e-string wrote:

Ooh me! I just love his artistic vision of how money is more important than anything else.

artistic vision is not free !

Melissa Lynnette wrote:
Not my cash, but I certainly would line up to give him something else. 

ETA:  Oh and Robert, the highest form of compliment/flattery is imitation, not payment.

Thank you but I won’t be taking that “something else” I don’t exchange sexual acts for photography cash will do.

D Robert Gray wrote:
artistic vision is not free !

Then how is it that I've worked with some of the best artistic photographers in the midwest, and I never paid a dime?

Troll.

D Robert Gray wrote:
its an activex snipit that I wrote

Well, I'm with Brian on the idea that it is a form of spam.

D Robert Gray wrote:
What the hell is an umbrella light ooh that’s some type of strobe or hot light with a umbrella as a light modifier.

Hmmmyeahhh...

Two umbrellas, commerical assignment for someone who designed sets for Vogue and is 30 years in the business. Got paid, model got paid, full page ads were running in various publications.

Everybody was happy despite 2 GWC Brand umbrellas (or were they Westcott?)

D Robert Gray wrote:

Brain

My point was that using the term umbrella light Vs strobe or hot light with an umbrella. Not that use of slang terminology will make one a bad photographer, is the PERCEPTION I am referring to

Okay, if I understand you correctly, you think that "umbrella light" is slang for "some type of strobe or hot light with a umbrella as a light modifier," and use of such slang makes one look like a bad photographer.

Is this correct?

Ched wrote:

Well, I'm with Brian on the idea that it is a form of spam.

Not only that, but it has auto-hijacked this thread, and will do so in every other thread in which he posts.

UdoR wrote:
Hmmmyeahhh...

Two umbrellas, commerical assignment for someone who designed sets for Vogue and is 30 years in the business. Got paid, model got paid, full page ads were running in various publications.

Everybody was happy despite 2 GWC Brand umbrellas (or were they Westcott?)

The original post was about terminology. If you said to your assistant go get two “umbrella lights” and bring them to me what would her or she return with ?

An umbrella?
A hot light and umbrella?
A strobe and an umbrella?
A flashlight and a umbrella?
A 40oz a bag of skins an a umbrella?

The post is not about the validity of an umbrella as a light modifier but about the perception when using slang terminology

Brian Diaz wrote:

Okay, if I understand you correctly, you think that "umbrella light" is slang for "some type of strobe or hot light with a umbrella as a light modifier," and use of such slang makes one look like a bad photographer.

Is this correct?

oui

D Robert Gray wrote:

Thank you but I won’t be taking that “something else” I don’t exchange sexual acts for photography cash will do.

That was hilarious.  No really, it was.  However, I don't exchange sexual acts for modelling.  The something else I was referring to was much less pleasant.

D Robert Gray wrote:

The original post was about terminology. If you said to your assistant go get two “umbrella lights” and bring them to me what would her or she return with ?

An umbrella?
A hot light and umbrella?
A strobe and an umbrella?
A flashlight and a umbrella?
A 40oz a bag of skins an a umbrella?

The post is not about the validity of an umbrella as a light modifier but about the perception when using slang terminology

I am pretty clear when I give instructions... in that case I said:

"Can you please bring me the two umbrellas, strobes and the lightstands?

Thank you."

UdoR wrote:

I am pretty clear when I give instructions... in that case I said:

"Can you please bring me the two umbrellas, strobes and the lightstands?

Thank you."

No, that's totally unclear.  Maybe you mean a Speedlight.  Or maybe you mean an Alien Bee strobe.  Or a Profoto.  But maybe you'll say that you want the Profoto and your assistant is so confused by your slang, instead of using the Pro-7b with the rest of your gear, she runs out and rents an Acute2 1200.  And then comes the confusion of which heads to use!

Oh, Discordia!

D Robert Gray wrote:
My auto signature inserted in all my post. Its my anti TFP PSA

MM doesn't have an auto-sig feature. You have to copy and paste it each time. You're just advertising.

D Robert Gray wrote:

artistic vision is not free !

shue it is...It has been shared for years...you should study your history!

Brian Diaz wrote:
No, that's totally unclear.  Maybe you mean a Speedlight.  Or maybe you mean an Alien Bee strobe.  Or a Profoto.  But maybe you'll say that you want the Profoto and your assistant is so confused by your slang, instead of using the Pro-7b with the rest of your gear, she runs out and rents an Acute2 1200.  And then comes the confusion of which heads to use!

Oh, Discordia!

This is why I just point and grunt. Pretty clear communication as long as peopel assisting me remember that fart noises mean "good" and the fast little shrieks mean "bad."

D Robert Gray wrote:
Brain

My point was that using the term umbrella light Vs strobe or hot light with an umbrella. Not that use of slang terminology will make one a bad photographer, is the PERCEPTION I am referring to

Who would have such a perception? Do you know anyone else who might respond that way?

______
If you don’t think your career is worth the cost of professional models why should I think you are capable of professional images?

Kevin Connery wrote:

Who would have such a perception? Do you know anyone else who might respond that way?

______
If you don’t think your career is worth the cost of professional models why should I think you are capable of professional images?

You have a rather limited viewpoint with regard to having professional results from professional models. My perception is that a professional photographer doesn't need professional models, and can't get professional models, especially if he or she is concentrating on children at play, or children's portraits. They have no modeling expertise whatsoever. Should I therefore believe that nobody should seek out your professional services, only because you have no imagination?  Think, then talk.

caramel delight wrote:

This thread has rendered Caramel Delight speechless!  Not a good sign...

D Robert Gray wrote:
Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah!

______
If you don’t think your career is worth the cost of professional images why should I think you are worthy of professional images?

By chance, are you at all related to "Class Act"???

-Glenn

monte hooper photograph wrote:
Why, when I click his name, do I get "MM #210559 is not a current member."?

They must have booted him for the "spam".

Kevin Connery wrote:
_____
If you don’t think your career is worth the cost of professional models why should I think you are capable of professional images?

Stanley Saxon wrote:
You have a rather limited viewpoint with regard to having professional results from professional models. My perception is that a professional photographer doesn't need professional models, and can't get professional models, especially if he or she is concentrating on children at play, or children's portraits. They have no modeling expertise whatsoever. Should I therefore believe that nobody should seek out your professional services, only because you have no imagination?  Think, then talk.

Consider the context.

The general context for MM is working with models. The statement above is entirely invalid for pets, portraiture, weddings, product, journalism, sports, landscapes, macro, and any number of other fields.

The specific context for this thread musts need include awareness of the discussion regarding the so-called autosig for the OP. In context, the quote you included is a clear parody, even more obviously marked such by the OPs sig divider.

Read, think, then talk.

Kevin Connery wrote:

Kevin Connery wrote:
_____
If you don’t think your career is worth the cost of professional models why should I think you are capable of professional images?

Consider the context.

The general context for MM is working with models. The statement above is entirely invalid for pets, portraiture, weddings, product, journalism, sports, landscapes, macro, and any number of other fields.

The specific context for this thread musts need include awareness of the discussion regarding the so-called autosig for the OP. In context, the quote you included is a clear parody, even more obviously marked such by the OPs sig divider.

Read, think, then talk.

Your discussion on context seems to fall apart, as soon as somebody introduces a highly trained professional model to a poorly trained MM guy-with-a-camera.

Kevin Connery wrote:
Read, think, then talk.

Stanley Saxon wrote:
Your discussion on context seems to fall apart, as soon as somebody introduces a highly trained professional model to a poorly trained MM guy-with-a-camera.

Enjoy!

alexwh wrote:
But just about everybody here has one piece of terminology wrong when you consider that English is a language of extreme precision. Most if not almost all the electronic flash units MMers use are that, electronic flash. Only those that have the capacity to be intermitent at several times per second are technically strobes. Strobes may sound sexier but it is patently incorrect.

As I understand it, a strobe light is a flash lamp that produces high-intensity, short-duration light pulses by electric discharge in a gas.  What you are describing is a stroboscope, which may use such short-duration light pulses to make moving objects appear to be stationary.

Christopher Bush wrote:
i refer to my pics as pics.  i refer to much of my equipment as "that thingy" or "doohickey".

Hell so do I, but what does a name mean, you have the correct terminology.  If you don't know how to use it who cares what you call it.  Then on the other hand you know how to use it, the pictures show, but then you suffer from CRS and can't remember the name.