This guys work blew me away

[ANDS!]

Who says Roger Ebert is qualified to critique movies?

Several people. Don't invalidate the argument because YOU don't agree with a persons professional opinion.

Nevermind the guy said he didn't like the POST work, not the actual PHOTOGRAPHS.

In any case, what could have been a friendly conversation about the pros and cons of stylized post work, turned into the usual pissing contest by the folks who are becoming regulars at trying to regulate forum behavior.

 

[Mike_E]

I can't believe I read this whole thing.


. laughs and walks away

 

[Kondro86]

I can't believe I read this whole thing.


. laughs and walks away

me 2

 

[bigalbest]

Crap. A baby troll. They're not as cute when they're young as you'd think they'd be. Anyway, let's not make this about you.

It looks like the guy puts a lot of thought/work into his images. I looked at a few of them. Some I liked. What's fun is to check these out in about a year and see if you still feel as strongly about his work.

Called me a troll when I first posted here also. This must be your m.o., jumping all over new posters who dare to have an opinion.

 

[skieur]

Well, I put my name big right in the center of the images (except for my family snapshots) - right on my blog. And that is the way it will stay. Nothing like finding links on statcounter to my blog where customers are saying "Why don't you just print the image right off her blog, so then you don't have to buy it..."

!!!????!!!!

The watermark is a REMINDER to people that these are copyrighted. Sure, someone good at PS probably could still remove, but at least it is a deterrant.

Oh, I have had my images taken for all kinds of reasons, and I don't care if some people think a border or a big watermark right in the center of the image ruins it. That is why I have a studio with nice-sized 30x40 images all over it with NO watermark

Just in the nature of FYI, the size of a watermark or location of a copyright notice on an image is legally irrelevant. If one is removed, it legally confirms copyright violation and is grounds for a larger settlement in American courts no matter what the size or location.

So, why waste the effort of making it big and gaudy?

skieur

 

[iflynething]

me 2

+1 as well.

Work from the link is pretty good, but agreed that it's a little too much over processes, which you can tell. Sometimes, the watermark.....it's just too much. Some of them it looks nice with the border and everything he's got going. I will give him credit that he has good composition.

Thanks

~Michael~

 

[JodieO]

Just in the nature of FYI, the size of a watermark or location of a copyright notice on an image is legally irrelevant. If one is removed, it legally confirms copyright violation and is grounds for a larger settlement in American courts no matter what the size or location.

So, why waste the effort of making it big and gaudy?

skieur

It's personal taste... some people LIKE big and gaudy. I've seen some logos and stuff on peoples' sites that I have been like - omg, that is awful and ugly and a total turnoff, yet I also understand, that is something they chose, it's something they like, everyone has a different taste.

 

[pm63]

Can we see your work?

You've been saying this to everyone who's DARED to say they don't like the work of the photographer the thread was originally about. This is such a childish argument. I can say, for example, that I don't like the films of Steven Spielberg, well in the knowledge that I couldn't make a better film myself. Maybe I prefer Kubrick? One's own abilities in an art have no bearning on the validity of one's critiques of other people's art. Art critics often do not produce art themselves. So drop the "let's see if you could do better" attitude.

I agree that his work is not amazing. I don't like the processing, with high contrast and saturation being far overdone, making the images look unnatural and computer-generated. I think the photos are quite generic looking, and I'm not fond of the compositions. They just don't have that "something" that separetes good photographers from great ones. They seem dead.

And since you choose to place SO much emphasis on it, here is my work:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/ozga/sets/72157610470943727/

Have a nice day.

 

[ANDS!]

If one is removed, it legally confirms copyright violation and is grounds for a larger settlement in American courts no matter what the size or location.

Good luck convincing a judge that some 17 year old kids background image on Myspace that cropped out a watermark is even worth their time.

I respect artists rights as well as their right to be so self-important that they think "thar be thieves everywhere!" - but wow, some folks on these inter-nets need a serious reality check.

 

[CyrusMafi]

Well what do you know...
I guess I'm the guy who you all have been talking about.
Somebody told me about all the trouble that I caused due to my approach on my digital posts.
First of all thank you all for criticizing an/or defending my work on my behalf.
WHO AM I?... Please visit my profile in Flickr if you care
I, in fact agreed with a lot of the criticism that was going around. Not with the tone!!! but hey we are who we are... and some more passionate in words than others...
I've been taking pictures since I was 10 (I'm 44 now). But never dare or like to refer to myself as a photographer.

a. I joined Flicker in October ( shortly before this topic started. I was new and was trying to figure things out...
b. I agree about the borders and now they are a lot different.
c. I agree about the font on the watermark and now they look a lot simpler
d. I agree about the saturation as My monitor at the time was not properly calibrated
e. I don't agree with people who think I spent a lot of time on Post processing.
My approach is still old school in digital world.
I use Zone system both in B/W and color photography. I shot RAW and use a handful of filters, ND grads, color intensifiers and Expodisc to measure whit balance... etc.
Most of the effects are achieved through the camera and not PP. My avg. time on PS is 10 min.
I looked at some of the member's work and they were admirable.
and their opinion constructive...
SO thank you all for taking the time to view and discuss my work. BUT you will really understand the work by reading the poetry that goes with the individual image...
Most of the time... I can't capture it if I can't write about it...

Most sincerely, Cyrus Mafi

 

[manaheim]

I like monkeys.

 

[usayit]

I like tigers

 

[mikemicki]

I was gonna say something... but I think ANDS! pretty much summed it up for me. This place can get a little gnarly sometimes.

 

[Sw1tchFX]

:/

 

[Alleh Lindquist]

I think everyone needs to get out and examine more photography. He has a couple averagely decent photos but for the most part he makes mass compositional errors and the photos shop work is as basic as it gets if you all spent a week or 2 learning the program you could probably do better. Aside from the composition errors he is actually adding horribly tacky and gross.

On that note everyone starts out at the bottom and has to learn photography it takes years of practice and sometimes it may just not be your piece of cake.