# Like a facebook page before being able to view Photo albums?



## NickStevens (Feb 10, 2013)

Hi guys

Quick question....

Is their any way of making a photo album on facebook so that only people who "like" the company page are able to view, comment, tag etc?

I think their used to be, but again facebook changed its settings so I dont know how to do it anymore (if its even still possible)

Cheers
Nick


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Feb 10, 2013)

Hit the help button and look at perhaps section
[h=2]How Privacy Works for Photo Albums[/h]


----------



## 412 Burgh (Feb 10, 2013)

I allow mine to go public so when I tag the models their friends see, families see, etc. Then it revenues more likes/traffic.


----------



## o hey tyler (Feb 10, 2013)

412 Burgh said:


> I allow mine to go public so when I tag the models their friends see, families see, etc. Then it revenues more likes/traffic.



This. 

I can't think of why you would want to hide content from potential "Like-ers." Unless you're trying to use facebook as a client proofing gallery or something... Which is just... Uh... Wrong.


----------



## NickStevens (Feb 10, 2013)

o hey tyler said:


> 412 Burgh said:
> 
> 
> > I allow mine to go public so when I tag the models their friends see, families see, etc. Then it revenues more likes/traffic.
> ...



Surely if people HAVE to like a page to be able to view the photos that will get more people to "like" the page. 
I think you could do it when it was "become a fan". 

What's wrong about it, in our business, which is entertainment and DJs, it's a very valuable tool and we get a fair amount of work from it.


----------



## sm4him (Feb 10, 2013)

NickStevens said:


> o hey tyler said:
> 
> 
> > 412 Burgh said:
> ...




No, my guess is if people HAVE to like a page to view the photos, it won't garner more likes for the page, just fewer views for the photos.


----------



## 412 Burgh (Feb 10, 2013)

NickStevens said:


> o hey tyler said:
> 
> 
> > 412 Burgh said:
> ...




nope because if they don't see what you bring to the table they won't like it.. why hide your work if you think it's good? I don't hide mine. When fb photographers require me to like their page I like it... look through their terrible photos with huge watermarks then I unlike it. I don't think people should like something without seeing their product or work? 

Your opinion may vary however I think it's beneficial to be public.


----------



## NickStevens (Feb 10, 2013)

Yup that's true also... 

Don't suppose it makes much difference anyway. 
Just kinda wondered if it was possible.... It seems you can do it with personal pages but not with business one's.


----------



## 412 Burgh (Feb 10, 2013)

Why hide your talent? I don't think it's possibly to hide the albums, without hiding the whole page.


----------



## SCraig (Feb 10, 2013)

There's just something wrong with the whole concept of liking something before you even know what it is.  Personally it would just be one more web page that I never viewed if I had to say I liked it before I could look at it.  But then I don't use Facebook so I may be missing something.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Feb 10, 2013)

FB is wrong on many levels anyway


----------



## SCraig (Feb 10, 2013)

2WheelPhoto said:


> FB is wrong on many levels anyway



That's pretty much my opinion of it as well.


----------



## MK3Brent (Feb 10, 2013)

How would I know if I like it, if I can't see it yet?


----------



## jamesbjenkins (Feb 10, 2013)

It's called "like-gating" and Facebook did away with that functionality a couple of iterations ago. If you want to break their rules, and have your page immediately deleted upon discovery, it's still possible to like-gate using third party software.

There's really no point though. If your images are really good, most visitors will like your page anyway, without having their arm twisted. Strong arm marketing is rarely successful.

Besides, if you understood how to leverage the tagging system to your benefit, you wouldn't be asking this question. Methinks a little research would do you a world of good, sir.


----------



## NickStevens (Feb 10, 2013)

We already do know how to fully exploit the tagging to our advantage.... 

For those that said Facebook doesn't work and similar..... Maybe it doesn't for all industries, for the entertainment game it most definitely does work.


----------



## NickStevens (Feb 10, 2013)

I can also see that most of you seem to be thinking about this from the photographer perspective.
Im looking from a different perspective. 

ALSO not sure why this seems to have turned into a debate about the rights or wrongs of Facebook. 
I just asked a question and it seems it's either not possible or not allowed, fair enough, job done. 

Thanks guys :thumbup:


----------



## o hey tyler (Feb 10, 2013)

NickStevens said:
			
		

> I can also see that most of you seem to be thinking about this from the photographer perspective.



Well... Duh.


----------



## jamesbjenkins (Feb 11, 2013)

NickStevens said:


> We already do know how to fully exploit the tagging to our advantage...



Ok, then why on Earth would you want to keep people away from your photos with some silly "like us or no pictures of your friend's wedding for you!" requirement?

Your work should be sufficient to give people reason to like your page on their own.


----------



## Tee (Feb 11, 2013)

Nick-  here's how my weird mind would process seeing your page: if I had to like a page before seeing photos, I would do a Google search using your FB name to see if anything shady came up.  Anytime someone is circumventing the FB norm rings bells and whistles and screams scam in the works.


----------



## Light Guru (Feb 11, 2013)

MK3Brent said:


> How would I know if I like it, if I can't see it yet?



EXACTLY nobody is going to like your photography if they cannot see. That's like saying something is delicious when you have not tasted it.


----------



## NickStevens (Feb 11, 2013)

Well we now have a separate page on Facebook for the photography side. 

Early stages but the gallery's will be remaining open. 

www.facebook.com/Photobop

We have also purchased photobop.co.uk, but have not set the website up yet. 

Facebook is more a solution for now, theirs one gallery up, feel free to take a peek and let me know your thoughts, and if you want to like the page please go ahead, no pressure


----------



## MK3Brent (Feb 11, 2013)

NickStevens said:


> Well we now have a separate page on Facebook for the photography side.
> 
> Early stages but the gallery's will be remaining open.
> 
> www.facebook.com/Photobop





... I get it now.


----------



## o hey tyler (Feb 11, 2013)

No offense, but judging by your Facebook page, you should put some time into properly exposing your photos before you focus on doing any type or marketing. From your most recent photo album, all of the shots were at least a half stop underexposed. I will resist the urge to comment on the lighting of the photographs.


----------



## NickStevens (Feb 11, 2013)

How is it that whenever you say no offence that's an excuse for an attack? 

Let's get one thing straight for a start..... The Facebook page has been their for less than 24 hours so very little has been done to it, so maybe you shouldn't cast aspersions on that subject. 
I find your "opinion"  condersending and borderline plain rude. 
As for telling me that I need to learn about marketing, you don't know me so don't judge me and tell me what I do and don't know. 

Secondly on the subject of underexposed pics..... Did you really just say that? 
Underexposed in your "expert" opinion just from looking at them? 
Yes they are dark pics.... It was done on purpose because IT'S A DISCO :what:

Sure I can expose all the photos spot on if you like then they all look like they were taken at midday in the summer. 
Is that really the ambiance you would wish to create when showing off the services of a company who's business is dark rooms? 
Sure you can sit their and tell me that it's your opinion they are under stopped, but when you don't know the effect attempted then isn't it hard to judge? 

THAT is MY style for nightclub photos, are you saying that's wrong? 

Not the first time you have dived in with an opinion of others though is it, in fact I've not been on this forum long but I've seen you go on the attack on more than one occasion.


----------



## NickStevens (Feb 11, 2013)

Oh go on let's hear your expert opinion on the lighting? 
Id love to hear it 

Why are you here? It's obviously not to help, it's more just to troll people into arguments. 

Maybe your just one of those people that claims to know a lot about everything but actualy knows nothing about anything. 

Woops sorry was that me judging you? 

Maybe I should have put no offence first, would that have helped?

Oh and just to add,  I've had two positive comments from nightlife togs who said they were pretty good, but then they gave me some tips on how to make some slight adjustment to make them a little better. 

That's how people help others Mr Tyler, a concept which seems completely alien to you.


----------



## o hey tyler (Feb 11, 2013)

NickStevens said:


> How is it that whenever you say no offence that's an excuse for an attack?



Because it wasn't an attack. It was an opinion from a more experienced shooter that was intended to help you. 



> Let's get one thing straight for a start..... The Facebook page has been their for less than 24 hours so very little has been done to it, so maybe you shouldn't cast aspersions on that subject.
> I find your "opinion"  condersending and borderline plain rude.



I made no remarks about your facebook page, but instead the pretty severe underexposure of the images posted on it. 



> As for telling me that I need to learn about marketing, you don't know me so don't judge me and tell me what I do and don't know.



The thread you posted is about marketing. That's what I was referring to. 



> Secondly on the subject of underexposed pics..... Did you really just say that?



Negative, I typed it. 



> Underexposed in your "expert" opinion just from looking at them?



Yes. You generally deduce that a photo is underexposed by looking at it. So that's what I did. I looked at many of them, and they're underexposed. 



> Yes they are dark pics.... It was done on purpose because IT'S A DISCO :what:



Someone else said this the other day... Or something very similar. "That's the way the light was." Total BS IMO. 

I shoot weddings. A lot of them take place in dark churches. Should I grossly underexpose the images just because "that's how the light was?" Not at all. Your job as a photographer is to make light work for you. Not be at the mercy of a bunch of photons. Saying "it was done on purpose because it was dark" is like saying "I overcooked the chicken because the oven was hot." You can take the chicken out when it's done. You can expose a photograph properly by making the light work for you. 



> Sure I can expose all the photos spot on if you like then they all look like they were taken at midday in the summer.



No, you can't actually. Unless you have a large 1600w/s bare flash directly above your subjects on full power. That's the best way to get raccoon eyes, a normal characteristic of midday sun in the summer. 



> Is that really the ambiance you would wish to create when showing off the services of a company who's business is dark rooms?



No, the ambiance that I would wish to create would involve properly exposing just the subjects, and allowing for light falloff around them to tie in contextually to the environment. 



> Sure you can sit their and tell me that it's your opinion they are under stopped, but when you don't know the effect attempted then isn't it hard to judge?



It's not my opinion. It's fact. The skin tones are underexposed. 



> THAT is MY style for nightclub photos, are you saying that's wrong?



Nope. But I will say that it's extremely amateur and a cop out to say that underexposing photos is your style. 



> Not the first time you have dived in with an opinion of others though is it, in fact I've not been on this forum long but I've seen you go on the attack on more than one occasion.



Again, not attacking you. Trying to help an amateur with an obvious chip on their shoulder. 

Since you asked what was wrong with the lighting, it looks like you used pop up flash due to the harsh shadows directly behind your subjects. You need to either bounce your flash or get multiple lights off camera. 

I'm trying to help you get your priorities straight. Before getting all gung-ho about facebook, you should get the fundamentals of photography down at the very least. Which, judging by your extreme level of defensiveness, you haven't accomplished.


----------



## NickStevens (Feb 11, 2013)

The subjects are properly exposed....in MY opinion because that's how I wanted them to appear..... So they are correct. 
If I went to the school of Tyler I'm sure they would have told me theirs only ever one way to expose an image and everybody else is wrong...... So I apologise for my stupidity and bow to your superior intellectual ability. 

How do you know your more experienced than me? 
From your comments you just sound like someone who only has one opinion on anything and yours is the only correct one. 

IF I wanted to take bright pictures then I would, I don't..... That's more or less the effect I'm trying to get although it isn't quite how I want it on some of those pictures BUT in others its spot on. 

Your attitude is not helpful its arrogant and pointless.


----------



## NickStevens (Feb 11, 2013)

Their you go again....... Making assumptions about pop up flash....and also my ability to use it. 

Can you see the ceiling in that room? 
Their wasn't one bouncable in the situation I was presented with so it wasn't a case of not bouncing through choice..... Yes I'm aware their are other ways of bouncing but not with the equipment I have currently.


----------



## 412 Burgh (Feb 11, 2013)

Well this got interesting. However they are underexposed!


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Feb 11, 2013)




----------



## o hey tyler (Feb 11, 2013)

NickStevens said:


> The subjects are properly exposed....in MY opinion because that's how I wanted them to appear..... So they are correct.



I'm fairly certain you will be the only person that holds that opinion. If you decided that 2+2 = 5, that would be your opinion. It wouldn't make it correct. The fact of the matter, is that your skin tones are underexposed. I'm 100% certain that I'm not the only one that thinks so. 



> If I went to the school of Tyler I'm sure they would have told me theirs only ever one way to expose an image and everybody else is wrong...... So I apologise for my stupidity and bow to your superior intellectual ability.



I'm not telling you there's one way to expose an image. But I am telling you that your subjects (i.e. the people in the photograph) are underexposed. Which generally in every niche of photography, it is poor form. I'm not trying to assert intellectual leverage on you. I am legitimately trying to help you by taking a look at your photographs and rendering advice based on what I see. 



> How do you know your more experienced than me?



By looking at your photos, and reading your posts as a response to my comments. It seems that you are not only new to photography, but also very young and paired with a defensive attitude. 



> From your comments you just sound like someone who only has one opinion on anything and yours is the only correct one.



No, I'm quite open to your opinion, I respect all opinions. I just think that you are the only person who doesn't think that your photos are underexposed. 



> IF I wanted to take bright pictures then I would, I don't..... That's more or less the effect I'm trying to get although it isn't quite how I want it on some of those pictures BUT in others its spot on.



I'm not even suggesting that you take "bright" photos... Whatever those may be. I'm simply suggesting that you properly expose your photos to make them look better to a wide audience. 



> Your attitude is not helpful its arrogant and pointless.



It's ironic you'd say that. You've been fairly arrogant yourself. I've been exercising quite a bit of restraint. I could have initiated the ol' "you shouldn't be promoting yourself as a photographer with your skill level" gravy train. But I had no desire to do that. I was hoping you'd take an honest look at your photos and see that the underexposure is doing them no favors as far as giving them a professional appearance. 

That being said, I won't respond to your threads in an effort to help. Sorry you got so mad.


----------



## NickStevens (Feb 11, 2013)

But dude..... 

IF you had said something along the lines of "those pics are good, but the skin tones are slightly underexposed on some of them. Maybe next time you go out you could try this or this" 

That would have been helpful,  do you see what I'm saying? 

The advice I received off a couple of pro togs both independently said the same thing...... "put your FEC up a stop and it should be about right" 
See that was helpful. 

Now just to fill you in..... Im getting close to 40 years old and have been into photography for maybe 20 years. 
HOWEVER I have just recently got back into it with the aim of taking really awesome photos for my other passion which is DJing. 
Taking photos in one of the hardest photography environments..... Constantly changing light, randomly moving drunk people who are unpredictable..... So for that side of things Iam still learning. 

I THINK most of those photos are good disco photos and with a little more practice they could be stunning, which Im trying now.


----------



## jamesbjenkins (Feb 11, 2013)

NickStevens said:


> How is it that whenever you say no offence that's an excuse for an attack?
> 
> Let's get one thing straight for a start..... The Facebook page has been their for less than 24 hours so very little has been done to it, so maybe you shouldn't cast aspersions on that subject.
> I find your "opinion"  condersending and borderline plain rude.
> ...



See, you complain about a borderline rude post with 3 paragraphs of rude, snippy excuse-making.

There's a difference between differences in style and personal preference and failing to adhere to basic principles of photography. One is completely subjective...one isn't. 

Don't use "style" as an excuse for bad technique. Not saying your technique is bad, just a word of caution. Too many younger and/or inexperienced photographers immediately dismiss any sort of critique with "that's just my style..."


----------



## NickStevens (Feb 11, 2013)

To be honest.... 

I actually stop them down in PP to make them appear that way. 

MY ultimate aim is dark background.... Lots of ambient colours from the disco lighting and a little flash to properly expose the people in the photo.... So I think apart from needing a little more flash I wasn't a million miles away from the goal.


----------



## o hey tyler (Feb 11, 2013)

NickStevens said:


> But dude.....
> 
> IF you had said something along the lines of "those pics are good, but the skin tones are slightly underexposed on some of them. Maybe next time you go out you could try this or this"



I see what you're saying. However, I do not see the photos as "good." I know that seems harsh, but they're just not great. I'm sorry, and that probably sucks to hear. There's more issues with them than just the lighting, but the underexposure was the first thing that caught my eye. What I told you was that you should work on learning exposure, and what is closer to proper exposure. 



> The advice I received off a couple of pro togs both independently said the same thing...... "put your FEC up a stop and it should be about right"
> See that was helpful.



I don't think that is helpful, personally. FEC doesn't really tell you "why" your photos are underexposed, it just tells your flash to compensate for it. I would have suggested you turn up your ISO a stop, or opened your aperture slightly. I also noticed that in some of your shots you were shooting at 1/6s on your flickr, which came out quite blurry. 1/6s is pretty slow for moving people, even with flash. Mainly because the incidental light will contribute to the exposure. 



> Now just to fill you in..... Im getting close to 40 years old and have been into photography for maybe 20 years.
> HOWEVER I have just recently got back into it with the aim of taking really awesome photos for my other passion which is DJing.



I apologize for suggesting that you were young. Your attitude and demeanor was what I was basing my assumption on. 



> Taking photos in one of the hardest photography environments..... Constantly changing light, randomly moving drunk people who are unpredictable..... So for that side of things Iam still learning.



Glad that you are continually learning. Yes, night club photography can be hard, no question about that. FWIW, if you're using flash and dragging the shutter around 1/30 to 1/60s, the lighting won't matter so much in the club. 



> I THINK most of those photos are good disco photos and with a little more practice they could be stunning, which Im trying now.



Yes, keep practicing and try to eventually move your flash off your camera (or at least a get a bracket). It will greatly improve the quality of your images by having more control over shadow placement.


----------



## MK3Brent (Feb 11, 2013)

NickStevens said:


> To be honest....





NickStevens said:


> I actually stop them down in PP to make them appear that way.






Why in the world would you do that?


----------



## NickStevens (Feb 11, 2013)

Why would I do that..... Because I want them to look natural.... Exactly the same as I saw them standing in front of me at the time, that to me is correct exposure? 

I WISH someone would point me towards one of the photos they claim are half a stop under..... 
Im not saying they are all perfect but come on half a stop that's just being picky


----------



## NickStevens (Feb 11, 2013)

And yes 1/6 is maybe a tad slow even with flash, just like to keep it low to take in lots of ambient lighting effects, go any more than 1/30 and they are barely their which takes away completely from the look I want. 
So I guess the answer is to go to maybe 1/25 and up the ISO to 1000.

I've seen some advice for the rule of 4s as he called it. F4 1/4 and 400.........Although I can't see that working in most of my environments,  but I suppose I could try it.  
Sometimes hard to tell if you got a good image chimping on a. Cam screen.


----------



## o hey tyler (Feb 11, 2013)

NickStevens said:


> Why would I do that..... Because I want them to look natural.... Exactly the same as I saw them standing in front of me at the time, that to me is correct exposure?



Refer to my previous post regarding shooting in a dark church. 



> I WISH someone would point me towards one of the photos they claim are half a stop under.....



Your wish is my command: 

http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/485146_149890058502683_1262894803_n.jpg

http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/561736_149890055169350_169630916_n.jpg

http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/28922_149890191836003_577232925_n.jpg

http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/534874_149890138502675_691200411_n.jpg

http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/841167_149890515169304_1896306873_o.jpg

http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/858849_149890565169299_1178821361_o.jpg



> Im not saying they are all perfect but come on half a stop that's just being picky



No, a half a stop is pretty big. Heck, 1/3rd of a stop is noticeable.


----------



## SCraig (Feb 11, 2013)

o hey tyler said:


> NickStevens said:
> 
> 
> > The subjects are properly exposed....in MY opinion because that's how I wanted them to appear..... So they are correct.
> ...



You would be correct.  They are underexposed, there is absolutely no question of it.  But if you like them then by all means follow what you want to do.


----------



## jamesbjenkins (Feb 11, 2013)

o hey tyler said:


> http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/485146_149890058502683_1262894803_n.jpg
> 
> http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/561736_149890055169350_169630916_n.jpg
> 
> ...



OP, if you took perfectly good images and intentionally underexposed them to look like this, then I'm not sure I, or anyone else here, can help that. These images above are incorrectly processed. It's as simple as that. Image-wide underexposure and weird color casting are not, generally speaking, open to interpretation. They're called principles for a reason.


----------



## NickStevens (Feb 12, 2013)

OH........ 

The posed pics are "under" well why didn't you say so..... 
Now that I'm looking at those examples on my phone they do look a little dull, looked right on my computer monitor (I go by eye in lightroom processing, is that wrong too?),  looks like I need to calibrate the monitor.  

I DIDN'T like how they looked at lughtrooms recommended exposure settings, looked blown out to me on the monitor. 
lughtrooms auto settings made the pics look aweful, so how else am i supposed to tell what the correct exposure is?
Weird colour casting? Those are pretty much the colours I saw in front of me, how is it weird? 
I WANT them to look like they did when they was in front of me, I hate flash pictures that you can


----------



## o hey tyler (Feb 12, 2013)

NickStevens said:
			
		

> OH........
> 
> The posed pics are "under" well why didn't you say so.....



I DID say that. I said I went to your Facebook page and looked at the photos. Those are literally the first photos you see when you visit the page.



> Now that I'm looking at those examples on my phone they do look a little dull, looked right on my computer monitor (I go by eye in lightroom processing, is that wrong too?),  looks like I need to calibrate the monitor.
> 
> I DIDN'T like how they looked at lughtrooms recommended exposure settings, looked blown out to me on the monitor.
> lughtrooms auto settings made the pics look aweful, so how else am i supposed to tell what the correct exposure is?
> ...



You state in the first paragraph that you need to calibrate your monitor, and in the second paragraph say that you processed them to look good on your monitor. That generally means that you have an "off" display, if everyone else is seeing the same fault. 

Chances are, Lightroom knows your photos are underexposed and adjusted them to fit much closer to a proper exposure of a skin tone. 

If you're willing to email me just a single raw file, I will post my edit and you can post what your edit is. That way you can see what the image should look like to a 3rd party viewer. Let me know if you'd like to do this experiment and I'll post my email.


----------



## NickStevens (Feb 12, 2013)

Thats my edit, with pretty much nothing done to it as regards eposure etc and colour casting....the only thing Ive done is straightened the photo as I realised it was wonky on second glance.




20130209-_MG_0521.jpg | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

Save bothering with email, and also so others can also grab the RAW if they want too.....its on my dropbox.

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/6319213/Photography Testing/20130209-_MG_0521.CR2

Its the dancefloor photos Im more bothered about tbh.....like this is one of my favorites....



Or this....



Or maybe even this....

 

Looking at the faces in this one, underexposed? (or is it keeping with the atmosphere of the photo?)


Personally looking at this one, I would say the subjects are a little over exposed?


----------



## SCraig (Feb 12, 2013)

NickStevens said:


> Its the dancefloor photos Im more bothered about tbh.....like this is one of my favorites....
> .
> .
> .
> Personally looking at this one, I would say the subjects are a little over exposed?



There is NOTHING on any of those photographs even approaching being overexposed.  Every single one of them are underexposed.  Nothing.  Not even the stage lights.

Take a very quick glance at any one of the dance floor shots.  Doesn't matter which one, but make sure the glance is just that.  Don't LOOK at any of them, just GLANCE at them for a fraction of a second.  Now tell me what you see in your mind.  Odds are it will be the lights and not the subjects because the subjects of the photographs are underexposed.  In comparison to the bright theatrical lights the subject of the photographs is actually beginning to blend into the background on some.  That is not good composition or execution.

The subject of a photograph is supposed to be the FIRST thing that your eye is drawn to, not the last.  You should not have to hunt for the subject, your eye should be immediately drawn to the subject.  Get a speedlight and learn to use it for fill flash.  You mentioned in a post above that you "hate flash pictures that you can"... I'm not certain what it was supposed to say since it stopped there, but my guess is that it was going to say something along the lines of you hate flash pictures that look like they were shot with a flash.  Word of advice: if you can tell they were shot with a flash you did it wrong.

Look at a GOOD wedding photographer's gallery and tell me which were shot with a flash and which weren't.  If they are truly good the only giveaway is the pinpoint "Catchlights" in the eyes.  You won't see harsh shadows behind the subject or highlights on the cheeks or foreheads, you will see nice, even light as it is supposed to be done.


----------



## jamesbjenkins (Feb 12, 2013)

NickStevens said:


> so how else am i supposed to tell what the correct exposure is?



The histogram is your best friend when trying to nail the exposure. It will be accurate regardless of whether your monitor is color calibrated or not. In darker environments like your party/concert here (which look exactly like most of my wedding receptions), I actually try to overexpose the subjects by 1/3 stop most of the time.

As far as not liking the look of flash, it's probably b/c you're not using the flash properly. If you'll put a diffuser on your speedlight and either point it at 75 degree angle towards your subjects, or flip it around so it fires away from your subjects to bounce (depending on where the walls and ceiling are in relation to where you're shooting), you'll find the flash much more appealing methinks. 

In my experience, setting my speedlight to TTL minus 1 stop usually gives the light I want without making everyone look like deer in headlights.


----------



## NickStevens (Feb 12, 2013)

Yes my eyes are drawn towards the lights..... 
We are primarily a disco company that want the shows to look good. 
So from my point of view they are good sales pics if the attention is on the lighting. 
WHO says the subject has to be the first thing your eyes are drawn too? Surely it depends what effect your trying to create? 

Thanks, I have a speedlight and know how to use it.... 
TO ME those pics look like they were taken in the environment they were taken which means that's how it's meant to be. 

YES, I was going to say I hate pictures with flash when you can tell a flash was used. 
To me in the disco pics I want it to appear like they were in front of me right now...... And thats exactly how it looks to me in the photos, they look real. 
Because in real life can you see under exposed people with your eyes in that environment? SURE PEOPLE LOOK A BIT DARK. 

You can call that an "amateur" cop out if you like but that's how I see it. 

If I saw photos you had taken in a night club you might think they are perfect, I may not. 
I've studied a lot of nightlife photos to see how others do it, and many I don't like coz they don't look natural. 

Or maybe I should just give the whole thing up and sell the camera coz every time I put anything up on a forum it gets slagged off, makes me not want to bother at all.


----------



## SCraig (Feb 12, 2013)

NickStevens said:


> ... Or maybe I should just give the whole thing up and sell the camera coz every time I put anything up on a forum it gets slagged off, makes me not want to bother at all.



No offense, but perhaps there is a reason for that.  Perhaps you are the one who is looking at things with the wrong perspective?

If the shots are the way you want them to be then all is well and good.  If all you want to see is the lights then you have accomplished that.  If it were my company my focus would be more on showing the happy people enjoying their time in my club as opposed to the pretty lights in the background, but that's just my opinion.  But, once again, if you are getting what you want then by all means go with it.


----------



## NickStevens (Feb 12, 2013)

For what I want its everybody else who's looking at it from the wrong perspective. 

Take a look at some good nightlife photos I'm sure you will all hate them coz they are outside the box of normal photography.


----------



## NickStevens (Feb 12, 2013)

In All of my examples above its obvious what the subject is.... PIC 4 for example, theirs hardly any lighting in it, it's mostly the people BUT still with enough to show where it was taken. (Other than the guy on the left who wasn't even meant to be in the photo, which happens in this environment sometimes) 
THE Girl with the glass on her head, the lighting is the background isn't it? 
The last picture it appears to me that theirs a spotlight on them so obviously the subject? 

Do they look like they are having a good time? 
Is it obvious that the photos were taken in an environment with a half decent lightshow? 
Would it make me want to visit the club? 

My answer to all of those is Yes so for me it's done its job.


----------



## SCraig (Feb 12, 2013)

NickStevens said:


> For what I want its everybody else who's looking at it from the wrong perspective.
> 
> Take a look at some good nightlife photos I'm sure you will all hate them coz they are outside the box of normal photography.




Whatever ... I'm done here.


----------



## NickStevens (Feb 12, 2013)

jamesbjenkins said:


> NickStevens said:
> 
> 
> > so how else am i supposed to tell what the correct exposure is?
> ...



I did try and use the histogram, but because of the environment and the picture created, the histogram nearly always shows black and shadow area. 
Unless I'm missing something and not reading it right, but I understand that theirs no such thing as a perfect histogram because it depends what your shooting.? 

As for the FEC nearly all pics were taken with -1, 2 or 3. MOSTLY 3 if I remember right so maybe next time out I'll try a 2 or a 1.
The last thing I want to do is light the back wall or wipe out the lighting with too much flash or like you say make the people look like a deer in the headlights. 

On another note a local club owner saw my photos and wants to hire me, as he sees the pics in the same way I see them.


----------



## NickStevens (Feb 12, 2013)

SCraig said:


> NickStevens said:
> 
> 
> > For what I want its everybody else who's looking at it from the wrong perspective.
> ...



Or don't take a look at some good nightlife pics then..... 
ALL the advice given is telling me how to ruin the effect with more flash.....OR turn up the shutter so you don't get so much ambient lighting.....


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Feb 12, 2013)

NickStevens said:


> For what I want its everybody else who's looking at it from the wrong perspective.


 You might want to look at that statement with a different perspective.



NickStevens said:


> On another note a local club owner saw my photos and wants to hire me, as he sees the pics in the same way I see them.


What about the five who saw them and don't want to hire you?


----------



## NickStevens (Feb 12, 2013)

Look at my statement that the histogram dosnt all ways tell the full story? 

It won't in this case coz much of the photo is meant to be dark, the histogram reads the photo as it sees it dosnt it. 


The other 5 are photographers who just 
don't understand the concept.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Feb 12, 2013)




----------



## UKHero64 (Feb 12, 2013)

Hi Nick, I had a quick play with your image 20130209-_MG_0521.jpg | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

Just my take on it... I am sure the more experienced guys on here can do a much better job than me. 

Nik


----------



## Tee (Feb 12, 2013)

Nick- I commend you for defending your work but c'mon man, it's time to realize that the effect you were going after is underexposed.  You can create moody, low key but well exposed photographs.  Unfortunately, you fell short with yours.  Keep shooting but trying to validate your images is moot.


----------



## o hey tyler (Feb 12, 2013)

NickStevens said:


> Yes my eyes are drawn towards the lights.....
> We are primarily a disco company that want the shows to look good.



Then WHY in the world would you put people in the photo at all? In the CENTER of the photo. LOOKING at the camera? This makes absolutely no sense and enforces my thoughts that you are inexperienced with photography, composition, and how light works. 



> So from my point of view they are good sales pics if the attention is on the lighting.



No, they are NOT good sales photos for the lighting. At all. 



> WHO says the subject has to be the first thing your eyes are drawn too?



Photographers, artists, and anyone who knows what the definition of a "subject" in composition is. 



> Thanks, I have a speedlight and know how to use it....



I think that's up for debate. 



> TO ME those pics look like they were taken in the environment they were taken which means that's how it's meant to be.



And to everyone else (as I stated with 100% certainty) thinks that they're dull and underexposed. 



> YES, I was going to say I hate pictures with flash when you can tell a flash was used.



Then I am surprised you don't hate your own photos with an undying passion. 



> To me in the disco pics I want it to appear like they were in front of me right now...... And thats exactly how it looks to me in the photos, they look real.



No! They DO NOT look real. Your monitor is not calibrated. They have a yellow color cast, and they're UNDEREXPOSED. 



> Because in real life can you see under exposed people with your eyes in that environment? SURE PEOPLE LOOK A BIT DARK.



In real life you don't light what your eyes see with off camera flash. Stop making excuses and AGAIN refer to my post about dark weddings in churches. Like, actually READ it this time. With your eyes. 



> You can call that an "amateur" cop out if you like but that's how I see it.



Everyone else will see it as amateur too. 



> If I saw photos you had taken in a night club you might think they are perfect, I may not.



If you have multiple people seeing the SAME faults with your image. It's generally a bad sign. 



> I've studied a lot of nightlife photos to see how others do it, and many I don't like coz they don't look natural.



Your photos do not look natural. So it's interesting that you'd say that. 



> Or maybe I should just give the whole thing up and sell the camera coz every time I put anything up on a forum it gets slagged off, makes me not want to bother at all.



That probably has a lot to do with your attitude towards your own photography, your maturity level and your lack of willingness to learn from other members. 



NickStevens said:


> For what I want its everybody else who's looking at it from the wrong perspective.
> 
> Take a look at some good nightlife photos I'm sure you will all hate them coz they are outside the box of normal photography.



No, we will like them because they're GOOD nightlife photos that are properly exposed. It's not the venue or scenario that's the issue. 



NickStevens said:


> In All of my examples above its obvious what the subject is.... PIC 4 for example, theirs hardly any lighting in it, it's mostly the people BUT still with enough to show where it was taken. (Other than the guy on the left who wasn't even meant to be in the photo, which happens in this environment sometimes)



That's why you take more than one photo, and ask the guy to move out of the way nicely. 



> THE Girl with the glass on her head, the lighting is the background isn't it?



The lighting should be on the subject of the photo. After reading up on composition, I'm sure you can figure out that the girl with the glass on her head is the subject. 



> The last picture it appears to me that theirs a spotlight on them so obviously the subject?



Yes, this is the best exposed photo out of the bunch. However, not all of them are looking at the camera. 



> Do they look like they are having a good time?
> Is it obvious that the photos were taken in an environment with a half decent lightshow?
> Would it make me want to visit the club?



The light show looks decent, but I sure wouldn't want to hang out with a bunch of kids. 



> My answer to all of those is Yes so for me it's done its job.



Good for you. 



NickStevens said:


> I did try and use the histogram, but because of the environment and the picture created, the histogram nearly always shows black and shadow area.



No, it wasn't the environment. IT WAS HOW YOU EXPOSED THE PHOTOGRAPH. 



> Unless I'm missing something and not reading it right, but I understand that theirs no such thing as a perfect histogram because it depends what your shooting.?



Ugh. No dude, you're totally right. There's no such thing as underexposure! 

Read up on a histogram while you're at it. There's a variety of information in it. There is no "perfect" histogram, but there sure is a bad one. 



> As for the FEC nearly all pics were taken with -1, 2 or 3. MOSTLY 3 if I remember right so maybe next time out I'll try a 2 or a 1.



DING DING DING! We have the reason why your photos look like they were taken in a dingy cave. 



> The last thing I want to do is light the back wall or wipe out the lighting with too much flash or like you say make the people look like a deer in the headlights.



...and that's why you need to learn flash. Because when used properly, you can't tell. 



> On another note a local club owner saw my photos and wants to hire me, as he sees the pics in the same way I see them.



He should get his eyes, and/or monitor checked out if that's the case. 



NickStevens said:


> Or don't take a look at some good nightlife pics then.....
> ALL the advice given is telling me how to ruin the effect with more flash.....OR turn up the shutter so you don't get so much ambient lighting.....



No, the advice given is telling you how to properly expose your SUBJECTS in the photograph. Learn about dragging the shutter around 1/30s. Use a higher ISO and turn your flash up. *Shutter speed has no effect on flash exposure. Aperture and ISO do. Shutter speed will only effect the incidental light (I.E. the club lights). *If you learn to balance those variables, your pictures will look better. 



NickStevens said:


> Look at my statement that the histogram dosnt all ways tell the full story?
> 
> It won't in this case coz much of the photo is meant to be dark, the histogram reads the photo as it sees it dosnt it.



Dude, STOP being so defensive. Stop trying to pull out every excuse in the book. Your photos are underexposed, they're poorly executed, and they're not going to improve if you don't DRASTICALLY change your outlook on what constitutes a good photograph. The histogram tells me that your subjects are underexposed. 



> The other 5 are photographers who just
> don't understand the concept.



My patience is wearing thin. It seems that you are the one photographer that does not understand any of the concepts that were presented to you over the course of this thread.


----------



## jamesbjenkins (Feb 12, 2013)

SCraig said:


> NickStevens said:
> 
> 
> > For what I want its everybody else who's looking at it from the wrong perspective.
> ...



Ditto. I'll refer to my previous statement "too many young and/or inexperienced photogs will reject all critique with the classic "that's just my style..."

This thread has devolved into a complaining pity party / rock throwing festival. Peace.


----------



## o hey tyler (Feb 12, 2013)

jamesbjenkins said:


> This thread has devolved into a complaining pity party / rock throwing festival. Peace.



Hey James, what's not to like about a good ol' fashioned rock throwing party, eh?


----------



## jamesbjenkins (Feb 12, 2013)

NickStevens said:


> jamesbjenkins said:
> 
> 
> > NickStevens said:
> ...



OK, I didn't read this post before...

1. The histogram never lies. It's pure data. No agenda, and no calibration necessary (assuming your camera is working properly, of course). A properly exposed image will generally have the majority of the curve in the middle of the curve, with relatively little clipping on either end. If you're shooting specific kinds of artistic images (like anything with the sun in it, or a nighttime portrait) then obviously there will be lots of clipping on one end or the other. But speaking in general terms, an image is properly exposed if the majority of the curve is near the middle.
2. If you're shooting with a speedlight at TTL minus 3 stops in a dark club, than I would submit that contrary to your previous statement, you don't understand how to best use your speedlight.

Much more study and practice, and much less excuse-making and complaining are in order, methinks.


----------



## jamesbjenkins (Feb 12, 2013)

o hey tyler said:


> jamesbjenkins said:
> 
> 
> > This thread has devolved into a complaining pity party / rock throwing festival. Peace.
> ...



b/c it's pointless, childish and only serves to create more work for Mods who volunteer their time.

There's a big difference between offering pointed, sometimes harsh, critique when it's warranted, and being a sarcastic, pithy jerk to someone.

EDIT: I'm not saying I haven't been guilty of that myself a few times in the past (I'll refer to you my 2 earned sanction points). I just want to encourage growth and meaningful critique...


----------



## o hey tyler (Feb 12, 2013)

jamesbjenkins said:
			
		

> b/c it's pointless, childish and only serves to create more work for Mods who volunteer their time.
> 
> There's a big difference between offering pointed, sometimes harsh, critique when it's warranted, and being a sarcastic, pithy jerk to someone.



I guess I should have used comic sans.


----------



## NickStevens (Feb 12, 2013)

Tell you what... 

Im gonna say this once so I hope your all listening. 

**** YOU ALL

Your all so far up your own arses to even want to assist. 
HAVE ANY OF YOU EVEN LISTENED 
IM ****ING DONE WITH THIS ****HOLE FORUM. 
All forums are the same full of muppets that think they know best. 

NOBODY HERE has even listened to the effect I'm going for coz your all too busy banging on about under exposure to listen. 

IM ****ING DONE, CYA


----------



## NickStevens (Feb 12, 2013)

Wow censorship too..... Still your all intelligent people I'm sure you can work out the gaps.


----------



## Tee (Feb 12, 2013)

I know the effect you're going for. However, that effect can be done as an exposed image. What you're not understanding is there's a difference between what you're trying to achieve and what you actually achieved. The quicker you understand that what you wanted to achieve didn't work, the quicker you can fix the issue.


----------



## NickStevens (Feb 12, 2013)

IF YOU DON'T KNOW HOW CLUB PHOTOS ARE MEANT TO BE DONE THEN THAT'S YOUR PROBLEM NOT MINE. 

Sure turn the flash up and ruin the pics, I can see this is not the place to get advice. 
Ill go elsewhere to listen to people who know about this style of photography coz its obvious none of you know anything about it talking about dark caves and ****......


----------



## Tee (Feb 12, 2013)

Why don't you turn up the ISO?


----------



## o hey tyler (Feb 12, 2013)

NickStevens said:


> Tell you what...
> 
> Im gonna say this once so I hope your all listening.



Not listening, but I'll read it. 



> **** YOU ALL



How nice of you to say. 



> Your all so far up your own arses to even want to assist.



All we've done is assist, all you've done is defend, defend, defend. 



> HAVE ANY OF YOU EVEN LISTENED



No, haven't listened to much. But I did read all of your posts thoroughly and responded to them in separate parts. 



> IM ****ING DONE WITH THIS ****HOLE FORUM.



Ok. Later bud. 



> All forums are the same full of muppets that think they know best.



You had at least five people who told you that your photos were underexposed. We told you that you should get your monitor checked out, we said that you should have your camera set differently for the effect you're trying to achieve. We UNDERSTAND what you're going for, you're just executing it poorly. I even gave you the basics of balancing flash with ambient light, highlighted in bold. <----- That's the ticket to getting the effect you want. 



> NOBODY HERE has even listened to the effect I'm going for coz your all too busy banging on about under exposure to listen.



See above. 



> IM ****ING DONE, CYA



Cool.


----------



## o hey tyler (Feb 12, 2013)

NickStevens said:


> IF YOU DON'T KNOW HOW CLUB PHOTOS ARE MEANT TO BE DONE THEN THAT'S YOUR PROBLEM NOT MINE.



It seems you are the one who does not know how club photos are meant to be done, sir. 



> Sure turn the flash up and ruin the pics, I can see this is not the place to get advice.



READ MY RESPONSE TO YOU. PARTICULARLY THE PART IN BOLD UP ABOVE. 

Turning the flash up WILL NOT ruin the photos. Dragging the shutter is what exposes for the ambient light behind your subjects (I.E. the "disco" lights), the flash is used to EXPOSE YOUR SUBJECT. It will not wash out the lights behind them if you set your camera to expose for incidental light by using a slower shutter speed or higher ISO. This is what you DO NOT understand, and this is what I've been TRYING to tell you. 

Do some experiments in your house. Sit in a dark room, looking towards a room with a light on. Use your flash on TTL mode at ISO 100, f/4, 1/200s. Take a photo of the dark room you're in, with the room with the light on in the background. The room in the background should be pretty dim. Now change your settings to ISO800, f/4, 1/50s and take a photo. That will bring the incidental exposure up by FIVE STOPS. You'll notice that your room is now illuminated, and the other room with the light on is more exposed. 



> Ill go elsewhere to listen to people who know about this style of photography coz its obvious none of you know anything about it talking about dark caves and ****......



If you aim to get critique from experienced night club photographers, you'll hear the same exact things. Shooting clubs isn't wildly different or more challenging than any other dark environment. You just have to know what to do.


----------



## NickStevens (Feb 12, 2013)

This was meant to be about a fricking Facebook question. 

and somehow it got turned into a personal attack on me and my style.....and thats irritating to say the least.

 Ive done the research I know about slow shutter to expose ambient lighting. 

Anyway like I said Im done.


----------



## NickStevens (Feb 12, 2013)

HOW MANY MORE TIMES CAN I SAY IT

I don't want the whole fricking room exposed with flash, that's why the FEC is down a bit. Maybe a little too much at 3.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Feb 12, 2013)

NickStevens said:


> Wow, censorship too... Still you're all intelligent people, I'm sure you can work out the gaps.





*fixed


----------



## o hey tyler (Feb 12, 2013)

Well, honestly. It was a facebook question, yes. But if you're marketing yourself as a club photographer, you've got a lot to learn about photography, and should not be accepting payment for such images at this point. 

It's not your style that we're attacking, we're pointing out to you that your photos are underexposed and muddy. That's not a style, it's a mistake. If you'd done your research, you'd know that what we were telling you would create better images.

If you're going to leave, then leave. Don't expect your photos to get better.


----------



## o hey tyler (Feb 12, 2013)

NickStevens said:


> HOW MANY MORE TIMES CAN I SAY IT



Apparently as many times as you can fail to understand it. 



> I don't want the whole fricking room exposed with flash, that's why the FEC is down a bit. Maybe a little too much at 3.



You don't have to have the whole room exposed with flash. That's what I've been telling you. FEC is not "down a bit," at -3, it's down ALL THE WAY.


----------



## NickStevens (Feb 12, 2013)

5 is all the way..... On zero it lights the back wall which is not what I want. 
Try using a flash in a smokey environment. Without a lot of FEC and see how White your pics are. 

Critisizm I can take, but when people say things like "you have a lot to learn" that winds me up. 

I WAS over the moon with how they came out.... Really thought I was getting somewhere although I knew they wasn't perfect their was hope. 

Come on here Get slagged and want to sell my camera..... Way to go guys.

YOU may as well have said your images are **** give up and go back to the DJing.


----------



## o hey tyler (Feb 12, 2013)

NickStevens said:


> 5 is all the way..... On zero it lights the back wall which is not what I want.



Where did someone suggest you turn off FEC completely? 



> Try using a flash in a smokey environment. Without a lot of FEC and see how White your pics are.



Been there. Done that. It's not about light output, it's about light placement. 



> Critisizm I can take, but when people say things like "you have a lot to learn" that winds me up.



Well, I'm sorry. It seems to be true though. 



> I WAS over the moon with how they came out.... Really thought I was getting somewhere although I knew they wasn't perfect their was hope.



It's easy to get your hopes up in regards to your own photos. It happens. The best thing you can do is absorb critique and experiment to try new things. 



> Come on here Get slagged and want to sell my camera..... Way to go guys.



If you want to sell your camera, that's up to you. If you want to improve your craft, that's up to you as well. 



> YOU may as well have said your images are **** give up and go back to the DJing.



I had no aim to be that harsh. My intent was to help.


----------



## MK3Brent (Feb 12, 2013)

How many light modifiers do you have? 
Ever used a go-between? Grid?


----------



## SCraig (Feb 12, 2013)

NickStevens said:


> 5 is all the way..... On zero it lights the back wall which is not what I want.
> Try using a flash in a smokey environment. Without a lot of FEC and see how White your pics are.
> 
> Critisizm I can take, but when people say things like "you have a lot to learn" that winds me up.
> ...



All I can tell you is this:  If you continue to pursue photography then one of these days, it may be next month it may be 10 years from now, you're going to look at those photos and say to yourself, "Damn, those are REALLY underexposed."  When that happens, and I promise you that it will, I want you to remember this conversation.

Whether you choose to pursue photography is entirely up to you.  Your photographs have some good things about them and they have some bad.  The worst being your inability to let go of preconceived notions and accept critique.  If you stick with it you will improve.  It's your choice.


----------



## Awiserbud (Feb 12, 2013)

This is one of the most intruiging threads i've read on TPF, what SCraig says is very true, In time you will look back and rethink things, Take a look at some of the first images you ever shot with your new DSLR, the ones you were really pleased with at the time...I bet you don't look at them with the same fondness now. 
Everything Tyler has told you was intended to help you IMO, Instead of looking at what he said and wondering if he was actually right you got yourself all wound up and defensive. 
I know a guy who did a lot of club photography, not so much thesedays, more weddings and cooperate shoots i think now, but a lot of his club work was quite amazing and i would suggest properly exposed, take a look at his website and see that club photography does not have to be moody and underexposed to retain the feel of a nightclub.
Nick Wild Photography ? Events


----------



## jamesbjenkins (Feb 12, 2013)

NickStevens said:


> 5 is all the way..... On zero it lights the back wall which is not what I want.
> Try using a flash in a smokey environment. Without a lot of FEC and see how White your pics are.
> 
> Critisizm I can take, but when people say things like "you have a lot to learn" that winds me up.
> ...



That is COMPLETELY not the point. You can't take critique personally, man. You've got to pick apart criticism just like you'd pick apart a photo. Take the parts that you get, ignore the pointless, hostile crap from some people, ignore the stuff that doesn't mesh with your style. But you have to understand the basic principles before you can develop style.

You have to fully understand all the rules before you can to know when it's a good idea to bend or break them.

I can't speak for all the posters here, but I genuinely want your club pictures to get better. You've received a lot of worthwhile advice in this thread...some of it more politely stated than others. 

If you want to have any sort of satisfaction in any online forum, photography or otherwise, you've got to get some thicker skin. This isn't personal. We don't know Nick Stevens. All we have to work off of are some pixels on a screen.

If I didn't see anything positive, I wouldn't have posted at all. I'd prob chuckle and keep on clicking like I do with most of the fat-headed scrubs who stroll through here, posting crap images, looking for an "atta boy" and not any meaningful critique.

I wish you the best if you choose to leave. That's your call, but you're never going to grow as an artist or a businessperson if you can't learn to take all the commentary in, figure out what you can work with and forget the rest.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Feb 12, 2013)

Awiserbud said:


> Nick Wild Photography ? Events



Nick Wild Photography *  >  *Jade's 18th & Gary's 21st Birthday Party


----------



## NickStevens (Feb 12, 2013)

It wasn't so much what advice was given it was how it was given. 

Their are ways and means of coaxing someone to improve that are better than straight out attacking them straight off. 

YOURs and A wisebuds advice were put across in a totally different way and in my opinion the right way. 
Sometimes it's not what's said that the issue its how it's said. 

Now tyler to be fair has offered some advice to help later on in the thread... His first posts were not quite so polite and wound me up. 

Shouldn't really need a thick skin to go on a forum should be about helping each other to improve.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Feb 12, 2013)

No, you shouldn't need a thick skin. But you DO NEED an open mind.


----------



## jamesbjenkins (Feb 12, 2013)

NickStevens said:


> It wasn't so much what advice was given it was how it was given.
> 
> Their are ways and means of coaxing someone to improve that are better than straight out attacking them straight off.
> 
> ...



Yeah, but you have to understand, Tyler is a self-absorbed jerk who takes genuine pleasure in tormenting those who dare ask questions. Just ask anyone who's been here a while... 

hug:: @ Tyler)


----------



## NickStevens (Feb 12, 2013)

Awiserbud said:


> but a lot of his club work was quite amazing and i would suggest properly exposed, take a look at his website and see that club photography does not have to be moody and underexposed to retain the feel of a nightclub.
> Nick Wild Photography ? Events



Yup I do like a lot of those images although on some I would have preferred a darker background. 
But I can see how the people are exposed. 
Not having my monitor calibrated correctly hasn't helped one bit. 
But it is now, so I'm going to redevelop the entire album again and delete more of the really really crap ones.


----------



## SCraig (Feb 12, 2013)

NickStevens said:


> Yup I do like a lot of those images although *on some I would have preferred a darker background.*


But that's what people have been trying to tell you.  The foreground and the background are DIFFERENT.  It is entirely possible to get a properly exposed foreground while leaving the background dark.  Tyler told you exactly how to do it:  Meter for the background and expose it however you want to using ambient light and use fill flash to expose the subjects in the foreground.  That way the people in the foreground are properly exposed yet the background is as dark as you want to make it.

You can't just stick people in front of a wall and make it work though, there has to be some separation between the foreground and background.  Many of yours could easily have been done that way.


----------



## rlemert (Feb 12, 2013)

By my count, you have submitted six posts since you announced that you were leaving this discussion. My question is - why?

  Beyond this, why have you stayed in this discussion for as long as you have. It's clear that you have no intention of considering other peoples opinions or advice, that you have achieved the 'look' you were after, and that there is a market for that look. Once it was clear that others were not going to give you the praise you felt was your due, I would think your life would be simpler if you'd just walked back into your little world.

  BTW - As to your original question (since you did complain that no one was addressing it); To me it wouldn't matter at all if you had to "like" a page in order to view or if you didn't have to "like" it. Either way you would have lost me as a potential customer because I DON'T DO FACEBOOK - period!


----------



## NickStevens (Feb 12, 2013)

SCraig said:


> NickStevens said:
> 
> 
> > Yup I do like a lot of those images although *on some I would have preferred a darker background.*
> ...



EXACTLY what I set out to do.


----------



## NickStevens (Feb 12, 2013)

jamesbjenkins said:


> NickStevens said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah, but you have to understand, Tyler is a self-absorbed jerk who takes genuine pleasure in tormenting those who dare ask questions. Just ask anyone who's been here a while...
> ...


----------



## SCraig (Feb 12, 2013)

NickStevens said:


> EXACTLY what I set out to do.


Then you HAVE to use a flash.  Not the pop-up flash but a speedlight that you can get higher off the axis off the lens or over to the side or something.  A pop-up flash frequently causes red-eye simply because it's so close to the axis of the lens.

Next thing, you have to diffuse the flash to prevent harsh shadows and highlights.  You can bounce it off a wall or ceiling, although that's not usually a choice in a club, you can use a bounce card or a diffuser on the flash itself.  Something like a  Demb Bounca Card works very well.  The goal is to make the bloom of light appear as physically large as possible.  Softboxes or umbrellas are the preferred way but seldom work well in a club because of the crowd.  If you can find room they are the best solution though.

Regardless of how you diffuse the light, to get the results you are after you will HAVE to use some fill flash.


----------



## jamesbjenkins (Feb 12, 2013)

NickStevens said:


> jamesbjenkins said:
> 
> 
> > NickStevens said:
> ...


----------



## o hey tyler (Feb 12, 2013)

jamesbjenkins said:


> NickStevens said:
> 
> 
> > Funny coz that's exactly the impression I got, and I said so earlier in the thread.
> ...



Considering he's from the UK. He probably isn't aware. 

And btw, Maine > Texas.


----------



## NickStevens (Feb 13, 2013)

Well that explains the arrogance anyway...


----------



## sm4him (Feb 13, 2013)

NickStevens said:


> Well that explains the arrogance anyway...




Wow, I wondered why this thread had so many responses--I thought we were done back on page one.

I was right. 

I was gonna just let those 5 minutes of my life I wasted reading the rest of this go and not say anything...but I changed my mind.
I think you need to look up "rude" and "arrogant" in a dictionary, because I do not think they mean what you think they mean.  

Tyler is capable of being quite rude and snarky; probably capable of arrogance, too. As are we all, from time to time. But I gotta tell ya--I have not seen a single response from him in this thread that seemed overly rude, or arrogant at all.  Blunt, yes.  Painfully honest, yes.  But not rude, and certainly not arrogant. I think he, and others, have been absolutely astoundingly restrained and patient.  The only thing I can't figure out is WHY Tyler has continued to post and try to reason with a brick wall.


----------



## NickStevens (Feb 13, 2013)

Im well aware of what the words mean..... 
Whenever somebody starts with "no offence"  that's usually like, here it comes. 

At the end of the day it's not the advice given, it's how it's phrased that makes it arrogant or not. 

You just can't explain arrogance to an American, coz they are so used to it that they don't realise when they are being that way themselves.


----------



## o hey tyler (Feb 13, 2013)

For every "rude or arrogant" post I made, you responded ten fold with more arrogance, rudeness and even decided to throw ignorance into the mix. Despite all of your actual attacks on me, I still managed to keep my cool and offer suggestions. You're welcome, btw. 

I won't coddle an overly sensitive 40 year old man who thinks his photos are the bomb. I'll tell you what I think will improve them for your benefit. If I thought your photos were good, I would have said nothing, because you were on the right track. I intervened to try to help you.

So yeah, go ahead and say you can't explain arrogance to an American. Btw have you ever watched a parliamentary session? That is the absolute height of arrogance all trapped in one room.


----------



## jamesbjenkins (Feb 13, 2013)

NickStevens said:


> Im well aware of what the words mean.....
> Whenever somebody starts with "no offence"  that's usually like, here it comes.
> 
> At the end of the day it's not the advice given, it's how it's phrased that makes it arrogant or not.
> ...



As much as I'd like to argue with that statement for the sake of my country, I really can't. We are pretty arrogant as a nation. But it's only because we're the best. 

You're probably just still mad we beat you guys in that epic 18th century King of the Hill game.

(Tongue planted firmly in cheek.)

I'm done here. Good luck, Nick! I look forward to your next posts.


----------



## Onerider (Feb 13, 2013)

Well, if nothing else comes of this, at least I learned something from Tylers' explanations on flash. Thanks Tyler, I've been practicing them and they help.


----------



## NickStevens (Feb 13, 2013)

Sorry yea the above wasn't meant as racist.... 
Its just how it comes across to us Brits lol

MAYBE I need to open my mind and stop seeing it from that perspective and try and look past what I consider to be arrogance.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Feb 13, 2013)

Americans are a race now?


----------



## NickStevens (Feb 13, 2013)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> Americans are a race now?



What else would you call it? 
Americanism?


----------



## Awiserbud (Feb 13, 2013)

NickStevens said:


> Sorry yea the above wasn't meant as racist....
> Its just how it comes across to us Brits lol
> 
> .



Would be great if you could change "us" to "this"

I've come across arrogant people from all over the globe, where they are from has no bearing on their arrogance. I work for an Englishman who is one of the most arrogant idiots ive ever met, I have travelled extensively through the States and met some pretty decent people. 
But lets not get into that USA vs England debate, it could all get very messy


----------



## NickStevens (Feb 13, 2013)

Yea true enough your all of English descent anyway except for the Mexicans lol


----------



## sm4him (Feb 13, 2013)

NickStevens said:


> Yea true enough your all of English descent anyway except for the Mexicans lol



:raisedbrow:
And the Africans. And the Australians. And the French. And the Russians, and Iranians, and Indians and Pakistanis, and....


----------



## Awiserbud (Feb 13, 2013)

I've been led to believe we all hail from Africa, well homo-sapiens anyway, but i think its a debate thats been going on for centuries.


----------



## JacaRanda (Feb 13, 2013)

Bitter Jeweler said:


>



This just cracks me up.  I look at the blank post and then I look over at your picture and crack up more!  Simply classic.


----------



## MK3Brent (Feb 13, 2013)

jamesbjenkins said:


> We are pretty arrogant as a nation. But it's only because we're the best.
> .


 yeah right.


----------



## NickStevens (Feb 13, 2013)

JacaRanda said:


> Bitter Jeweler said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...



Huh?


----------



## jbarrettash (Feb 13, 2013)

This thread got derailed so thoroughly, I started a thread to respond to one of the issues addressed here:

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...-debate-i-m-gonna-get-flamed.html#post2868734


----------



## _KC (Apr 3, 2013)

i think this is what is wrong with my page... No one sees my photos or knows i love photography so much so no one likes my page its a whole timeline of different pictures and people just judge the page by the timeline photo
_u g h_


----------



## o hey tyler (Apr 3, 2013)

_KC said:


> i think this is what is wrong with my page... No one sees my photos or knows i love photography so much so no one likes my page its a whole timeline of different pictures and people just judge the page by the timeline photo
> u g h



Look into promoting yourself via social media.


----------



## MK3Brent (Apr 3, 2013)

Photography pages on FB is so useless anyway, the quality being sucked out of the images almost isn't worth it.

Just nice since so many people use FB that maybe they'll stop by and go to our real websites.


----------

