- Original Message -
From: "John Sessoms"
I think overdone photoshoppery has two roots.
I remember back about the time PhotoShop 5 was was the latest and
greatest, Adobe was running an ad in all the camera mags showing a VERY
tattooed bride in her dress, touting the ability of the
From: "Christine Aguila"
Funny thing weddings: I once heard a story that the bride wanted the mashed
potatoes served at her reception dinner to be blue--to match the color of
her bridesmaid dresses. I just don't understand what it is about weddings
that brings out--in some instances, of cour
John Sessoms wrote:
From: ann sanfedele
John Sessoms wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 1:57 PM, Bruce Dayton >
wrote:
> > > Here is an example of some of what we are seeing in the wedding
> > > world. ?Do you like it? ?How long would it take per photo to
make
> > > this kind of change
From: ann sanfedele
John Sessoms wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 1:57 PM, Bruce Dayton
> wrote:
> > > Here is an example of some of what we are seeing in the wedding
> > > world. ?Do you like it? ?How long would it take per photo to make
> > > this kind of change?
> > >
> > >
> > > http://ph
My wife Marlene and I were married in the early seventies. Some parts
of our wedding were tacky, as were many things those days. (Remember
polyester leisure suits?) The photographer was awful, and in the
manner of the day, he used stupid maskes -- hearts, winecups, etcj.--
on some pics. I
LOL
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 9:16 AM, Christian wrote:
> They'll be destroyed in 2 years time after the divorce.
>
> --
>
> Christian
> http://404mohawknotfound.blogspot.com/
>
> Bob W wrote:
>>
>> I wonder how they'll feel about them in 25 years.
>> Bob
>>
>>> "Repulsed" is a strong word... I t
They'll be destroyed in 2 years time after the divorce.
--
Christian
http://404mohawknotfound.blogspot.com/
Bob W wrote:
I wonder how they'll feel about them in 25 years.
Bob
"Repulsed" is a strong word... I think it's cheesy and
stupid, but if
SHE likes it... Well she's getting what s
rendy--heck, I've done it myself-- but
in the end folks still recognize the good stuff and appreciate it--so let's
continue to give it to them.
Cheers, Christine
- Original Message -
From: "Bruce Dayton"
To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List"
Sent:
John Sessoms wrote:
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 1:57 PM, Bruce Dayton
wrote:
> > Here is an example of some of what we are seeing in the wedding
> > world. ?Do you like it? ?How long would it take per photo to make
> > this kind of change?
> >
> >
> > http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=8420
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 1:57 PM, Bruce Dayton
wrote:
> > Here is an example of some of what we are seeing in the wedding
> > world. ?Do you like it? ?How long would it take per photo to make
> > this kind of change?
> >
> >
> > http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=8420492&size=lg
> >
Probabl
John Sessoms wrote:
Unless they're bound by the kind of one-way employment agreements IBM
used to be famous for, that basicaly required you to give up the rights
to ANYTHING you developed, even on your own time, while working for IBM.
I work for IBM now, and that's no longer true. If I work
From: Doug Franklin
Mark Roberts wrote:
>>> 3. Get out of the business
>>
>> 4. Do the stuff he likes on his own dime instead of the customer's.
>
> I think that *is* option 3 ;-)
Well, sort of. I see the same thing a lot with software developers.
They don't really enjoy doing what they'
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 1:57 PM, Bruce Dayton wrote:
> Here is an example of some of what we are seeing in the wedding
> world. Do you like it? How long would it take per photo to make
> this kind of change?
>
>
> http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=8420492&size=lg
>
>
> --
> Bruce
Yuck.
I
I bet she'll like it even more in 25 years. "Look how perfect my skin
was when we were married." She'll come to accept it as real. Which
will make her happy, and that's what it's all about. The fact that no
one in their right mind will mistake it for art is irrelevant.
Paul
On Mar 24, 2009,
Bob W wrote:
I wonder how they'll feel about them in 25 years.
Bob
Likely the same as they'll feel about the tattoos by then.
-bmw
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above
I wonder how they'll feel about them in 25 years.
Bob
>
> "Repulsed" is a strong word... I think it's cheesy and
> stupid, but if
> SHE likes it... Well she's getting what she wants; and more to the
> point what she paid for. And that's the job of the photographer: to
> give the client w
"Repulsed" is a strong word... I think it's cheesy and stupid, but if
SHE likes it... Well she's getting what she wants; and more to the
point what she paid for. And that's the job of the photographer: to
give the client what he or she is buying.
--
Christian
http://404mohawknotfound.blogsp
Well, I'm certainly going to check it out...for, you know, when I
have to do what the customer wants...
--
Best regards,
Bruce
Tuesday, March 24, 2009, 12:23:40 PM, you wrote:
BW> Paul Stenquist wrote:
>> I'm not crazy about it, but I can see why it might appeal to some
>> brides. I'd do it i
Thanks! I'll get that. Not that I'll ever use it:-)).
Paul
On Mar 24, 2009, at 3:23 PM, Bruce Walker wrote:
Paul Stenquist wrote:
I'm not crazy about it, but I can see why it might appeal to some
brides. I'd do it if asked. I don't see a way to batch it, you have
to leave the eyes untouched,
Paul Stenquist wrote:
I'm not crazy about it, but I can see why it might appeal to some
brides. I'd do it if asked. I don't see a way to batch it, you have to
leave the eyes untouched, and the skin is treated differently than the
dress and background.
Just fyi, Imagenomics Portraiture can run
I'm not crazy about it, but I can see why it might appeal to some
brides. I'd do it if asked. I don't see a way to batch it, you have to
leave the eyes untouched, and the skin is treated differently than the
dress and background. I figure it would take me about ten minutes per
shot. I'd cha
2009/3/25 Bruce Dayton :
> Here is an example of some of what we are seeing in the wedding
> world. Do you like it? How long would it take per photo to make
> this kind of change?
>
>
> http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=8420492&size=lg
That particular example I don't mind. Some of the othe
Bruce, my immediate reaction was - why don't I see the pointy ears?
Honestly, however, I feel repulsed by this kind of processing. It is
good though that I married back in 1998 whereas my wedding photos were
made on film.
Boris
Bruce Dayton wrote:
Here is an example of some of what we are s
Bruce Dayton wrote:
http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=8420492&size=lg
Here is an example of some of what we are seeing in the wedding
world. Do you like it?
Nope.
How long would it take per photo to make this kind of change?
You could easily create a batch process in Lightroom that
In a message dated 3/24/2009 10:59:06 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
bkday...@daytonphoto.com writes:
Here is an example of some of what we are seeing in the wedding
world. Do you like it? How long would it take per photo to make
this kind of change?
http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=84
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 1:57 PM, Bruce Dayton wrote:
> Here is an example of some of what we are seeing in the wedding
> world. Do you like it? How long would it take per photo to make
> this kind of change?
>
>
> http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=8420492&size=lg
You've got to be kidding
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 1:57 PM, Bruce Dayton wrote:
> Here is an example of some of what we are seeing in the wedding
> world. Do you like it?
No
> How long would it take per photo to make
> this kind of change?
Just guessing, but the base for that, coudn't it be pre-canned in a
photoshop acti
Here is an example of some of what we are seeing in the wedding
world. Do you like it? How long would it take per photo to make
this kind of change?
http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=8420492&size=lg
--
Bruce
Monday, March 23, 2009, 2:06:54 PM, you wrote:
ME> Interesting read. As oth
On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 11:27 PM, Bob Sullivan wrote:
> Wasn't HCB an independently wealthy heir to a button manufacturing fortune?
> He was an Artist, but not the starving kind.
> Regards, Bob S.
He claimed that he received a "small pension" as an heir, but not
enough to live on. He said that
Mark Roberts wrote:
3. Get out of the business
4. Do the stuff he likes on his own dime instead of the customer's.
I think that *is* option 3 ;-)
Well, sort of. I see the same thing a lot with software developers.
They don't really enjoy doing what they're being paid for, and they
whine
Doug Franklin wrote:
Mark Roberts wrote:
If this guy were a wedding photography *customer* complaining that
"overphotoshopped" images were all he could get (and he didn't like the
style), he'd have a valid complaint. But complaining that what customers
want isn't what he does??? Tough cookies.
John Sessoms wrote:
I think the over-photoshopped images are not a service to the customer,
Who are you to say what is a service to them or not? Maybe they really
like it. Maybe they hate your idea of "art."
--
Christian
http://404mohawknotfound.blogspot.com/
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mai
> Wasn't HCB an independently wealthy heir to a button
> manufacturing fortune?
> He was an Artist, but not the starving kind.
> Regards, Bob S.
>
Yes, that's true, but the advice Capa gave him was meant to allow him to
work in his own way, not to be pigeon-holed by others.
He said 'Beware of
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 07:12:44AM +0200, Boris Liberman wrote:
> P.S. As yet another side effect I got myself a rather nice Metz 40MZ-2
> flash with SCA 372 and SCA 3701 modules from a fellow list member that
> work wonders on my K10D. Pity it was after all these shoots but probably
> coming Pa
Bob W wrote:
I hate gimmicky photography, but wedding photography has always been cheesy,
and it always will be. Even the so-called reportage style of wedding
photography is a cliche-ridden bowl of saccharine and maple syrup. What else
can you expect?
Bob
Bob, you have your way with words, sur
John Sessoms wrote:
I think the over-photoshopped images are not a service to the customer,
but if that's what the customer wants, I guess someone's going to
provide it.
Won't be me.
I'd be happy to provide it if they pay the vigorish. I'll do art on my
own time.
--
Thanks,
DougF (KG4LM
On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 11:27 PM, Bob Sullivan wrote:
> Wasn't HCB an independently wealthy heir to a button manufacturing fortune?
> He was an Artist, but not the starving kind.
Hold your tongue, Bob. When Saint Henri came back from Africa he was
forced to convalesce for a time and to merely su
Wasn't HCB an independently wealthy heir to a button manufacturing fortune?
He was an Artist, but not the starving kind.
Regards, Bob S.
On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 3:43 PM, Mark Roberts wrote:
>> The number of photographers who can shoot what they want and still earn a
>> decent living is miniscule
From: frank theriault
On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 12:55 PM, Bruce Dayton wrote:
> I ran across this exchange recently and it caused me to do some
> thinking:
> http://photo.net/wedding-photography-forum/00SlvT
>
> I have many of the same feelings as this guy presented. ?When I look
> at much of the
From: Jack Davis
I made such a point on this list a few years back and was promptly
chastised for making such arbitrary judgments, followed by the
comment that it was too late for me in 1843. They may have been
right, for that matter.
I think the telling response was someone's comment that if y
Mark Roberts wrote:
If this guy were a wedding photography *customer* complaining that
"overphotoshopped" images were all he could get (and he didn't like the
style), he'd have a valid complaint. But complaining that what customers
want isn't what he does??? Tough cookies. He has 3 options:
1. F
> The whole Pictorialism movement (dating from the 1880's) was
> all about
> manipulating images to obtain "painterly" effects.
>
[...]
That's a popular fallacy. The early pictorialists were aiming for a
scientific naturalism which used differential focus in imitation of the way
the eye is su
- Original Message -
From: "Bruce Dayton"
Subject: Directions of photography?
I ran across this exchange recently and it caused me to do some
thinking:
http://photo.net/wedding-photography-forum/00SlvT
I have many of the same feelings as this guy presented. When I look
is inherent in the nature of multimedia slide shows. Made me sad to
see a good talent wasted.
- Original Message -
From: "Nick Wright"
To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List"
Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 1:03 PM
Subject: Re: Directions of photography?
Believe it or not t
frank theriault wrote:
On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 4:03 PM, Nick Wright wrote:
The big thing in the portrait world right now is the "Dave Hill" look
(http://www.davehillphoto.com/).
That's not photography. It may have started with a photographed
image, but the final "product" isn't a ph
Nick Wright wrote:
Believe it or not this is one reason I chose to leave the newspaper
photography business.
It's not just wedding photography. It's universal.
Everything right now is about the gimmicks.
The big thing in the pj world a couple years back was strobist. Or
it's multi-media slides
Bruce Dayton wrote:
I ran across this exchange recently and it caused me to do
some thinking:
http://photo.net/wedding-photography-forum/00SlvT
I have many of the same feelings as this guy presented. When I look
at much of the current work being shown, especially on photo.net
galleries,
frank theriault wrote:
On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 12:55 PM, Bruce Dayton wrote:
I ran across this exchange recently and it caused me to do some
thinking:
http://photo.net/wedding-photography-forum/00SlvT
I have many of the same feelings as this guy presented. When I look
at much of the current w
On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 4:39 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
> But some of it is artful. And if it takes photography to a new place, that's
> okay. I may prefer not to go there, but I don't think it's wrong for someone
> else to explore new ground.
I didn't say it wasn't artful, but at some point photo
On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 4:32 PM, Bob W wrote:
> As far as commercial photography is concerned you either have to lead the
> market or follow it. If the customers are going after the gimmicky stuff and
> you don't want to shoot gimmicky stuff you have to resign yourself to eating
> boiled potatoes
Bob W wrote:
As far as commercial photography is concerned you either have to lead the
market or follow it. If the customers are going after the gimmicky stuff and
you don't want to shoot gimmicky stuff you have to resign yourself to eating
boiled potatoes until the market comes back round; if y
I get asked to remove items in the back ground a lot, but I'm terrible
at it, and tell them that when they ask.
A lot of those that ask are a bit stunned when i tell them that.
They just assume any Professional does that.
So,, that makes me a non pro, thank god.:-)
Dave
--
Equine Photography
But some of it is artful. And if it takes photography to a new place,
that's okay. I may prefer not to go there, but I don't think it's
wrong for someone else to explore new ground.
Paul
On Mar 23, 2009, at 4:16 PM, frank theriault wrote:
On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 4:03 PM, Nick Wright
wrote:
Hmmm...that is somewhat the point. One of the posters said that it
is what the customer/client wants that matters. So what we are
hearing a bit, is that the customer doesn't want photographs, they
want art. And that could be very true.
It is kind of ironic that the digital revolution that spawn
> I ran across this exchange recently and it caused me to do some
> thinking:
> http://photo.net/wedding-photography-forum/00SlvT
>
> I have many of the same feelings as this guy presented. When I look
> at much of the current work being shown, especially on photo.net
> galleries, I see heavy han
On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 4:03 PM, Nick Wright wrote:
> The big thing in the portrait world right now is the "Dave Hill" look
> (http://www.davehillphoto.com/).
That's not photography. It may have started with a photographed
image, but the final "product" isn't a photograph, IMHO.
cheers,
frank
Believe it or not this is one reason I chose to leave the newspaper
photography business.
It's not just wedding photography. It's universal.
Everything right now is about the gimmicks.
The big thing in the pj world a couple years back was strobist. Or
it's multi-media slideshows.
The big thing
Bruce Dayton wrote:
I ran across this exchange recently and it caused me to do some
thinking:
http://photo.net/wedding-photography-forum/00SlvT
I have many of the same feelings as this guy presented. When I look
at much of the current work being shown, especially on photo.net
galleries, I see h
30-35 years ago I almost thought of my camera as a means of getting
raw material for doing special effects in the darkroom. If I were 17
years old today substitue photoshop for darkroom and that's what I'd
be doing.
http://photo.net/wedding-photography-forum/00SlvT
Is a lot of why I don't want to
The question is where's the border line between postprocessing and
digital art? Personally I rarely use photoshop for postprocessing, for
me Lightroom is the post processor and Photoshop is the manipulator :)
But it's just a personal taste. I believe photography is all about
opening a wide persp
On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 12:55 PM, Bruce Dayton wrote:
> I ran across this exchange recently and it caused me to do some
> thinking:
> http://photo.net/wedding-photography-forum/00SlvT
>
> I have many of the same feelings as this guy presented. When I look
> at much of the current work being shown
ton
> Subject: Directions of photography?
> To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List"
> Date: Monday, March 23, 2009, 9:55 AM
> I ran across this exchange recently and it caused me to do
> some
> thinking:
> http://photo.net/wedding-photography-forum/00SlvT
>
> I have many of
I ran across this exchange recently and it caused me to do some
thinking:
http://photo.net/wedding-photography-forum/00SlvT
I have many of the same feelings as this guy presented. When I look
at much of the current work being shown, especially on photo.net
galleries, I see heavy handed manipulati
63 matches
Mail list logo
