GENIUS Photographer!

On March 24 2010 04:52 SchOOl_VicTIm wrote:
film camera: the old school ones, require film on which the photos are printed on
+ Show Spoiler [pic] +

and the digital, the new-type ones. each photo is basically a 010101101 type combination (i'm guessing..)
+ Show Spoiler [pic] +

I know shit about photography actually, but I guess this is a very newbie question :p

On March 24 2010 05:11 ilovejonn wrote:
Are you saying his photo-taking skills are genius? Or do you mean he's a genius because he has a sick job? Or maybe both?

On March 24 2010 04:57 iSiN wrote:


You're right but the digital camera you posted is a cheap point and shoot camera he's using something a bit more expensive I'd bet...

probably looks more like this
+ Show Spoiler +

On March 24 2010 08:17 Sadistx wrote:
Weird angle - check
Blur every goddamn photo - check
Apply sepia/black&white/old photo filters in photoshop for no reason at all - check

Realize that underneath all that the photos are nothing special - priceless.

On March 24 2010 08:54 BalloonFight wrote:


The priceless part would be that a little kid is making more money than you (probably) despite the fact that you are so high brow and artistically advanced that you can see right through his kitsch garbage

On March 24 2010 08:56 phosphorylation wrote:


no, that's not priceless
that's just a sad reality
something akin to a talentless, screaming hack on the guitar making way much more money than a talented and disciplined classical pianist

On March 24 2010 08:56 phosphorylation wrote:


no, that's not priceless
that's just a sad reality
something akin to a talentless, screaming hack on the guitar making way much more money than a talented and disciplined classical pianist

On March 24 2010 09:03 minus_human wrote:
People who have not formed an eye for quality photography (if I can put it that way) seem to be overly excited when someone starts shooting photos in an unusual/unfamiliar style.

Low or ultra wide angles, strange colors and silhouettes along with gross over-editing apparently are very appealing to a great many people, even if the photograph itself is a compositional/technical failure.

Long live the purists!

On March 24 2010 08:17 minus_human wrote:



actually more like this

+ Show Spoiler +


while the D40 is not a bad camera, it is entry level and I'm sure any professional photographer considers it a joke

On March 24 2010 09:22 tRi[T]oN wrote:



Any real photographer knows that it isnt the camera that defines the photo its the photographer. Give someone like david la chapelle a fucking phone cam and he will stomp you even if u do have the above.

On March 24 2010 09:22 tRi[T]oN wrote:



Any real photographer knows that it isnt the camera that defines the photo its the photographer. Give someone like david la chapelle a fucking phone cam and he will stomp you even if u do have the above.

On March 24 2010 09:29 phosphorylation wrote:


having said that, i don't think this photographer needs a canon 1d mark iii with this type of .. art. a nikon d40 should suffice really

On March 24 2010 09:26 minus_human wrote:


Yes, a point well made, but there is a reason why all the pros have good cameras.

In sports photography especially, you are basically useless without high-tech equipment.

Other fields like portraits or urban scenery or whatever may be more indulging on the technical side, but you won't get amazing landscapes without your filters/tripod/high dynamic range and you certainly won't be able to get good shots of professional athletes in low lighting condition without a decent camera

On March 24 2010 09:29 phosphorylation wrote:

no one said it's the equipment that defines the photo
stop putting words on people's mouths

On March 24 2010 09:32 tRi[T]oN wrote:


Its often the lens that is more important than the camera but yes, obviously for sports shots you have to have a camera that is capable of a high frame rate. As far as dynamic range is concerned there isnt much difference in a lot of those cameras, its even less important when all you have to do is bracket the shot and use HDR in PS or similar program. People complaining about blurring stuff for no reason are just not really aware that not every photo is meant to be perfectly sharp everywhere, thats why there is shallow/deep depth of focus. everyone has their own unique style, or at least something they would like to thing is unique to them.

On March 24 2010 09:35 tRi[T]oN wrote:


while the D40 is not a bad camera, it is entry level and I'm sure any professional photographer considers it a joke

That was said by minus_human above, the fact that someone would consider something a joke in their profession would imply that they would not use it in order to create a decent photograph therefore he IMPLIED that the camera makes the photo. so please shhh.

On March 24 2010 09:49 minus_human wrote:



I don't understand your logic. The most expensive cameras have a DEFINITE edge over cheaper ones, it's how life works. A photographer who is a professional would use the best gear available/affordable (excluding sentimental affiliations to certain brands/products which although not rare, still are an exception).

It would feel for them as it would feel for me to pick up a $200 dollars point-and-shoot after 2 years of using the Canon Rebel XTi.

Also for your knowledge, lone professional photographers who use really low-tech equipment are a definite exception, most people remove as much of the technical limits as possible.

It's not that the camera makes the photo, it's that people who make good photos prefer good cameras. Good photos CAN be made with cheap cameras, but those are rarities and there certainly are FIELDS of photography where no matter how good you are, without the technology, your talent cannot materialize into art.

On March 24 2010 09:55 phosphorylation wrote:

only i got my used xti for 220 dollars

On March 24 2010 09:42 tRi[T]oN wrote:
maybe this will make things clear.
I want to race a car:

car a = joke:
+ Show Spoiler +

car b = decent
+ Show Spoiler +

On March 24 2010 08:17 minus_human wrote:



actually more like this




while the D40 is not a bad camera, it is entry level and I'm sure any professional photographer considers it a joke

On March 24 2010 11:51 NeverGG wrote:


LOL I did most of my early photography for eSports using a D40X and some of my more recent concert photos. The EOS5D blows it away in terms of coping with low lighting and allowing me to edit my photos using massive/HQ raws.

I'd punch someone's granny for a 1D Mark II though :/

On March 24 2010 11:40 ShaperofDreams wrote:
Phosphorylation where is your portfolio and who do you work for?

I smell jealousy in lethal amounts. It is when people are jealous that they criticize a photographer for "sensationalist" photos, even after they know that these shots were taken for an extreme sports magazine which needs its front page to be flashy as fuck.

When you consider what the guy was hired for he was doing his job perfectly. This is not for a gallery and even then I still proclaim that those photos are beautiful. You'd have to be pretty blind not to be visually attracted to those photos.

Also people saying that "camera isn't that important blahblah" people know you need skill, but frankly it can't be bad to have a better camera.

On March 24 2010 11:40 ShaperofDreams wrote:
Phosphorylation where is your portfolio and who do you work for?

I smell jealousy in lethal amounts. It is when people are jealous that they criticize a photographer for "sensationalist" photos, even after they know that these shots were taken for an extreme sports magazine which needs its front page to be flashy as fuck.

When you consider what the guy was hired for he was doing his job perfectly. This is not for a gallery and even then I still proclaim that those photos are beautiful. You'd have to be pretty blind not to be visually attracted to those photos.

Also people saying that "camera isn't that important blahblah" people know you need skill, but frankly it can't be bad to have a better camera.

On March 24 2010 12:49 ShaperofDreams wrote:
you do realize this guy just got old enough to drink right?

Also what you linked was mostly action shots and tacky looking imo.