# Alas, poor Mamiya. I knew it well, Horatio.



## mrca (Nov 19, 2018)

I thought would post an example of the sharpness and micro contrast you get when you couple a nikon d850 with a zeiss lens, here a 100 mm makro planar. I was getting ready to update a profile shot because I lost 51 lbs for a bodybuilding show 2 weeks ago and I don't look like what I did at 203 lbs now at 152. I realized my 25 yr old MF film Mamiya which has exceeded my d 700 in tonal transitions and resolution til I started shooting the d850 with Zeiss glass. It reminded me of the graveyard scene in Hamlet where he looks into the empty eye sockets of the skull of dead Yorick, a jester who gave him much enjoyment in his youth. It is Shakespeare's commentary on our morality and this shot is the same but refers also to the obsolescence of our cameras. Often in 3-5 years, digital camera's are obsolete. Here, I am looking into the one eye of the camera, remembering the joy it brought me but now, it has less usage than before, having been moved to obsolete. This is a 7 light source shot, 5 lights and 2 reflectors. The last was a bear lining up because I shot this alone and getting the rim light on the already lit profile and the top of the lens barrel to convey what the surface feels like with the specular highlight edge transition and and still getting the bead of light on the profile was difficult with me not being able to see what I was adjusting. Note the incredible detail on the texture of the sides of the camera created by skimming the main light across it as rendered by the camera lens combo. But for those who know the wonderful finish on those older lenses, not the plastic crap we get from china now, oh, and the zeiss lenses are metal bodied and have that same tactile experience, specular edge transfer tells you what a surface feels like, what it's surface efficiency is. Look at the reflection of a flashlight on a shiny car with black paint, immediate, hard edge between highlight and black. Shine it on suede, a wider highlight edge transfer. Oh, the image just took best in show 


 in a local photo competition.


----------



## zulu42 (Nov 20, 2018)

Awesome. The lighting is exquisite. I would say that it is acceptably sharp 
 Nice work all around, including the weight loss.


----------



## thebasedsloth (Dec 3, 2018)

Kind of a waste of 5 lights, what exactly were you trying to accomplish with them all?? this shot looks super flat and it may even be TOO sharp. The skin looks a little weird, plasticy even. The shadows seem overfilled, killing all dimension on you which isn't very flattering.


----------



## Jeff15 (Dec 3, 2018)

Nice image, great light.......


----------



## Fujidave (Dec 3, 2018)

Great image and the PP works beautifully.


----------



## mrca (Dec 3, 2018)

It's a matter of making the multiple lights not apparent.  I wasn't "trying" to accomplish that , I accomplished it if you can't tell especially if you fancy yourself as a photographer.  I don't follow "rules"  I make art.  And I don't mean tilting, blurring and saturating being "art."    What percentage of portraits are profiles? How often do you see a kicker on the lit profile?  You probably didn' t get the reference  that  preceding photography  "portraits" cameos were flat profiles cut on stone with different layers of color, usually white subject, darker background.  It's an homage to early portraiture on another level .     Over filled shadows? Can you see the micro contrast from forehead, cheeks, neck that would be missing with nikon or sigma lenses with  18 to 24 pieces of glass?  I see cheekbones, jaw line, each individual hair.  Hardly  flat. There is  a full tonal range from detail in black to  detail in  the edge lights.  That is not an accident.  It's called precise metering.  The skin is 71 yrs old and the scars and broken nose, (compliments of a welter weight champ of the world), were all earned.  This is a fine art shot, not some snap shot,  so the face  being the main subject of the photo, was intended to be the brightest area and kicked up accordingly.  Squint and look at the shot and note the brightest/area of highest contrast is the subject.   That directs the viewers eye there.   The implied line of my looking at the lens leads the viewer to the camera.  There is another  light controlling the tone of the entire background to taste and a second  creating chiaroscuro (light against dark) and dimensionality to what would be a flat, boring background without it like say a boring all white or black bg.  I do not use the cliched bg halo, so 1990's.  It also adds separation from the bg beyond the 4 sources that are precisely matched to produce a continuous even rim light around the subject.  Makes the difficult look easy and not detectable.  This is a finely crafted image every light there for a reason.  Most photographers  won't realize  this is a combination product and portrait shot.  The skimming main light from L reveals the texture of the back and side of the camera.  The R fill and L kicker reveal the surface efficiency and feel of the lens surface with their specular highlights.   I don't expect most photographers to have a clue about how the specular edge transition tells the brain what a surface feels like much less even know what a specular edge transition is.  Too sharp?  Usually people on these sites only care about sharpness.   It's all they know.  That and the saturation slider.  It's how many buy lenses like  buying wine for alcohol content.    With this resolution it will  easily make a 16x20 or 20x24 print.  I just set up a 24 inch printer  for such prints.  I will use Epson Legacy Platine paper that is able to hold the shadow detail because it uses photo black ink even though it is a cotton base, but the highlights aren't to hot with it's 85% brightness.  It is what I like to use for my fine art portraits and has a 200 life for color and 400 for black and white.  Oh I would add,  Professional Photographers of America apparently thought I know what I am doing, I have both won and judged their professional competitions and they placed me in  charge of their  mentor program where I lived in northern Ca.     Now  I hope  you can see how  this is a crafted image, all of the elements there for a reason, all the lights.  Not only did the 3 judges with more than 100 years experience between them  make this best in class and best in show,  I really liked it that a waitress  also thought it was best in show with no clue  what it was about or it's  the technical aspects.


----------



## Derrel (Dec 3, 2018)

thebasedsloth said:


> Kind of a waste of 5 lights, what exactly were you trying to accomplish with them all?? this shot looks super flat and it may even be TOO sharp. The skin looks a little weird, plasticy even. The shadows seem overfilled, killing all dimension on you which isn't very flattering.



See response in Post #6...


----------



## Dave442 (Dec 3, 2018)

Nice, it looks like you put the dedication into the shot just like you did to lose those 51 pounds.


----------



## thebasedsloth (Dec 3, 2018)

mrca said:


> It's a matter of making the multiple lights not apparent.  I wasn't "trying" to accomplish that , I accomplished it if you can't tell especially if you fancy yourself as a photographer.  I don't follow "rules"  I make art.  And I don't mean tilting, blurring and saturating being "art."    What percentage of portraits are profiles? How often do you see a kicker on the lit profile?  You probably didn' t get the reference  that  preceding photography  "portraits" cameos were flat profiles cut on stone with different layers of color, usually white subject, darker background.  It's an homage to early portraiture on another level .     Over filled shadows? Can you see the micro contrast from forehead, cheeks, neck that would be missing with nikon or sigma lenses with  18 to 24 pieces of glass?...


 
I'll start by saying my initial critique may have be unwanted and bit harsh, but this was an incredibly arrogant and defensive response. Your high opinion of yourself didn't convince me that this image was any more technically correct or aesthetically pleasing. I never accused you of breaking any "rules" either but clearly they're something you care a lot about so maybe you should relearn them before you try to break 'em and randomly recite them to milkmen on the internet. You did all that work to draw attention to your face but none to draw attention away from your neck, which is where my eye goes way before it ever sees there's a camera there. Also you should learn the difference between sharpening for a computer screen and a print, since it sounds like you went all out to make this tangible on paper then posted the same file on here.

It looks strange and unrealistic, and not in a painterly way, and that's what I was getting at. It lacks character. You can call it fine art if you want but that seems like a crutch. 

Also good job on the award, it must look nice framed on your mantle next to all these sharp prints of yourself.


----------



## otherprof (Dec 3, 2018)

mrca said:


> I thought would post an example of the sharpness and micro contrast you get when you couple a nikon d850 with a zeiss lens, here a 100 mm makro planar. I was getting ready to update a profile shot because I lost 51 lbs for a bodybuilding show 2 weeks ago and I don't look like what I did at 203 lbs now at 152. I realized my 25 yr old MF film Mamiya which has exceeded my d 700 in tonal transitions and resolution til I started shooting the d850 with Zeiss glass. It reminded me of the graveyard scene in Hamlet where he looks into the empty eye sockets of the skull of dead Yorick, a jester who gave him much enjoyment in his youth. It is Shakespeare's commentary on our morality and this shot is the same but refers also to the obsolescence of our cameras. Often in 3-5 years, digital camera's are obsolete. Here, I am looking into the one eye of the camera, remembering the joy it brought me but now, it has less usage than before, having been moved to obsolete. This is a 7 light source shot, 5 lights and 2 reflectors. The last was a bear lining up because I shot this alone and getting the rim light on the already lit profile and the top of the lens barrel to convey what the surface feels like with the specular highlight edge transition and and still getting the bead of light on the profile was difficult with me not being able to see what I was adjusting. Note the incredible detail on the texture of the sides of the camera created by skimming the main light across it as rendered by the camera lens combo. But for those who know the wonderful finish on those older lenses, not the plastic crap we get from china now, oh, and the zeiss lenses are metal bodied and have that same tactile experience, specular edge transfer tells you what a surface feels like, what it's surface efficiency is. Look at the reflection of a flashlight on a shiny car with black paint, immediate, hard edge between highlight and black. Shine it on suede, a wider highlight edge transfer. Oh, the image just took best in show View attachment 166095 in a local photo competition.


I love it! It reminds me of the work of Yousuf Karsh.


----------



## mrca (Dec 4, 2018)

A collection of Karsh's work is on my coffee table.  His Churchill (without cigar because he grabbed it from him), Hemingway and Georgia O'Keefe photos are my favorites. As to sloth's response, it ain't braggin if you can do it as Dizzy Dean said.   Unrealistic?  Photography has to be realistic?   For non artists  it does.  Sorry if I am too busy to mess around re sharpening for the web.  It isn't high on my priority list.  Are the milk men you are referring to photographers who think gross photos of people sitting on toilets with silly expressions is cool?  Does your eye go to the toilets there?  I'm sure your walls are lined with photos of people sitting on toilets and think it is cute or creative.  Literal bathroom humor.  Oh, and there isn't a single photo of me on my walls, just photos with ribbons or magazine covers beside them.   What are YOUR credentials to give you standing to be so abusively critical?   That's a sign of insecurity.   When I judge or critique work, I always try to do it tactfully, not like a flaming ahole.  Gotta never forget the web has it's share of jerks.


----------



## Derrel (Dec 6, 2018)

This post was thoroughly eviscerated at an off site blog.


----------



## bribrius (Dec 6, 2018)

The light placement on the left blew out the back of the camera by the looks of it. Just bright white. I like the softness of background. It is a well cliched pose (but what isn't?).  It does look like a "true black" least i like the tone. The image , i dunno?  Seems a little bland for me in a way. And a little corny. Though probably better than i could do. I guess i should think about it a bit more. Like, compared to some stuff out there, but just doesnt really dazzle. It is totally counting on camera quality, lens quality. Not that artistic. But i think that was the point he was driving home. What he was saying. His point.

The failure in it might be, without knowing ahead of time his point, or knowing the reason for what he is holding what he is, or the camera taking the photo in comparison. Without this information the photo lacks any story or merit. Explanation cards would be needed or they just see a guy staring at something..  It isn't sustaining itself independently, and actually kind of looks corny without the history and explanation.


----------



## bribrius (Dec 6, 2018)

Derrel said:


> This post was thoroughly eviscerated at an off-site blog.


Well it ain't THAT bad geez, just has a point to it somewhat what obscure imo.


----------



## bribrius (Dec 6, 2018)

mrca said:


> I thought would post an example of the sharpness and micro contrast you get when you couple a nikon d850 with a zeiss lens, here a 100 mm makro planar. I was getting ready to update a profile shot because I lost 51 lbs for a bodybuilding show 2 weeks ago and I don't look like what I did at 203 lbs now at 152. I realized my 25 yr old MF film Mamiya which has exceeded my d 700 in tonal transitions and resolution til I started shooting the d850 with Zeiss glass. It reminded me of the graveyard scene in Hamlet where he looks into the empty eye sockets of the skull of dead Yorick, a jester who gave him much enjoyment in his youth. It is Shakespeare's commentary on our morality and this shot is the same but refers also to the obsolescence of our cameras. Often in 3-5 years, digital camera's are obsolete. Here, I am looking into the one eye of the camera, remembering the joy it brought me but now, it has less usage than before, having been moved to obsolete. This is a 7 light source shot, 5 lights and 2 reflectors. The last was a bear lining up because I shot this alone and getting the rim light on the already lit profile and the top of the lens barrel to convey what the surface feels like with the specular highlight edge transition and and still getting the bead of light on the profile was difficult with me not being able to see what I was adjusting. Note the incredible detail on the texture of the sides of the camera created by skimming the main light across it as rendered by the camera lens combo. But for those who know the wonderful finish on those older lenses, not the plastic crap we get from china now, oh, and the zeiss lenses are metal bodied and have that same tactile experience, specular edge transfer tells you what a surface feels like, what it's surface efficiency is. Look at the reflection of a flashlight on a shiny car with black paint, immediate, hard edge between highlight and black. Shine it on suede, a wider highlight edge transfer. Oh, the image just took best in show View attachment 166095 in a local photo competition.


Good photo. On the story line, you had to tell everyone what it was about and for. So you already know its shortcomings without anyone mentioning it.  A further explanation is normal, but usually the viewer has some idea without the explanation. Maybe if you wrote down "this is what i want to say". Then brainstormed the best way to get what you wanted to say through to the viewer, camera angles, positioning, maybe not even shooting the shot with the 850 but having both those cameras and you positioned in the frame to help tell the story. A creative camera angle. Creative positioning. I dunno. Still a good shot, but you might have missed your mark on getting your story through. My credentials? None. I am in a little art association and thats about it,


----------



## mrca (Dec 7, 2018)

Eviscerated my ass.    He represents  what went wrong in photography in the early 2000's with the advent of digital.  Math, computer, engineering people took over and think they are artists.  That arrogant blow hard is proudly a math and computer guy living in washington state.     Just the folks I run to for art advice... if I think a spread sheet or blue print is art.  He rambles on about construction and calculus.  Jeez. I'll put my worst work against his crap any day especially after looking at his work.   He says "Now, if you're just here because I pissed you off somewhere and you want to see some pictures so you can confirm your already formed opinion that I suck, well, I can point you to a few posts that contain pictures. "   Hmm, is he one of those that has no life and gets off pissing others off?  I do agree with him on one thing, he takes crappy pictures.     He also says   "I'm a cranky old bastard who has been taking crappy pictures  for 20 years or so. I'm full of opinions and ideas about photography, but not terribly good at putting them into practice. So it goes."  No shoot sherlock.   So he admits he takes crappy pictures?  I wonder why?    His policy page says "Insults, veiled, in-jest, or otherwise, to _other commenters_ will get your comment dropped silently. "  A typical washington   flaming lib,  spewing personal attacks with nothing to base it on and cries to mommie or deletes their post if anyone responds.     Take a look at his photos.  Pure crap.   This incompetent  is critiquing my work?    Just another loser with a blog and the idiots that actually think his crap is worthwhile reading it.   Are you agreeing with him, Derrel?  Look at this jack arse's work, you think he knows what he is talking about or the idiots that would waste time on such a blog?  He's should stick to calculus or computers, hopefully he is more knowledgeable in that area.  If you think this crap ticks me off, you are right. I take photography seriously, have mastered the craft well enough to have won and judged professional competitions and headed the mentor program for PPA in northern CA.   This guys credentials are he has a big mouth and arrogantly seeks an audience for his apparently often irritating comments when he can't take a decent photo.


----------



## mrca (Dec 7, 2018)

bribrius, thanks for your constructive criticism.   The reason I take the time to give explanations is to toss out concepts for others to consider that they might not otherwise.  My mentor years ago would do that with me and send me down paths I never would have explored.  EG.  He asked why I hung 2 lights outdoors.   He said had beautiful soft light from a rare overcast day.  He asked if I had considered subtracting light from the shadow side to kick up the contrast ratio.  A tree, black jacket or reflector cover and would have gotten soft edge shadows I already had, just a larger ratio.  Because that mentor took his time with me, I try to pass on things to others on this site, honoring his tradition of freely passing on his knowledge to others. Unfortunately, the keyboard jackasses can be annoying and I have seen many of the folks I respect just not bother any longer.  I am a member of a professional organization and the rude, idiotic comments aren't seen on that site.  The other reason I explain my photos, and I have had this discussion with Joe McNally whose magazine covers have to be universally understood, is my photos are usually for clients and are inspired by their personalities, lifestyles, relationships and often incorporate symbols that  might be missed if I didn't explain them.  My background is literature, western art and creative writing.  It separates me from photographers who simply take recognizable photos or pretty pictures.   For example here, how many folks do you think know the grave yard scene in hamlet?  I'm guessing a small percentage.


----------



## Derrel (Dec 7, 2018)

Create a few paragraphs and create some visual breaks that indicate to the readers where one idea ends and another begins, and your comments will be understood better, and I daresay, more people will actually read your posts.

 Do I agree with him?  Well, he actually has a few ideas that are correct about the post, and the photo. And he has a few ideas that are complete bullshit. So there you have it. Yes and no. If you want a big circle jerk, and everybody agreeing with you, I'm not your guy.I do understand photographic lighting and technique, and I think _you_ did extremely good lighting. However your response to the first critique was way overboard and makes you look like a blowhard. The guy that takes all the toilet photos doesn't light nearly as well as you do. But you came back awfully strong on his initial post. I do understand photographic lighting and technique, and I think he did extremely good lighting. However your response to the first critique was way overboard and makes you look like a crank.


----------



## mrca (Dec 7, 2018)

Derrel, I am taking my time to write these posts for free so don't spend anymore time than I have to in throwing out ideas.   I don't expect a circle jerk, but I don't appreciate tactless, nasty critique  especially from someone who doesn't have a clue and whose critique is totally off base.  Arrogant and stupid is a terrible combination.  I am not one to let insults lie.     He does good lighting?   I didn't see any on his bullshit blog.  What was "extremely good?"   He takes underexposed snapshots then think it is art because it is black and white and by his own admission takes "crappy" photos.      I have seen many friends whose work I respect and posts I used to admire leave sites like this because of the keyboard jackasses.   It is a loss to the others on the site and was a loss to me as I learned much from them but they got fed up with the aholes who don't have a clue and don't know what they don't know.   It leaves those with some   knowledge to be big fish in a little pond.  I guess I am learning about what to expect from this site and need to spend more time with another site strictly for professionals.   Folks there actually have a clue and communicate professionally, not like adolescent jerks with LDS, little dick syndrome.


----------



## DanOstergren (Dec 7, 2018)

thebasedsloth said:


> Kind of a waste of 5 lights, what exactly were you trying to accomplish with them all?? this shot looks super flat and it may even be TOO sharp. The skin looks a little weird, plasticy even. The shadows seem overfilled, killing all dimension on you which isn't very flattering.



I might have just sprained my eyes from rolling them so hard. [emoji849]

I don’t see this as a critique, this was a pathetic attempt to unnecessarily take the OP “down a notch”, and to start an argument.



Sent from my iPhone using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app


----------



## DanOstergren (Dec 7, 2018)

Derrel said:


> This post was thoroughly eviscerated at an off site blog.



The guy who writes this blog is a known, pathetic troll who gets his enjoyment out of saying awful things about others and hoping they will see his words and have an emotional reaction. I’ll repeat it: he is pathetic.


Sent from my iPhone using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app


----------



## DanOstergren (Dec 7, 2018)

I think it’s an exquisite photograph. A well deserved “best in show”, and I enjoyed your reference to Shakespeare and Yorick.

The commentary on cameras going obsolete is also something I enjoy about this shot. Thank you for sharing your process behind the photograph.

As far as the lighting goes, it sculpts you well and is definitely not “flat”. If it were flat, your cheekbones and jawline would have no definition, however you used the light to sculpt your features, which to me checks off as great portrait lighting. I like the use of the subtle backlight as well.

When anyone here knows what they’re talking about and has the talent and skill to back up their words, there’s inevitably that person who attempts to “put them in their place” because for some reason they feel threatened. Don’t defend yourself here, it’s an uphill battle and the trolls always seem to be given the benefit of the doubt by the moderators (but I adore them just the same <3 ). I suggest just saying “cool thanks for the feedback” instead of giving them the argument and emotional response that they’re trying to get from you. You don’t need to defend your work because your work really speaks for itself.

Sent from my iPhone using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app


----------



## mrca (Dec 7, 2018)

Dan, thanks for your kind words.  I appreciate it because I have admired your comments and shots.  It's nice to see someone who understands what I do.   It's folks like you that keep me posting.      We all take our time to help one another so when jerks appear, I don't appreciate them.  I don't note trolls so appreciate your info.    I guess I should just ignore them and leave them fat, dumb and happy and not get sucked into their little dance.


----------



## DanOstergren (Dec 7, 2018)

mrca said:


> Dan, thanks for your kind words.  I appreciate it because I have admired your comments and shots.  It's nice to see someone who understands what I do.   It's folks like you that keep me posting.      We all take our time to help one another so when jerks appear, I don't appreciate them.  I don't note trolls so appreciate your info.    I guess I should just ignore them and leave them fat, dumb and happy and not get sucked into their little dance.



[emoji119] 
Yes, show them gratitude and they will hate you even more for it! 


Sent from my iPhone using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app


----------



## Derrel (Dec 7, 2018)

Thanks for the comment is a good response whenever one receives a negative comment, or when one is smugly sure in one's own position and is unwilling to acknowledge any possible fault with one's own post, work, or efforts. It's a great way to sluff off any criticism, and still maintain the peace. Coming back with both barrels, name-calling, and appeals to authority are rather basic forms of responding to others. Calling people trolls, calling people pathetic, etc. etc. serves no one, and diminishes you as much as them. Maybe something to think about?


----------



## Derrel (Dec 7, 2018)

DanOstergren said:


> The guy who writes this blog is a known, pathetic troll who gets his enjoyment out of saying awful things about others and hoping they will see his words and have an emotional reaction. I’ll repeat it: he is pathetic.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app



Pretty much an ad hominem argument. Intelligent discussion and crticism of the state of photography in the past century and a half is what his blog is about. Intellectualism is an easy target for cheap broadside swipes and put-downs.  One will not gain much by fawning over every trend and fad In photography; identifying, and discussing, trends in modern photography, and modern photographic criticism, is what his blog is about. It takes some familiarity with the entire area of photo criticism to be able to read it intelligently and understand from where the arguments spring. 

The idea that Zeiss lenses and superior micro-contrast is an incredibly important part of photography in the digital era is a load of bullshit. And that, dear readers, is what the OP's initial post basically begins with--the idea that Zeiss lenses are so superior that the photograph shown could not be made with another lens. I don't agree with that. I own some fine primes, I own crap zooms as well.The idea that Japan -made lenses bearing the name Zeiss, but built by Cosina, are inherently superior to Canon or Nikon lenses is a fallacy.


----------



## mrca (Dec 7, 2018)

Intellectualism?   What is "intelligent" about those blogs?   You didn't answer my question what is good about his photos so I don't expect an answer to this either because both are bullshit.  Unlike that ahole,  I have not only studied the entire history of photography (and western art and paint), I have SHOT the entire history of photography from 1840 forward with digital as a year long  project.  This guy who can't take a decent photo pontificates to a bunch of folks stupid enough to listen.  I've forgotten more than this guy knows.  You are entitled to your opinion re Zeiss, but the grads of Brooks Institute that I knew would differ.  I wonder why they shot Zeiss?    I also know what I see.   I don't rely on some measurbator who thinks art and gear is reduced to numbers.  We have had this disagreement before.   You seem to rely on numbers based evaluations, I don't.  One of the best lenses I just bought  gets crap reviews from the numbers folks and I thank them for saving me $500   by knocking the used price down.  Ooo, CA, ooo, vignetting, ooo not as sharp.   These are only a few of a lens characteristic and not the most important to me particularly as they can be corrected in post.   Some folks rely on photos of test patterns and brick walls to evaluate lenses, I rely on my eye and the trained eyes of people who are actual photographers and who shoot in the real world and what the lens actually does to my work.  I never said the photo couldn't be taken with another lens, but I am glad folks don't follow my recommendation, it just another thing that separates me from the mcdonalds crap supposed pros churn out and some have churned out for decades.  One can make great images without stellar lenses  I seek to produce the best final result possible and that includes having lenses that give me the best capture.  I have shot the best lenses nikon makes for decades and   some   are amazing like the 105 and 135 dc which, wait, get crap reviews based on numbers.  When I see what comes out of a Zeiss lens, the difference is significant.  But then,  I have actually MADE the comparison not rely on some numbers expert or blow opinions out my ass.  As I posted above, this is what started to happen around 2000, the numbers geeks got entrenched and louder and the artists said F it, and walked away not willing to engage, leaving the  geeks to their numerical circle jerk.   I hope they continue and thank them for doing so.     Please spare me the "blow hard" label, I am an accomplished photographer who has the credentials to back it up and I don't take crap from pompous jerk offs who can't take a decent photo by their own admission and don't know their ass from deep center field.   Photography is perhaps the one profession where a jerk off with a camera can call himself a pro and hand out cards.   Try that being barely competent with a bat and major league baseball.   I don't waste my time remembering trolls and am greatful for the above post advising me of him.  The reason I post here is to pay back the help I have had over the years  from many sources, but sometimes I wonder if it is worth the crap that arises on line.


----------



## DanOstergren (Dec 7, 2018)

Derrel said:


> DanOstergren said:
> 
> 
> > The guy who writes this blog is a known, pathetic troll who gets his enjoyment out of saying awful things about others and hoping they will see his words and have an emotional reaction. I’ll repeat it: he is pathetic.
> ...


No, he's a troll. He was banned from the site and uses his blog to tear apart the site moderator's work who banned him as well as other members of the site. I could link to the multiple blog posts in which he did this, but I respect the moderator he did this to and the blog writer is just a bitter bag a taints with a bad attitude who doesn't deserve the attention he is desperately seeking by shitting on other people (IE those who haven't been banned from the site for being a complete ass).


----------



## tirediron (Dec 7, 2018)

Derrel said:


> This post was thoroughly eviscerated at an off site blog.


 @mrca  Welcome to the club.


----------



## pixmedic (Dec 7, 2018)

Whether or not you agree with that bloggers opinions or critique, how much value should you really place on someone who had dedicated quite a lot of time and effort to specifically seeking out pictures from mods and members of a forum he was banned from for the sole purpose of ridiculing them?  I mean, really...

How many of you were actually around when he was an active member? 
I personally liked him and agreed with a lot of what he had to say here.
Unfortunately, he could be a bit abrasive (especially to new members) and he aparantly has taken to some personal vendetta against the forum.
His banning was not done lightly, nor without a LOT of warnings and come to Jesus meetings. 
But stalking forum members just to talk crap about them? 
Its hard to see someone I had a lot of respect for sink so low. 
Im sure he Will see this as he's still lurking around here. With any luck he might even have a change of heart.


Sent from my LG-H872 using Tapatalk


----------



## mrca (Dec 7, 2018)

Tirediron, he pulled the same with you?  Dan's info explains why the guy didn't respond here, he's banned.   Then how did he see the post here?    Did someone tell him?  I had posted on his blog yesterday responding to his bs giving him specifics to rebut and checked back just now and all he could do was name calling.     Exactly what I expected.  Look at his work,  looks like something done by a 10 year old.  Intellectual my ass.   Stupid and arrogant are a terrible combination. Some other jerkoff posted on the blog he learned in photo school there is only one sun, like that is the goal.   Jeez, photography is full of idiots.  Thanks for letting me know I'm not the only one he tweaked.     Really appreciate both your posts.  Both of you are posters I respect and I always read your posts.


----------



## bribrius (Dec 7, 2018)

pixmedic said:


> Whether or not you agree with that bloggers opinions or critique, how much value should you really place on someone who had dedicated quite a lot of time and effort to specifically seeking out pictures from mods and members of a forum he was banned from for the sole purpose of ridiculing them?  I mean, really...
> 
> How many of you were actually around when he was an active member?
> I personally liked him and agreed with a lot of what he had to say here.
> ...


So you edited your post and deleted my response? Have a change of heart asking him over for a drink?


----------



## pixmedic (Dec 7, 2018)

bribrius said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> > Whether or not you agree with that bloggers opinions or critique, how much value should you really place on someone who had dedicated quite a lot of time and effort to specifically seeking out pictures from mods and members of a forum he was banned from for the sole purpose of ridiculing them?  I mean, really...
> ...


No

Sent from my LG-H872 using Tapatalk


----------



## tirediron (Dec 7, 2018)

mrca said:


> Tirediron, he pulled the same with you?  Dan's info explains why the guy didn't respond here, he's banned.   Then how did he see the post here?    Did someone tell him?  I had posted on his blog yesterday responding to his bs giving him specifics to rebut and checked back just now and all he could do was name calling.     Exactly what I expected.  Look at his work,  looks like something done by a 10 year old.  Intellectual my ass.   Stupid and arrogant are a terrible combination. Some other jerkoff posted on the blog he learned in photo school there is only one sun, like that is the goal.   Jeez, photography is full of idiots.  Thanks for letting me know I'm not the only one he tweaked.     Really appreciate both your posts.  Both of you are posters I respect and I always read your posts.


Yeah, back in the spring he took a couple of my images and "critiqued" them fairly extensively.  I suspect he keeps a pretty close eye on the forum using a ghost account.


----------



## mrca (Dec 7, 2018)

I have had my images judged in professional competitions by judges with up to 40 or 50 years professional photo experience and who have mastered the craft.    It's a far cry from "critique" from a guy that can't take an acceptable image.    How does he think he is qualified to critique your work?   It is excellent.  Thanks for letting me know his MO and that I am not his only target.


----------



## Derrel (Dec 8, 2018)

mrca said:
			
		

> SNIP> I guess I am learning about what to expect from this site and need to spend more time with another site strictly for professionals.   Folks there actually have a clue and communicate professionally, not like adolescent jerks with LDS, little dick syndrome.



What did you write above--about tactless and nasty comments? Is the above how you feel about everybody here?


----------



## limr (Dec 8, 2018)

*rings bell*

Okay folks, time to go off into your separate corners. The match is over.


----------



## pixmedic (Dec 9, 2018)

Just tidying up a bit.
I really would like this to stay well within the realm of civility.

That being said, I can understand both sides to some extent.
I often struggle with critique myself, and i have not always taken it with grace and humility.

I think there's an art to both giving and receiving critique, and it's something i have yet to truly master. 
Kinda feel like I'm not alone in this.
The struggle is real folks.

Im not locking the thread, but please...lets just try and stick to civil discourse if at all possible.


----------



## pixmedic (Dec 9, 2018)

Well geez...guess i just can't do anything right....so I'm taking my ball and going home. And locking the thread on my way out.


----------

