I don't really shoot babies...

[AtticusFinch]

Personally I don't appreciate Raymond's style and find the pictures samey and boring.

I'm not being critical of his work from a techincal perspective - it is what it is and he is producing a commercial product and clearly he has client's that like it.

I don't like it and wouldn't pay for it, but others do. Prodcuing this sort of stuff would do my head in as would weddings generally, which is why I don't shoot weddings ever.

We all have our views, and sometimes maybe we don't express them as delicately as we might; but likewise, people are often protective of the work they produce and are proud of it and will therefore not necessarily agree with the criticsm made of that work.

A bit of robust dicussion is good for us all.

 

[Pug]

i'm not expecting you to switch systems, of course not! I openly stated i didnt know the canon ISO performance, so wondered maybe it was as good and could be used to get wider shots.

Regarding your clients feedback i'm glad its all positive, but dont neccesarily believe its all honest, either. More times than i remember in professional and personal life, i/people have said things we didnt truly believe simply through politeness; what i am saying is just because someone said it, don't take it as the total truth, and question yourself a little bit - its healthy!

I'll leave it there, as it sounds like i'm dogging you, and im not - honestly. But i would espect some shots with the entire group in focus. To use the pic above, the woman could be a friend of an extended family member, and i wouldnt care to have her the centre of my wedding album (exaggeration 4tw!). If it was the bride, or her family, then perfect! but the day is about sharing it with everyone you invite, not isolated people ('cept the wife, of course loL!).

That said, my wedding Tog wasnt as creative as you, so its probably sour grapes on my part!

 

[Raymond Lin]

Personally I don't appreciate Raymond's style and find the pictures samey and boring.

I'm not being critical of his work from a techincal perspective - it is what it is and he is producing a commercial product and clearly he has client's that like it.

I don't like it and wouldn't pay for it, but others do. Prodcuing this sort of stuff would do my head in as would weddings generally, which is why I don't shoot weddings ever.

We all have our views, and sometimes maybe we don't express them as delicately as we might; but likewise, people are often protective of the work they produce and are proud of it and will therefore not necessarily agree with the criticsm made of that work.

A bit of robust dicussion is good for us all.

That's fine, I don't try to make everyone happy. I try to make my client happy, and trying to make me happy. They are both equally as important.

The day when i start shooting the way other people want me to so the day I should shooting for others.

 

[FreeStream]

No need for name calling, I just disagree that it's a good example of that sort of subject using that lens.

Yeah, some people earn a living doing this

To be honest Raymond has credibility in his photography. I haven't seen any of your examples.

And besides, no non-photographer will ever pick up on what we as photographers pick up on.

People wonder why I have £5k of kit when a £550 550D will do give or take the same or in extreme cases they wonder why my 7D + 17-55 is so much better than their ****** PaS.

Raymond is one of the best photographers I have ever come across, I spend *time* looking through his shots, I don't do that for many people.

 

[Bubo]

I envisage Raymond saying "maximum bokeh" to himself in Crysis suit style whenever he sets up to do a shot

 

[ScarySquirrel]

To be honest Raymond has credibility in his photography. I haven't seen any of your examples.

This is a good point actually. Opinions on things like this are much more respected when others have seen that individuals work. *hint hint* Show us your work

I envisage Raymond saying "maximum bokeh" to himself in Crysis suit style whenever he sets up to do a shot

HAHAHAHA! Brilliant!

 

[SteveOBHave]

This is a good point actually. Opinions on things like this are much more respected when others have seen that individuals work. *hint hint* Show us your work

Quite - it's what I was suggesting quite a bit earlier - it's all very well quoting from 'the photography manual' it's another to demonstrate that you are in a position to critique in such a granular manner.

I'm actually quite interested in seeing your work also.

 

[AtticusFinch]

Kia Ora

Quite - it's what I was suggesting quite a bit earlier - it's all very well quoting from 'the photography manual' it's another to demonstrate that you are in a position to critique in such a granular manner.

I'm actually quite interested in seeing your work also.

Checked out your flickr some choice shots there.

 

[martinturner]

...

Absolutely spot on!

 

[dannyjo22]

2) i fear you are using DOF to generate a focal point too much maybe now? I dont see all of your shots, so i may be seeing a skewed ratio, but whilst i agree they create a focal point they do render a lot of the other image useless.

I'm not qualified to pour scorn on his work anymore than he's qualified to tell me I'm crap at what I get paid to do. I do look at a lot of his pictures from an amateur point of view and wonder if he's shooting wide open all the time for the hell of it.

For example I find his candid stuff for weddings as good as anything I've ever seen. I would quite like to divorce my wife just to get remarried so he can shoot my wedding whatever he charges.

Then the stuff like the raspberry desert he shot in the last wedding hurt my eyes to look at, not a fan of that type of shot at all. I buy a lot of food magazines and books and that type of shot with food doesn't sit right with me.



Thanks for sharing your work

 

[glitch]

To be honest Raymond has credibility in his photography. I haven't seen any of your examples.

Raymond has credibility because people on the forum give him credibility. That's nothing to do with posting his photos up for all to see.

This is a good point actually. Opinions on things like this are much more respected when others have seen that individuals work.

Why? A food critic can slate a restaurants menu without being challenged to get in the kitchen and cook something better.

From what I can see, phartars has made some perfectly valid points, albeit in a slightly odd way, and everyone seems to be racing to back Raymond up.

If you pick through what the guy has actually said, it does make a fair bit of sense. Yes, there's some bizarre opinions being posted as fact, but read between the lines a bit.

Quite - it's what I was suggesting quite a bit earlier - it's all very well quoting from 'the photography manual' it's another to demonstrate that you are in a position to critique in such a granular manner.

For all we know he could be the top working wedding photographer in the UK whose work we all admire. But he could equally be a rank amateur who doesn't know his arse from his elbow.

Are you suggesting that you'll only take notice of what he's saying if he can prove his worth as a photographer?

I'm actually quite interested in seeing your work also.

I'd be interested in seeing anyone's work, but I don't feel that I need to see their photography in order to take their point seriously.

There's plenty of people on this forum that have never (to my knowledge) shared their photos but whose opinions I respect massively, even if I occasionally disagree with them.

 

[bigredshark]

That's good to know I guess. Who would you suggest for Canon gear then?

I could send it to Canon I suppose.

Unfortunately no recommendation yet, I'm looking around for recommendations myself at the moment, lots of good Nikon places in London but I'm struggling for Canon. If you're sending it off though then straight back to Canon doesn't sound a bad plan...

 

[Derek W]

I personally dont see what all the fuss is about. Raymond takes some photos and posts them here. Yes we all know his wedding 'style', for some it works, for others it doesn't but at the end of the day if he thinks he's done his job properly and the client is happy with the outcome (we know if they weren't he wouldn't have the work load that he does) then why should anyone criticise what DoF he's using? After all he takes so many hundred photographs, and after processing the client will see a fraction of them and here on OCuk we'll see even less so its just a snapshot of what he shoots on the day.

Onto the photographs though, typical Raymond style and for me thats a good thing, works well and the main focus is on the infant, really like the expression on the 3rd one with the clarity on the eyes. One note though is the processing style (same as the wedding ones?) I'm not totally convinced by it as the indoor lighting has got quite a distinctive yellow cast to the photos which doesn't sit right with my eyes. Altering the WB may help the images?

 

[Raymond Lin]

.....

What you said do make sense, and I agree, he has some valid points albeit came out just totally bizaar, I do realise lenses DO get sharper when you stop down a bit, but you can't deny that the 35L was not sharp at 1.4.

I personally dont see what all the fuss is about. Raymond takes some photos and posts them here. Yes we all know his wedding 'style', for some it works, for others it doesn't but at the end of the day if he thinks he's done his job properly and the client is happy with the outcome (we know if they weren't he wouldn't have the work load that he does) then why should anyone criticise what DoF he's using? After all he takes so many hundred photographs, and after processing the client will see a fraction of them and here on OCuk we'll see even less so its just a snapshot of what he shoots on the day.

Onto the photographs though, typical Raymond style and for me thats a good thing, works well and the main focus is on the infant, really like the expression on the 3rd one with the clarity on the eyes. One note though is the processing style (same as the wedding ones?) I'm not totally convinced by it as the indoor lighting has got quite a distinctive yellow cast to the photos which doesn't sit right with my eyes. Altering the WB may help the images?

Actually, this set is processed totally different, it is "crossed processed" or what i labelled it as anyway.

I got home last night and applied my usual preset, played with the WB, exposure and no matter what i did, it felt wrong because of the light in the place. I dunno what light bulb they used but it just looked wrong.

So I experimented a bit, and this is a processing that came frmo it, and you are the first to spot it ! I might use it more, it doesn't have a true crossed processed look (where it has a lot of blue), it's almost an inbetween vintage/70's tone too i think. But it works quite well with what i had to work with in this set of pictures.

It probably won't work for every situation and i don't expect every processing does, but nice to have something different

 

[SteveOBHave]

Raymond has credibility because people on the forum give him credibility. That's nothing to do with posting his photos up for all to see.

Why? A food critic can slate a restaurants menu without being challenged to get in the kitchen and cook something better.

From what I can see, phartars has made some perfectly valid points, albeit in a slightly odd way, and everyone seems to be racing to back Raymond up.

If you pick through what the guy has actually said, it does make a fair bit of sense. Yes, there's some bizarre opinions being posted as fact, but read between the lines a bit.

You make a fair point - but in my eyes it does feel quite a bit like it's a case of someone trotting into a forum and throwing the 'beginners guide to photography' at someone rather than offering critique based on experience.

For all we know he could be the top working wedding photographer in the UK whose work we all admire. But he could equally be a rank amateur who doesn't know his arse from his elbow.

Are you suggesting that you'll only take notice of what he's saying if he can prove his worth as a photographer?

I'd be interested in seeing anyone's work, but I don't feel that I need to see their photography in order to take their point seriously.

There's plenty of people on this forum that have never (to my knowledge) shared their photos but whose opinions I respect massively, even if I occasionally disagree with them.

Not at all - what we're saying is that he's not telling us anything new and that we're interested in seeing his photography to see if he uses what he knows to better effect than others here. I don't think that's an unfair request. He's allowed to critique and we're allowed to ask for examples for him to back it up.

In all honesty the critique is so granular and so anal that you have to pull him up on it...

 

[ElDude]

Well I liked the photos and I also appreciate the thread as a whole, borderline trolling and borderline fanboyism aside

 

[Schizophonic]

Well if its any consideration, my brother sent it to canon for a sensor clean on his 1D MKII and when it was returned it wasn't as clean as he hoped for. (he's got some serious OCD on this issue) and moaned to Canon and they arranged a pick up and cleaned it again with little quibble.

 

[glitch]

What you said do make sense, and I agree, he has some valid points albeit came out just totally bizaar, I do realise lenses DO get sharper when you stop down a bit, but you can't deny that the 35L was not sharp at 1.4.

I'm certainly not about to deny that the 35mm is perfectly sharp and perfectly usable at f/1.4 - I'll leave that up to him, should he want to continue down that particular avenue!

You make a fair point - but in my eyes it does feel quite a bit like it's a case of someone trotting into a forum and throwing the 'beginners guide to photography' at someone rather than offering critique based on experience.

The point I was trying (and possibly failing) to make was that if the guy came back and blew everyone away with his work it people would still question his opinions. Yet if he posts some 'awful' photography it would be knives out and people would be queueing up to ridicule him.

Okay, he's given us some incredibly bizarre opinions, but if he can clarify some points and perhaps provide some examples I'm sure we'd all like to hear what he's got to say. Give 'em enough rope and all that.

Not at all - what we're saying is that he's not telling us anything new and that we're interested in seeing his photography to see if he uses what he knows to better effect than others here. I don't think that's an unfair request. He's allowed to critique and we're allowed to ask for examples for him to back it up.

I agree that it's not an unfair request, but it was starting to look like people were calling him out and closing ranks.

In all honesty the critique is so granular and so anal that you have to pull him up on it...

Oh, I'm not defending what he's saying, just his right to say it.

But at the same time this is a photography forum and I can see why people want to see some visual examples of what he's talking about and why they'd be somewhat suspicious of a complete newcomer wading in with his size nines.

 

[ScarySquirrel]

Why? A food critic can slate a restaurants menu without being challenged to get in the kitchen and cook something better.

From what I can see, phartars has made some perfectly valid points, albeit in a slightly odd way, and everyone seems to be racing to back Raymond up.

If you pick through what the guy has actually said, it does make a fair bit of sense. Yes, there's some bizarre opinions being posted as fact, but read between the lines a bit.

I don't know, human nature? I'm just commenting on something which I am sure is certainly the case. In the same way that if Raymond provided comments on someone's wedding photos they would likely respect his opinion because they have seen his work time and time again and can see the quality of it.

 

[FreeStream]

Why? A food critic can slate a restaurants menu without being challenged to get in the kitchen and cook something better.

From what I can see, phartars has made some perfectly valid points, albeit in a slightly odd way, and everyone seems to be racing to back Raymond up.

If you pick through what the guy has actually said, it does make a fair bit of sense. Yes, there's some bizarre opinions being posted as fact, but read between the lines a bit.

Correct me if I'm wrong but food critics tend to have made a name for themselves.

I wouldn't give two ***** about the guy who does it for the university paper where as whoever writes for the AA or Michelin Guide I would listen to.

Same principle applies here.

When I rarely post pictures here I take more notice of the people that I know, know what they are on about than the people who just suddenly appear out of no-where/I don't recognise them.

People who know jack-**** about photography comment on the entire photograph. Simple as that.

People who *do* photography (more if you do it for a living) pick up on the stupid little things like the focus point is ever so slightly wrong or things that 99% of the time make absolutely no difference to 99% of people. It is for this reason that I now have 'relaxed' my self-critique.


People are rushing to back him up because:

A. He proves over and over again he is a MORE than capable photographer.
B: His order book is growing and growing and growing.

A + B = Respect for his work.

I'm sure I will be corrected at some point...