Alright, I think i've cracked your numbering scheme... #9 really rocks. Swim_r already pointed it out, so I am going to resist reposting it, although it is a brilliant image, I can't put my finger on what else works for me with that shot... it just does. Dare I ask: was it posed? It's just too well done
I couldn't tell you what it is about this one of the kids either, but it makes a great sequence. I love shooting kids, and it's fantastic when you can get them to engage with you. I can see/feel that happening in the mini-series.
This last one... just looks like fun. What was on his face?
Sergio,
Great set. One of the few south Indian weddings I've seen here.
MTBtrials wrote:
This last one... just looks like fun. What was on his face?
MTBtrials,
that should be sandalwood paste on his face. It is a common custom to apply sandalwood paste on the cheeks and sometimes forearms too in south Indian weddings.
In fact, it has a cooling effect when applied to the face and is often used as a remedy for acne.
ironhide wrote:
MTBtrials,
that should be sandalwood paste on his face. It is a common custom to apply sandalwood paste on the cheeks and sometimes forearms too in south Indian weddings.
In fact, it has a cooling effect when applied to the face and is often used as a remedy for acne.
Sandalwood smells good as well
Thanks for the answer... I thought that it would have been some kind of smashed fruit or something..
You do have a style and although I am not a fan, it's still great if your clients know exactly what they are getting.
What you need to work on(and work A LOT) is posing.
Cropping is absolutely horrible as well. Most images seem as they were out of a video and you just grabbed a few frames.
You have a potential but you need a ton of practice and I would really suggest reading some books on photography rules,posing and maybe attend a few seminars on that. This will really help you.
canerino wrote:
i'm not defending serg, but what does this mean?
"VickiB" just has it out for younger photographers if you check the post history.
"I am not a wedding photographer, nor do I aspire to be one (much like Gelett Burgess's purple cow ). In fact, I sometimes read this forum for the same reason that I sometimes listen to Rush Limbaugh--because it gives me a perverse pleasure to be outraged at his arrogance. I, too, was quite shocked to learn how young most of the "stars" on this forum are and how few weddings they have shot--shocked not because they have become so good in such a short time, but because they are so presumptuous as to see themselves as not only authoritative, but "the only game in town." Frankly, if a daughter of mine were getting married, I would not be at all attracted by the tilting and the excessive flare and the groomsmen-as-mafiosi shots I see everywhere on this forum. I believe that traditional wedding photographs are timeless, and I have often said that I'll bet the recipients of the trendy shots popular in this forum will be sorry in twenty years that their photos seem so dated."
reason wrote:
You do have a style and although I am not a fan, it's still great if your clients know exactly what they are getting.
What you need to work on(and work A LOT) is posing.
Cropping is absolutely horrible as well. Most images seem as they were out of a video and you just grabbed a few frames.
You have a potential but you need a ton of practice and I would really suggest reading some books on photography rules,posing and maybe attend a few seminars on that. This will really help you.
I agree that Serg certainly has his own style. For that I applaud him. He's not afraid to go against the grain and offer something different. In his mind, so-called photography "rules" seen made to be broken. Some of his shots flaunt everything I've ever learned about photography but so what? Who's to say what's right and what's wrong except the client.
Having said that, his photos are not for everyone. I could never, ever shoot a wedding the way he does nor would I want to. Personally I think he will go far in this business despite his flagrant violations of the "rules". Only time will tell.
i dont think vickib and i exist on the same dimension, other than the fact that she and my mother are nominal twins (love you, ma. its YOU in see in the brightest part of all my flare shots.) one indicator is that my clients have personal style, and wouldn't consult their parents for advice on which photographer to choose.
I was talking with my friend Pavel (from the Nikon forum) yesterday, and we agreed that what distinguishes many photographic styles (so-called) these days is that they rely not on artistic vision but on gimmickry. When I saw this set, I was immediately reminded of that conversation. To what gimmicks was I referring? Photos in which the subject is almost obscured by the excessive flare. The use of tilt-shift techniques to jar the viewer's perception. Blown-out whites in many photos. I suppose the disturbing factor isn't the USE of these techniques, but their boring sameness, one after the other. When an artistic technique is used to shock the sensibilities (which is what a lot of art is about, of course), doing so twice dulls the effect, and doing so many times is just tedious.
Do I "have it out" for younger photographers? Hmmm . . . I admire very much two of the young stars here, Tony Hoffer and Evan Baines. Their photos have vision and style. They portray a variety of moods and use a variety of techniques. Their photos delight the eye. I would never accuse them of gimmickry.
well since i can't shoot your daughter's wedding, can i at least take her out on a date? i dont shave that often, i'm addicted to caffeine, and i curse. i make a mean puttanesca though. does she know any bouncers at bars that would let me in without ID?
jeremy_clay wrote:
"VickiB" just has it out for younger photographers if you check the post history.
"I am not a wedding photographer, nor do I aspire to be one (much like Gelett Burgess's purple cow ). In fact, I sometimes read this forum for the same reason that I sometimes listen to Rush Limbaugh--because it gives me a perverse pleasure to be outraged at his arrogance. I, too, was quite shocked to learn how young most of the "stars" on this forum are and how few weddings they have shot--shocked not because they have become so good in such a short time, but because they are so presumptuous as to see themselves as not only authoritative, but "the only game in town." Frankly, if a daughter of mine were getting married, I would not be at all attracted by the tilting and the excessive flare and the groomsmen-as-mafiosi shots I see everywhere on this forum. I believe that traditional wedding photographs are timeless, and I have often said that I'll bet the recipients of the trendy shots popular in this forum will be sorry in twenty years that their photos seem so dated."...Show more →
I don't believe the quote you posted does much to support a thesis of "has it out for younger photographers"
Being shocked by the age makeup of the "star club" is not exactly "having it out" for anyone and isn't exactly the most astounding thing ever... Not in a negative way at all... but I was pretty surprised myself at the age of some posters... ... the further comment along the lines of "but because they are so presumptuous..." is actually contradicting VickiB's thesis since those kinds of behaviours are typically prevalent in younger individuals who believe they know everything and what was done before them is crap... but again, not really a big indication of being "anti young photographers"
The rest of the quote is imho difficult to assail. I'm the first to shoot flare, to shoot T/S, to shoot "groom tough-guy shots" etc. etc. etc. but I can't possibly be the only one (ohter than VickiB) to sometime sit back and question wether these choices may be ridiculed in the future much as many other popular techniques of the past are today. After all... let's remember that just to mention one of them... camera manufacturers put good money in their engineering to eliminate flare... hoods are largely made for the purpose... it wasn't always popular to have a shot where you nearly can't even see the person's face due to this eruption of light
I can think of a few forum "rockstars" who are probably largely exempt from these observations... I'll only name one since it should be plainly obvious to everyone... Baines ... but I would be very surprised if the brides of a couple of the highest profile posters here might one day wake up and say "cuff... should have had Baines shoot my wedding instead"
I dunno this VickiB from Adam so for all I know you may be right... she (I assume it's a she... but who is Lisy78 the dude to assume ) may be after some posters... on the other hand maybe she's not.
VickiB has a fair thought - that too often we can become over-focused on using a technique to the point that it is the technique that is on display in a photograph and not the subject matter. It's an easy trap to fall into. We all do it from time to time, or have done it in the past.
In Sergio's work, though, I no longer see gimmickry. His vision & style is consistent from set to set, from situation to situation, to the point that any gimmicks are incorporated into his style and disappear in it. This is the way he shoots. This is his style. It can take a viewing or three to recognize that and allow the technical knowledge of how a shot was executed to disappear.
Is his chosen style more out of the box than others (including the two photogs you mentioned)? Sure, perhaps. Does that make it wrong, or permit the pejorative use of gimmick? I don't think so.
jeremy_clay wrote:
Out for 'modern' styled photographers, then.
Based on VickiB's post (yous people posted lotsa stuff while I wuz writing... u fast peeps!!!!) then your comment would be implying that Tony Hoffer's style isn't modern.
I think VickiB made the point she wanted to make pretty clearly (the art that shocks is effective when it's once... ) wether you (or I) want to agree with it or not is another matter... but I think she did address specifically what she may have it "out for"
Personally I find myself both agreeing AND disagreeing with her. I know... weird.
I guess I see both sides of this... on the one hand having a VERY strongly current-styled wedding album will unoubtedly DATE IT. You can't disagree with that. You can't possibly think that it's unlikely that in 20 years someone will see heavily flared shots set and say "2004-2010 Hu?" ... on the other hand if the "gimmick" is done well... it might work and maybe you'll like it BETTER BECAUSE it's "DATED" ... for instance I absolutely LOVE the photos of my parents when they were recently married and my dad had those absurd 70's sideburns, the silk-looking tie-dyed shirts and the almost magnum-PI sunglasses.
Who the eff knows.
But again, doesn't mean VickiB "has it" with anyone. Modern photographers can choose to use a technique sparingly or constantly... their prerogative and doesn't make one more or less modern. Apparently VickiB has an issue with what she perceives as repetitive. It's a POV that we don't have to agree with, but it doesn't need to be dismissed either.
One thing you can never say about Sergio though is that he doesn't stimulate conversation
Andrew Welsh wrote:
anyone wanna take bets this gets to 5 pages again?
If you couldn't self-bump it, I'd take that bet. These are strong shots, 1-2-3 people maybe don't like them, but generally they take nothing similar and the main objector isn't even in the field. Saul. Goode.
