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

[mrca]

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

 

[mrca]

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

 

[Derrel]

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

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

 

[mrca]

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

 

[DanOstergren]

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

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

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



Sent from my iPhone using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app

 

[DanOstergren]

This post was thoroughly eviscerated at an off site blog.

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


Sent from my iPhone using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app

 

[DanOstergren]

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

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

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

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

Sent from my iPhone using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app

 

[mrca]

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

 

[DanOstergren]

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

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


Sent from my iPhone using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app

 

[Derrel]

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

 

[Derrel]

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


Sent from my iPhone using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app

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

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

 

[mrca]

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

 

[DanOstergren]

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


Sent from my iPhone using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app

Pretty much an ad hominem argument. Intelligent discussion and crticism of the state of photography in the past century and a half is what his blog is about. Intellectualism is an easy target for cheap broadside swipes and put-downs. One will not gain much by fawning over every trend in fad In photography; identifying, and discussing, trans in modern photography, and modern photographic criticism is what his blog is about. It takes some familiarity with the entire area of photo criticism to be able to read it intelligently and understand from where the arguments spring. The idea that Zeiss lenses and superior micro-contrast is an incredibly important part of photography in the digital era is a load of bullshit. And that, dear readers, is what the Opie's initial post basically begins with the idea that Zeiss lenses are so superior that the photograph shown could not be made without another lens. I don't agree with that. I own some fine primes, I own crap zooms as well.The idea that Japan made lenses bearing the name Zeuss, but built by Cosina, are inherently superior to Canon or Nikon lenses is a fallacy.

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

 

[tirediron]

This post was thoroughly eviscerated at an off site blog.

@mrca Welcome to the club.

 

[pixmedic]

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

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


Sent from my LG-H872 using Tapatalk