# Just what is wrong in photography today?



## Didereaux

I don't agree with this guy in all things, but in this video I cannot find where he is wrong on any substantial issue.  Watch it, really give some thought to each point before you comment.   This is some fundamental crux stuff that affects every single pro and wannabe in today's world of photography.


----------



## gsgary

At least he went to a really nice place that I go at least once a year to talk about load of bollocks 

Sent from my SM-G903F using Tapatalk


----------



## cgw

Just another rant by a guy with a massive sense of entitlement. Check his over-cooked images. All I heard was the usual "how cum guys who shoot $hit I hate make more money than me" bloviation. And no, I don't have to show him my work to criticize him.


----------



## kalgra

To be honest I have watched this guy a lot and havent really cared much for what he had to say until this. I'm a total noob so take my oppinion for what it's worth, but I have to agree with Didereaux, I can't find any fault in his logic.


----------



## crzyfotopeeple

*Simple Definition of logic*

: a proper or reasonable way of thinking about or understanding something


: a particular way of thinking about something


: the science that studies the formal processes used in thinking and reasoning

*Simple Definition of opinion*
: a belief, judgment, or way of thinking about something : what someone thinks about a particular thing


: advice from someone with special knowledge : advice from an expert


: a formal statement by a judge, court, etc., explaining the reasons a decision was made according to laws or rules


----------



## ClickAddict

I listened for a bit, laughed at the self promotion "I won so and so awards".... when he started on how proud he was of his albums are.. I tuned out.  Hockey game coming on.  Without having listened to the rest of his rant, I will admit there might be some truths to what he says later on, however his motivation appears... "lets put others down cause they do something differently than me and boost myself up."  Sure photography is moving more and more to digital manipulation today.  Do you think pros from 50 years ago would not have been doing the same if they had the ease we had today of doing so?  Think again.   A professional uses whatever tools he or she has at their disposal in order to produce the best product they can.  You want to argue it's not photography because it's not SOOC?  Bull.  The same could be said about it's not photography cause it's not film.  Technology changes.  If we kept changing what we are called because of new techniques / tech we wouldn't be photographers some would have to call themselves "Digital, Color, Automatic Focusing, Through the Lens Speedlight Self Setting, Photographic Digital Graphic Designing, Social Media Distributing, Artists."  Frankly my business cards aren't big enough so I'll stick with Photographer.


----------



## cherylynne1

I don't know...it's funny to me that he rails against Photoshop and declares himself a"Lightroom only" photographer, then attacks "natural light only" photographers for not spending enough time learning the craft. 

I think a great photographer should know all of it. If they need to get a photo with only natural light and no post processing, they should be able to get a great shot. And if they have the full arsenal of tools, from modified lights to Photoshop, they should know exactly what they need and how to use it to elicit the photo they envision. 

I get what he's saying... A digitally manipulated composite is unrealistic, and crosses the line from "a photographic recording of an event" to "an idealized tableau." But I think there is a time and a place for both kinds. Photojournalism, of course, should never contain composites. Nor, I believe, should candid street or event photos. But portraits have always been somewhat unrealistic. How often do you dress up four young kids just to sit them on the grass and smile in a random direction? But we do want photos like that to have a record of their expressions and facial features at that age. So if you have to composite it to get everyone smiling at the same time and no one blinking, why not? 

I don't disagree that photography has started to become a hybrid. I just don't feel that it's a problem like he does. People who like film still do film. People that don't like to post process still don't post process. People that don't use flash still don't use flash. But I'd say the majority of what I would consider "professional" photographers use what they need to get the shot they want, and don't worry so much about the purity of the process.


----------



## Didereaux

cherylynne1 said:


> I don't know...it's funny to me that he rails against Photoshop and declares himself a"Lightroom only" photographer, then attacks "natural light only" photographers for not spending enough time learning the craft.
> 
> I think a great photographer should know all of it. If they need to get a photo with only natural light and no post processing, they should be able to get a great shot. And if they have the full arsenal of tools, from modified lights to Photoshop, they should know exactly what they need and how to use it to elicit the photo they envision.
> 
> I get what he's saying... A digitally manipulated composite is unrealistic, and crosses the line from "a photographic recording of an event" to "an idealized tableau." But I think there is a time and a place for both kinds. Photojournalism, of course, should never contain composites. Nor, I believe, should candid street or event photos. But portraits have always been somewhat unrealistic. How often do you dress up four young kids just to sit them on the grass and smile in a random direction? But we do want photos like that to have a record of their expressions and facial features at that age. So if you have to composite it to get everyone smiling at the same time and no one blinking, why not?
> 
> I don't disagree that photography has started to become a hybrid. I just don't feel that it's a problem like he does. People who like film still do film. People that don't like to post process still don't post process. People that don't use flash still don't use flash. But I'd say the majority of what I would consider "professional" photographers use what they need to get the shot they want, and don't worry so much about the purity of the process.




My take was that was exactly his point.  A professional needs to be able to use any and all methods to get the shot.  He was ranting against lazy, half trained people calling themselves photographers but the quality was so low they can't charge much which reflects directly back on pros who are trying to keep on learning and getting better.  He offered no real solutions, but what he said is reflected in the reality of the business of photography today.


----------



## cherylynne1

Didereaux said:


> cherylynne1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know...it's funny to me that he rails against Photoshop and declares himself a"Lightroom only" photographer, then attacks "natural light only" photographers for not spending enough time learning the craft.
> 
> I think a great photographer should know all of it. If they need to get a photo with only natural light and no post processing, they should be able to get a great shot. And if they have the full arsenal of tools, from modified lights to Photoshop, they should know exactly what they need and how to use it to elicit the photo they envision.
> 
> I get what he's saying... A digitally manipulated composite is unrealistic, and crosses the line from "a photographic recording of an event" to "an idealized tableau." But I think there is a time and a place for both kinds. Photojournalism, of course, should never contain composites. Nor, I believe, should candid street or event photos. But portraits have always been somewhat unrealistic. How often do you dress up four young kids just to sit them on the grass and smile in a random direction? But we do want photos like that to have a record of their expressions and facial features at that age. So if you have to composite it to get everyone smiling at the same time and no one blinking, why not?
> 
> I don't disagree that photography has started to become a hybrid. I just don't feel that it's a problem like he does. People who like film still do film. People that don't like to post process still don't post process. People that don't use flash still don't use flash. But I'd say the majority of what I would consider "professional" photographers use what they need to get the shot they want, and don't worry so much about the purity of the process.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My take was that was exactly his point.  A professional needs to be able to use any and all methods to get the shot.  He was ranting against lazy, half trained people calling themselves photographers but the quality was so low they can't charge much which reflects directly back on pros who are trying to keep on learning and getting better.  He offered no real solutions, but what he said is reflected in the reality of the business of photography today.
Click to expand...



Well, I completely agree with that...Just a couple days ago someone posted on a local Facebook page, "I just got my Canon, so I'm doing cheap photoshoots to build my portfolio. $45/session." *facepalm*


----------



## rexbobcat

His photography isn't very good. Go to this man's website. He has faux HDR portraits in his wedding gallery. They are painfully poor attempts to make hyper-realistic portraits a la Dave Hill or Joel Grimes. Half of his photos are grainy due to overprocessing. In one photo the bride's skin is blue. There is a silhouette photo where there are literally 20 different sensor dust spots, including a long, visible hair.

Look at his NFL gallery. Not one "money shot." I've seen high schoolers' sports portfolios more dynamic.

This is a man who has been photographing for nearly 10 years.

If you think I'm being cynical and "mean," I implore you to go to his website, and then come back and tell me he's a photographer good enough from which to take advice.

It really frustrates me when subpar photographers try to preach from on high about the technical side of their profession. I don't care how many internet awards this dude allegedly has. He needs to become a better photographer before he starts criticizing entire swaths of the photographic community.


----------



## rexbobcat

On a side note, the people willing to spend $50 for portraits are not even in the same market as those willing to spend $300+. As a result, if you are competent both in pricing and skill, your business should not be hurt by the Canon Rebel Warriors.


----------



## Vtec44

We all started somewhere, and we're at various stages of photography.  I'd rather focus on my craft instead of worry about what others do.


----------



## astroNikon

sounds more like a rant.


----------



## Braineack

I loled so much on his over photoshopping wedding photos comment at the 3:00 mark.

If you dont know it's funny, then look at some of his own wedding pictures:


Clarity slider to 100% and horrible HDR:
http://static1.squarespace.com/static/528134b9e4b0f7fd724c5770/55e0e938e4b0eea3c349c5e9/55e0e939e4b0217e3137b02b/1440803130985/JD8_2945-Edit+(1).jpg?format=1500w
hates that people expect manipulated photos in the industry.  Look at how flat he made that rose look, it appears to be a tattoo he destroyed the image so bad and remove any depth from it.  Look how bad her skin looks.

beautiful clear gray skies:
http://static1.squarespace.com/static/528134b9e4b0f7fd724c5770/55e0e938e4b0eea3c349c5e9/55eddea5e4b02b650a5568f8/1441652390086/bridals+jason+lanier+photography+(54).jpg?format=1500w
I love when you jack the clarity slider past 200% so that clouds cast shadows on the clear sky....


such class:
http://static1.squarespace.com/stat.../1441781816001/JD8_2619-Edit.jpg?format=1500w
again, beautiful gray skies, massive image distortion, clarity slider to 300%, under-exposed


Oh.... HALO HALO HALO I made it out of clay....
http://static1.squarespace.com/static/528134b9e4b0f7fd724c5770/55e0e938e4b0eea3c349c5e9/55efd843e4b092ef7acd0ec6/1441781828423/weddings+jason+lanier+photography+(162).jpg?format=1500w
The people in this picture are literally glowing... the girl's dress looks radioactive and the guy has a horrible glow/blurred edge to him.



this is an award winning "photographer" crying about photo manipulation. This guy is a joke and is only popular because he does exactly what he's bitching about in this video.  I've watched some of his classes online, he doesn't teach photography as much as he just takes money from the idiots that like his sub-par work--the same people mocks in the video.


----------



## astroNikon

Braineack said:


> I loled so much on his over photoshopping wedding photos comment at the 3:00 mark.
> 
> If you dont know it's funny, then look at some of his own wedding pictures:
> 
> 
> Clarity slider to 100% and horrible HDR:
> http://static1.squarespace.com/static/528134b9e4b0f7fd724c5770/55e0e938e4b0eea3c349c5e9/55e0e939e4b0217e3137b02b/1440803130985/JD8_2945-Edit+(1).jpg?format=1500w
> hates that people expect manipulated photos in the industry.  Look at how flat he made that rose look, it appears to be a tattoo he destroyed the image so bad and remove any depth from it.  Look how bad her skin looks.
> 
> beautiful clear gray skies:
> http://static1.squarespace.com/static/528134b9e4b0f7fd724c5770/55e0e938e4b0eea3c349c5e9/55eddea5e4b02b650a5568f8/1441652390086/bridals+jason+lanier+photography+(54).jpg?format=1500w
> I love when you jack the clarity slider past 200% so that clouds cast shadows on the clear sky....
> 
> 
> such class:
> http://static1.squarespace.com/stat.../1441781816001/JD8_2619-Edit.jpg?format=1500w
> again, beautiful gray skies, massive image distortion, clarity slider to 300%, under-exposed
> 
> 
> Oh.... HALO HALO HALO I made it out of clay....
> http://static1.squarespace.com/static/528134b9e4b0f7fd724c5770/55e0e938e4b0eea3c349c5e9/55efd843e4b092ef7acd0ec6/1441781828423/weddings+jason+lanier+photography+(162).jpg?format=1500w
> The people in this picture are literally glowing... the girl's dress looks radioactive and the guy has a horrible glow/blurred edge to him.
> 
> 
> 
> this is an award winning "photographer" crying about photo manipulation. This guy is a joke and is only popular because he does exactly what he's bitching about in this video.  I've watched some of his classes online, he doesn't teach photography as much as he just takes money from the idiots that like his sub-par work--the same people mocks in the video.


So he's creating the photoshopped effects the he himself is complaining about.


----------



## robbins.photo

Vtec44 said:


> We all started somewhere, and we're at various stages of photography.  I'd rather focus on my craft instead of worry about what others do.



Well young man with that kind of attitude you will never become a professional wedding photographer, that's for sure.

Oh.. umm.. wait.  Ya, nevermind.  Move along folks, nothing to see here...

Lol


----------



## Braineack

astroNikon said:


> So he's creating the photoshopped effects the he himself is complaining about.



pretty much. His silly post-processing effects (that he complains about in the video) make his trashy images actually desirable thus perpetuating the problem with photography that he hates enough to post a video about and get lots of money for from ads...


----------



## chuasam

In before the lock!
Different people have different tastes but his excessive arrogance is unpalatable.


----------



## sw_

I stopped after the affliction shirt and fedora, but hey, at least this isn't yet another video of him railing about being harrased for permits.


----------



## Didereaux

so far I think that only one person addressed the issues, and not the speaker.   Pretty much exposes the source of today's rampant ignorance, doesn't it?


----------



## Braineack

Didereaux said:


> so far I think that only one person addressed the issues, and not the speaker.   Pretty much exposes the source of today's rampant ignorance, doesn't it?


the rest of his video wasn't worth commenting on.  it was 20 minutes of him basically telling people to learn how to camera.

essentially the "problem" with photography today is digital manipulations and not knowing how to use your camera.


----------



## robbins.photo

Didereaux said:


> so far I think that only one person addressed the issues, and not the speaker.   Pretty much exposes the source of today's rampant ignorance, doesn't it?



The issues?  Well lets see, people use photoshop to post process pictures.

Some folks do a pretty good job of it, some don't.  Overprocessed pictures are out there and will continue to be out there no matter what a bunch of talking heads have to say about it on the internet.

Soo... not much to address really.  The fact that this guy chooses to rant about overprocessed pictures after some of the stuff he's posted, well it's a bit hypocritical so I can see why folks are taking him to task for it.


----------



## Braineack

#6 know what your aperture does.

OHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH that's the problem with photography.


----------



## sw_

Didereaux said:


> so far I think that only one person addressed the issues, and not the speaker.   Pretty much exposes the source of today's rampant ignorance, doesn't it?


I wouldn't take advice on how to cook a steak from a vegan.


----------



## rexbobcat

Didereaux said:


> so far I think that only one person addressed the issues, and not the speaker.   Pretty much exposes the source of today's rampant ignorance, doesn't it?



Hey, he's is the one who said an opinion is only valid if the speaker has skill.


----------



## table1349

After viewing that video sounds to me like someone trying to come up with a solution to a problem that only exists in his mind.


----------



## bribrius

i actually thought he was pretty humble he probably said it wasnt about him twenty times in the video. 
Far as his work looking through it some okay, some not so okay, but it is a matter of opinion hard to tell from what someone shows how good they actually are. I DO THINK the vid was a big long winded perhaps a condensed version should be available.


----------



## bribrius

Braineack said:


> I loled so much on his over photoshopping wedding photos comment at the 3:00 mark.
> 
> If you dont know it's funny, then look at some of his own wedding pictures:
> 
> 
> Clarity slider to 100% and horrible HDR:
> http://static1.squarespace.com/static/528134b9e4b0f7fd724c5770/55e0e938e4b0eea3c349c5e9/55e0e939e4b0217e3137b02b/1440803130985/JD8_2945-Edit+(1).jpg?format=1500w
> hates that people expect manipulated photos in the industry.  Look at how flat he made that rose look, it appears to be a tattoo he destroyed the image so bad and remove any depth from it.  Look how bad her skin looks.
> 
> beautiful clear gray skies:
> http://static1.squarespace.com/static/528134b9e4b0f7fd724c5770/55e0e938e4b0eea3c349c5e9/55eddea5e4b02b650a5568f8/1441652390086/bridals+jason+lanier+photography+(54).jpg?format=1500w
> I love when you jack the clarity slider past 200% so that clouds cast shadows on the clear sky....
> 
> 
> such class:
> http://static1.squarespace.com/stat.../1441781816001/JD8_2619-Edit.jpg?format=1500w
> again, beautiful gray skies, massive image distortion, clarity slider to 300%, under-exposed
> 
> 
> Oh.... HALO HALO HALO I made it out of clay....
> http://static1.squarespace.com/static/528134b9e4b0f7fd724c5770/55e0e938e4b0eea3c349c5e9/55efd843e4b092ef7acd0ec6/1441781828423/weddings+jason+lanier+photography+(162).jpg?format=1500w
> The people in this picture are literally glowing... the girl's dress looks radioactive and the guy has a horrible glow/blurred edge to him.
> 
> 
> 
> this is an award winning "photographer" crying about photo manipulation. This guy is a joke and is only popular because he does exactly what he's bitching about in this video.  I've watched some of his classes online, he doesn't teach photography as much as he just takes money from the idiots that like his sub-par work--the same people mocks in the video.


really? compared to the chit i shoot its probably better. Who gives a ratz azz anyway? OH wait i guess we are supposed to. hmm.


----------



## table1349

The problem with photography today is simple.  The same problem it has been for more than forty years when you get a bunch of photographers together.  To much ratchet jawing and not enough shutter tripping.


----------



## tirediron

gryphonslair99 said:


> The problem with photography today is simple.  The same problem it has been for more than forty years when you get a bunch of photographers together.  To much ratchet jawing and not enough shutter tripping.


Actually, the biggest problem is that not enough people are paying me not enough money to take their photo!


----------



## Didereaux

tirediron said:


> gryphonslair99 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with photography today is simple.  The same problem it has been for more than forty years when you get a bunch of photographers together.  To much ratchet jawing and not enough shutter tripping.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the biggest problem is that not enough people are paying me not enough money to take their photo!
Click to expand...


That could be the official T-shirt for the Photographers this year,  I _think_!


----------



## JacaRanda




----------



## imagemaker46

I watched the first 10 minutes. He does make some valid points, however he also makes the statements that if you don't learn, lighting, on and off camera flash, and a list of other technical components.  He has an issue with people that only shoot using available light/natural light, which I see as basically the same thing, then you aren't ever going to be good at photography.  I don't set up lights, my flash has no batteries, and still I have managed to get pretty good at pictures.  I use photoshop all the time, I do a lot of graphic work, it's an aspect of photography.  I tweak images in photoshop, but still try and get them as close to being good out of the camera, it happens, but I still do a little crop, light, dark, contrast, and it also depends on what the images are being used for. I looked at his web site, went to what I know best, his sports images, average at best, mediocre for most.   Everything in photography depends on what field you are working in, there is no ones set of guidelines that works for everything. I know great studio guys that struggle when they have no control over the light, that doesn't make them bad photographers.  I shoot very well with available light, I learned to read light and see light. I can set up lights in a studio and do an ok job, but my skills are limited to basic lighting setups. 

He does start off with him having won all kinds of awards, good for him, awards don't impress me, they are all subject to judges opinions, and based on the quality of the images in the selection group. 

It was a rant, and that's fine, I have had many of my own, but my rants aren't self promoting. I rarely watch videos from other photographers.


----------



## Didereaux

imagemaker46 said:


> I watched the first 10 minutes. He does make some valid points, however he also makes the statements that if you don't learn, lighting, on and off camera flash, and a list of other technical components.  He has an issue with people that only shoot using available light/natural light, which I see as basically the same thing, then you aren't ever going to be good at photography.  I don't set up lights, my flash has no batteries, and still I have managed to get pretty good at pictures.  I use photoshop all the time, I do a lot of graphic work, it's an aspect of photography.  I tweak images in photoshop, but still try and get them as close to being good out of the camera, it happens, but I still do a little crop, light, dark, contrast, and it also depends on what the images are being used for. I looked at his web site, went to what I know best, his sports images, average at best, mediocre for most.   Everything in photography depends on what field you are working in, there is no ones set of guidelines that works for everything. I know great studio guys that struggle when they have no control over the light, that doesn't make them bad photographers.  I shoot very well with available light, I learned to read light and see light. I can set up lights in a studio and do an ok job, but my skills are limited to basic lighting setups.
> 
> He does start off with him having won all kinds of awards, good for him, awards don't impress me, they are all subject to judges opinions, and based on the quality of the images in the selection group.
> 
> It was a rant, and that's fine, I have had many of my own, but my rants aren't self promoting. I rarely watch videos from other photographers.



you said "still I have managed to get pretty good at pictures"   I believe that is one of his main points.  Learn ALL the techniques you can and you will produce fewer 'pretty good pictures'.


----------



## kalgra

Personally I think people are getting too hangup on who the information/opinions are coming from and not the information itself. After looking at his portfolio I can certainly understand, its hard to take this guy too seriously. Its like the fat guy at working at the supplements counter 24 Hour Fitness trying to tell me how hes going to get me in the best shape of my life. Its also hard to take the guy seriously when its seems he himself cant really walk the walk. 

I will wholeheartedly admit the guy is still better than me though, but I've only been at it about a year now so perhaps I have no place even offering my opinion here.

To the points he made regarding PS and LR, I think what he was trying to get across is that he didn't feel composite images should be categorized in with regular (traditional) photography, not that you shouldn't use these tools to further develop the image. It seems to me he was saying composites fall more in the graphic arts realm. I understand though that this point I believe he was trying to make gets a little lost in his long winded rant.

Just my 2 cents.


----------



## zombiesniper

I can see where the guy is coming from but when he states things like some can only shoot with natural light and that's a problem.
I shoot wildlife. Can't seem to find any in my basement so I guess I'll continue to go outside.

Yes I know where he's going with the comment but if I NEVER have any interest in shooting people or shooting indoors and only wish to shoot wildlife, why should I learn artificial lighting? I was in the Navy and never learned to drive a tank or fly a plane. Didn't make me any less of a sailor.

To me he just sounds like others that think their way is the only way. AND THIS IS WHAT'S WRONG WITH PHOTOGRAPHY.

Then again I make 0$ with my pics so it's kind of like an NHL fan telling pro players how to do their job so maybe I should go back to my corner


----------



## Didereaux

zombiesniper said:


> I can see where the guy is coming from but when he states things like some can only shoot with natural light and that's a problem.
> I shoot wildlife. Can't seem to find any in my basement so I guess I'll continue to go outside.
> 
> Yes I know where he's going with the comment but if I NEVER have any interest in shooting people or shooting indoors and only wish to shoot wildlife, why should I learn artificial lighting? I was in the Navy and never learned to drive a tank or fly a plane. Didn't make me any less of a sailor.
> 
> To me he just sounds like others that think their way is the only way. AND THIS IS WHAT'S WRONG WITH PHOTOGRAPHY.
> 
> Then again I make 0$ with my pics so it's kind of like an NHL fan telling pro players how to do their job so maybe I should go back to my corner




  actually you do need to learn a bit about flash, and the use of a 'Flash Extender'  Some of the best bird shots are done with that combo by the pros.  ...and obviously if you are going to shoot owls, and frogs etc you are going to need some lighting help.       DO look into the flash extender, that thing really works!


----------



## zombiesniper

Yes. Flash and extenders are a tool that are used and I understand their benefits but choose not to use them. Do I miss shots. Yup. Sure do.
Nobody but one guy uses flash in our area and he inevitably scares off 20 birds to get a shot of one.
Now I understand that a lot of birds may not care but I rather miss that one bird than scare them all off.

The other side of the coin is I'll never tell someone that their type of shooting is wrong. I may not like their end product but then again I'm sure there are people that thing my shots are crap. 
I will however try (if I'm able) to point people to the info they need to get the shots they are looking for, as you have just done with your suggestion to me and the effort did not go unappreciated.


----------



## imagemaker46

Didereaux said:


> imagemaker46 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I watched the first 10 minutes. He does make some valid points, however he also makes the statements that if you don't learn, lighting, on and off camera flash, and a list of other technical components.  He has an issue with people that only shoot using available light/natural light, which I see as basically the same thing, then you aren't ever going to be good at photography.  I don't set up lights, my flash has no batteries, and still I have managed to get pretty good at pictures.  I use photoshop all the time, I do a lot of graphic work, it's an aspect of photography.  I tweak images in photoshop, but still try and get them as close to being good out of the camera, it happens, but I still do a little crop, light, dark, contrast, and it also depends on what the images are being used for. I looked at his web site, went to what I know best, his sports images, average at best, mediocre for most.   Everything in photography depends on what field you are working in, there is no ones set of guidelines that works for everything. I know great studio guys that struggle when they have no control over the light, that doesn't make them bad photographers.  I shoot very well with available light, I learned to read light and see light. I can set up lights in a studio and do an ok job, but my skills are limited to basic lighting setups.
> 
> He does start off with him having won all kinds of awards, good for him, awards don't impress me, they are all subject to judges opinions, and based on the quality of the images in the selection group.
> 
> It was a rant, and that's fine, I have had many of my own, but my rants aren't self promoting. I rarely watch videos from other photographers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you said "still I have managed to get pretty good at pictures"   I believe that is one of his main points.  Learn ALL the techniques you can and you will produce fewer 'pretty good pictures'.
Click to expand...


I used the "still have managed to get pretty good at pictures" simply as a line. I should have just said "I'm excellent with a camera, I produce high quality and consistent images on every shoot" When it comes to sports I am far above good" I don't have to know studio lighting, I don't have to use a flash, and I don't have to be a technical geek to understand light and how to work with it"  Learning ALL the techniques is not a requirement in photography.  I also said I'm pretty good at pictures, not that I produce pretty good pictures.


----------



## robbins.photo

imagemaker46 said:


> I used the "still have managed to get pretty good at pictures" simply as a line. I should have just said "I'm excellent with a camera, I produce high quality and consistent images on every shoot" When it comes to sports I am far above good" I don't have to know studio lighting, I don't have to use a flash, and I don't have to be a technical geek to understand light and how to work with it"  Learning ALL the techniques is not a requirement in photography.  I also said I'm pretty good at pictures, not that I produce pretty good pictures.



Wait, you mean to say that not everyone does exactly the same kind of photography using exactly the same kind of equipment?

Huh... weird.  Why are we just hearing about this now?


----------



## Overread

zombiesniper said:


> Nobody but one guy uses flash in our area and he inevitably scares off 20 birds to get a shot of one.
> Now I understand that a lot of birds may not care but I rather miss that one bird than scare them all off.



It's interesting but it seems no one has ever really done a major study into the effect of flash on animals beyond "it doesn't hurt them". It's an area I've tried to look into before and never really found any firm answers; which I think suggests that its something many people just go with what they want. 

About the only form of study I could find was in relation to zoo animals where specific individuals would show aversion to flash and others wouldn't. But even then it can be hard to discern (at times) what is triggering certain behaviour. I've seen big cats pacing and snarling and generally being annoyed whilst having their photos taken but it was nothing to do with the camera; but that it was a near feeding time on a starvation day. 

For wild animals I've never really found anything - the closest you can get is that some more experienced macro photographers will notice that certain species of bug will react to flash; normally in an aversive manner; the very fast ones can even move enough that between the flash firing and getting the shot they've actually moved out of frame partly. I know myself I've seen hornets twitch their antenna whenever I used the flash. 

However most animals, in my experience, tend to ignore flash; its a bright point of light like the sun peeking through leaves or reflecting off rippling water. Often as not I think the sound of flash+camera is possibly more of a trigger.


----------



## robbins.photo

Overread said:


> It's interesting but it seems no one has ever really done a major study into the effect of flash on animals beyond "it doesn't hurt them". It's an area I've tried to look into before and never really found any firm answers; which I think suggests that its something many people just go with what they want.



A lot of the spots I shoot at at the Henry Doorly that could really benefit from some extra light are spots where they also have multipaned glass with a barrier or railing of some sort in front of it.

As a result any flash just gets reflected back from the glass.  So I don't use flash much at all myself.  Might be interested in seeing a study as to the effect on various animals though.. that would be interesting.


----------



## Overread

Robins sometimes you can get away with flash on glass so long as your camera lens is pressed right up to the glass. A rubber lens hood works well for that; or just pressing any hood right up to the glass. That way the flash reflection falls outside of what the lens sees.


----------



## robbins.photo

Overread said:


> Robins sometimes you can get away with flash on glass so long as your camera lens is pressed right up to the glass. A rubber lens hood works well for that; or just pressing any hood right up to the glass. That way the flash reflection falls outside of what the lens sees.



True, but sadly in the spots where I need it most I'm separated from the glass by a railing, so I can't get my lens any closer.  So it pretty much becomes a no flash zone.. lol


----------



## Overread

Ahh yeah though strange; most places I know that have glass don't have a duel barrier setup - at least in the UK most I can think of have duel barrier typically before wire (and that's often on things like cats). 

I do also agree it would be intersting to really see a study done on the impacts of flash on a subject; both physical and psychological. It wouldn't surprise me if there were not a few surprising conclusions; but I suspect association would be a big factor. Animals with positive or no negative connection might ignore; whilst those with a positive result might enjoy it or at least tolerate more readily; whilst those with a negative connection might show more hostile reactions (I do wonder with wild animals if flash or cliks and camera like shapes if they link that to a gun - whilst for captive I would suspect some might get annoyed with the "sea" of flashes that might happen or might see flashes and noisey kids or banging on the glass etc... )


----------



## robbins.photo

Overread said:


> Ahh yeah though strange; most places I know that have glass don't have a duel barrier setup - at least in the UK most I can think of have duel barrier typically before wire (and that's often on things like cats).



Not certain but I wonder if maybe they did that at least at the cat complex to keep little kids an annoying teenagers from pounding on the glass and upsetting the cats.


----------



## Didereaux

Overread said:


> zombiesniper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody but one guy uses flash in our area and he inevitably scares off 20 birds to get a shot of one.
> Now I understand that a lot of birds may not care but I rather miss that one bird than scare them all off.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's interesting but it seems no one has ever really done a major study into the effect of flash on animals beyond "it doesn't hurt them". It's an area I've tried to look into before and never really found any firm answers; which I think suggests that its something many people just go with what they want.
> 
> About the only form of study I could find was in relation to zoo animals where specific individuals would show aversion to flash and others wouldn't. But even then it can be hard to discern (at times) what is triggering certain behaviour. I've seen big cats pacing and snarling and generally being annoyed whilst having their photos taken but it was nothing to do with the camera; but that it was a near feeding time on a starvation day.
> 
> For wild animals I've never really found anything - the closest you can get is that some more experienced macro photographers will notice that certain species of bug will react to flash; normally in an aversive manner; the very fast ones can even move enough that between the flash firing and getting the shot they've actually moved out of frame partly. I know myself I've seen hornets twitch their antenna whenever I used the flash.
> 
> However most animals, in my experience, tend to ignore flash; its a bright point of light like the sun peeking through leaves or reflecting off rippling water. Often as not I think the sound of flash+camera is possibly more of a trigger.
Click to expand...




Exactly my experience as well.  Have also talked with some wildlife biologists and they all agreed that no studies have been made, AND that there seems little evidence that it disturbs birds much.  Anecdotally though two of them have noted that naturally skittish birds on nests have been known to abandon a nest when flashed....although even then no direct evidence that it was the flash.   
As you said, "However most animals, in my experience, tend to ignore flash; its a bright point of light like the sun peeking through leaves or reflecting off rippling water. Often as not I think the sound of flash+camera is possibly more of a trigger"   
I think think this is the most correct explanation.   The only rabid, screaming, hissy-fitters about flashes around birds that I have run into have all been 'Birders'....and these people are not mentally stable, so I give no weight to their opinions....merely get out of the area as quickly as possible!


----------



## tecboy

Nothing wrong in photography today.  It is just his own opinion.


----------



## bribrius

everything or nothing depends on your expectations and what you consider photography


----------



## unpopular

Would-be no-name, mid range photographers gone YouTube Vlogger expert is one problem that I can think of.


----------



## bribrius

unpopular said:


> Would-be no-name, mid range photographers gone YouTube Vlogger expert is one problem that I can think of.


does it really matter? Just dont watch them.


----------



## Didereaux

Question for some.  IF someone you do not like says that the sun rises in the East, must it then cease doing so?    Our opinions of the messenger do not affect the veracity of the message.


----------



## unpopular

Well. I did skip around a bit to see if it's worth my time.

When I landed on his SSOC nonsense, I didn't need to listen to anything else. Anyone, and I repeat *anyone*, who advocates SSOC doesn't understand photography sufficiently (film or digital) to go on a 25 minute rant about what's wrong with it.


----------



## Vtec44

Didereaux said:


> Question for some.  IF someone you do not like says that the sun rises in the East, must it then cease doing so?    Our opinions of the messenger do not affect the veracity of the message.



Well, the problem is that the sun doesn't rise anywhere else and you can prove that.  What this guy is saying is merely his personal opinion and it doesn't mean that he's right.  If that's his own definition of the art of photography, great.  Not everyone shares the same opinion on top of that he's bitching about the exact things that he's doing.  LOL


----------



## thereyougo!

First thing that strikes me is the poor editing.  What did he say that they cut - you can see the cuts - very amateur.  Nobody used a proper video mixer...

And what's with the sunglasses?  It's not sunny!


----------



## chuasam

thereyougo! said:


> First thing that strikes me is the poor editing.  What did he say that they cut - you can see the cuts - very amateur.  Nobody used a proper video mixer...
> 
> And what's with the sunglasses?  It's not sunny!


That's videography


----------



## thereyougo!

chuasam said:


> thereyougo! said:
> 
> 
> 
> First thing that strikes me is the poor editing.  What did he say that they cut - you can see the cuts - very amateur.  Nobody used a proper video mixer...
> 
> And what's with the sunglasses?  It's not sunny!
> 
> 
> 
> That's videography
Click to expand...


But he is earning money from the google ads on this video, yet it is shot and edited really poorly.  I don't want a Tony Northrup set up in a studio, but waiting a couple of hours between two sentences is just unnecessary.  He appears in a different position in every very visible cut. Much of the video is shot in the mid/late afternoon and suddenly when the sun comes out it is pretty much golden hour.  Then he talks about it as if it is deliberate.  More like he had about 150 retakes.  You see half of them!

If you are going to use a video to have a rant about people not knowing their craft, at least get the video to be shot and edited like its been done by someone who knows what they are doing.  He maintains that he earns enough to pay for himself and assistant and a videographer, but is he paying those people or they just doing his bidding, and by the look of this video learning precisely bugger all from the experience.

Having seen some of his work from links here, I think he lacks some skill and taste himself. While I agree on the use of composites, you don't need to use PS to get well overcooked skies like that one on the beach, you can bugger it up completely quite happily on LR or even the freebie editors.

Finally, perhaps it's just me, but wearing sunglasses throughout just makes him look untrustworthy and too cool for school.  It is harder to trust what someone says when you can't see their eyes.  Also what kind of idiot shoots photographs with their sunglasses on?


----------



## chuasam

If you think that's bad, go watch Archie Luxury rant about watches.


----------



## table1349

What's wrong with Photography  these days????

*NOT ONE DAMN THING!!!!!
*
What is wrong is a bunch of people called photographers going around telling everyone what they think it should be. 

It is what it is,  Like it, don't like it, but get over it.


----------



## Achaicus

You don't need editing programs to get over cooked skies, just set the white balance wonky and boring sunset becomes colorful.


----------



## robbins.photo

Achaicus said:


> You don't need editing programs to get over cooked skies, just set the white balance wonky and boring sunset becomes colorful.



Ok, looked all the way through my menus on the D600.. could not find the "wonky" setting for white balance anywhere.  Is it on the control dial somewhere maybe?


----------



## chuasam

robbins.photo said:


> Achaicus said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't need editing programs to get over cooked skies, just set the white balance wonky and boring sunset becomes colorful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, looked all the way through my menus on the D600.. could not find the "wonky" setting for white balance anywhere.  Is it on the control dial somewhere maybe?
Click to expand...

Olympus has ART mode


----------



## robbins.photo

chuasam said:


> Ok, looked all the way through my menus on the D600.. could not find the "wonky" setting for white balance anywhere.  Is it on the control dial somewhere maybe?


Olympus has ART mode[/QUOTE]

Well I was looking for a icon of Gene Wilder on the dial, maybe next to the running man.. nothing.  Might have to actually break out the manual for this one.  Weird.


----------



## table1349

robbins.photo said:


> chuasam said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, looked all the way through my menus on the D600.. could not find the "wonky" setting for white balance anywhere.  Is it on the control dial somewhere maybe?
> 
> 
> 
> Olympus has ART mode
Click to expand...


Well I was looking for a icon of Gene Wilder on the dial, maybe next to the running man.. nothing.  Might have to actually break out the manual for this one.  Weird.[/QUOTE]
Made it easy for you.  
Expand Your Creativity With Art Filters - Art Filter Examples


----------



## lance70

I think Jason Lanier is one of the best photographers around.....


----------



## JTPhotography

Lanier is exactly right. The problem is that things have become so diverse and technology has has changed and advanced so much that delineating between pure photography and digital art is impossible. Who will draw that line in the sand? Lanier? Nope. The market will. In the end, do what you like and look at what you like and stop stressing over it Lanier. Lots of old schoolers have this attitude. Thier whining is kinda pathetic.


----------



## table1349

_mod edit - quote removed_

Tell me, exactly why would anyone go to some download site from a post in an internet forum?

Your multiple posts have been reported.


----------

