"I ONLY shoot...."

[Derrel]

Only one eyeball needs to be in focus at any given time. Only one breast needs to be rendered sharply. There's never any need for more than 2 inches of sharp focus in any one photo.

I only drive at 65 miles an hour, cause I loves me some speeding tickets in town. I only cook everything in the oven on broil, cause I loves me some burnt on the outside and raw on the inside. I only eat foods that are purple in color, cause I loves me some purple colored poo! I ONLY carry $100 bills, cause I loves me some crisp big bills.

Feel free to add your own ridiculous statements and make them into personal mantras!

 

[JustJazzie]

Yeah well, 5 stars doesn't mean what it used to I've read some craptacular books that were rated very highly by readers, but all this tells me is that the people who are reading these books have poor judgment skills. She actually wrote, "I love me some bokeh"? That's just poor writing. For an informal conversation or forum thread or something, fine, but for a published book? Poor form.

She also says things like. "I'm a cannon girl" "I'm a prime girl" things, like you mention I would expect to read on an Internet forum. NOT from a professional writing a book.

While we are on the subject of bokeh, please help me figure out this nagging issue I have when people discuss it. Bokeh, is the "quality of the out of focus area in a picture" so you can have good bokeh, creamy bokeh, bad bokeh. With all quality, there is a spectrum right? So why do I always hear "I love bokeh!" "This is my most recent bokeh shot" Don't you need to specify what KIND of bokeh you are talking about? Or am I just completely off base here.

 

[JustJazzie]

Only one eyeball needs to be in focus at any given time. Only one breast needs to be rendered sharply. There's never any need for more than 2 inches of sharp focus in any one photo. I only drive at 65 miles an hour, cause I loves me some speeding tickets in town. I only cook everything in the oven on broil, cause I loves me some burnt on the outside and raw on the inside. I only eat foods that are purple in color, cause I loves me some purple colored poo! I ONLY carry $100 bills, cause I loves me some crisp big bills. Feel free to add your own ridiculous statements and make them into personal mantras!

I LOVE your food analogy. (Probably because I love food!)" yes, I am a professional chef. And I only cook hamburgers, with the same ingredients every time. I make a MEAN beef burger. But I never bother trying any other types of meat (like bison) because that would be a waste of time."

I'll try to be clever and come up with my own, but really I'm not that clever....

 

[Josh66]

Oh, well I think it's crappy advice if she's presenting it in a way that suggests that everyone should shoot like her. If she's offering it as an example of "You should maintain consistency, and this is how I do it, but you all should find your own formula that works..." then it's slightly better, I suppose. I would hope she would explain WHY she has stuck with these settings and discuss the effect of other ways of doing things. But not everyone who writes a book should write a book

She explains the effects. Like shooting 1.2 because "I love me some bokeh" but that's about it. The book DOES get 5 stars, but I don't think I'm going to finish it...

Yeah well, 5 stars doesn't mean what it used to I've read some craptacular books that were rated very highly by readers, but all this tells me is that the people who are reading these books have poor judgment skills.

She actually wrote, "I love me some bokeh"? That's just poor writing. For an informal conversation or forum thread or something, fine, but for a published book? Poor form.

I was reading a few book reviews on Amazon this morning - one 5 star review started with "I haven't read the book yet, but"...

Saying that she only shoots at f/1.2 or 1.4 Because she "loves some bokeh" - wow.

I sort of wonder why she would ONLY use continuous light. You almost have to assume that it's because it's all she knows. And never a longer shutter speed than 1/640? That just doesn't seem very practical. I suppose that if you only shot wide open though, your shutter speeds would always be on the short side.

 

[SnappingShark]

Well, if we are putting it like that - I only shoot out of focus, so everything is subjective, and everybody sees something different.

 

[JustJazzie]

Well, if we are putting it like that - I only shoot out of focus, so everything is subjective, and everybody sees something different.

:giggle: abstract art for the win!

 

[Designer]

Jazzie; you are right to question that person's photographic abilities based on what she wrote. According to your review, I would say that that photographer has taken a shortcut to becoming a professional. I further speculate as to how she got to be a professional. She started out not knowing much about DOF, lighting, etc, but her friends started praising her results, so she assumed she was there, when all she has done is scratch the surface.

You can't, though, characterize all professionals the same. Some are very good at their "style", and others are very good at being versatile.

 

[limr30 3]

You can't, though, characterize all professionals the same. Some are very good at their "style", and others are very good at being versatile.

+1

 

[vintagesnaps]

Guess there's a reason it was free... If she found something that works for her, that's fine for her, but that's very limiting. I've been a teacher and with something like this you wouldn't just tell everyone to do something exactly the way you do it, you'd teach appropriate skills and techniques and help them figure out which works for them.

I think a lot of websites and videos look more impressive than they really are, it's just too easy to put a bunch of crap online and make it seem pretty good. It's sort of like the Wizard of Oz, looks impressive til you see what's behind the curtain. Plenty of people do books and tutorials and don't have the expertise to back it up. (And who published this book anyway??)

With a lot of things you need to take from it what works for you. In this case you might be better off to quit reading it!

 

[tirediron]

... I love me some bokeh!"

That sentence alone would have made me bin the book! "Only" is a dangerous word to use in relation to artistic pursuits.

 

[keyseddie]

You can't, though, characterize all professionals the same. Some are very good at their "style", and others are very good at being versatile.

+1

I agree with the other geniuses.

Your new camera doesn't come with shackles, and neither does your mind. If you are a true professional, (you don't become one by acquiring a watermark, website, and flickr account,) you know and employ all the apertures and shutter speeds, and the myriad combinations of such, that you need to either complete an assignment, please a client, or, in my personal vocation, produce a one of a kind image that attracts collectors and dollars. This person has pigeonholed herself and uses her system to achieve what she needs. And if you wish to emulate her work, she has shown you the way.

 

[JustJazzie]

Vintage snap: it's by a lady names rachel Stephens.

who also says she judges exposure based on what comes up on the LCD screen, since she is shooting raw exposure is not that important. She expects some under exposure but good enough exposure to show her clients the LCD screen so they can build confidance... Now I'm reading the book for amusement.

"When shooting couples, you can still shoot wide open. I NEVER sacrifice bokeh. When shooting couples choose a focus point where they are touching and take at least 2 dozen shots of the same pose"

Cant make this stuff up folks!

 

[astroNikon]

Last year someone here did a NSFW shot at 1.4 and it was fabulous.
If I ever get a 85mm 1.4 lens I want to recreate it sometime.

but for right now I have enough problems focusing on a spot at f/1.8 on a fixed subject as I was trying that just this morning.

 

[Overread16 4]

who also says she judges exposure based on what comes up on the LCD screen, since she is shooting raw exposure is not that important.

To be fair checking the LCD with the histogram on is a good way to judge exposure - in RAW so long as you've got in-camera editing set to faithful/neutral values (ergo very little being changed) it works pretty well. Though honestly it shouldn't be the only tool in the bag and to teach it as such - gah that's BAD advice


Could she be the new Ken Rockwell ?

 

[JustJazzie]

Astro, I am not by any means saying that you cant get amazing work at those apertures, but the way this book is written is IMHO incredibly poor that It makes my head hurt.
and The whole "take at least 2 dozen shots of the same pose so you get one in focus"

Well I suppose I prefer Sue Bryce's method of " If a shot isnt good dont bother wasting a shutter accuation. Take 1-2 shots that are awesome and MOVE ON!"

who also says she judges exposure based on what comes up on the LCD screen, since she is shooting raw exposure is not that important.

To be fair checking the LCD with the histogram on is a good way to judge exposure - in RAW so long as you've got in-camera editing set to faithful/neutral values (ergo very little being changed) it works pretty well. Though honestly it shouldn't be the only tool in the bag and to teach it as such - gah that's BAD advice


Could she be the new Ken Rockwell ?

She says NOTHING about a histogram. just judging the exposure by the lcd. Specifically says that "Metering is a monumental waste of time"