AdamtheJohnson wrote:
shoot MySpace style, don't know a thing about lighting or composition (i mean, formally trained, of course) and are not 'professionals' in any sense, and ARE STILL DAMN GOOD.

I guess that depends how easy you are satisfied with a photo. Btw, I am by no means formally trained and surprise myself often enough how my photos come out! I, somehow, just "feel the photo" when it's right to push the shutter.

But, "MySpace" style, no clue about lighting, no clue about composition, I wonder if you and I speak the same language (English is my second language!) where "still damn' good" has a similar meaning...

AdamtheJohnson wrote:


All in good fun, but let's face it, there are plenty of photographers on this site that don't have any gear whatsoever, shoot MySpace style, don't know a thing about lighting or composition (i mean, formally trained, of course) and are not 'professionals' in any sense, and ARE STILL DAMN GOOD.

So who do you think fits the bill. (Remember folks, these are COMPLIMENTS TO YOUR UNIQUE STYLE, not put downs)

I vogte for Le Art Throb -- MM #6599

Well I have a bit of gear, my own basic lights, an EOS 20d (but most of my stuff was done on an EOS 300 film camera) and now two decent lenses. I didn't spend a fortune on it, but it works. No idea what myspace style is so I'll skip that one. I've had no formal training just a one day course to find out what all the number meant. I'm not a professional i have a day job, but i try and take the best picture I can, and I have a professional demaour to the models.

Am I damn good. Well I have a few adoring fans, is that good enough so can I vote for me ) please!!!!

Lexi Evans wrote:
i have never seen so many people wanting to be clueless! usually alot of people think they know everything!

No, Lexi;

I think it's more about the very technical aspect of photography.
Where most people want to give the impression of being knowledgable is aspects of the "industry"...

Oh... and if I knew every little technical aspects of photography... I could teach photography as a side income... but since I can't always explain how I am doing it..., that could be ending up in an unruly class, with me stuttering and stumbling, gasping for words...

Melvin Moten Jr wrote:
At the risk of sounding arrogant, nobody on MM has made serendipity and happenstance the core element of their work the way I have.  I defy you to find anyone who relies more on random chance to acheive their creative goals.

i don't come close to rivaling your quality and probably not your spontanaiety either, but i have begun to make a pattern of "winging it" with decent results. so *thumbs up* to serendipity.

Lexi Evans wrote:
i have never seen so many people wanting to be clueless! usually alot of people think they know everything!

I don't know everything, but I am always right.

DigitalCMH wrote:

I don't know everything, but I am always right.

Amen. Working for me so far.

Tony Lawrence wrote:
There's a somewhat well known photographer on this site.  He knows photography
at least from the technical side.  I believe he attended a photography school.
His work is always well exposed and sharp and he produces the same life less
crap each and every time.  I rather watch paint dry then see his work.  At times
he asks for critiques and I truly want to say,  this image is the same as the other
hundred you showed us.

Good God, I hope it's not me. Oh wait....that's right, I never had the pleasure of being stuck in a box through 'schooling'.

Tony Lawrence wrote:
There's a somewhat well known photographer on this site.  He knows photography
at least from the technical side.  I believe he attended a photography school.
His work is always well exposed and sharp and he produces the same life less
crap each and every time.  I rather watch paint dry then see his work.  At times
he asks for critiques and I truly want to say,  this image is the same as the other
hundred you showed us.

Why not?  Do it, but be nice about it.  Challenge him and may be he'll try pushing himself and do something new.

Michael Kirst wrote:

Good God, I hope it's not me. Oh wait....that's right, I never had the pleasure of being stuck in a box through 'schooling'.

Mike, your work has life and energy.  The person I'm speaking of never leaves
his studio which is cool but give us something besides a different background.
Don't get me wrong he's a master of what he does and I'm not saying I'm a
better photographer.  He reminds me of those sharp dressed guys.  Who
have the same suit in mostly the same color.

Melvin Moten Jr wrote:
At the risk of sounding arrogant, nobody on MM has made serendipity and happenstance the core element of their work the way I have.  I defy you to find anyone who relies more on random chance to acheive their creative goals.

Well, Melvin;

I am not sure if I understand what exactly you are doing... but when I go on a shoot, especially my editorial fashion shoots, I usually have only a faint concept of what I am going to do, and get inspired by the environment as we walk by.

That's pretty random for me!

T H Taylor wrote:
Art/accident...
It's all the same to me.

When it can be replicated in masses, it loses some of the artistic quality.

"No art without chaos, no life without art..."  - Someone

UdoR wrote:

Well, Melvin;

I am not sure if I understand what exactly you are doing... but when I go on a shoot, especially my editorial fashion shoots, I usually have only a faint concept of what I am going to do, and get inspired by the environment as we walk by.

That's pretty random for me!

Granted, but you actually use cameras that were made this century...While I, for the most part, do not.

Melvin Moten Jr wrote:

Granted, but you actually use cameras that were made this century...While I, for the most part, do not.

LOL... yeah, my D70 and D70s were made in this century, but until last year April, I also shot only with cameras that were made last century...

AdamtheJohnson wrote:


All in good fun, but let's face it, there are plenty of photographers on this site that don't have any gear whatsoever, shoot MySpace style, don't know a thing about lighting or composition (i mean, formally trained, of course) and are not 'professionals' in any sense, and ARE STILL DAMN GOOD.

So who do you think fits the bill. (Remember folks, these are COMPLIMENTS TO YOUR UNIQUE STYLE, not put downs)

I vogte for Le Art Throb -- MM #6599

ummmm, I took at look at Le Art Throb and the vast majority of those images follow the basic rules of composition and the use of color is obviously well thought out, no surprise this is a painter's work. If you feel like this person does not have a clue, you should probably look again. Just because they have a snap shot feel the photographer is clueless? IMHO That feel works perfectly with the vibe and intention of this artists work.

Daniel Norton wrote:

ummmm, I took at look at Le Art Throb and the vast majority of those images follow the basic rules of composition and the use of color is obviously well thought out, no surprise this is a painter's work. If you feel like this person does not have a clue, you should probably look again. Just because they have a snap shot feel the photographer is clueless? IMHO That feel works perfectly with the vibe and intention of this artists work.

Way to misinterpret everything I said.