Until recently, I actively participated in various photography forums, posting photos, leading debates, and sparring with critics—all the usual. What's surprising is that people on photography sites are generally more mature than the clueless schoolkids who slap together photos with their smartphones and post them to Instagram and social media, reaping the right amount of likes and comments along the lines of "oh, you're so cool" and "you're so cute." Those who have declared themselves photographers and bothered to register on specialized sites, and have at least acquired a DSLR, are already somewhat mature and consciously focus on "artistic photography." At the beginning of their journey, having shot a couple of masterpieces that everyone laughed at, a photographer joins a photography forum, where they will undoubtedly be noticed and appreciated. Here, the direct path to the best galleries in London and Paris splits into two. Well, in reality, there are many levels of classification for photographers, but I'll focus on what I believe are the two main ones. I should point out that I'm not talking about professional websites, which are difficult to get into and have their own atmosphere and rules of conduct. There are public photo forums where, by registering, you become a full-fledged member of a distinguished cohort of photographers. The first category is made up of real professionals, but they generally don't engage in debates; they're not interested in the opinions and assessments of the majority; they publish for PR and image-building, or even simply to expand their online portfolio. The second category is made up of those who aren't good at taking photos, but really want to be known as photo artists and appear to have a keen understanding of the nuances of photography. Surprisingly, these individuals often sift through a wealth of literature on the topic, are knowledgeable, and at the first opportunity, offer links to all sorts of materials on photography. They go to extremes: slapping together photos of trash heaps, garages, railings, and other such nonsense, and expertly proving that they're the ones truly expressing the proper style and incredible framing. Meanwhile, they actively despise those who shoot in the glamour or adult style, and even if they're good at it, we don't like them at all. Oh, and he even shoots in a studio? Well, go study, kiddo. Here are some links on what real artistic photography should look like. Then go to the nearest dump or garbage dump, and maybe one day you'll turn out to be a mediocre photographer. The other extreme is deleting all your photos altogether, keeping your album empty so that the critics you've criticized can't appreciate your own abilities. Playing the role of someone who infinitely understands the essence and philosophy of high photography. These people trash every photo, regardless of the genre or skill level of the author. As a result, the completely clueless, and even simply stupid, become noticeable in their own circles of indifference, gaining authority within their own clans, and thus becoming content. Clearly, if you're not inclined to practice sarcasm, visiting such sites becomes boring. Or is it?
The second are those who can't shoot anything worthwhile, but really want to be known as photo artists and look like they have a keen understanding of the nuances of photography.
Backwoods,
You're being a bit too categorical... I'm talking about the "two branches" classification. Life is always richer, but you want to fit all its diversity into two branches.)) A question first...which branch do you place yourself in?
The reflection in the eyes leaves an unpleasant feeling... and, yes, the categorical nature of the reasoning. But that's just nitpicking; the portrait is good.
The accusatory article is accurate, but rather banal. It's the horror of a schoolchild learning for the first time what children are like. It's time to get used to it, IMHO.
The headlight on the model's wide face played a nasty trick. Her face became flat as a pancake, and the torso's tilt could have been interpreted as a dynamic element in the shot, but her head was out of place. There was a clear extraneous light in her eyes, evident by the way the light was aimed at her face—a mistake.
The headlight on the model's wide face played a nasty trick. Her face became flat as a pancake, and I could interpret the slanted torso as a dynamic feature in the frame, but her head is out of place. There's a clear external light in her eyes, evident by the fact that she was shining the light directly into her face—that's a mistake.
So-so. Calling a model's face a "face" is a bad idea. That alone puts the comment beyond the pale. However, there's no headlight. The light is hanging overhead, as can be seen by the pupils. You can also tell from them that there's a backlight underneath—a light. And all sorts of backlighting. So, you didn't read the light; you just randomly set it up. The pose... the model was sitting with her hand resting on the back of the chair, hence the slanted light. I don't care at all
Well, that's it. Calling a model's face a "muzzle" is a bad idea. That alone puts the comment beyond the pale. However, there's no headlight. The light source is hanging overhead, as you can see by the pupils. You can also tell from them that there's a backlight underneath—a light. And all sorts of backlighting. So, you didn't read the light; you just randomly set it up. The pose... the model was sitting with her hand on the back of the chair, hence the crooked position. I don't care at all.
Backwoods, Let's look at the final photo. The face is flat; you don't know how to work with light. That's your fault, because your girl isn't a model, and you couldn't downplay her flaws. Excuses for how she sat are not accepted. You compose the shot; it's all in your hands.
Your face is flat, you don't know how to work with light. This is your fault, because your girl isn't a model, and you couldn't downplay her flaws. Excuses for how she sat are not accepted. You compose the shot; it's all in your hands.
Do you want communication or to be sent packing? "You don't know how to work with light," "you couldn't do it," "it's your fault"—do you want people to continue talking to you politely? These rants are just your hoarse opinions. Do you really think that after reading your far-fetched pearls of wisdom, I'll throw away the light in despair (I don't know how ) and crumble to ashes? Nope
Edu, Do you want to communicate or be sent packing?
"You don't know how to work with lighting," "you couldn't do it," "it's your fault" - do you want to be treated politely? These rants are just your hoarse opinions. Do you really think that after reading your far-fetched pearls of wisdom, I'll throw away the lighting in despair (I don't know how) and crumble to dust? Nope.
Backwoods, For now, I'm just pointing out your flaws, excuse the language. We agreed to have a substantive conversation between two professionals. No hard feelings, no attacks. You're not answering my questions, and you can't refute my words. I don't want to start a fight with you; if you want, we can stop this right now.
We agreed to have a substantive conversation between two professionals. No offense, no attacks.
So that's how it is? Are you a professional? Is the information accurate?
You still haven't answered my questions, you still haven't refuted my words.
Damn, how come I haven't answered? Don't you read? I've answered the lighting question, the staging question, too. What more do you need? Tell me ten more times that I'm not a photographer, I can't do anything with lighting, etc. – do I really need to respond to that? Check out your way of saying things – "you have one big flaw," "the lighting is terrible," "the models have faces" – no offense, no attacks? Have you ever heard of logic?
Edu, Damn, how come I'm not responding? Don't you read? I answered about the lighting, and about the production design, too, what more do you need? Well, repeat ten more times that I'm not a photographer, can't do anything with lighting, etc. – do I really need to respond to that? Check out your manner of speaking – "you have flaw after flaw," "the lighting is terrible," "the models have faces" – no offense, no criticism? Have you heard of logic?
Backwoods, Maybe I got carried away in the heat of the moment, forgive me, if possible. Would you like to start over or pretend nothing happened? I'd like to have a substantive conversation. P.S. 40 years, no, I'm lying. 38 years of studio experience.
Backwoods, Maybe I got a little carried away in the heat of the moment, sorry if I may. Would you like to start over or pretend nothing happened? I'd like to have a more substantive conversation. P.S. 40 years, no, I'm lying, 38 years of studio experience.
Okay, I'm not a mean-spirited Pinocchio, we can talk. Okay, I'm no stranger to this... But tell me, you write to other authors, "You're not a photographer." Why is that? Why such categoricalness? This site is for amateurs, among other things. How can you be so blunt?
I won't boast about my experience, it's much more modest than yours, but I have teachers – their work and lessons I want to repeat.
Edu, Okay, I'm not a mean-spirited Pinocchio, we can talk. Okay, I'm not the first time... But tell me, you write to other authors and say, "You're not a photographer." Why is that? Why such categoricalness? This site is for amateurs, among other things. How can you be so harsh?
I won't boast about my experience, it's much more modest than yours, but I have teachers – their work and lessons I want to repeat.
Backwoods, You're from a different generation; your models have already taught themselves how to stand and pose. That's wonderful, it makes working with them easier. Everything was different for us. I planted the camera myself, determined the light, and was responsible for the mistakes myself - why it's not pretty :-( As for amateurs, when I see a photo taken without thought, anyhow, it's hard for me to remain silent. There are so many of them and I can't write to everyone. I'm human and sometimes I lose my temper: I write "you're not a photographer" or "sell the camera at a speculative price." Something like that
Until recently, I actively participated in various photography forums, posting photos, leading debates, and swearing at critics—all the usual. What's surprising is that people on photography sites are generally more mature than the clueless schoolkids who slap photos on their smartphones and post them to Instagram and social media, reaping the right amount of likes and comments along the lines of "oh, you're so cool" and "you're so cute." Those who have declared themselves photographers and bothered to register on specialized sites, and have at least acquired a DSLR, are already somewhat mature and consciously focus on "artistic photography." At the beginning of their journey, having shot a couple of masterpieces that everyone laughed at, a photographer-person ventures onto a photography forum, where they will undoubtedly be noticed and appreciated. Here, the direct path to the best galleries in London and Paris splits into two categories. Well, in fact, there are many levels of classification for photographers, but I'll focus on what I believe are the two main ones. I should point out that I'm not talking about professional websites, which are difficult to get into and have their own atmosphere and rules of conduct. There are public photo forums where, by registering, you become a full-fledged member of a distinguished cohort of photographers. The first category is made up of real professionals, but they generally don't engage in debates; they're not interested in the opinions and assessments of the majority; they publish for PR and image-building, or even simply to expand their online portfolio. The second category is made up of those who aren't good at shooting anything worthwhile, but really want to be known as photo artists and appear to have a keen understanding of the nuances of photography. Surprisingly, these individuals often sift through a wealth of literature on the topic, are knowledgeable, and at the first opportunity, provide links to all sorts of materials on photography. They go to extremes: slapping together photos of trash heaps, garages, railings, and other such nonsense, and expertly proving that they're the ones truly expressing the proper style and incredible framing. Meanwhile, they actively despise those who shoot in the glamour or adult style, and even if they're good at it, we don't like them at all. Oh, and he even shoots in a studio? Well, go study, kiddo. Here are some links on what real artistic photography should look like. Then go to the nearest dump or garbage dump, and maybe one day you'll turn out to be a mediocre photographer. The other extreme is deleting all your photos altogether, keeping your album empty so that the critics you've criticized can't appreciate your own abilities. Playing the role of someone who infinitely understands the essence and philosophy of high photography. These people trash every photo, regardless of the genre or skill level of the author. As a result, the completely clueless, and even simply stupid, become noticeable in their own circles of insignificance, gaining authority within their own clans, and are content with that. It's clear that if you're not inclined to practice sarcasm, visiting such sites becomes boring. Or is it?
The countdown has begun:
Backwoods, the classification could, of course, be further expanded, but I completely agree with what you wrote.
Edu, [quote]Backwoods, you're from a different generation; your models have already taught themselves how to stand and pose. That's wonderful, it's easier to work with. Everything was different with us. I'd position them myself, determine the lighting, and be responsible for any mistakes—why wasn't she looking pretty? Well, that's just it... Again—where did they get these self-trained models from? Out of my entire portfolio ( ), only two knew anything. One was a full-time model for Modus Vivendi, the other... well, also a pro. The rest are just ordinary. And these problems—"how do I stand?", "how do I sit?", "where do I look?", and "oh, that's it, nothing's working"—are all too familiar to me.
As for the "thoughtless" photos. You found meaning in Lyalya's photos out of nowhere. I've already indulged in this dabble of tricks here: taking any, absolutely any, photo and finding a ton of meaning, allusions, and connotations. And conversely, dismantling that same photo into molecules. Because photography is subjective. Isn't it?
Edu, Well, it's just... Then again, where did they get their training? Out of my entire portfolio ( ), only two knew anything. One was a full-time model for Modus Vivendi, the other... well, also a pro. The rest were just ordinary. And these problems—"how do I stand?", "how do I sit?", "where do I look?", and "oh, that's it, nothing's working"—are all too familiar to me.
As for the "thoughtless" photos. You found meaning in Lyalya out of nowhere. I've already indulged in this—take any, absolutely any photo, and find a ton of meaning, allusions, and connotations. And conversely, I can tear that same photo apart. Because photography is subjective. Isn't it?
Backwoods, Of course, it's all subjective! And you shouldn't have mentioned Lyalya; I specifically explained why this photo is good. You see, if a photo doesn't have an author—pardon the pathos—then no amount of experts will be able to convince the public it's a good photo. I hope you'll rise to the next level in the studio; you're so young! ;)
I hope you'll rise to the next level in the studio, what age are you ;)
There you go again, taking on that patronizing tone. Maybe I'll rise, maybe I won't. But what makes you think you know about levels? I haven't seen a sensible, impeccable studio level from you. Give me a link so I can see how seniority in the studio translates into results.
Backwoods, this is all pointless! I looked at this "photographer's" work, his portfolio, and realized he's a local buffoon...
Well, that's it... I mentioned that the site currently offers the opportunity to discuss everything. Why not do that? However, starting a conversation by attacking the authors is unwise in my opinion.
Evgeny, there's no point in arguing; there have already been cases of messages being deleted along with photos. Why pick a fight? Squabbles aren't the kind of conversation that's interesting.
Edu, Well, there you go again, taking on that patronizing tone. Maybe I'll get promoted, maybe not. But what makes you think you know anything about steps? I haven't seen a sensible, flawless studio step from you. Give me a link so I can see how studio experience pays off.
Backwoods, Sorry if I did something wrong. No malice intended. Studio photos don't amuse me; I've been sick of them for a long time. I just know how to use light to convey different emotions, how to position someone more flatteringly, how to illuminate them more effectively, how to make an ordinary person more beautiful—not a model, not trained to clown around in front of the camera, constrained. I won't give you a link; there's a concept called personal space, unfortunately.
Backwoods, I'm sorry if I did something wrong. I didn't mean to be mean. Studio photos don't amuse me; I've been sick of them for a long time. I just know how to use light to convey different emotions, how to position someone more flatteringly, how to illuminate them more effectively, how to make an ordinary person more beautiful—not a model, not trained to clown around in front of the camera, constrained. I won't provide a link; there's a concept called personal space, unfortunately.
Well, that's a good thing. An apology is nice, of course, but we were talking about other things. Somehow, studio photos "don't amuse" you, yet you picked on the studio photos. And didn't you declare that this was a "professional-to-professional" conversation? How can I evaluate the levels and degrees of your skill if I "don't provide a link"? What the hell kind of personal space are you talking about? There are studio works—show them. Space... that's it... You understand that if you don't demonstrate the necessary competence in the genre you're criticizing, then your criticism is worthless. Unfortunately, that's true
Edu, Well, that's a good thing. An apology is certainly good, but the conversation was about other things. Somehow, studio photos "don't amuse" you, yet it was the studio photo that was picked on. And didn't you declare a conversation "between professionals"? How can I evaluate the levels and degrees of your skill if I "don't provide a link"? What the hell kind of personal space are you talking about? There are studio works—show them. Space... that's it... You understand that if you don't demonstrate proper competence in the genre you're criticizing, then your criticism is worthless. Unfortunately, that's the case.
Backwoods, Okay, I'll try to show you something. Not today, I guess. You could give me an email, that would be better.
Backwoods, Okay, I'll try to show something. Not today, probably. You could give me an email, that would be better.
Okay, we'll wait. Why give out an email? Our correspondence is open, the public reads it, why are we going behind the scenes? This is a photo site, showing photos is just right.
Edu, Okay, we'll wait. Why give out the email? Our correspondence is public, the public reads it, so why are we going behind the scenes? It's a photo site, so showing photos is just the thing.
Backwoods, Open access violates privacy, as they say in English – privacy, I think. Only you, and only you, as an officer and a gentleman, so you can see for yourself.
Gentlemen! Let's solve this problem. Not like in kindergarten, complaining to the teacher. The administration has better things to do than settle squabbles.
Edu, you partly provoked this destructive behavior. That's obvious. Responding with words that make you wash your mouth with soap is a bad idea. It will only lead to more squabbling. Is that necessary here? You're not even talking about the photo anymore; you're just picking on each other. I'm not a blue helmet peacemaker; I'm all for preventing squabbles under my photo. Do you really find it funny to call each other names?
What's surprising is that people on photography sites are generally more mature than the clueless schoolkids who slap together photos with their smartphones and post them to Instagram and social media, reaping the right amount of likes and comments along the lines of "oh, you're so cool" and "you're so cute."
Those who have declared themselves photographers and bothered to register on specialized sites, and have at least acquired a DSLR, are already somewhat mature and consciously focus on "artistic photography." At the beginning of their journey, having shot a couple of masterpieces that everyone laughed at, a photographer joins a photography forum, where they will undoubtedly be noticed and appreciated. Here, the direct path to the best galleries in London and Paris splits into two. Well, in reality, there are many levels of classification for photographers, but I'll focus on what I believe are the two main ones. I should point out that I'm not talking about professional websites, which are difficult to get into and have their own atmosphere and rules of conduct. There are public photo forums where, by registering, you become a full-fledged member of a distinguished cohort of photographers.
The first category is made up of real professionals, but they generally don't engage in debates; they're not interested in the opinions and assessments of the majority; they publish for PR and image-building, or even simply to expand their online portfolio.
The second category is made up of those who aren't good at taking photos, but really want to be known as photo artists and appear to have a keen understanding of the nuances of photography. Surprisingly, these individuals often sift through a wealth of literature on the topic, are knowledgeable, and at the first opportunity, offer links to all sorts of materials on photography. They go to extremes: slapping together photos of trash heaps, garages, railings, and other such nonsense, and expertly proving that they're the ones truly expressing the proper style and incredible framing. Meanwhile, they actively despise those who shoot in the glamour or adult style, and even if they're good at it, we don't like them at all. Oh, and he even shoots in a studio? Well, go study, kiddo. Here are some links on what real artistic photography should look like. Then go to the nearest dump or garbage dump, and maybe one day you'll turn out to be a mediocre photographer.
The other extreme is deleting all your photos altogether, keeping your album empty so that the critics you've criticized can't appreciate your own abilities. Playing the role of someone who infinitely understands the essence and philosophy of high photography. These people trash every photo, regardless of the genre or skill level of the author. As a result, the completely clueless, and even simply stupid, become noticeable in their own circles of indifference, gaining authority within their own clans, and thus becoming content.
Clearly, if you're not inclined to practice sarcasm, visiting such sites becomes boring. Or is it?
The countdown has begun:
You're being a bit too categorical... I'm talking about the "two branches" classification. Life is always richer, but you want to fit all its diversity into two branches.))
A question first...which branch do you place yourself in?
But I could be wrong.
Perhaps even earlier.
Why did you suddenly decide to show it on FC?
So-so. Calling a model's face a "face" is a bad idea. That alone puts the comment beyond the pale.
However, there's no headlight. The light is hanging overhead, as can be seen by the pupils. You can also tell from them that there's a backlight underneath—a light. And all sorts of backlighting. So, you didn't read the light; you just randomly set it up.
The pose... the model was sitting with her hand resting on the back of the chair, hence the slanted light. I don't care at all
"You don't know how to work with light," "you couldn't do it," "it's your fault"—do you want people to continue talking to you politely? These rants are just your hoarse opinions.
Do you really think that after reading your far-fetched pearls of wisdom, I'll throw away the light in despair (I don't know how
Damn, how come I haven't answered? Don't you read? I've answered the lighting question, the staging question, too. What more do you need? Tell me ten more times that I'm not a photographer, I can't do anything with lighting, etc. – do I really need to respond to that?
Check out your way of saying things – "you have one big flaw," "the lighting is terrible," "the models have faces" – no offense, no attacks? Have you ever heard of logic?
I won't boast about my experience, it's much more modest than yours, but I have teachers – their work and lessons I want to repeat.
Well, that's just it... Again—where did they get these self-trained models from? Out of my entire portfolio (
As for the "thoughtless" photos. You found meaning in Lyalya's photos out of nowhere. I've already indulged in this dabble of tricks here: taking any, absolutely any, photo and finding a ton of meaning, allusions, and connotations. And conversely, dismantling that same photo into molecules. Because photography is subjective.
Isn't it?
Evgeny, there's no point in arguing; there have already been cases of messages being deleted along with photos. Why pick a fight? Squabbles aren't the kind of conversation that's interesting.
And didn't you declare that this was a "professional-to-professional" conversation?
How can I evaluate the levels and degrees of your skill if I "don't provide a link"? What the hell kind of personal space are you talking about? There are studio works—show them. Space... that's it...
You understand that if you don't demonstrate the necessary competence in the genre you're criticizing, then your criticism is worthless. Unfortunately, that's true
Gentlemen! Let's solve this problem. Not like in kindergarten, complaining to the teacher. The administration has better things to do than settle squabbles.
Edu, you partly provoked this destructive behavior. That's obvious.
Responding with words that make you wash your mouth with soap is a bad idea. It will only lead to more squabbling. Is that necessary here?
You're not even talking about the photo anymore; you're just picking on each other. I'm not a blue helmet peacemaker; I'm all for preventing squabbles under my photo.
Do you really find it funny to call each other names?