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]

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]

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.

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]

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.