# This guys work blew me away



## SteveL (Nov 30, 2008)

[FONT=&quot]I recently came across some work (photography) on Flickr that just blew me away. Check out the link below. I was happy with my photography till I saw these images. I want to do this. I can not believe the depth, the sharpness and color saturation of these images. Does anyone have any idea how this is being achieved? I have seen a few other that are achieving this same result so it is some technique or possibly use of filters or is it post processing? I think the Singh-Ray Gold N Blue is used but I don't think that alone will do this.[/FONT]


http://www.flickr.com/photos/cyrusmafi/sets/72157608483935606/


Thanks,

Steve


----------



## Garbz (Nov 30, 2008)

Easy. This guy takes photos with the post processing in his mindset. A lot of people take a photo thinking get it right in the camera and don't worry about it after that.

But this effect is achieved by spending just as much time editing the photo as going out and taking it. 

The specific effect is different for every picture.


----------



## icassell (Nov 30, 2008)

This is clearly the result of both excellent photography and excellent pp skills.  I'm impressed.


----------



## ksmattfish (Nov 30, 2008)

I agree with the above posts, and I bet he uses a polarizing filter too.


----------



## frXnz kafka (Nov 30, 2008)

Lighting. Stop shooting at high noon, wait for the sun to get a little lower, then shoot.

Of course, everything the others have said is likely true as well.


----------



## londonmoon (Nov 30, 2008)

He really do have nice work!


----------



## cloudhands69 (Nov 30, 2008)

I have to disagree. I find heavily postprocessed images gaudy and completely unappealing. 
Also, what's with the big watermark on every picture? Is someone going to steal his low-res pics and post them as his own? Feels so self-important. If you absolutely have to put a watermark on your pic, why not something discreet?

And what's the deal with the borders around each photo? Distracting and silly.

edit: whoops he does have highres images available.  Still, I would prefer a less visible watermark


----------



## pixeldawg (Nov 30, 2008)

I have to say, I'm not too impressed with his work. Note the fountain shots in Las Vegas. He not only cuts a building in half, but has a crooked horizon as well. Very much a snap shot in my book. And the building he does have isn't really connected to the fountains. I think he's also pretty heavy-handed with his post processing as well. Nothing exciting IMO.


----------



## JerryPH (Nov 30, 2008)

There are small things to crit on his work, but man, that guy's PPing is nicely thought out.


----------



## usayit (Nov 30, 2008)

I tend to find the most pleasing are the ones with the least PPing (or the ones that are not so obvious).  He does have some excellent photos... many of which would have stood on their own without all of the PP'ing.


----------



## JerryPH (Nov 30, 2008)

I see it like underwear... you can enjoy a well proportioned woman nude, but put her in some sexy lingerie and ... well... if you got it... flaunt it... lol


----------



## Hattori (Nov 30, 2008)

great skills.


----------



## JodieO (Nov 30, 2008)

cloudhands69 said:


> I have to disagree. I find heavily postprocessed images gaudy and completely unappealing.
> Also, what's with the big watermark on every picture? Is someone going to steal his low-res pics and post them as his own? Feels so self-important. If you absolutely have to put a watermark on your pic, why not something discreet?


 
Are you really serious? I have gotten my own images stolen so many times, it is insane. I have had to fight businesses thinking they can take them right off the web and use them. I have also had people use them in very BAD ways all over the internet. I have also had someone take my images and claim them as their own. I also have photographed people that are pretty well known and I don't need them taken and used for anything else.

One you are in business for a few years, you get pretty sick of it, and sometimes a watermark is the best thing you can do to remind people that the images ARE NOT theirs for the taking.

Do I feel self important? If that is your definition of it, so be it.


----------



## roadkill (Nov 30, 2008)

cloudhands69 said:


> I have to disagree. I find heavily postprocessed images gaudy and completely unappealing.
> Also, what's with the big watermark on every picture? Is someone going to steal his low-res pics and post them as his own? Feels so self-important. If you absolutely have to put a watermark on your pic, why not something discreet?
> 
> And what's the deal with the borders around each photo? Distracting and silly.
> ...



Let's see what you've got....?


----------



## roadkill (Nov 30, 2008)

The guy can shoot.  No doubt about it.


----------



## cloudhands69 (Nov 30, 2008)

JodieO said:


> Are you really serious? I have gotten my own images stolen so many times, it is insane. I have had to fight businesses thinking they can take them right off the web and use them. I have also had people use them in very BAD ways all over the internet. I have also had someone take my images and claim them as their own. I also have photographed people that are pretty well known and I don't need them taken and used for anything else.
> 
> One you are in business for a few years, you get pretty sick of it, and sometimes a watermark is the best thing you can do to remind people that the images ARE NOT theirs for the taking.
> 
> Do I feel self important? If that is your definition of it, so be it.


 
If someone wanted to steal his image, wouldn't they just crop out all the border stuff? Or to remove a watermark, take a screenshot then crop? 

do you feel self important? I dunno, it doesn't sound like it. On the other hand, having "Your Name, Copyright 2008" in big, colored script (and a silly font) along the side of your pic (sometimes inside, also)... That doesn't sound at least a little self-important? I guess I just value subtlety.



roadkill said:


> Let's see what you've got....?


Since I just joined and that was my first post, I knew I would get this kind of bonehead response. Does it matter what kind of art I make, or how good it is, when it comes to critiquing someone elses? That's just my opinion. You, sir, can sit and spin.

I didn't say the guy was a bad photographer. I said I didn't like his heavy use of post processing and gaudy "signature."


----------



## shed301 (Nov 30, 2008)

nice work


----------



## JodieO (Nov 30, 2008)

cloudhands69 said:


> If someone wanted to steal his image, wouldn't they just crop out all the border stuff? Or to remove a watermark, take a screenshot then crop?
> 
> do you feel self important? I dunno, it doesn't sound like it. On the other hand, having "Your Name, Copyright 2008" in big, colored script (and a silly font) along the side of your pic (sometimes inside, also)... That doesn't sound at least a little self-important? I guess I just value subtlety.


 
Well, I put my name big right in the center of the images (except for my family snapshots) - right on my blog. And that is the way it will stay. Nothing like finding links on statcounter to my blog where customers are saying "Why don't you just print the image right off her blog, so then you don't have to buy it..."

!!!????!!!!

The watermark is a REMINDER to people that these are copyrighted.  Sure, someone good at PS probably could still remove, but at least it is a deterrant.

Oh, I have had my images taken for all kinds of reasons, and I don't care if some people think a border or a big watermark right in the center of the image ruins it. That is why I have a studio with nice-sized 30x40 images all over it with NO watermark


----------



## DRoberts (Nov 30, 2008)

cloudhands69 said:


> do you feel self important? I dunno, it doesn't sound like it. On the other hand, having "Your Name, Copyright 2008" in big, colored script (and a silly font) along the side of your pic (sometimes inside, also)... That doesn't sound at least a little self-important? I guess I just value subtlety.


 
Part of it might be that he wants people to know who took the shot....kinda like a painter signs his paintings. 
But the main reason is he doesn't want it stolen. Kinda like Jodie was trying to tell you. 
I guess you might figure this out if you ever get half the experience and knowledge that Jodie, or any 100s of other people on here.


----------



## cloudhands69 (Nov 30, 2008)

DRoberts said:


> Part of it might be that he wants people to know who took the shot....kinda like a painter signs his paintings.


 
Exactly, which is what I find irritating.
I don't think there's any reason to paste your name across the side of your digital images. Maybe you would sign (with a pen) if you printed one for someone, or in a series of prints that you will sell.
On the other hand, I can definitely understand putting a watermark centered in the pic, like JodieO does. You still get to see the photographer's chops, but you are left with an image that you couldn't actually use yourself. This is totally fine in my opinion. JodieO (and many others) may use a watermark to protect your artistic/intellectual property. I don't think that's what I was talking about.



DRoberts said:


> I guess you might figure this out if you ever get half the experience and knowledge that Jodie, or any 100s of other people on here.


Why you gotta be a prick like that? I just said I didn't like the guy's post processing and giant "signature." That doesn't mean I presume to know so much more than "any 100s of other people," where at all do you get that from my post?


----------



## Monaco (Nov 30, 2008)

The only time I mind the watermarks is when it takes away from the picture.In Some of this guys work it's the first thing that catches my eye.I don't mind watermarks.I think they are necessary nowadays.But don't make them so big haha.

He indeed does have some great photo's even if they are PP'd or not.I think I could get pictures like that if I traveled the amount that this guy does to get them.


----------



## JerryPH (Nov 30, 2008)

cloudhands69 said:


> do you feel self important? I dunno, it doesn't sound like it. On the other hand, having "Your Name, Copyright 2008" in big, colored script (and a silly font) along the side of your pic (sometimes inside, also)... That doesn't sound at least a little self-important? I guess I just value subtlety.
> 
> 
> Since I just joined and that was my first post, I knew I would get this kind of bonehead response. Does it matter what kind of art I make, or how good it is, when it comes to critiquing someone elses? That's just my opinion. You, sir, can sit and spin.



1 - You are OBVIOUSLY not someone that knows much about business, much less being a professional photographer.  You see, your tone would change real fast the moment someone starts stealing your pictures and making money with your hard work and you get squat.  However, since it has never happened to you, obviously, it cannot be that great in the first place... so don't worry about it.

2 - Jodie is a well respected member here, an established professional, a damn fine photographer... and a lady... so YOU sir, can use your own finger and follow your own advice.

As a new poster, you already distinguished yourself very poorly... keep it up and get distinguished right into the banned group, which I can see happening very quickly unless you wise up fast.


----------



## cloudhands69 (Nov 30, 2008)

JerryPH said:


> 1 - You are OBVIOUSLY not someone that knows much about business, much less being a professional photographer. You see, your tone would change real fast the moment someone starts stealing your pictures and making money with your hard work and you get squat. However, since it has never happened to you, obviously, it cannot be that great in the first place... so don't worry about it.
> 
> 2 - Jodie is a well respected member here, an established professional, a damn fine photographer... and a lady... so YOU sir, can use your own finger and follow your own advice.
> 
> As a new poster, you already distinguished yourself very poorly... keep it up and get distinguished right into the banned group, which I can see happening very quickly unless you wise up fast.


 
Banned?? Are you serious?!  Take a moment and read over the actual words thatI wrote.  Where did I say anything offensive?  Aside from deflecting a few distracting comments like "let's see what you've got" and "if you ever learn half..."  I did not step up with that bull****.  Your well respected members did.

Secondly, I did not direct any criticism at all to JodieO.. I don't know where you're coming from.

Just because I'm a new member that doesn't immediately step in line with the jock ride that you've got going on here, doesn't mean I don't have valid opinions, which are, in case you missed them:

- I find overly postprocessed pictures distracting and unappealing
- I find big displays of ego - Like including a big "signature" along the side of a photo - distasteful.

I think both of these arguments are valid, no matter what my history as an artist is.

I do not have anything against people protecting their work.  I did not mean to infer that.  What I _did_ mean to infer is that a person who splashes a big "signature" across the side of their photo is not in fact attempting to protect their artistic or intellectual property.  They are stroking their own ego.

This post started out with "this guy's work blew me away," and I offered a counter-point.  I said I didn't like it, and why.


----------



## shed301 (Nov 30, 2008)

anyone got jerry springers number?. i think we may have a new comeback show for him !


----------



## sabbath999 (Nov 30, 2008)

cloudhands69 said:


> Does it matter what kind of art I make, or how good it is, when it comes to critiquing someone elses?



Actually, yes it does.

If I haven't seen your work, how on earth am I supposed to know if your opinion is worth listening to?

There are a lot of no-nothing blow hards on the internet, and the only way to distinguish people is by their work.

You can see mine posted here, or at my website listed in my sig... and take any opinion I give appropriately by looking at what I do and evaluating my skill level.

I don't bother listening to people who don't do the same.

But that's me.


----------



## abraxas (Nov 30, 2008)

cloudhands69 said:


> ...
> This post started out with "this guy's work blew me away," and I offered a counter-point.  I said I didn't like it, and why.



Crap. A baby troll. They're not as cute when they're young as you'd think they'd be. Anyway, let's not make this about you.

It looks like the guy puts a lot of thought/work into his images.  I looked at a few of them. Some I liked.  What's fun is to check these out in about a year and see if you still feel as strongly about his work.


----------



## sabbath999 (Nov 30, 2008)

As far as the original post goes, the guy's images are good for what they are...

There are not what I would do, but that's OK... he's got his thing and I have my thing.


----------



## cloudhands69 (Nov 30, 2008)

I think you all need to take a breath and relax.  
It's ok if someone disagrees with you.  Really, it is.


----------



## shed301 (Nov 30, 2008)

cloudhands69 said:


> I think both of these arguments are valid, no matter what my history as an artist is.



I wasn't actually going to comment on this but i have to concerning this comment here

critique is fine and dandy etc.. BUT as far as i know don't you have to have the photographer actually answering towards his critisimn?.... i mean look at you guys. your officially backstabbing the guy who does good photo's yet he's not even here to defend himself. your tearing the guy to bits over some little watermark which is a real clever marketing tool in my eyes and he's not even here to watch even.. wow your real brave. there have been both good and bad points in this discussion but the main fact is he's not here to offer his defence... maybe someone could invite him in to offer his defence

as everyone puts on here
my .02 cents worth.

except we don't have that in our currancy anymore so i'm putting .05 cents


----------



## DRoberts (Dec 1, 2008)

cloudhands69 said:


> I think you all need to take a breath and relax.
> It's ok if someone disagrees with you. Really, it is.


 
This got way off topic and I for one would like to apologize if my response was abit overboard, and welcome you to the forums.
Yes we can disagree with no hard feelings. I understand your point of view on how adding signatures and watermarks can in some instances be tacky or take away from photos.
I did not have a problem with that. It just seemed to me when an explination of why this is done (outside of ego) was given, you regected that thought and turned towards the one giving the explination with attitude. As Jerry stated, Jodie is a well respected and established professional who has alot of information that could help alot of people. 
Here lately there has been quite a few new people coming on and disrespecting our more experienced and knowledgable contributors with a know it all attitude. As I said, I apologize if that was not your intent. 



> I don't think there's any reason to paste your name across the side of your digital images. Maybe you would sign (with a pen) if you printed one for someone, or in a series of prints that you will sell.


 
That would be ideal to be able to hand sign each copy but, in this digital age most prints are purchased online and then a higher resolution copy is downloaded. Which of course makes the handsigned idea less than practible in a business point of view.
In addition, most of the purchased prints will not have that signature on it. Usually they are on the samples just as a marketing tool.


----------



## JerryPH (Dec 1, 2008)

God bless the ignore list.
"Dumb-dumb-dumb... another one bites the dust!"
Ah finally, a nicer thread.


----------



## Garbz (Dec 1, 2008)

JerryPH said:


> Ah finally, a nicer thread.



Yes but no more excitement either


----------



## Arch (Dec 1, 2008)

cloudhands69 said:


> I think you all need to take a breath and relax.
> It's ok if someone disagrees with you.  Really, it is.



yes your right... there is no problem disagreeing with someone if you make a considered and polite response.... unlike...



cloudhands69 said:


> Why you gotta be a prick like that?





cloudhands69 said:


> You, sir, can sit and spin.



Keep adressing people like this you will get banned... this is not the forum for personal insults.




cloudhands69 said:


> What I did mean to infer is that a person who splashes a big "signature" across the side of their photo is not in fact attempting to protect their artistic or intellectual property. They are stroking their own ego.



Now to your point... this may be true of a minority of people, but for the majority, you are wrong. I design and sell logos for a living, all the proofs i show the client have 'property of...' at the bottom... this is stroking my own ego too?. It is to remind people who owns the artwork up untill its sold. Yes they could find ways of getting rid of it... but it is certainly there as a deterant, not an ego stroke.
Judging by this guys work....  not the best iv seen either... but he definatly should be using a signiture on it.


----------



## JerryPH (Dec 1, 2008)

Garbz said:


> Yes but no more excitement either


 
I screw up often enough without your help, thanks. :lmao:

For about 2 seconds, I thought I would make an account called JerryPH-Springer, but decided not to fuel the fire.


----------



## pixeldawg (Dec 1, 2008)

JerryPH said:


> There are small things to crit on his work, but man, that guy's PPing is nicely thought out.


 
Yeah, this is true. It's also true though that those photographer's whose work is truly outstanding wouldn't let something as minor to fix as the flaws I pointed out earlier get by. Particularly when it's obvious that he puts a good deal of effort into his PP work. His work doesn't do too much for me... sorry. I have seen much, much better. I appreciate your thoughts though. :hug::


----------



## JerryPH (Dec 1, 2008)

Just goes to show... no matter how good you are, there are always people that can do it better.  I use that mentality as something to help me strive for better results over time.


----------



## SteveL (Dec 1, 2008)

WOW.......................................

I just asked a simple question and it seems I have started a storm. Some of you guys are real cut throats, give the guy a break. I like the guys stuff and many do. It's OK for you to not like it but there is no need to portray him as a sinner just because you don't like the techniques he uses. Every have your own darkroom? Every dodge a print, use a PC filter, same thing, it's called creativity, enhancement. There is nothing wrong with it and you don't have to do it if you don't want to.

I see nothing wrong with his signature on the prints and I can see no reason if someone creates a piece of art they shouldn't have their name on it and be proud of their work. When I see something I like I want to know who did it, compliment them and maybe talk about how they did it. ( I have since contacted the guy and know how he does it now, thanks to his name on the work) Where would we be today if none of  the great painters had signed any of their work. You have the option to move on to someone elses work if you don't like it. 

  Im new to this forum and I cant believe the negative vibes some here are putting out. How about looking at his work with a positive view and if you dont like it, unless you can be constructive, just move on to the next topic, OK?


  Steve


----------



## SteveL (Dec 1, 2008)

Arch said:


> Judging by this guys work....  not the best iv seen either... but he definatly should be using a signiture on it.




I really like his stuff but if there is better can you point me to it? I would really like to see it?

Steve


----------



## roadkill (Dec 1, 2008)

SteveL said:


> WOW.......................................
> 
> I just asked a simple question and it seems I have started a storm. Some of you guys are real cut throats, give the guy a break. I like the guys stuff and many do. It's OK for you to not like it but there is no need to portray him as a sinner just because you don't like the techniques he uses. Every have your own darkroom? Every dodge a print, use a PC filter, same thing, it's called creativity, enhancement. There is nothing wrong with it and you don't have to do it if you don't want to.
> 
> ...



I'm sure it's in response to cloudhand69 who seems to be a noob in every aspect of the term. (Nothing wrong with that till one starts spouting ignorant garbage about someone else's very nice work without so much as a hint of capability of one's own.


----------



## djacobox372 (Dec 1, 2008)

Not my cup of tea, they remind me of boring $10 art prints at the local mall.  Great technical skill, but not a whole lot of imagination--I feel like I've seen every one of his photos a thousand times before.


----------



## roadkill (Dec 1, 2008)

djacobox372 said:


> Not my cup of tea, they remind me of boring $10 art prints at the local mall.  Great technical skill, but not a whole lot of imagination--I feel like I've seen every one of his photos a thousand times before.



Can we see your work?


----------



## roadkill (Dec 1, 2008)

I don't see a link under your profile but you sound like a great shot...  whatcha got there sport?


----------



## ANDS! (Dec 1, 2008)

> Can we see your work?





> If I haven't seen your work, how on earth am I supposed to know if your opinion is worth listening to?



How many movies has Roger Ebert done?

Wow.  This place never ceases to amaze with its mob mentality.  Seriously.

As for the OP, the authors work is good, but I agree the watermark is tacky.  I love Doyle's work and his watermark because it is wonderfully integrated into his photos and does not take away from the impact.  That swirly text is just - blargh, takes a dump on a great body of work.

As for the Volunteer Mod Squad - get over yourselves.


----------



## roadkill (Dec 1, 2008)

ANDS! said:


> How many movies has Roger Ebert done?



Who says Roger Ebert is qualified to critique movies?  He's an absolute moron with no taste whatsoever.  (Sorry if he is of signifigance to you) Just because it's on T.V. doesn't make it real.


----------



## roadkill (Dec 1, 2008)

Doyle does rock, by the way...


----------



## ANDS! (Dec 1, 2008)

> Who says Roger Ebert is qualified to critique movies?



Several people.  Don't invalidate the argument because YOU don't agree with a persons professional opinion.  

Nevermind the guy said he didn't like the POST work, not the actual PHOTOGRAPHS.

In any case, what could have been a friendly conversation about the pros and cons of stylized post work, turned into the usual pissing contest by the folks who are becoming regulars at trying to regulate forum behavior.


----------



## Mike_E (Dec 1, 2008)

I can't believe I read this whole thing.   


  .                                                             laughs and walks away


----------



## Kondro86 (Dec 1, 2008)

Mike_E said:


> I can't believe I read this whole thing.
> 
> 
> . laughs and walks away


 me 2


----------



## bigalbest (Dec 1, 2008)

abraxas said:


> Crap. A baby troll. They're not as cute when they're young as you'd think they'd be. Anyway, let's not make this about you.
> 
> It looks like the guy puts a lot of thought/work into his images.  I looked at a few of them. Some I liked.  What's fun is to check these out in about a year and see if you still feel as strongly about his work.



Called me a troll when I first posted here also. This must be your m.o., jumping all over new posters who dare to have an opinion.


----------



## skieur (Dec 1, 2008)

JodieO said:


> Well, I put my name big right in the center of the images (except for my family snapshots) - right on my blog. And that is the way it will stay. Nothing like finding links on statcounter to my blog where customers are saying "Why don't you just print the image right off her blog, so then you don't have to buy it..."
> 
> !!!????!!!!
> 
> ...


 
Just in the nature of FYI, the size of a watermark or location of a copyright notice on an image is legally irrelevant.  If one is removed, it legally confirms copyright violation and is grounds for a larger settlement in American courts no matter what the size or location.

So, why waste the effort of making it big and gaudy?

skieur


----------



## iflynething (Dec 2, 2008)

Kondro86 said:


> me 2


 
+1 as well.

Work from the link is pretty good, but agreed that it's a little too much over processes, which you can tell. Sometimes, the watermark.....it's just too much. Some of them it looks nice with the border and everything he's got going. I will give him credit that he has good composition.

Thanks

~Michael~


----------



## JodieO (Dec 2, 2008)

skieur said:


> Just in the nature of FYI, the size of a watermark or location of a copyright notice on an image is legally irrelevant. If one is removed, it legally confirms copyright violation and is grounds for a larger settlement in American courts no matter what the size or location.
> 
> So, why waste the effort of making it big and gaudy?
> 
> skieur


 
It's personal taste... some people LIKE big and gaudy.  I've seen some logos and stuff on peoples' sites that I have been like - omg, that is awful and ugly and a total turnoff, yet I also understand, that is something they chose, it's something they like, everyone has a different taste.


----------



## pm63 (Dec 2, 2008)

roadkill said:


> Can we see your work?



You've been saying this to everyone who's DARED to say they don't like the work of the photographer the thread was originally about. This is such a childish argument. I can say, for example, that I don't like the films of Steven Spielberg, well in the knowledge that I couldn't make a better film myself. Maybe I prefer Kubrick? One's own abilities in an art have no bearning on the validity of one's critiques of other people's art. Art critics often do not produce art themselves. So drop the "let's see if you could do better" attitude.

I agree that his work is not amazing. I don't like the processing, with high contrast and saturation being far overdone, making the images look unnatural and computer-generated. I think the photos are quite generic looking, and I'm not fond of the compositions. They just don't have that "something" that separetes good photographers from great ones. They seem dead.

And since you choose to place SO much emphasis on it, here is my work:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/ozga/sets/72157610470943727/

Have a nice day.


----------



## ANDS! (Dec 2, 2008)

> If one is removed, it legally confirms copyright violation and is grounds for a larger settlement in American courts no matter what the size or location.



Good luck convincing a judge that some 17 year old kids background image on Myspace that cropped out a watermark is even worth their time.

I respect artists rights as well as their right to be so self-important that they think "thar be thieves everywhere!" - but wow, some folks on these inter-nets need a serious reality check.


----------



## CyrusMafi (Mar 3, 2009)

Well what do you know...
I guess I'm the guy who you all have been talking about.
Somebody told me about all the trouble that I caused due to my approach on my digital posts.
First of all thank you all for criticizing an/or defending my work on my behalf.
WHO AM I?... Please visit my profile in Flickr if you care
I, in fact agreed with a lot of the criticism  that was going around. Not with the tone!!! but hey we are who we are... and some more passionate in words than others...
I've been taking pictures since I was 10 (I'm 44 now). But never dare or like to refer to myself as a photographer.

a. I joined Flicker in October ( shortly before this topic started. I was new and was trying to figure things out...
b. I agree about the borders and now they are a lot different.
c. I agree about the font on the watermark and now they look a lot simpler
d. I agree about the saturation as My monitor at the time was not properly calibrated
e. I don't agree with people who think I spent a lot of time on Post processing.
My approach is still old school in digital world.
 I use Zone system both in B/W and color photography.  I shot RAW and use a handful of filters, ND grads, color intensifiers and Expodisc to measure whit balance... etc.
Most of the effects are achieved through the camera and not PP. My avg. time on PS is 10 min.
I looked at some of the member's work and they were admirable. 
and their opinion constructive...
SO thank you all for taking the time to view and discuss my work. BUT you will really understand the work by reading the poetry that goes with the individual image... 
Most of the time... I can't capture it if I can't write about it...

Most sincerely, Cyrus Mafi


----------



## manaheim (Mar 3, 2009)

I like monkeys.


----------



## usayit (Mar 3, 2009)

I like tigers


----------



## mikemicki (Mar 3, 2009)

I was gonna say something... but I think ANDS! pretty much summed it up for me.    This place can get a little gnarly sometimes.


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Mar 3, 2009)

:/


----------



## Alleh Lindquist (Mar 3, 2009)

I think everyone needs to get out and examine more photography. He has a couple averagely decent photos but for the most part he makes mass compositional errors and the photos shop work is as basic as it gets if you all spent a week or 2 learning the program you could probably do better. Aside from the composition errors he is actually adding horribly tacky and gross.

On that note everyone starts out at the bottom and has to learn photography it takes years of practice and sometimes it may just not be your piece of cake.


----------



## Tolyk (Mar 4, 2009)

This thread was hilarious, but in all honesty can't figure out why the thread wasn't locked in the heat of the arguement 

Everyone is allowed an opinion, they don't have to be able to be better than the person.


----------

