I don't really shoot babies...

Hodders said:
Great photography goes beyond technical excellence. Anyone can be taught how a camera works, how to take an "in focus" image.
Click to expand...

Indeed great photography doesn't require technical excellence. A photo doesn't need to be perfectly in focus and perfectly exposed to be great, a fact which seems frequently lost to a lot of people on here.

I'm not getting involved in the arguments here as I think they're largely pointless, shoot at whatever suits. Raymond has a style, it works for him, it's not immediately to my taste but it's consistent which counts for a lot in his line of work.

Use what you want for what you need to achieve at the end of the day. There's no point shooting wide open for the sake of it as even the best primes are softer in the corners that way but they're good enough that if you need shallow DOF for isolation or you're in bad light then they'll do the job.

Far too much fixation on the means rather than the result in this thread in my opinion (and the results are visually very good, even if not to your taste).
 
.one. said:
I am astounded and disgusted by peoples attitude towards phartars i was under the opinion that the photography forum was one of the most mannered but looks like things have changed unless your in with in crowd no ones welcome and as for phates comment i am gob smacked.
Click to expand...

sad but true tbh, the new motors?
 
bigredshark said:
Indeed great photography doesn't require technical excellence. A photo doesn't need to be perfectly in focus and perfectly exposed to be great, a fact which seems frequently lost to a lot of people on here.

I'm not getting involved in the arguments here as I think they're largely pointless, shoot at whatever suits. Raymond has a style, it works for him, it's not immediately to my taste but it's consistent which counts for a lot in his line of work.

Use what you want for what you need to achieve at the end of the day. There's no point shooting wide open for the sake of it as even the best primes are softer in the corners that way but they're good enough that if you need shallow DOF for isolation or you're in bad light then they'll do the job.

Far too much fixation on the means rather than the result in this thread in my opinion (and the results are visually very good, even if not to your taste).
Click to expand...


Ditto - Technical excellence is not everything, as there are millions of B&W photos out there taken in yester-years that are graniny, slightly blur or even a touch out of focus but they work.

It's about capturing the soul, the moment, and at the end of the day, that's what I try to do.

Technical is just the foundation of it.

Like that B&W photo above, it is NOT as sharp as I hoped it to be at 100% but it cuts the mustard and that's all that matters :)

That said, my lens still needs calibrating.
 
Last edited:
Well put

bigredshark said:
Raymond has a style, it works for him, it's not immediately to my taste but it's consistent which counts for a lot in his line of work.

Use what you want for what you need to achieve at the end of the day. There's no point shooting wide open for the sake of it as even the best primes are softer in the corners that way but they're good enough that if you need shallow DOF for isolation or you're in bad light then they'll do the job.
Click to expand...

I agree with these senitments too, I also think Pharters got a bit of a rough ride here, although perhaps some of his observations were not as diplomatic as the might have been.

I think as well, there's a difference between producing a product on demand for a client and producing something that is artistically pleasing to the producer. To some degree so long as Raymond likes what he creates and his clients do too, then that's what matters.

The benefit of critique though is that ideas are put forward and one can choose to take them oon or not. Personally I definitely think Raymond could inject a little more stopped-down shots, which would be a variation on the theme of shooting compeltely wide open, and complement what he does as his mainstay shots.

But that's just me, and he will do what he wants - which is fine with me :D
 
While peope are mentioning styles, and to hopefully contribute to photography rather than the attacking of each other that's getting a bit OTT, I'd like to say that personally I love Raymonds style, it's got a lovely warm feeling about it. I also like the wedding photos I've seen with the vignetting effect (sorry forgotten the persons name!) along with a few duo tone styles I've seen. Composition helps Immenseley no matter how good anyone is, hell even I can get nice bokeh on a photo but the composition can often suck.

Just pointing this out as the point of varied likes and dislikes seems to be getting lost in here with groups of people rounding on each other. Any chance we can keep things polite and stick to photography discussion? :)
 
Wow - if this is impolite and heated, I don't think we have too much to worry about - reading the thread back it's a little reactionary but hardly insulting or overbearing in the commentary. I'm not sure from either side of the argument that it is indicative of (excuse the horrible deliberate pun) spitting the dummy or throwing ones toys out of the cot...
 
Sidetrack - some of these comments are so funny, where is the FB like button???

thumbs-up.png


Look, if we all agreed on the same thing for the same subject, how boring would things be. Though some people here do act like retards.
 
You spend any decent length of time staring through a viewfinder and you're sure to get a slightly skewed view of the world :D I reserve my right to periodic retardedness...
 
Odd ? A bit, who isn't ? Aggressive ? On occasion. Diplomatic ? Rarely.

Why don't posters 'join in' ?

Look what some people do when someone does.

The forensics begin, post count comparisons lead to odd conclusions, the name calling begins, non
sequiturs introduced by the hard of thinking become part of the Zeitgeist, the Mob advances.

Peace & Love, Peace & Love :cool:
 
Well this thread has taken some twists and turns :D

I don't tend to comment on Raymond's shots as I don't feel qualified to. I'm a fan of shallow DoF so I love the work he does there. Sometimes I find the processing a bit harsh, as in the baby shots here, I think something softer might flatter the subject more. Then again that could be seen as clichéd... On the whole though I like his work, and the ability to capture a moment at times is uncanny. I can't see how anyone could see one of these shots as out of focus, there is an obvious focal point that is in focus :confused:

I think some defensiveness had crept in from some forum members, but to compare this thread to any mud slingers in Motors is a tad over the top :D

One poster doesn't like anothers style, fair enough. He put his view forward on what he likes, no problem there. I also don't see the problem of others wanting to see examples of work. Not to put them up as a target, but as an example of the style that poster prefers. If you want to talk the talk, walk the walk and all that.

What I love about photography is that it is so varied and diverse. Plenty of room for everyone, and a whole smorgasbord of styles :)

Oh, and I like everyone as well. Except for ScarySquirrel...! ;)
 
phartars said:
Odd ? A bit, who isn't ? Aggressive ? On occasion. Diplomatic ? Rarely.

Why don't posters 'join in' ?

Look what some people do when someone does.

The forensics begin, post count comparisons lead to odd conclusions, the name calling begins, non
sequiturs introduced by the hard of thinking become part of the Zeitgeist, the Mob advances.

Peace & Love, Peace & Love :cool:
Click to expand...

It is not like i don't value opinions, even if people with less experience.

It is some of your comments are totally bizarre, which you have to agree.

Asking someone to gaussian blur a shot to FAKE a bokeh from a photo? I shot 7 weddings in the past 5 months, I loaded up Photoshop like 3 times for 5 images, I don't do gaussian blur, I work in Lightroom mainly. Also, I had only 1 lens on me, it was done during lunch hour from my regular job. It wasn't like it was a planned studio shoot with a set background, shooting on location, you take what you get.

Plus, I like my bokeh to be real, not faked.

And the post when you crit the 100% cropped. That post was to demonstrate my lenses are sharp when shooting wide open. Yet you some how turned it into a crit into distractions, tighter crop and wrinkles...whats this about women hate wrinkles? yes i know they do, but that's not what we are talking about, plus, i am not going to smooth the skin on her hand ! The clarity is already taken down, and again, they are showing at 100% enlarged, they don't look that "wrinkly" in print. But my point is that you seem to change the subject to suit you when we were talking about something else.

Since it was you who started talking about how I should shoot a few stops down to get sharp images, I proved it to you that I CAN shoot wide open and get sharp images. Then instead of acknowledging it, you ignored it, changed the topic.

That I find odd, and some what disappointing.
 
Last edited:
Rojin said:
One poster doesn't like anothers style, fair enough. He put his view forward on what he likes, no problem there. I also don't see the problem of others wanting to see examples of work. Not to put them up as a target, but as an example of the style that poster prefers. If you want to talk the talk, walk the walk and all that.
Click to expand...

Thats the thing he didnt just say he liked it he then started almost giving Raymond a back to basic lesson on what he should have done. And then wouldnt post up any of his own images, is it hard to see that he looks like a troll trying to make himself respected or something in a forum he never posts in but then cant back it up with any of his own work ?
 
This is going round in circles a bit now to be honest, I just read the first page of the thread to make sure I wasn't missing something.

I don't think anybody said that Raymond should 'fake' all his shots in lieu of a wide aperture, it was just a response to one shot that was offered up as evidence to what a £1k lens could achieve, and it was pointed out a similar effect could be achieved with Gaussian Blur, for that shot only.

Some people, including the OP, have been a mite sensitive I think.

What was the original reason for posting the images anyway? Maybe the OP didn't get the usual swooning response he was expecting?

The photo forum is a strange place sometimes, posted work usually gets either completely ignored, torn to pieces, or adored, depending on who posted and who their mates are....

Sad, but probably one of the reasons why not many 'pros' post their work here, it's a bit 'cliquey'.
 
We are going round in circles lol

I don't expect all pics to get praises, like I said, I see faults in these shots, they are not my best work. I have never shot a baby before, these were more like snaps.

You should see the first draft of my processing, even I hated those !
 
I do like your processing actually Raymond!

I actually commented I think on one of your first sets of wedding pics and said the highlights were a bit distracting. Since then, I think your PP has become very consistent and you certainly have a 'look and feel' to your shots now.

About the only places I post my work now are on some specialist aviation fora (that's a hobby!) and over on a nature forum. I'm really trying to master nature photography, and I often get my efforts pulled apart and reconstructed! The post processing tips they share are invaluable though, and save days of work trying to find the same thing out for yourself, if at all.

But, that's off topic I guess! :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom