Let me know what you think of my photos.

[JeremyG]

First, read my post. Try reading for comprehension instead of your personal vendettas...

I said, "if you want to get photoshop crazy". That doesn't mean you'd HAVE to do it.... the rest of my post was referring to what I would suggest IF I were to do a bunch of photoshop, what should be done:

1. Fix the dirt.
2. Possibly remove the white stuff (sorry on this little laptop screen I can't see what that is, leaves or just other off-fall). If it's leaves then leave it in since it shows where the leaves went after they came off the tree.
3. I would not go as far as to add leaves to the tree (IF someone was to go "photoshop crazy").. Add grass, don't add leaves. How hard is that to understand?

Sorry but IMO the dirt is distracting, just like sign in the background of the Viper.

I think you guys need to understand personal preference as well as composition. I guess every picture has to follow set rules in order to pass your muster? I'm sure you guys don't personally like several pictures that are perfectly composed. Heaven forbid the photo doesn't follow the "rule of thirds" since I can't count how many times that's been referenced...

I personally like to see grass looking perfect in pictures. Sorry, it's just a preference. It wouldn't hurt the composition AT ALL to fix it, but I also believe the dirt is distracting.

If that picture was put into a calendar, magazine or book of some sort I can guarantee they would put grass where the dirt is.

I think Mike needs to relax and let old issues die. I don't recall ever personally attacking him, even when he was making suggestions for our pictures such as to put a wedding ceremony on hold until cars stop going by... or somehow moving a bridge. Asinine suggestions of course, and it would have been easy to start attacking him...

I deleted that thread because there was no constructive criticism going on, just personal attacks and criticism without any suggestions on how to improve.

I'll be happy to start a new thread with what, let's say, 5 of the pictures we've taken that our clients have liked the most, and see what you guys would change in them. We can take suggestions, specific advice, we have no problem with that.

[AudibleSilence]

Originally Posted by JeremyG

First, read my post. Try reading for comprehension instead of your personal vendettas...

You aren't important enough for me to hold a "vendetta" against. You have ZERO bearing on my life outside of this place, but I am indeed very sick of you posting drivel over and over and over again. 3/4's of your posts either amp you, your nuclear family, or you businesses. It and you get old very quickly and I think someone needs to finally tell you that.

I think Mike needs to relax and let old issues die. I don't recall ever personally attacking him, even when he was making suggestions for our pictures such as to put a wedding ceremony on hold until cars stop going by... or somehow moving a bridge. Asinine suggestions of course, and it would have been easy to start attacking him...

Old issues? Let's rewind to my Dinner Party thread:

Dinner Party - Testing the New 50mm Out

Again you make suggestions that are either common fucking sense (1.4 is better than 1.8... fucking duh) or completely retarded (remove the dirt..). You boast (as usual) about having the more expensive lens and then to top it off you post one of your own pictures! To add insult to injury said pic is completely out of focus and to be honest crappy. Old issues? No same old Jeremy that thinks that his money can buy him anything. Money doesn't buy skill brother, your pictures are evident of that.

On C&C, let me put this to you like I am talking to a 5 year old, because right now that is what you are behaving like. No one told you to move the bridge. I did suggest that you move your ass 3 degrees to the left and maybe just maybe get the entire bride's dress in the frame. I also suggested that maybe you take the pic somewhere else if not wait until the boat passed the bridge.

Failing that you could have slowed the frame down so that the distracting ass background w/ the lovely SUV in it would be a blur and the focus would be on the bride and groom.

You don't know the difference between capturing the moment and creating the moment. You don't know a damn thing beyond the book smarts of photography. You don't know the things that one only learns through seasoning.

I deleted that thread because there was no constructive criticism going on, just personal attacks and criticism without any suggestions on how to improve.

Bullshit, you deleted it because you can't stand to not be worshiped. It's the same reason you make a post's worth of excuses after your initial post of the pictures. You can't stand to be wrong or bad at something. News Flash, you are a rookie, you are supposed to be bad!

Your pictures were lacking in both composure and quality and we pointed that out. We also pointed out the truth, you should not be getting paid for those pictures..they are relatively terrible. I could have taken the same pictures with a point and shoot. Patrick gave tons of good advice, others bit their tongues because they had nothing nice to say. Or did you think that a forum that is normally buzzing with C&C just all of a sudden decided to shut up?

You want C&C? Post your pictures on POTN...see the reception you get.

I'll be happy to start a new thread with what, let's say, 5 of the pictures we've taken that our clients have liked the most, and see what you guys would change in them. We can take suggestions, specific advice, we have no problem with that.

You have zero respect for the art and other photographers. You take money for work that is sub-par, taking the job from a more seasoned vet. What's worse is that you are too defensive, childish, and overly arrogant for someone at your current skill level.

Your "clients" are probably on average used to point and shoot pictures..hence their satisfaction. When they see the pictures taken by a dedicated wedding photographer with experience and better gear, they are going to realize why they only paid $600.

You want to go shot for shot Jeremy that's fine, but don't you dare play the victim. Post up 5 of your best, and I'll post 5 of my best. You have the superior camera right? You should win. Bet you won't do it though, just like you won't post those photos in the wedding section of any real photography website. You'd get the equivalent of tarred and feathered if you did. So far all I see a lot of talk and a lot of excuses..

[chargerx3]

High five Audible!!! Jermey you seem like a smart guy, but you do get Ass hurt over everyting. Listen to Audible and try not to be a jerk to everyone. You tend to rub people the wrong way.

[Macky]

Originally Posted by JeremyG

I think Mike needs to relax and let old issues die. I don't recall ever personally attacking him, even when he was making suggestions for our pictures such as to put a wedding ceremony on hold until cars stop going by... or somehow moving a bridge. Asinine suggestions of course, and it would have been easy to start attacking him...

I deleted that thread because there was no constructive criticism going on, just personal attacks and criticism without any suggestions on how to improve.

I'll be happy to start a new thread with what, let's say, 5 of the pictures we've taken that our clients have liked the most, and see what you guys would change in them. We can take suggestions, specific advice, we have no problem with that.

I think you need to relax and take a step back and look at your photos. Mike was dead on that a sub-$300 camera put your megabuck 40D to shame. personal preferences aside, you sound like you were either plagiarizing lines from famous photography books or just plain out short of talent and skill.

you deleted the previous thread because you couldnt stand the heat of REAL criticism. Im sorry but with my line of ACTUAL wedding photography work, your mediocre (at best) photos would get torn down in a heartbeat. everything from poor composition, lack of understanding how exposure works, to just plain illiteracy of your gear add up to your rookie experience as a photographer. heck, you dont even posses the necessary post-processing skill.

the gallery was dumbing down your resolution/detail on the pictures? please. I can resize my shots to 640x480 and still be tack sharp, hmm, must be my experience.

just to show how easy it is to point out a fix-on-the-fly on one of your photographs, just look at this, took me all of five minutes in photoshop to prove a point you so carefully deleted in the other thread:



you say you had a 50mm f/1.4. that was an easy fix, just aim and shoot.

WAIT. you only had/have one body, your client paid for one body, so they only get what you think they should get not what they deserve. so there was no way you could unmount a lens, mount a different one, and shoot without losing the moment, right? that would be the excuse for it.

this is the classic reason ALL seasoned wedding photographers like me shoot with at least two to three bodies. one with a fast prime, one with a fast telephoto and one with a wide. all with a flash. moments come and go at the drop of a hat. you should be prepared to "feel" the camera hanging to you. as soon as you see the moment, you pick up the camera, aim and shoot. didnt have time to switch lenses? you shouldnt have entered this business as I would pay to see you use that as an excuse among veteran shooters.

you were already building up excuses for the lackluster photographs you claim were "hard to do because they were not shot in a studio". I shoot both ways, so give me another excuse. night? day? ive shot in them all. wait. you havent you say? wow. just wow.

can you explain why this was shot at the settings it was shot at? 1/25th, F/20 @ ISO 100? a seasoned pro would not shoot it in such conditions. why? moving boat = movement (strike 1 on 1/25th shutter speed). using a small aperture = longer shutter speed (strike 2 - less light needs more time), again, making the shot look "soft" and increasing the depth of field (i.e. bridge and cars in background). why no flash? (strike 3) the groom's face is shrouded in a cast shadow.



personally, I would have shot using a fill flash. even if i had to shoot in an auto mode like you (and like any rookie) like shutter priority or program AE, using a fill flash (just as simple as turning on the flash) would let you use a faster shutter speed (program AE would default to 1/125th second in bright conditions - a far cry from the 1/25th used). a faster shutter speed would force a wider aperture (you know, less time needs more light?). a wider aperture would decrease the depth of field (say good bye to the bridge and cars, especially how to wear a life jacket), and make the subject stand out more. but what do I know? Ive only been shooting for, say, 4 years professionally. and in those 4 years I know in bright sunny days, if i turn on my flash in auto mode, it will use 1/125 @ f/3.5 or f/4.5 (depending on zoom) by default. thats where experience in both shooting conditions and experience in your gear helps.

Im sorry, but your personal preference is not the issue here. you claim there was no constructive criticism. I call BS. its a combination of ego, lack of experience and incomplete mastery of your equipment all rolled into one that deleted that thread.

[fearpb]

Im going to use the turtle as my desktop background

[AudibleSilence]

Originally Posted by Macky

I think you need to relax and take a step back and look at your photos. Mike was dead on that a sub-$300 camera put your megabuck 40D to shame. personal preferences aside, you sound like you were either plagiarizing lines from famous photography books or just plain out short of talent and skill.

you deleted the previous thread because you couldnt stand the heat of REAL criticism. Im sorry but with my line of ACTUAL wedding photography work, your mediocre (at best) photos would get torn down in a heartbeat. everything from poor composition, lack of understanding how exposure works, to just plain illiteracy of your gear add up to your rookie experience as a photographer. heck, you dont even posses the necessary post-processing skill.

the gallery was dumbing down your resolution/detail on the pictures? please. I can resize my shots to 640x480 and still be tack sharp, hmm, must be my experience.

just to show how easy it is to point out a fix-on-the-fly on one of your photographs, just look at this, took me all of five minutes in photoshop to prove a point you so carefully deleted in the other thread:


you say you had a 50mm f/1.4. that was an easy fix, just aim and shoot.

WAIT. you only had/have one body, your client paid for one body, so they only get what you think they should get not what they deserve. so there was no way you could unmount a lens, mount a different one, and shoot without losing the moment, right? that would be the excuse for it.

this is the classic reason ALL seasoned wedding photographers like me shoot with at least two to three bodies. one with a fast prime, one with a fast telephoto and one with a wide. all with a flash. moments come and go at the drop of a hat. you should be prepared to "feel" the camera hanging to you. as soon as you see the moment, you pick up the camera, aim and shoot. didnt have time to switch lenses? you shouldnt have entered this business as I would pay to see you use that as an excuse among veteran shooters.

you were already building up excuses for the lackluster photographs you claim were "hard to do because they were not shot in a studio". I shoot both ways, so give me another excuse. night? day? ive shot in them all. wait. you havent you say? wow. just wow.

can you explain why this was shot at the settings it was shot at? 1/25th, F/20 @ ISO 100? a seasoned pro would not shoot it in such conditions. why? moving boat = movement (strike 1 on 1/25th shutter speed). using a small aperture = longer shutter speed (strike 2 - less light needs more time), again, making the shot look "soft" and increasing the depth of field (i.e. bridge and cars in background). why no flash? (strike 3) the groom's face is shrouded in a cast shadow.



personally, I would have shot using a fill flash. even if i had to shoot in an auto mode like you (and like any rookie) like shutter priority or program AE, using a fill flash (just as simple as turning on the flash) would let you use a faster shutter speed (program AE would default to 1/125th second - a far cry from 1/25th). a faster shutter speed would force a wider aperture (you know, less time needs more light?). a wider aperture would decrease the depth of field (say good bye to the bridge and cars, especially how to wear a life jacket), and make the subject stand out more. but what do I know? Ive only been shooting for, say, 4 years professionally. and in those 4 years I know in bright sunny days, if i turn on my flash in auto mode, it will use 1/125 @ f/3.5 or f/4.5 (depending on zoom) by default. thats where experience in both shooting conditions and experience in your gear helps.

Im sorry, but your personal preference is not the issue here. you claim there was no constructive criticism. I call BS. its a combination of ego, lack of experience and incomplete mastery of your equipment all rolled into one that deleted that thread.

P.S. I added the turtle to my rotating desktop images

[Chris95RT]

Do you have a bigger turtle picture?

[eljefefx]

Originally Posted by Macky

I think you need to relax and take a step back and look at your photos. Mike was dead on that a sub-$300 camera put your megabuck 40D to shame. personal preferences aside, you sound like you were either plagiarizing lines from famous photography books or just plain out short of talent and skill.

you deleted the previous thread because you couldnt stand the heat of REAL criticism. Im sorry but with my line of ACTUAL wedding photography work, your mediocre (at best) photos would get torn down in a heartbeat. everything from poor composition, lack of understanding how exposure works, to just plain illiteracy of your gear add up to your rookie experience as a photographer. heck, you dont even posses the necessary post-processing skill.

the gallery was dumbing down your resolution/detail on the pictures? please. I can resize my shots to 640x480 and still be tack sharp, hmm, must be my experience.

just to show how easy it is to point out a fix-on-the-fly on one of your photographs, just look at this, took me all of five minutes in photoshop to prove a point you so carefully deleted in the other thread:

you say you had a 50mm f/1.4. that was an easy fix, just aim and shoot.

WAIT. you only had/have one body, your client paid for one body, so they only get what you think they should get not what they deserve. so there was no way you could unmount a lens, mount a different one, and shoot without losing the moment, right? that would be the excuse for it.

this is the classic reason ALL seasoned wedding photographers like me shoot with at least two to three bodies. one with a fast prime, one with a fast telephoto and one with a wide. all with a flash. moments come and go at the drop of a hat. you should be prepared to "feel" the camera hanging to you. as soon as you see the moment, you pick up the camera, aim and shoot. didnt have time to switch lenses? you shouldnt have entered this business as I would pay to see you use that as an excuse among veteran shooters.

you were already building up excuses for the lackluster photographs you claim were "hard to do because they were not shot in a studio". I shoot both ways, so give me another excuse. night? day? ive shot in them all. wait. you havent you say? wow. just wow.

can you explain why this was shot at the settings it was shot at? 1/25th, F/20 @ ISO 100? a seasoned pro would not shoot it in such conditions. why? moving boat = movement (strike 1 on 1/25th shutter speed). using a small aperture = longer shutter speed (strike 2 - less light needs more time), again, making the shot look "soft" and increasing the depth of field (i.e. bridge and cars in background). why no flash? (strike 3) the groom's face is shrouded in a cast shadow.

personally, I would have shot using a fill flash. even if i had to shoot in an auto mode like you (and like any rookie) like shutter priority or program AE, using a fill flash (just as simple as turning on the flash) would let you use a faster shutter speed (program AE would default to 1/125th second in bright conditions - a far cry from the 1/25th used). a faster shutter speed would force a wider aperture (you know, less time needs more light?). a wider aperture would decrease the depth of field (say good bye to the bridge and cars, especially how to wear a life jacket), and make the subject stand out more. but what do I know? Ive only been shooting for, say, 4 years professionally. and in those 4 years I know in bright sunny days, if i turn on my flash in auto mode, it will use 1/125 @ f/3.5 or f/4.5 (depending on zoom) by default. thats where experience in both shooting conditions and experience in your gear helps.

Im sorry, but your personal preference is not the issue here. you claim there was no constructive criticism. I call BS. its a combination of ego, lack of experience and incomplete mastery of your equipment all rolled into one that deleted that thread.

[Dark-Hawk]

Originally Posted by JeremyG

I didn't even see that pic at first. Another good one. If you want to get photoshop crazy, maybe try fixing all the grass in the foreground, get rid of the white stuff and fill in the dirt? I don't think the trees need leaves, it would be too distracting... but the lack of grass is kinda distracting.

Great framing, interesting angle, good exposure, etc.!

Hm, that is probably the worst advice I have seen given in this section as of late. Perhaps you should read my thread.

[SilverJester]

I like the last 2 the best.

Viper pic:
1) Clone out the sign.
2) Crop a little of the picture on the right so that half the tree trunk is in the frame, and half out. I think that would better frame the shot, otherwise you have this weird uninteresting negative space to the right of th tree.

St. Louis:
1) Like someone above said, clone out the random tree braches.
2) the bottom right corner kinda bothers with the sidewalk. I think if you replaced the sidewalk with grass it would look better.