John
SuperSquid
>wedding portrait ? Nope.
>
>Regards,
>
> John
>
John, maybe you should go back to an email I sent you regarding one of *your*
"posed and lit" wedding images. Remember my comments on your shot in the
gazebo? Go read them and tell me I can't pose and light an image. You didn't
pay attention to the background when you could have actually had a pretty good
shot.
The Director
Digital - Studio II Photography wrote:
> It is so funny specHEAD........all those you bitch and moan about are not only doing
> the craft better then you but are also doing it financially better then
> you.............
A garage and a 1978 primered pickup is not financially better.
> Until you open your mind to change you will always be a loser in the area of taking
> great work and making great money at it.......
Spoken like our true hero. Can you chant: "Hate, hate, hate" ??
> I will say it again, the reason your work does not sell is because it
> sucks..................
But it is you that is always sucking on it! Wipe off your lips and allow other people
to exist without having to meet your "high" standards, you big fat hateful person you.
> King
Queen
Digital - Studio II Photography
SPECTRUM wrote:
> On 25 Jan 2000 06:43:15 GMT, rick...@aol.com (RICK5347) wrote:
>
> >>> And who has essentially pushed this along for the past 3 years
> >>>? Oh yes, one of Mr.Rosen's dear friends. What's her name Rosey ?
> >>>Machine Gun Annie ?
> >>
> >
> >You never miss a shot do you Mr Douglas.
>
> Bulls Eye Johnny . That's me !
To bad your photography is not on the bulls eye, if so you could have made some
money at it. Do you know that the latest poll taken about studios is the average
studio makes in the $325,000.00 range. This is the average.
>
> > When, in search of the truth,
> >everyone cuts through all your rants, the simple truth is that you are faced
> >with a level of success in your wedding work that has not gotten you the
> >success you want so,
>
> What in the world gives you that idea ? Success is not just
> measured in dollars.
Yes success in this business is measured in dollars. It is also measured in a few
other things but to be a pro and make a living dollars comes first.
> You may think otherwise but I assure you that I
> don't. IMO success is a level of achievement. Attainment. Am I
> successful ? Of course !
Ok since you are so successful, will you share with us all what makes you
successful? Will you share with us your criteria and standards by which you judge
yourself and others to be successful? Are you successful because you own a camera?
Why and What is it that labels you as successful?
Just so you know, I have seen a wedding you did for a customer. Not only did it
suck that bride also told me she would never recommend you for a wedding to anyone
else again. Now maybe just maybe this is why your business FAILED.
>
> > among other things, you are moving from New Jersey to
> >Nashville and truing to blame all the more successful photographers for your
> >failures.
>
> Man are you confuzeled ! My move to Tennessee is based on
> many, many reasons not the least of which are :
>
> 1) Cost of living vs. income - In New Jersey if your gross
> earned income is less than $100,000 then it's time for the wife to get
> a job.
See not above, in NJ you should have been making 4 times that easily. And besides
you have always bragged about how your wife worked with you doing the wedding
stuff.
>
> 2) Taxes - It annoys me to no end to think of the thousands
> and thousands of dollars each household pays in taxes (like CA from
> what I've ben told) to support the incredibly high bureaucracies that
> have developed over the years.
duh, idiot you have to do that no matter where you live.........
> 3) Population density - As most know, NJ has the highest
> population density in the US.
All the easier to make a living. More people, more brides.
> 4) Poor road planning. - Try getting to a wedding on Long
> Beach Island on a Saturday morning in June !
Not a problem, so what if you have to leave an hour earlier, you just do it, part
of the job.
> >>It's pretty bad when I can't even read past the first sentence of a post and
> >>I have to hit reply.
>
> Oh I think it's pretty good !
>
> >Just consider the source Sid, consider the source.
>
> Yeah buddy !
Once an idiot always an idiot, your problem is you are an idiot and a closed minded
idiot.
> >Sidney, as you know our photo friend will never "get it" so don't bother
> >trying.
>
> Eeewwwwww ! If "it" is what you have then I certainly don't
> want any !
>
> > For him to recognize the accomplishments of others would mean he would
> >have to self-examine.
>
> Well I constantly evaluate my work and occasionally even
> compare it to others. But I don't know anyone who thinks it reasonable
> for a person to carry 6 cameras at once !
I do and I know plenty of shooters who do, but they all make money for a living so
I guess they do not know what they are doing.
> Of course. If you only shot 200 frames then chances are that
> your clients would settle for about 40% of what they normally select
> as you simply didn't canvas them in film.
This makes no sense at all.
> Certainly. But you digress. Can you pose and light a good
> wedding portrait ? Nope.
Can you? I have seen your work and the answer is sometimes, that is a huge problem
in itself, for the one bride you did she is happy for the one bride you don't she
tells others and walla, you are out of business and moving to another state cause
all the upset customers told another person and finally you got no work.
Regards,
Eric
Digital - Studio II Photography
SPECTRUM wrote:
> On 25 Jan 2000 04:02:52 GMT, super...@aol.community (SuperSquid)
> wrote:
>
> >So, is this the reason you have moved out of Jersey? The educational system
> >didn't educate your clients for you?
> >Sidney Smith
>
>
> Essentially New Jersey has become a retirement area for New
> York's less-than-rich.
Well by guaging your photography you should fit right
in..............................hahahahahahahahahahahahaha
King
>
>
> Regards,
>
> John
The Director
Digital - Studio II Photography wrote:
> Just so you know, I have seen a wedding you did for a customer. Not only did it
> suck that bride also told me she would never recommend you for a wedding to anyone
> else again. Now maybe just maybe this is why your business FAILED.
And YOU get upset when people make fun of YOUR low quality digital work? You are not
only fat, but two-faced also.
> duh, idiot
Talking to yourself again?
> Once an idiot always an idiot, your problem is you are an idiot and a closed minded
> idiot.
Once a fatty who's hateful, always a fatty who's hateful. Our posts about YOU are
obviously no different than the hateful ones you make about other people... you just
don't like to be treated the way you treat other people. Hey, you got a hamhock stuck
in your teeth, backwoods man.
> Regards,
>
> Eric
First you bash someone, then you sign it "regards."
Why don't you just threaten to murder him? You've done that in here before, right
fatty?
No rest for the wicked.
Hey, too bad you can't post at http://model.hypermart.net/wwwboard/wwwboard.html
anymore. Sad thing them having to write a special script just to block YOUR
postings... Well, can't really blame them after the vile things you told that child.
The Director
Digital - Studio II Photography wrote:
> Well by guaging your photography you should fit right
> in..............................hahahahahahahahahahahahaha
>
> King
>
>
The king... he's full of hate.
Cronus44
As the original author of this post, I have to say I'm a bit disappointed that
this has been turned into a name calling charade...BTW as to your comment on
lighting a portrait, I will put my best portrait against your best portrait
anyday.
Lee
Eixt
phot-journalism unless they know what their doing ,i might add all it takes is
english 101 in journalism with a priority in expository proves or multi
expository proves to do the trick, if i can do it anyone can a very easy
coarse.
The Director
Cronus44 wrote:
It is rather sad, isn't it? Unfortunately, that disease has attacked people with
his name calling here for years... While The Director is by no mean innocent of
that very same thing, we call only one creature names...and only then only so that
the creature can see what it is like and know how it feels to have the same thing
dealt upon himself. You might like to know that the very same monster who several
days ago was banned from the real Texas Talent Board has gone out and created his
own hate board of terror, naming it "The REAL Texas Talent Board" (forgetting the
fact that the real talent board has been around for quite a bit longer than his
fat ass). So far only he and a few others (including some porno model) post
there... but his love children will be there too, shortly.
There are always gangs of bullies who flock together in numbers because they feed
off one another’s hatred. Packs of wolves, so to speak, who use their words (like
“idiot”) to feed off of the weak and meek.
Pay the slug a visit on his hate forum on occasion and watch his pompous ass as he
swaggers around, saliva running from him swollen lips, intent on verbally
assaulting people with his nasty, rotten, misbegotten "I am better than you are"
crap (which earned him the name here of the "KING of Crapola"). He is a joy, a
boy-toy, and a thing to marvel at -- free entertainment for those who enjoy a good
laugh, or a sad statement of the results of an abused and unloved child who’s
grown up big and fat and full of spite and hate. He is a public statement
regarding the poor education system in Texas (spelling and grammar), and a good
example of what it is like to have to live a miserable, lonely, life. You would
think that in today's day and age, a grown man would at least know how to spell
and talk... How can he even try to master photography when he's still trying to
learn the proper use of English language? He’s struggling still at 3rd and 4th
grade levels!
Fortunately on the Web Forums, THE PEOPLE can stand up together and say, "We don't
want this monster posting here." He lasted there less than two months... while
he has terrorized the Usenet for many years. On the web forums, you can't
FILTER... so they
ban the beast and force him to move on to pillage other communities in his quest
to thrash and abuse his peers.
Driven out into the fields, the beast grows weak... But he returns because he
feeds on hate and as long as there are real photographers wanting to discuss their
works, there will be this creature there to mock and ridicule them. Clifford,
certainly there is something in this posting that you can find displeasure with.
Come on and join the fun. Insert comments... HERE: ____________
Love ya babe. Let's do lunch. Hang on, gotta hang our "knock extra hard for
lawsuit" sign back on our studio door... LOL
RICK5347
>>>? Oh yes, one of Mr.Rosen's dear friends. What's her name Rosey ?
>>>Machine Gun Annie ?
>>
>
>You never miss a shot do you Mr Douglas.
Bulls Eye Johnny . That's me !
>>
You got the first part of that right Johnny. Care to try again?
> When, in search of the truth,
>everyone cuts through all your rants, the simple truth is that you are faced
>with a level of success in your wedding work that has not gotten you the
>success you want so,
What in the world gives you that idea ? Success is not just
measured in dollars. You may think otherwise but I assure you that I
don't. IMO success is a level of achievement. Attainment. Am I
successful ? Of course ! >>
OK John. I'll bite. For the edification of everyone here please tell us what
your success is based on and what you have attained? Feel free to brag.
<snipped>
> For him to recognize the accomplishments of others would mean he would
>have to self-examine.
Well I constantly evaluate my work and occasionally even
compare it to others. But I don't know anyone who thinks it reasonable
for a person to carry 6 cameras at once ! >>
Carrying six "active" cameras is, IMO, a bit much, true. I carry only three
when I photograph a wedding journalistically but of course I have backups as
well.
>>>> One such photographer
>>>>says that people don't look good if they aren't posed, so here's how to
>>pose
>>>>those PJ shots. It's very laughable but at the same time, it's very bad
>>for
>>>>the true PJ photographers.
>>>
>>> Who are really just outgrowths of the "shoot more - sell more"
>>>mindset.
>>
The intent of this thread was to discuss the wedding photographers that are
portrait-based but now using the term "wedding photojournalism" to promote
themselves. There are tons of them out there. Frankly, after seeing many of
their seminars and examples of their work I can say, like Sidney, that they
don't have a clue what is at the heart of PJ work. They are just trying to
compete by fooling the consumer.
The intent of this thread was not for you to go offon your tired tirade against
all wedding photojournalists.
<snipped>
>>Why do you shoot multiple poses? So you can sell more. It is not a case of
>>the more you shoot, the higher chance you have a good image. I know when I
>>click the shutter I have a good image, unless someone blinks or changes their
>>facial expression to quickly. But then again, you have to worry about that
>>too
>>don't you?
Certainly. But you digress. Can you pose and light a good
wedding portrait ? Nope.
Regards,
John
>>
Excuse me Mr Douglas. All of the best PJ shooters that I know could pose and
light a great wedding portrait. I certainly can. They (and their clients)
just choose a different direction for their wedding coverage. Personally, I
have also been a studio photographer, making a living in commecial
people/product areas for over thirty years. I also taught seminars nationally
on lighting techinques for Broncolor.
The marketplace is in a constant state of evolution. Styles change and the
successful photographer will have to evolve as well. The alternative is to see
business drop and eventually the photographer, to stay alive, will have to move
to a less cosompolitan area of the country where the potential clents are
slower to change in their wants and desires.
Hocsigno1
>some
>money at it. Do you know that the latest poll taken about studios is the
>average
>studio makes in the $325,000.00 range. This is the average.
Why does Spectrum's success monetarily or lack of it, and welcome back, John,
so upset Eric? This has been a theme for at least a year.
Digital - Studio II Photography
failure on the fact that other people in the business do make money and are
better at it them him. He blames me for his failure. I have offered to help
Spechead anytime and anyway I can. He made some foul mouthed remarks about it and
so be it. Again if he wants to be a failure then let him. But damn stop blaming
others for his failure.
ERic
Hocsigno1 wrote:
The Director
Hocsigno1 wrote:
> >To bad your photography is not on the bulls eye, if so you could have made
> >some
> >money at it. Do you know that the latest poll taken about studios is the
> >average
> >studio makes in the $325,000.00 range. This is the average.
>
> Why does Spectrum's success monetarily or lack of it, and welcome back, John,
> so upset Eric? This has been a theme for at least a year.
Because Eric is a monster who enjoys being a bully to other people. He is so
filled with hate and jealousy that he spends his time posting crap about Spectrum
simply because it makes him feel better about himself to deride other people.
These are the kind of things that made us, and a few others, finally say THIS IS
ENOUGH! Now, we spend our time giving the big fat animal a taste of his own
torment right on back. He is a disease.
Read through his crap and you'll realize that he's just a poor, pathetic, lonely
guy who most surely is not professional... for he does not show a professional
attitude in here when he attacks his peers simply for his own satisfaction.
The web forums just ban the bastard... on the Usenet, we have to listen to the
King of Crap.
The Director
Digital - Studio II Photography wrote:
> Just so you know it does not upset me.
And that is why you go on, and on, and on, and on about it for... what, over a year
now?
> I have offered to help
> Spechead anytime and anyway I can.
You have never done anything except post your hate for him here. You are so two
faced, it is sickening.
> He made some foul mouthed remarks about it and
> so be it.
Coming from the guy who was just banned from a web forum for using a foul mouth on a
13 year old girl? Hmmmm....
> Again if he wants to be a failure then let him. But damn stop blaming
> others for his failure.
>
> ERic
Now you are Mr. E. Ric?
SuperSquid
> 1) Cost of living vs. income - In New Jersey if your gross
>earned income is less than $100,000 then it's time for the wife to get
>a job.
>
Mr. Douglas,
"Time for the wife to get a job"? That's a pretty male chauvinist statement
you have made. So, you have kept your wife from pursuing a career just because
you think you have to be the provider for your family? No wonder you are
moving back to the hills.
SuperSquid
>wedding portrait ? Nope.
>
>Regards,
>
> John
John,
I just want to ask you what you base this statement on? Have you seen a
wedding portrait that I have shot? Since I do not have any wedding portraits
posted online, I'm pretty sure you are just trying to change the subject
because I have pointed out the fallacies in your previous statements.
Digital - Studio II Photography
King
SuperSquid wrote:
The Director
>
>
> King
Yeah..! HATE HATE HATE
Give em hell babe................... hate is so cool!
Hate hate hate hate (chant it with your King)
That's what our King is allllll about: Hate hate hate
King hates Spectrum, so King has for over a year harassed him. For over
a year, though, someone has DIRECTED a bit of his own right back at
him! LOL
Hate hate hate
(chant it with your King!)
Jerry Hammond
super...@aol.community says...
> > Certainly. But you digress. Can you pose and light a good
> >wedding portrait ? Nope.
> >
> >Regards,
> >
> > John
> >
>
> "posed and lit" wedding images. Remember my comments on your shot in the
> gazebo? Go read them and tell me I can't pose and light an image. You didn't
> pay attention to the background when you could have actually had a pretty good
> shot.
> Eustis, FL
> ©2000
>
Jerry Hammond
> Certainly. But you digress. Can you pose and light a good
> >wedding portrait ? Nope.
>
>
John,
How would YOU do it?
I'll even give you the partial setup:
**A Studio Shoot**
Bride, Black Hair, white dress...um (just to complicate it a little) and
about 1 inch taller than the groom.
Groom, blue shirt, red cumberbun(sp), black tux. Balding with glasses.
Now, how would YOU pose them; what lighting diagram would you use, and
what would be your preferred background.
This is not an outdoor shoot, John. You may use as many or as few lights
as you please. You can add or subtract any props you feel you may need
for this shot (there's a hint here, John).
Most of the solutions for this type of shoot are pretty basic.
SuperSquid
>
>King
>
>
Ummmmm, Eric? I'm a GUY.
SPECTRUM
>BTW as to your comment on
>lighting a portrait, I will put my best portrait against your best portrait
>anyday.
>
>Lee
Ummmmm, OK ! But you have to wait a couple of weeks. Scanners
down and I need a new power pack.
Regards,
John
SPECTRUM
>
>The intent of this thread was to discuss the wedding photographers that are
>portrait-based but now using the term "wedding photojournalism" to promote
>themselves. There are tons of them out there. Frankly, after seeing many of
>their seminars and examples of their work I can say, like Sidney, that they
>don't have a clue what is at the heart of PJ work. They are just trying to
>compete by fooling the consumer.
As far as this goes, we actually agree on something. But there
have been a lot of other "photographers" cashing in as they are in
essence not even photographers.
Regards,
John
SPECTRUM
wrote:
>
>Mr. Douglas,
>"Time for the wife to get a job"? That's a pretty male chauvinist statement
>you have made. So, you have kept your wife from pursuing a career just because
>you think you have to be the provider for your family? No wonder you are
>moving back to the hills.
>Sidney Smith
Heh heh ! Oh perhaps I should just get Karen answer this one !
FYI, she's an accountant and will be quite glad when we have a
family so that she can stay home !
Regards,
John
SPECTRUM
>and welcome back, John
Hey ! Glad to be back !
Regards,
John
Karen Simmons
what wedding photojournalism is and not by any means any official
"declaration" of what it should be or what an industry standard should
be. Most of the wedding photojournalists I know tend to believe pretty
much the same way I do, with maybe a few changes in minor details.
First of all I don't think you have to have been a photojournalist in
the sense of "working for a newspaper" to shoot weddings
photojournalistically. The definition of "journalism" is (paraphrased)
to report without editorial or bias. The definition of
"photojournalism" is (again paraphrased) journalism in which words are
subordinate to pictorial images. So, IMO, a wedding photojournalist is
one who "reports" what happens on the day of the wedding without
editorial or bias (i.e. controlling the results of the photographs).
I also agree that there are many traditional portrait photographers who
are "adding" photojournalism to their coverages without having any idea
of what photojournalism is. They tell their clients that because they
shoot 35mm, or because they shoot b&w film, or because they have
photographs with action in them, they are photojournalistic. Again,
IMO, that creates a false impression in the mind of the client as to
what "photojournalistic" is. For example, one recent award winning
photograph at WPPI was of a bride and groom leaping from the top step of
their church and clicking their heels together. It was a lovely shot,
but it was not spontaneous in any way, shape or form. How do I know
this? Because no bride wearing a 18 foot long train and a cathedral
length veil is going to spontaneously - and at the same time as her
groom - leap into the air and click her heels together. I know. I've
been a bride. But I have no doubt that the photographer said "wouldn't
this be neat" and they did it and yep - it worked. And the photographer
then called it "photojournalistic" because it was an action photograph
that was out of the ordinary.
IMO, you can't "add" wedding photojournalism to a traditional coverage
unless you've got two photographers working - one doing each style
exclusively. And that's not to say that a wedding photojournalist can't
be a good portraitist - in a different setting. But it takes a certain
mindset do to one or the other and you can't be both at once. They take
a different approach and a different feel to the day. It's like saying
you can serve vanilla ice cream that tastes exactly like chocolate. It
just doesn't work that way.
So - in my long winded way - what I'm trying to say is that wedding
photojournalism isn't as much about the images as it is about the
actions and attitude of the photographer. You can have good and bad
wedding photojournalists, just as you can have good and bad
portraitists. You can have clichéd wedding pj shots just as you can
have clichéd wedding portraits. But that has nothing to do with the
style of the photographer - either they are non-participants (my
definition of WPJ) or they are participants (more traditional portrait
style). And in the final definition, that's what makes wedding PJ
different from traditional wedding photography.
Again, all IMO, and certainly open to discussion, but lets avoid flames,
please.
Karen
--
----------------------------
Karen Simmons, Photographer
Atlanta, Georgia
----------------------------
SPECTRUM
wrote:
Of course you realize that there are innumerable methods to
resolve this. How about lighting with a single light set high and
behind the bride with a silver metallic reflector close and bouncing
light back into the groom ? Using an on-camera strobe set -1.5 stops
as a trip light and secondary fill ?
vvv
vvv
vvv
bride|groom /
/
/
/
>**A Studio Shoot**
>
>Bride, Black Hair, white dress...um (just to complicate it a little) and
>about 1 inch taller than the groom.
>
>Groom, blue shirt, red cumberbun(sp), black tux. Balding with glasses.
GAG ! It must be true love !
>Now, how would YOU pose them
His right arm behind (embracing) her. left hand holding her
right (usually with a bouquet in hands). Her left behind him. Each
turned toward the other somewhat.
>; what lighting diagram would you use, and
Just FYI, most newsreaders don't support the MIME that Agent
does and therefor any "picture" that I might draw may well not look
the same in your browser. An annoyance to be sure. Unfortunately MS
and Netscrape are to busy working on other problems to get the
formatting of text down pat.
>what would be your preferred background.
Any good muslin, canvas or structural background can work
fine. if using a canvas or other cloth background then a separation
light would be needed.
>This is not an outdoor shoot, John.
Bummer. I love the outdoors !
>You may use as many or as few lights
>as you please. You can add or subtract any props you feel you may need
>for this shot (there's a hint here, John).
Oh oh ! Really big hint there !
Regards,
John
SPECTRUM
Karen Simmons
>> The "photographers" you so malign are who? It is unfortunate that
>> you feel capable of passing judgement on other photographers.
>
> As you do on me ?
There is a difference between passing judgment on someone with whom
you've never had any personal interaction whatsoever and wouldn't know
from Adam if you met them on the street and voicing an opinion on
someone with whom you've had the fortune (or misfortune) of dealing with
personally over a significant length of time.
Of course that's just my opinion.
SPECTRUM
>
>The "photographers" you so malign are who? It is unfortunate that you feel
>capable of passing judgement on other photographers.
As you do on me ?
Regards,
John
SPECTRUM
<klsi...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>SPECTRUM wrote:
>
>>> The "photographers" you so malign are who? It is unfortunate that
>>> you feel capable of passing judgement on other photographers.
>>
>> As you do on me ?
>
>There is a difference between passing judgment on someone with whom
>you've never had any personal interaction whatsoever and wouldn't know
>from Adam if you met them on the street and voicing an opinion on
>someone with whom you've had the fortune (or misfortune) of dealing with
>personally over a significant length of time.
>
>Of course that's just my opinion.
Actually I've been thinking about this of late. How well would
anyone "know" anyone else on the 'net ? Even over a long period of
time there may well develop a series of misconceptions that could lead
to a total character mis-read. Like I could even be wrong about Eric
!
Naaaaaaaaahhhhh !
Regards,
John
SPECTRUM
>The "photographers" you so malign are who? It is unfortunate that you feel
>capable of passing judgement on other photographers.
>
>Best regards,
>Rick Rosen
Sorry ! I answered a question with a question. This deserves a
little better answer.
About the "photographers" , the ones that don't take the time
to learn their craft. To hone their skills. To learn about their
tools. in short, those that compromise .
BTW, I think that includes most of the professionals today as
they spend more time learning about marketing than about the very
craft they associate themselves with. Unfortunately doctors have
quacks but photographers have "photographers".
Regards,
John
RICK5347
>photojournalistic types are like this is, with all due respect, saying
>more about the author's poor perceptions than in any way reflecting on
>those who use this photojournalistic style of shooting.
>C.J.
I believe that you would do well to review some of the threads
on "PJ vs. Traditional". Seem's you missed a few points that people
other than myself made.
Regards,
John
>>
But John, your bias and ignorance of what PJ work really is is well documented.
The fact that some others may have a negative opinion of the jornalistic work
as well does not validate your opinions one iota. Furthermore, there are
really different issues at play here. One is the fact that many
traditionalists are suddenly calling their work "journalistic", something which
it is not.
Many traditional portrait-based wedding photographers are quite outspoken about
their new wedding PJ competitors but, in my experience, that comes more from a
problem competing with their product that is not as contemporary than it comes
from anything they say with any real understanding of what wedding PJ really
is.
RICK5347
>capable of passing judgement on other photographers.
>
>Best regards,
>Rick Rosen
Sorry ! I answered a question with a question. This deserves a
little better answer.
About the "photographers" , the ones that don't take the time
to learn their craft. To hone their skills. To learn about their
tools. in short, those that compromise . >>
So, you are talking about generalities? No specific REAL photographers? While
I would agree that there are photographers out there with all levels of
knowledge, that certainly is not limited to our profession. Would you like to
see some form of judging qualifications or licensing of professional
photographers?
<< BTW, I think that includes most of the professionals today as
they spend more time learning about marketing than about the very
craft they associate themselves with. Unfortunately doctors have
quacks but photographers have "photographers".
Regards,
John >>
Ok John. Since you seem to love to make these observations about the lack of
training inherent in *most of the professionals today" what criteria are you
using to make such a statement? And while you are at it, what formal training
in photography do you have John?
FYI, John. Marketing can get one some attention but when the attention is on
them they still have to produce a product that their clients want and do it
consistantly or they are history. Photographers come and go, just like in
other professions. The good ones stay and the ones that rely only on marketing
hype disappear. On the other hand, one could be the best photographer in his
community but without marketing he will fail. Marketing itself is not a dirty
word John.
SPECTRUM
>Over time John many of us have a clear impression of you and your opinions and
>that is based on first hand interactions with you, both on the net and on the
>phone.
Actually you are the only current member of this group whom I
have called.
> Your constant willingness to make snide comments about journalistic
>work, 35mm shooters and photographers who you do not know first hand or even
>know their work is very very unprofessional of you.
In your opinion. But then in my opinion using adjectives like
"intrusive", "artificial" and such is also quite derogatory towards
those that you aimed those and other words at. The
non-photo-journalists who don't pretend to be photojournalists.
> You are a smart man in the
>darkroom but it appears that once you leave it you are still in the dark on
>many issues of our shared profession.
Nope. My knowledge lies in photography. Yours in marketing.
One will make you rich in $$$ and the other make me rich in the
satisfaction of knowing that I have accomplished the majority of my
goals as a photographer and a person.
>Incidentally, while I may not always agree with Eric's language, as a fellow
>commercial shooter for over 20 years I can say that he does know his stuff.
>His technical answers and related experiences are very telling.
I don't recall ever saying that he was a bad photographer,
just that he is not a good person. A fact born out by the number of
people that left this group shortly after he arrived and started his
bologna. The list was long nd distinguished and I assure you the group
is poorer for their loss.
Regards,
John
SPECTRUM
>
>But John, your bias and ignorance of what PJ work really is is well documented.
In your opinion. My "bias" as you call it is in fact my
opinions based on my experienced observation and analyses of the
trends in photography over the past 20 years.
> The fact that some others may have a negative opinion of the jornalistic work
>as well does not validate your opinions one iota.
Haven't really leaned on any individual for supporting
opinions but I do recall quoting several photographers from a "open
door" forum who were completely unaware of my observations. They were
all quite negative as were several people on our mutual group.
Not just 1 or 2 but many.
> Furthermore, there are
>really different issues at play here. One is the fact that many
>traditionalists are suddenly calling their work "journalistic", something which
>it is not.
Again, in your opinion. You are not exactly the all-powerful
authority on PJ. In fact as Karen has recently pointed out there many
views on what is and is not PJ even among the "confirmed" PJ'ers.
And as I've stated time and again, PJ starts and ends with
candids. Nothing more and nothing less. How you get a candid is your
personal style.
>Many traditional portrait-based wedding photographers are quite outspoken about
>their new wedding PJ competitors but, in my experience, that comes more from a
>problem competing with their product that is not as contemporary than it comes
>from anything they say with any real understanding of what wedding PJ really
>is.
In a sense you are right. PJ has a certain allure to it which
is pretty hard to market against. Unfortunately the public is so taken
with buzzwords that it simply has little idea of what it is asking
for. IMO. Kind of like Clinton and his Camelot campaign. He sold the
American public solely on image and now look what we have !
Regards,
John
>
>Best regards,
>Rick Rosen
SPECTRUM
wrote:
>>Give em hell babe.......................
>>
>>King
>Ummmmm, Eric? I'm a GUY.
>Sidney Smith
He doesn't care. : > )
Regards,
John
SuperSquid
> And as I've stated time and again, PJ starts and ends with
>candids. Nothing more and nothing less. How you get a candid is your
>personal style.
John, PJ is not *candids*. According to your definition of *candids* that is.
The dictionary definition of candids yes, but your definition where you include
*posed* images into what you call candids is not PJ.
SPECTRUM
wrote:
I do believe that you are referring to a reposed candid. One
that is essentially a re-enactment of the original scene. This is
usually done when the photographer is restricted from grabbing the
candids and was essentially only able to watch as s/he missed
opportunities to create good images. Unfortunately not all churches
allow for photo's during the ceremony. And one church that I know of
will not allow the use of a tripod or flash in their virtually
windowless hall. How about EI 400, 1/15th of a sec. @ f/1.2 ?
Regards,
John
The Director
SuperSquid wrote:
> >Give em hell babe.......................
> >
> >King
> >
> >
>
> Ummmmm, Eric? I'm a GUY.
EXACTLY!!!!!!
Eric Digital
<< >The "photographers" you so malign are who? It is unfortunate that you feel
>capable of passing judgement on other photographers.
As you do on me ?
Regards,
John
>>
Eric Digital
afraid to talk. Are you?
Eric
Eric Digital
here for both men and women. Babe is used like partner, friend, comrad, etc.
eric
<<
>Give em hell babe.......................
>
>King
>
>
Ummmmm, Eric? I'm a GUY.
Eric Digital
craft and you do claim to know most all of it. Could you please tell us all
something about photography that you know that we do not know.
Is their anything you can do in your darkroom that I can not do with a digital
darkroom?
Giving you an opportunity here to show us and the world that you really do know
what you talk about. Or would you just rather side step the question and find
something else to complaign about.
Eric
<< About the "photographers" , the ones that don't take the time
to learn their craft. To hone their skills. To learn about their
tools. in short, those that compromise .
BTW, I think that includes most of the professionals today as
Eric Digital
are about me, yet I have still offered (and still to this day will) to help you
in anyway I can to get your company to grow. But instead of possibly learning
something from someone else you would rathe sit around and make snid little
remarks and give excuses as to why you are the best yet you seem to fail
constantly when it comes to making a living at photography.
And just so you know for the 50th time I have told you....the word spechead is
not a bad word. it is used in the town where I live when others talk amoungst
friends.
Again if you ever can get to where you are not so caught up in thinking you are
the best and can step aside and let someone help you, just let me know.
Eric
<<
>>Give em hell babe.......................
>>
>>King
>Ummmmm, Eric? I'm a GUY.
>Sidney Smith
He doesn't care. : > )
Regards,
John
>>
Eric Digital
cause I can not visualize that as being a great lighting. But I am open minded
and would love to see a sample of that style of lighting.
ERic
The Director
Eric Digital wrote:
> You might be you might not be. Tell us all what you think of me. I am not
> afraid to talk. Are you?
>
> Eric
You know what people think of you... That's why you get banned from forums.
The Director
Eric Digital wrote:
> So. What does that mean? If you are referring to the word "babe". It is used
> here for both men and women. Babe is used like partner, friend, comrad, etc.
>
> eric
>
> <<
> >Give em hell babe.......................
> >
> >King
> >
> >
>
> Ummmmm, Eric? I'm a GUY.
> Sidney Smith
> Eustis, FL
> ©2000
>
> >>
The Director
Eric Digital wrote:
> ....the word spechead is
> not a bad word. it is used in the town where I live when others talk amoungst
> friends.
What a crock. Where fatty lives, everyone walks around saying "Good morning,
spechead"??
Dumber than sh*t you are, big fellow.
The Director
You're just getting dealt the same crap you deal out to everyone else.
Don't like it? Don't cry.
RICK5347
>darkroom but it appears that once you leave it you are still in the dark on
>many issues of our shared profession.
Nope. My knowledge lies in photography. Yours in marketing.
One will make you rich in $$$ and the other make me rich in the
satisfaction of knowing that I have accomplished the majority of my
goals as a photographer and a person.
>>
Oh please! I have to respond to this by stating some of my credentials, even
though you are fully aware of them and yet choose to ignore those facts. I
have a 30 year history or teaching workshops nationally, some were sponsored by
Beseler (color printing), Broncolor (lighting) and Sinar (large format) as well
as a ten year stint on the faculty of The Ansel Adams Workshops, Friends of
Photography, Victor School, U.C. Santa Cruz and others. I also was on the
faculty of Otis Parsons (lighting, view camera, fine printing) as well as Art
Center College of Design until my full time wedding business took over my time.
I am also the author of about 5 articles in the photographic press as well as
having articles written on my work.
So much for my lack of knowledge in photography and my knowledge only in
marketing. While I will agree that I do have some knowledge in marketing and
use it to promote my business there is nothing evil about that John. You state
that marketing is evil and it masks a lack of *real* photographic ability. I
know that is bawlerdash and is just a crutch for you to justify that in not
*selling out* you have remained pure to your photography in spite of your
comparable lack of success. Without marketing even the most artistic
photographer is doomed to failure. There is no nobility in being a *starving
artist*, especially when you are running a business.
Incidentally, the reason I pulled away from trying to help you after our phone
conversations was and still is your attitude about others in the profession and
your willingness to make your snide obnoxious comments about photographers that
you do not even know or know their work, as well as your refusal to recognize
your own weaknesses. To take the time to educate requires that you have a
student with an open mind who is willing to learn.
Nathan Shafer
>
> (SuperSquid) wrote:
> >
> >John, PJ is not *candids*. According to your definition of *candids* that is.
> >The dictionary definition of candids yes, but your definition where you include
> >*posed* images into what you call candids is not PJ.
>
> I do believe that you are referring to a reposed candid.
John, this is why we all think you are completely clueless about
what Photojournalism is. What you just said made as much sense as
talking about:
"A really light black"
"A blindingly fast crawl"
"Serene rage"
"Ignorant erudition"
Until you get that distinction through your skull you will *never*
understand what any of us are talking about, and you will *never*
be able to do more than talk out of your ass when it comes to PJ.
Period.
Cronus44
and traditional weddings. Every body has a certain way that they like to
shoot, and as long as the client that you are shooting for is happy w/ your
work,( and you are happy w/ your work), then that is all that really matters.
However, I think that the people who think that shooting PJ weddings are just
for the photographers who "dont know how to shoot the real way" are being a bit
arrogant. The reasons that I shoot PJ weddings are these:
1. First, I am a photojounalist by trade, so this type of shooting comes easier
to me.
2. Second, I think that PJ catches the emotion of the wedding better then
traditional coverage does. When I shoot a wedding, I shoot just as I would any
other assignment, albeit a very long one, looking for the "decisive moment" to
capture on film. No, not all shots are going to be perfectly lit, composed
etc, (no matter how hard you try), but even so, the brides that I have shot for
all seem to think that the way that I shot them(i.e. not getting in the way,
not interuppting people to get a shot etc), is better than the traditonal
coverage.
3. Third, almost all of the brides that have come to me have done so because
the other photographers she looked at were very inflexible as to their shooting
coverage, (here are the shots you get with this much money, etc.)
I'll leave you with a story. I shot a wedding 2 weeks ago where the bride
was insistent on the photographer going w/ her and the groom to a nursing home
about 20 min away from the reception to visit a grandmother who coulden't make
it to the wedding. All of the other (traditional) photographers were to caught
up in the time limits involved and turned her down, or said it would cost more
money. So she came to me. I told her sure, no problem and when the time came,
shot the pic. Now imagine the scene: Bride and Groom in dress and tux,
bending over a grandmother in a hospital bed crying because the woman has
alzheimers and dosen't even recognize them. Now, as a PJ, the only thing Im
thinking as Im shooting is"MY GOD, what a great shot" and thank God the other
photographers turned it down because they dident think it was worth the time or
effort. If there is one thing that PJ has taught me, it is that you never know
when a great shot will happen, so you have to prepare like it will at any
moment...
Sorry so long
Lee
RICK5347
>>portrait-based but now using the term "wedding photojournalism" to promote
>>themselves. There are tons of them out there. Frankly, after seeing many
>of
>>their seminars and examples of their work I can say, like Sidney, that they
>>don't have a clue what is at the heart of PJ work. They are just trying to
>>compete by fooling the consumer.
>
> As far as this goes, we actually agree on something. But there
>have been a lot of other "photographers" cashing in as they are in
>essence not even photographers.
>
>Regards,
>
> John
>
The "photographers" you so malign are who? It is unfortunate that you feel
capable of passing judgement on other photographers.
Best regards,
C. J. Morgan
> But at least they were taught. That is to say that they
> learned. OTOH, most PJ shooters are simply amateurs with motor driven,
> frame pumping wannabe's that can't pose and light a couple to give
> them a truly classic image.
What utter silliness. Just because a person is most comfortable shooting
in a photojournalistic style doesn't at all mean they're "simply amateur",
or that they mindlessly have motordrive syndrome, or that they inherently
can't comprehend lighting and/or posing. The suggestion that most
photojournalistic types are like this is, with all due respect, saying
more about the author's poor perceptions than in any way reflecting on
those who use this photojournalistic style of shooting.
C.J.
--
C.J. Morgan
ch...@torfree.net
Karen Simmons
> I do believe that you are referring to a reposed candid. One
> that is essentially a re-enactment of the original scene.
From the American Heritage Dictionary:
pose: to place in a particular position; to assume or hold a particular
position or posture as in sitting for a portrait.
candid: not posed or rehearsed (i.e. a candid picture); an unposed,
informal photograph.
From Mirriam-Webster:
pose: a: to put or set in place; b: to place (as a model) in a studied
attitude
candid: relating to photography of subjects acting naturally or
spontaneously without being posed.
In other words, pose and candid are opposites. To have a "posed candid"
is an oxymoron. To have a "reposed candid", well... words fail me.
Until you understand that difference, John, as Nathan said, you will
never be able to converse intelligently on the subject.
Karen
--
----------------------------
Karen Simmons, Photographer
Atlanta, Georgia
----------------------------
SPECTRUM
wrote:
> The suggestion that most
>photojournalistic types are like this is, with all due respect, saying
>more about the author's poor perceptions than in any way reflecting on
>those who use this photojournalistic style of shooting.
>C.J.
I believe that you would do well to review some of the threads
RICK5347
<klsi...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>SPECTRUM wrote:
>
>>> The "photographers" you so malign are who? It is unfortunate that
>>> you feel capable of passing judgement on other photographers.
>>
>> As you do on me ?
>
>There is a difference between passing judgment on someone with whom
>you've never had any personal interaction whatsoever and wouldn't know
>from Adam if you met them on the street and voicing an opinion on
>someone with whom you've had the fortune (or misfortune) of dealing with
>personally over a significant length of time.
>
>Of course that's just my opinion.
Actually I've been thinking about this of late. How well would
anyone "know" anyone else on the 'net ? Even over a long period of
time there may well develop a series of misconceptions that could lead
to a total character mis-read. Like I could even be wrong about Eric
!
Naaaaaaaaahhhhh !
Regards,
John
>>
Over time John many of us have a clear impression of you and your opinions and
that is based on first hand interactions with you, both on the net and on the
phone. Your constant willingness to make snide comments about journalistic
work, 35mm shooters and photographers who you do not know first hand or even
know their work is very very unprofessional of you. You are a smart man in the
darkroom but it appears that once you leave it you are still in the dark on
many issues of our shared profession.
Incidentally, while I may not always agree with Eric's language, as a fellow
commercial shooter for over 20 years I can say that he does know his stuff.
His technical answers and related experiences are very telling.
Karen Simmons
> Of course. But then perhaps you have a better term for the
> concept of a re-enacted moment ?
A posed photograph.
> My understanding is not your concern.
Not until you claim that you are all knowing in the issues of
photography. Then your understanding - or lack thereof - is the concern
of every person who is forced to listen to your faulty premises and
generalizations spouted as fact.
> Debate the point if you must but do so intelligently please.
LOLOLOL. Oh dear God. That's funny. Yes, John, please take your own
advice.
SPECTRUM
>Oh please! I have to respond to this by stating some of my credentials,
Of course you do. That is all you have after all.
>even though you are fully aware of them and yet choose to ignore those facts.
What fact ? That you have a few credentials ? I don't dispute
them. I dispute their worth.
>I have a 30 year history or teaching workshops nationally
Yes, the PPA does this a lot. It's no big deal. i've attended
seminars from many of the top guns and very few impressed me much at
all.
>, some were sponsored by
>Beseler (color printing)
Now that's amazing.
>, Broncolor (lighting) and Sinar (large format)
Your LF work is your best. Quite a contrast to your 35mm and
wedding PJ stuff.
> as well
>as a ten year stint on the faculty of The Ansel Adams Workshops, Friends of
>Photography, Victor School, U.C. Santa Cruz and others. I also was on the
>faculty of Otis Parsons (lighting, view camera, fine printing) as well as Art
>Center College of Design until my full time wedding business took over my time.
> I am also the author of about 5 articles in the photographic press as well as
>having articles written on my work.
Joy. Does that make you good ?
>So much for my lack of knowledge in photography and my knowledge only in
>marketing.
Oh contraire ! How else would one get these "credentials" ?
Marketing.
Regards,
John
SPECTRUM
>
>Incidentally, the reason I pulled away from trying to help you after our phone
>conversations was and still is your attitude about others in the profession and
>your willingness to make your snide obnoxious comments about photographers that
>you do not even know or know their work, as well as your refusal to recognize
>your own weaknesses. To take the time to educate requires that you have a
>student with an open mind who is willing to learn.
I ? Your student ? Oh Lawd have mercy !
Regards,
John
SPECTRUM
<klsi...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>In other words, pose and candid are opposites.
> To have a "posed candid"
>is an oxymoron. To have a "reposed candid", well... words fail me.
Of course. But then perhaps you have a better term for the
concept of a re-enacted moment ? A moment that a photographer could
have captured candidly had he not had any restrictions or barriers ?
>Until you understand that difference, John, as Nathan said, you will
>never be able to converse intelligently on the subject.
My understanding is not your concern. Debate the point if you
must but do so intelligently please.
Regards,
John
SPECTRUM
<sha...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Until you get that distinction through your skull you will *never*
>understand what any of us are talking about, and you will *never*
>be able to do more than talk out of your ass when it comes to PJ.
>Period.
Sure. Whatever you say.
Regards,
John
SPECTRUM
>f there is one thing that PJ has taught me, it is that you never know
>when a great shot will happen, so you have to prepare like it will at any
>moment...
But that is not limited to the PJ photographer.
Regards,
John
RICK5347
>> To have a "posed candid"
>>is an oxymoron. To have a "reposed candid", well... words fail me.
>
> Of course. But then perhaps you have a better term for the
>concept of a re-enacted moment ? A moment that a photographer could
>have captured candidly had he not had any restrictions or barriers ?
>
That is one of the significant differences between your traditional style and
any good PJ shooter Mr Douglas. What is especially offensive to me is not that
there are differences in your style vs true PJ, but that you are so condemning
of what you do not practice nor even understand.
Most of those restrictions you are referring to are self-imposed and either due
to the limitations of your equipment (slower lenses, bulky cameras like your
cherished Mamiya RB, I suspect usually mounted on a tripod) or restrictions on
what, in your mind, constitutes a good photograph.
A good PJ shooter (like any good photographer) does not see restrictions, he
sees challenges and reacts accordingly. The last church wedding I shot (Dec.
19th) was in a beautiful historic church and their rules were very specific:
No flash and shoot from the back of the church or the balcony. My 15mm 2.8,
17-35mm 2.8, 85mm 1.2 and 300mm f/4 lenses allowed me to record the wedding as
it happened, while still abiding by their restrictions.
The coordinator offerred after the ceremony to re-stage the lighting of the
unity candle and other moments but I just smiled and told ger there was no need
and that I had captured it as it happened. She was amazed because she said
that all the other (traditional) wedding photographers always ask her to help
re-stage those beloved *posed candids* of yours.
>>Until you understand that difference, John, as Nathan said, you will
>>never be able to converse intelligently on the subject.
>
> My understanding is not your concern. Debate the point if you
>must but do so intelligently please.
>
>Regards,
>
> John
>
LOLOLOL. What an absolutely ludicrous thing to say. You are certainly
one-of-a-kind Mr Douglas.
SPECTRUM
<klsi...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>SPECTRUM wrote:
>
>> Of course. But then perhaps you have a better term for the
>> concept of a re-enacted moment ?
>
>A posed photograph.
I'll be sure to tell that to the next PJ Prophet who holds a
seminar.
>> My understanding is not your concern.
>
>Not until you claim that you are all knowing in the issues of
>photography.
Never said I was "all knowing".
But I'm certainly trying to be !
> Then your understanding - or lack thereof - is the concern
>of every person who is forced to listen to your faulty premises and
>generalizations spouted as fact.
If my facts are so mistaken then you ought to be able to
disprove them easily. As yet you haven't disproved a one.
>> Debate the point if you must but do so intelligently please.
>
>LOLOLOL. Oh dear God. That's funny. Yes, John, please take your own
>advice.
Creative. And anticipated. Of course.
Regards,
John
RICK5347
Well said and I agree completely with what you have said.
>I have seen many people here and in other newsgroups debate the merits of PJ
>and traditional weddings. Every body has a certain way that they like to
>shoot, and as long as the client that you are shooting for is happy w/ your
>work,( and you are happy w/ your work), then that is all that really matters.
>
>However, I think that the people who think that shooting PJ weddings are just
>for the photographers who "dont know how to shoot the real way" are being a
>bit
>arrogant.
The reason these flamewars begin is evident in the posts of Mr Douglas. MANY
photographers have corrected his misinformation on what PJ really is but he
just goes on his merry way tossing snide comments back and refusing to listen.
Please believe me when I say that I have equal respect for those
traditionalists who deliver their beautifully posed portraits, in fact one of
my closest friends in the profession is a self-admitted Monte clone and calls
herself a *slow poser*. Her work is incredible but I follow a diffferent path.
Since my forst wedding in 1968 it just seemed better to capture the natural
emotions and events that pose them artifically.
C. J. Morgan
: As far as this goes, we actually agree on something. But there
: have been a lot of other "photographers" cashing in as they are in
: essence not even photographers.
Yeah, non-photographers getting rich as photographers. They're cashing in
big time. They have no experience, but they're just raking in the bucks.
What's their secret John?
C. J. Morgan
>Sidney Smith
And Sidney looks like a stud-muffin, if Jeanne is any judge of images. LOL.
C. J. Morgan
SPECTRUM (comput...@home.com) wrote:
: Oh contraire ! How else would one get these "credentials" ?
: Marketing.
Honestly John, sometimes it seems like we're talking with a ranting
street person. Your words here would suggest that you have no concept of
the difference between studies, teaching, and marketing. Rosen just seems
to be wasting his breath on you because none of it apparently sinks in.
It often seems with you that it's just this "I have to have the last
word, no matter how apparently loopie or pedantic." Talk less. Listen
more. Learn. At least try.
Karen Simmons
> What fact ? That you have a few credentials ? I don't dispute
> them. I dispute their worth.
So, John, what credentials would you consider worth while? And don't
beat around the bush and slide out of this, just give a direct honest
answer. What credentials do you consider worth while and valid for a
professional photographer?
> i've attended seminars from many of the top guns and very few
> impressed me much at all.
That's because you're too busy being self important to sit back for a
minute and realize that someone might (*gasp* yes it's true) know
something more than you do.
> Oh contraire ! How else would one get these "credentials" ?
> Marketing.
That's a complete non sequitir. Marketing is how you get credentials?
Now I suspect you're just trying to cover up for the fact that you don't
have any, John. Because that seems to be your modus operandi: If you
don't have success and others do, blame the marketing. If you don't
have credentials and others do, blame marketing. If your business has
failed and others haven't, blame marketing. It is a convenient cop-out,
I'll give you that.
Oh and by the way, I think you mean "au contraire", John.
RICK5347
>>
>>> Of course. But then perhaps you have a better term for the
>>> concept of a re-enacted moment ?
>>
>>A posed photograph.
>
> I'll be sure to tell that to the next PJ Prophet who holds a
>seminar.
>
Pssssst John. PJ Prophets don't do "re-enacted moments". Following your post
about debating with facts, your point is?
>>> My understanding is not your concern.
>>
>>Not until you claim that you are all knowing in the issues of
>>photography.
>
> Never said I was "all knowing".
>
> But I'm certainly trying to be !
>
>> Then your understanding - or lack thereof - is the concern
>>of every person who is forced to listen to your faulty premises and
>>generalizations spouted as fact.
>
> If my facts are so mistaken then you ought to be able to
>disprove them easily. As yet you haven't disproved a one.
>
Every one of your points has been disproved by those of us who actually
"practice what we preach". Like your mentor, you just choose to ignore the
rebuttals.
>>> Debate the point if you must but do so intelligently please.
>>
>>LOLOLOL. Oh dear God. That's funny. Yes, John, please take your own
>>advice.
>
> Creative. And anticipated. Of course.
>
>Regards,
>
> John
>
RICK5347
Ahhhhhh! Something we can finally agree on!
ceno...@home.com
Board....rag on any 13 years olds lately, Fatty?
"Eric Digital" <ericd...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000126114509...@ng-bj1.aol.com...
> You might be you might not be. Tell us all what you think of me. I am not
> afraid to talk. Are you?
>
> Eric
Jerry Hammond
comput...@home.com says...
> On Tue, 25 Jan 2000 18:45:15 -0800, jer...@anv.net (Jerry Hammond)
> wrote:
Just so there is no confusion, John Douglas wrote the following in
response to my question about how he would shoot a set up I suggested:
**A Studio Shoot**
************************************************************************
>
> Of course you realize that there are innumerable methods to
> resolve this. How about lighting with a single light set high and
> behind the bride with a silver metallic reflector close and bouncing
> light back into the groom ? Using an on-camera strobe set -1.5 stops
> as a trip light and secondary fill ?
>
> vvv
> vvv
> vvv
> bride|groom /
> /
> /
> /
>
*************************************************************************
Interesting approach, John. Is this the way you would solve this delimma?
To me, at least as I understand the diagram you've posted above, you're
trying to recreate an outdoor look with lights high and above, and behind
the left shoulder of the bride.
I think there are some inherent problems with this type of lighting
setup. The silver reflectors for a start. You're just begging for
unwanted specular highlights off the groom's plate.
Also, with the light behind her there's a good chance that it'll only
accent the Brides greater haight.
Personally, with this setup I would opt for either a soft-white
reflector, or, depending on the skin tones of the subjects (either very
pale or dark) I would go with a gold/white speckled reflector.
Also, figuring that the reflectors are going to on average give me 2 to 3
stop decrease in light throw, there may be a good chance that you'll lose
deatil in the gown and bouquet with the on-camera fill because it will
over-power the reflectors.
> >**A Studio Shoot**
> >
> >Bride, Black Hair, white dress...um (just to complicate it a little) and
> >about 1 inch taller than the groom.
> >
> >Groom, blue shirt, red cumberbun(sp), black tux. Balding with glasses.
>
> GAG ! It must be true love !
Don't laugh. I've seen plenty of this.
>
> >Now, how would YOU pose them
>
> His right arm behind (embracing) her. left hand holding her
> right (usually with a bouquet in hands). Her left behind him. Each
> turned toward the other somewhat.
It's affectionate, but does it solve the problem(s)?
>
> >; what lighting diagram would you use, and
>
> Just FYI, most newsreaders don't support the MIME that Agent
> does and therefor any "picture" that I might draw may well not look
> the same in your browser. An annoyance to be sure. Unfortunately MS
> and Netscrape are to busy working on other problems to get the
> formatting of text down pat.
>
> >what would be your preferred background.
>
> Any good muslin, canvas or structural background can work
> fine. if using a canvas or other cloth background then a separation
> light would be needed.
>
> >This is not an outdoor shoot, John.
>
> Bummer. I love the outdoors !
>
> >You may use as many or as few lights
> >as you please. You can add or subtract any props you feel you may need
> >for this shot (there's a hint here, John).
>
> Oh oh ! Really big hint there !
It was. I was trying to allow you enough leeway to solve the problem in
what you considered the best possble manner while at the same time
showing that you indeed had the right, the knowledge, and creative
thinking to condemn someone elses photographic abilities.
It was a chance to show your chops, John.
Jerry
>
> Regards,
>
> John
>
Hal
> To take the time to educate requires that you have a
> student with an open mind who is willing to learn.
Bingo.
My wife used to teach philosophy at UC Irvine. She used to play the
Monty Python sketch "The Argument Clinic", just for this passage:
P: That isn't an argument!
C: Yes, it is.
P: No, it isn't... (beat) Look, an argument is a connected series of
statements, intended to establish a proposition. It isn't the
gainsaying of everything by going, "No, it isn't."
Having been reading throughout this thread, I'd say that you and Mr.
Douglas are speaking at cross-purposes. You're trying to establish
an argument. He's saying, "No, it isn't."
I suspect the fastest way to get Mr. Douglas to come 'round to your
current position would be to support his own... But then, hey, I'm
the guy who thinks if you really want to get guns off the streets,
make 'em mandatory. People will invent guns that look functional
but don't work, just to piss off the authorities.
But, seriously, I believe Mr. Douglas is just a contrarian... An
observation I'm sure he will vigourously deny... :)
-- Hal
SPECTRUM
wrote:
>
>Honestly John, sometimes it seems like we're talking with a ranting
>street person. Your words here would suggest that you have no concept of
>the difference between studies, teaching, and marketing. Rosen just seems
>to be wasting his breath on you because none of it apparently sinks in.
>It often seems with you that it's just this "I have to have the last
>word, no matter how apparently loopie or pedantic." Talk less. Listen
>more. Learn. At least try.
You would also do well to consider what I say before
dismissing it so candidly. Your choice of course.
Regards,
John
SPECTRUM
wrote:
>
>Yeah, non-photographers getting rich as photographers. They're cashing in
>big time. They have no experience, but they're just raking in the bucks.
>What's their secret John?
Greed. Avarice. Marketing.
Just look at "Cheap" Chuck Lewis.
Regards,
John
SPECTRUM
<klsi...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>SPECTRUM wrote:
>
>> What fact ? That you have a few credentials ? I don't dispute
>> them. I dispute their worth.
>
>So, John, what credentials would you consider worth while? And don't
>beat around the bush and slide out of this, just give a direct honest
>answer. What credentials do you consider worth while and valid for a
>professional photographer?
An MFA is a good start. Particularly from RIT or Brooks.
>> i've attended seminars from many of the top guns and very few
>> impressed me much at all.
>
>That's because you're too busy being self important to sit back for a
>minute and realize that someone might (*gasp* yes it's true) know
>something more than you do.
Never. I always go in with a very open mind and I usually do
learn something. IMO Dean Collins is the best but then there is also
Will Crockett, Mr.Blackmore and of course Jeff Lubin. In fact I'd love
to work with Lubin more closely as he really has a great deal of
talent for children photography.
>> Oh contraire ! How else would one get these "credentials" ?
>> Marketing.
>
>That's a complete non sequitir. Marketing is how you get credentials?
Yep. Especially in the PPA.
>Now I suspect you're just trying to cover up for the fact that you don't
>have any, John.
Nope. I don't have a single one. Or at least none that you
would care about. Certainly none that I care about !
> Because that seems to be your modus operandi: If you
>don't have success and others do, blame the marketing.
OOoooooooo, now I have a modus operandi ! And as I told Rosen
I am successful. Just not in his manner. I don't count success
entirely by how much I make. Of course it is also important to have
money but the goal of photography is not $$$$$$.
> If you don't
>have credentials and others do, blame marketing.
Nope. I could care less if you have credentials. I mean really
why should it matter to me ? Just don't wave them around like a
little pathetic flag without some comment. I find that kind of
behavior somewhat revolting.
> If your business has
>failed and others haven't, blame marketing. It is a convenient cop-out,
>I'll give you that.
Really ? I wouldn't know.
>Oh and by the way, I think you mean "au contraire", John.
Si ! Vera gratzi !
Regards,
John
SPECTRUM
>
>Every one of your points has been disproved by those of us who actually
>"practice what we preach". Like your mentor, you just choose to ignore the
>rebuttals.
I'm still waiting..........
Regards,
John