Strobist portrait C&C

[meccalli]

Tell me what you think, bare Lp 160 @ 1/4 camera right, wide . Post done in Ps cs3.


Light! by meccalli, on Flickr

 

[pvclobster]

Unless you had specific reasons for choosing to process the photo this way, I think it's overprocessed. The subject is almost too sharp and too contrasty to look at comfortably. Which doesn't seem to fit with the dark, soft tree to is right.

 

[abnormalreply]

Agree with clobster. Very overprocessed. Upper left looks really blown too.

 

[Fedaykin]

Don't like the processing at all. Good idea with the umbrella acting as a sort of fill light though; but it isn't to pleasing to look at, especially on a man.

 

[Raian-san]

ehh?

 

[Blake.Oney]

You going for that Dave Hill kind of effect?

 

[Flash Harry]

If this is what you strobist followers wish to achieve then I'm glad I learnt the trade elsewhere. H

 

[Buckster]

If this is what you strobist followers wish to achieve then I'm glad I learnt the trade elsewhere. H

:thumbdown::er:

Obviously, it's not, and that was a rather rude way to take a dump on folks trying to learn off-camera flash, while acting like you're so superior to them.

This one poorly made and processed photo (as most have already intoned) does not represent the Strobist lessons, techniques or culture at all. Learning about lighting techniques by any means is a process, and everyone has to start somewhere. I bet your first off-camera lighting photos weren't exactly award winners either.

Go to the Strobist flickr group and see some terrific use of Strobist techniques. Pick up a copy of Joe McNally's "The Hot Shoe Diaries" and suck on that for awhile too.

Or maybe you'd like to do a thorough debunking of ACTUAL Strobist lessons, showing how and why those techniques introducing basic lighting setups and control for beginners suck? Tell us, oh wise one, why Strobist style shots by Joe McNally throughout his book suck, while your non-Strobist shots are so stunningly superior to his. Point us to your world-renowned book on the subject of off-camera lighting, that we too may be dazzled and amazed at your brilliance!

 

[Flash Harry]

Your absolutely correct, I'm rude and superior, I also have a sense of humour lost on the majority of gullible Americans, but I'll forgive you that trait.

I like the way you then slag off the OP's shot, rude and rather harsh considering this is the "Beginners forum"

I don't need any of Joe's books either, unlike you I suck on nothing, you obviously spat your dummy with your defence of Joe, who is, I might add, an excellent photographer. I will not be producing an ocl book as there are enough dummies already reading the strobist blog, which may be a good source of beginner info but its basically how Joe promotes his other business enterprises, (selling his wares), and, you swallow that too. Bye now. H

 

[Buckster]

That's a lot of words to say nothing. Well done.

 

[Polyphony]

That's a lot of words to say nothing. Well done.

That's exactly what I was thinking...

 

[MohaimenK]

We have more jackasses in here than photographers.....
Well, I guess its easier to learn that than to learn photography. :thumbup:

Flash Hairy, you have a lot to say but very little to show. You must be that superior than everyone else here that we are not worthy of seeing your photos. :scratch:ldman:

 

[Flash Harry]

yeah, your right, place is full of jackasses, especially the three posters above this one:lmao:

 

[MohaimenK]

yeah, your right, place is full of jackasses, especially the three posters above this one:lmao:

I think you're doing a fine job showing who's who in here. :thumbup:

 

[tnvol]

Wow. It seems like 3/4 of the threads in this place turn into pissing contests.