Jeanette Thompson wrote:

You'd really hate my photos then .  Of course, one of these days, I'll have lighting figured out MUCH better.  I'm still learning though.

Hey, no problem! We're all learning, right? Try moving your subjects further from the background and use an off-camera flash for starters. Also, I highly reccomend you pick up a book on lighting and start experimenting. It is possible to defeat the evil outline shadow, but I still get it myself at times.

  -P-

mrclay2000 wrote:

I said I hate white sky and I do. This picture is neither splotchy or in deep silhouette as I spoke about, so it doesn't fit my "lecture."

You can start about tacky photoshop techniques on another thread. . .

I'm sure he means stuff like this:

Marko Cecic-Karuzic wrote:
Ya want white skies? Ya got 'em.

http://www.macstein.us/markophoto/portf … t+Thompson

Gee, what was I thinking? LOL

I'd show you the advertorial catelog I shot last week. White skies and shadows all over the model's face, but you might feint.

I personally think some splotchy shadows could have saved these pics..

mrclay2000 wrote:
I'm usually hesitant about offering criticism even when asked also.

My original post spoke clearly about my personal dislikes. I seriously doubt (despite the majority in opposition here) that what I said is off the mark. When a portrait photograph IS the shadow, is that worth looking at? When splotchy under-tree sunlight checkers the subject, is that worth applauding? These are my points. So far all I read are counter shots. . .

No one wants to comment on what I said specifically. No one.

Well in my art classes Clay you would have gotten a failing grade for breaking compositional rules but no one is pointing that out to you.  Be careful of critiquing others for rules that you also are not paying attention to.  Man who live in glass house should not throw stones lol!

Marko Cecic-Karuzic wrote:
Digital, I'm sure that's what he means. The thing is, when people begin by telling neophytes the camera club rules of what not to do, the neophyte's mind closes to expressiveness. As I said, I think rules are simply defense against bad picture-making by people without much to express, or lacking in visual intuition as to how to express something.

I agree.  I prefer to call the "Rules" suggestions.  Because when you think about them, they are doing the most important thing for a photographer.  Making them THINK.  Like the "Rule of Thirds"  It does tend to make photos more interesting when you take it into consideration.  That doesn't meant you can't center you shot...it's merely a suggestion.

mrclay2000 wrote:
We all have our individual styles, our likes and dislikes, but on a short list of HORRORS in photography I have the following: (1) splotchy under-tree shadows on upper torso and face (like a senior picture gone foul); (2) face blackened by shadow because bright light was put behind subject; and (3) white sky in the background.

I detest the first two especially, two of the easiest things to prevent in outdoor photography. I recently told a model that too much of her port fell prey to these two cardinal sins, and she said: "Thanks! I'll tell my photographers not to [repeat the mistake] next time." Her photographers should already know and observe this cardinal rule. For outdoor work, the golden rule is: don't allow shadows in unless they enhance the picture.

Too many MM and other online photographers are only too proud to offer their leafy-splotchy portraits and dark outdoor silhouettes as proof of their mastery of photography.

Cardinal Sins?... Oh My....

How about the Cardinal Sins of thinking *I* know what's right and what's wrong?

What about shooting models so their legs look much heavier than they really are?

Isn't *that* a Cardinal Sin?

One should not throw stones if one lives in a glass house...

Andrea Barnett wrote:
What I find humorous?? Look at the photographers that posted in here that are actually WORKING... in magazines, ads, for agencies ect... (ie Eric Striffler, Roberto Aguilar, Marko Cecic-Karuzic, Chip Willis) They ALL disagree with the initial post.... coincidence? I dont think so... The initial post is absolutly silly. Rules are mean to be broken. If everybody kept to your "rules" their photography would all look like yours... we would lose the art in photography, and Lord knows we dont want either of those things to happen. hugs and kissies. andrea.

Word!

mrclay2000 wrote:

Well, I stick with what I said in my post and will answer to what I said in my post. I had intended this post for the English-language forum but forum postings go haywire generally after the first few responses.

Camera club mentalities. . .there are rules of course (rule of thirds etc) but if we confine ourselves to these we stay confined. The post was against splotchy shadowy under tree work and faces badly darkened out because the sunlight was harsh (find me someone who insists this is "fine" and I'll respond). Secondarily I remarked about disliking/hating white skies.

I think it was your WHITE SKYs comment that got the attention. no one really argued the spotted shadows.

Jay Bowman wrote:
I find "rules of photography" revulsive...

a "rule" I was taught by one of my painting instructors was "learn the rules then you'll know how to break them effectively."

mrclay2000 wrote:
Too many MM and other online photographers are only too proud to offer their leafy-splotchy portraits and dark outdoor silhouettes as proof of their mastery of photography.

FabioTovar wrote:
I think it was your WHITE SKYs comment that got the attention. no one really argued the spotted shadows.

Not the best example of leafy-splotchy shadows (it was a windy day; and I didn't get them exactly where I wanted them), but the splotchy shadows aren't what's ruining the photo, either--the other flaws do that. (I wanted those leafy-splotchy shadows!)



As for the "rule of thirds"--how many people know the underlying principles, and how many follow it blindly? Rudolf Arnheim's Art and Visual Perception, A Psychology of the Creative Eye does a great job of covering the introductory level of the many "rules" we're taught.

Chip Morton wrote:
"Things I Find Revulsive in Photography"

The fact that no one has come up with darkroom safe lights that also work as tanning lights.
Then you could have darkroom workshops in beach attire. Co-ed, of course.

WTF? Now that`s funny as hell................

UdoR wrote:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dict.a … =Revulsive

Re`vul´sive
a.1.    Causing, or tending to, revulsion.
n.1.    (Med.) That which causes revulsion; specifically (Med.), a revulsive remedy or agent.

Thank you, I stand corrected.

fotorat wrote:

Although I highly disagree with his thread..the word is in the dictionary.

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/revulsive

Thank you also, I stand corrected.

mrclay2000 wrote:
It might not have been as clear as I would have wished, but the "white sky" was strictly a preference not a rule. In sum, I (generally) dislike white sky in pictures. Not a rule.

On the splotchy shadows, CMH posted an image that fits what I meant exactly. Everyone seems to overlook that I wrote "don't let the shadow in unless it enhances the photo." Photographers might disagree what enhances etc but I think few would applaud the general splotchy-shadowy under-tree shot. I made no mention about using shadows deliberately to enhance, or studio lighting to enhance, or backlighting to enhance. . .

As for my pomposity, yes I'm sure it came across that way. I used the word "rule" and suddenly I'm in the crosshairs as a self-appointed lecturer. Anyway, for better or worse, I meant to lecture no one -- only to point out that one of the worst mistakes (in my mind) seems the easiest to avoid. I think I would have gotten less venom if the original post had been read a little more closely.

Back to my tacky PS work. . .

WARNING!: Images contain copious amounts of 'white sky' and/ or 'burned lighting' that may cause some photographers to feel nauseous, weak or dizzy. Certain rules may or may not have been broken in the creation of these images. The photographer nor model is not responsible for those whom may react or reject the outcome of these pictures as displayed on this or any other website which displays them . If you do experience any of these symptoms or any related symptoms, please contact your nearest camera club for immediate counseling to re-establish the 'general rules of photography that everyone knows' for the regainment of the photographers sanity and future capabilities to operate a camera within the parameters of these 'general rules'.

Tim Hammond wrote:
Sunday morning lectures about cardinal rules and the one right way to think -- thanks for reminding me why I left Oklahoma.

LMAO