Interesting article if you ignore the title.

Phil V

Phil V

Suspended / Banned
Messages
26,303
Name
Phil
Edit My Images
No
I'm not going to defend the title - I don't agree that it's a 'pro vs amateur' issue.
But it's definitely a 'how to look at the world' thing, I know when I first started I used to whinge that my subjects were never as pretty, my locations were scruffy etc. The reality is that great pictures are made in the 10" behind the camera.

How to deal with 'ugly' locations
 
I see a lot of vignetting and therefore I guess a lot of trickery lighting :-) Thought provoking though.
 
Phil V said:
I don't agree that it's a 'pro vs amateur' issue.
Click to expand...


Well, I do and I don't!

Let's say this it take a serious enthusiast that has the
working experience AND some gear prior to SR as
well as in post since such pictures are only partially
taken and more elaborately made.
 
he is saying.....
Get close
Get to the subjects height
Get Action
Get interesting light. or add it.
 
It's funny you should raise this Phil. A few months ago a shot a wedding in London. Being a rather large town there's quite lot of concrete about and sometimes little in the way of a pleasing background. But at this particular location I managed to find an area of foliage that I thought would work as a background for some family photos. It was tight and behind the foliage was an ugly office building. But if I watched where I put them and framed tight I knew it would work (and the sun was behind the people too which was my other main consideration). Lo & behold one of the "best-women" had a go at me for the "ugly office building". In my mind I simply said "you ain't seeing what I'm seeing lady"!

This little anecdote is one of many I could mention where some smart arse has called me out on my choice of location.

And this article pretty much does the same thing. I don't think it matters if you're a pro or amateur in this case, but I'd love non photographers to have a read and realise what they are missing and what we are seeing.
 
He's thinking about perspective and white balance more and he's exposing for his main subject and using wider apertures but he's blowing his highlights more :D
 
I noticed a lot of vignetting too (not a criticism). I've been put off adding vignetting, simply because of this forum. There seems to be a lot of negativity about it (or maybe it's just that's the bit that sticks in my head). I really need to start thinking about what I like and not what I think others will like.
With regards to the link, It's an interesting read and look, there is definitely a difference between experience and inexperience, but i think more importantly, vision is the key (as shown in the article). I don't know if it's something that can be taught or if it's gained via practice and experiment.
 
Nostromo said:
I noticed a lot of vignetting too (not a criticism). I've been put off adding vignetting, simply because of this forum. There seems to be a lot of negativity about it (or maybe it's just that's the bit that sticks in my head). I really need to start thinking about what I like and not what I think others will like.
With regards to the link, It's an interesting read and look, there is definitely a difference between experience and inexperience, but i think more importantly, vision is the key (as shown in the article). I don't know if it's something that can be taught or if it's gained via practice and experiment.
Click to expand...
I think it can be learned, but often photographers believe the 'can't' learn the softer skills, it's why they're at their happiest talking about sharpness and exposure triangles.

As for vignetting - knock yourself out. IMHO you're only 'doing it wrong' when people (not photographers) comment on your colours and vignetting etc rather than the subject.
 
woof woof said:
He's thinking about perspective and white balance more and he's exposing for his main subject and using wider apertures but he's blowing his highlights more :D
Click to expand...

As portrait photographers if you're worried about blown skies you're gonna end up with a lot of boring images. Sure for landscapers it's a big deal but not so much for portraits. Some of the images in this article are lovely.
 
ryanyboy said:
As portrait photographers if you're worried about blown skies you're gonna end up with a lot of boring images. Sure for landscapers it's a big deal but not so much for portraits. Some of the images in this article are lovely.
Click to expand...

I agree, if it's an artistic choice to blow the highlights then I'll do it but mostly my post was a :D as at least the amateur didn't blow the highlights :D
 
Phil V said:
As for vignetting - knock yourself out. IMHO you're only 'doing it wrong' when people (not photographers) comment on your colours and vignetting etc rather than the subject.
Click to expand...
The main difference here is that the professional has to make sure he sells whilst the amateur has to be happy if the photograph is on the wall and s/he likes it. The examples we saw are nice for the parents and grandparents, "awe hoe cute how sweet" etc. and they will buy the photos. However, the before images are really pretty bad snapshots, you don't have to be a professional to get low down (and in my case not get up again) and you don't have to be a professional to get nearer the subject. The rest is eye-candy, some will like it some not but a lot will depend on their personal interest in the subject matter.
 
The biggest difference I see, and it's one that wasn't mentioned/may not be obvious, is that he apparently got a long FL lens somewhere along the way to becoming "professional." And I do think that tends to be one of the later things a photographer learns, how a long FL can (often) do a better job of isolating the subject and deal with distracting BG's better than shooting at f/1.x can.
 
sk66 said:
The biggest difference I see, and it's one that wasn't mentioned/may not be obvious, is that he apparently got a long FL lens somewhere along the way to becoming "professional." And I do think that tends to be one of the later things a photographer learns, how a long FL can (often) do a better job of isolating the subject and deal with distracting BG's better than shooting at f/1.x can.
Click to expand...

This is exactly what I was thinking.

The only difference I can see is a long lens and he obviously bought photoshop and learned a bit of PP.
 
This article was re-hashed by the Daily Mail too (see here)
But interesting that for someone who said they only started taking photography seriously 2 years ago they are now using the articles to sell their "$850 value" course for free. Great publicity.

There are a few decent take-away points though. Get down on the kids level. Change your shooting position.
What isn't stated is that he obviously learnt how to process the photos.
The article does state "I bought a cheap $30 lens" but doesn't say what it was because it does look like it was a longer lens.
 
ABTog said:
This article was re-hashed by the Daily Mail too (see here)
But interesting that for someone who said they only started taking photography seriously 2 years ago they are now using the articles to sell their "$850 value" course for free. Great publicity.

There are a few decent take-away points though. Get down on the kids level. Change your shooting position.
What isn't stated is that he obviously learnt how to process the photos.
The article does state "I bought a cheap $30 lens" but doesn't say what it was because it does look like it was a longer lens.
Click to expand...


Looks a bit like it was a Russian Helios as all the photos have heavy vignette and a swirly bokeh character, and clearly he likes radial filters and a warm WB but I agree he makes some good points. I really like the first 'pro' shot with the chickens.
 
ABTog said:
This article was re-hashed by the Daily Mail too (see here)
But interesting that for someone who said they only started taking photography seriously 2 years ago they are now using the articles to sell their "$850 value" course for free. Great publicity.

There are a few decent take-away points though. Get down on the kids level. Change your shooting position.
What isn't stated is that he obviously learnt how to process the photos.
The article does state "I bought a cheap $30 lens" but doesn't say what it was because it does look like it was a longer lens.
Click to expand...
This other article of his gives the information about the camera.
http://www.boredpanda.com/10-photos...expensive-camera-to-take-professional-photos/
 
I wish I hadn't clicked that link. Now my eyes hurt and I feel sick! :eek:

It has nothing to do with developing a way of seeing, it's all about using 'tricks of the trade' to make pretty pictures. Eye candy. Nothing more.

NB Pookeyhead hasn't hacked my account! :LOL: :LOL: :LOL:
 
Orangecroc said:
This other article of his gives the information about the camera.
http://www.boredpanda.com/10-photos...expensive-camera-to-take-professional-photos/
Click to expand...

So there's a second Bored Panda article by him as well then.

Anyway, that says he got a Canon t2i (ie a 550D) and "Panasonic 50mm 1.7". Now as far as I know, Panasonic have only made lenses for Micro 4/3 mount, which means that it won't work on a crop sensor DSLR. So either he's talking rubbish or he's mixed up. Perhaps he was talking about an old Carl Zeiss Pancolar 50mm lens...
 
ABTog said:
So there's a second Bored Panda article by him as well then.

Anyway, that says he got a Canon t2i (ie a 550D) and "Panasonic 50mm 1.7". Now as far as I know, Panasonic have only made lenses for Micro 4/3 mount, which means that it won't work on a crop sensor DSLR. So either he's talking rubbish or he's mixed up. Perhaps he was talking about an old Carl Zeiss Pancolar 50mm lens...
Click to expand...
Probably means the 25mm 1.7 on an adapter.
Edit: That would explain the vignetting too.
 
Last edited:
I'd like to see the same PP applied to the "amateur" pictures. I see is the lower angle, more staged scenes and PP.
 
I'd like to see the PP Magic performed by those who put the success of those images down to the guy learning how to process.:thinking:

Anyone?
 
How I used to see.How I see now. The difference between the two being how to use photoshop to alter photos!. Not exactly Ansel Adams.
 
shapeshifter said:
How I used to see.How I see now. The difference between the two being how to use photoshop to alter photos!. Not exactly Ansel Adams.
Click to expand...
Really?

Have you an example of something similar you've done?

I'm just throwing this out there, but I see a different viewpoint, different lens, different exposure and different DoF.... then there's a little OTT processing.


It's been said before but processing is about the last 5%, any photographer who believes it's more than that will never achieve a decent image, because they're concentrating their effort in the wrong place.

BTW I don't believe these images are amazing, but they do show that you can create a great image in a testing environment, which is auseful lesson.
 
Thing is, he is taking the 'how I used to see things' now, as a pro ... those versions don't look processed in any way. So I think how you process an image has a lot to do with it, on top of other factor such as shooting from better perspectives, using better lenses and on camera settings, knowing how to get the best from the available light and knowing how you want it to end up looking post processing. Some of the 'after' images are lovely for sure, but it looks like he used the same c&p process for them all.
 
Phil V said:
Really?

Have you an example of something similar you've done?

I'm just throwing this out there, but I see a different viewpoint, different lens, different exposure and different DoF.... then there's a little OTT processing.


It's been said before but processing is about the last 5%, any photographer who believes it's more than that will never achieve a decent image, because they're concentrating their effort in the wrong place.

BTW I don't believe these images are amazing, but they do show that you can create a great image in a testing environment, which is auseful lesson.
Click to expand...
Why do I have to have an example of something similar I have done. That has nothing to do with anything. You really do take things personal.
 
I guess the issue I have with this is that the majority of the impact (for me) is in the PP and not in the perspective. For me it's the opposite of a "little OTT". Perhaps others see the change in composition and can learn from it. I see a good (and too heavy for me) Photoshopper. Brightness, shadow recovery, yellow split toning etc. He's a bit of an expert at it (same guy posting here: http://www.boredpanda.com/i-used-ph...ne-photo-you-wont-believe-its-the-same-photo/) (not hiding clickbaity link)
 
Harlequin565 said:
I guess the issue I have with this is that the majority of the impact (for me) is in the PP and not in the perspective. For me it's the opposite of a "little OTT". Perhaps others see the change in composition and can learn from it. I see a good (and too heavy for me) Photoshopper. Brightness, shadow recovery, yellow split toning etc. He's a bit of an expert at it (same guy posting here: http://www.boredpanda.com/i-used-ph...ne-photo-you-wont-believe-its-the-same-photo/) (not hiding clickbaity link)
Click to expand...
To me no amount of PP can substitute the getting down at eyelevel or lower and get in close I see as the most important differences between the good and the bad shots. Also looks like some of them benefitted from the use of flash
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Harlequin565 said:
I guess the issue I have with this is that the majority of the impact (for me) is in the PP and not in the perspective. For me it's the opposite of a "little OTT". Perhaps others see the change in composition and can learn from it. I see a good (and too heavy for me) Photoshopper. Brightness, shadow recovery, yellow split toning etc. He's a bit of an expert at it (same guy posting here: http://www.boredpanda.com/i-used-ph...ne-photo-you-wont-believe-its-the-same-photo/) (not hiding clickbaity link)
Click to expand...

Completely agree. The before pics look like my mum took them on her iphone, not processed or given any thought at all. It's barely worth comparing them. I understand why he is showing them but it makes no sens to compare them to the "pro" ones.
 
I amazed that many on here see the major difference in the compare shots to be PP only. Massively different poses and perspectives. Do poster really think the only difference in the first two is all down to PP. I guess they must be the type of photographer who believe any photo, regardless of how bad it is, can be saved in PS or Lightroom.
 
shapeshifter said:
Why do I have to have an example of something similar I have done. That has nothing to do with anything. You really do take things personal.
Click to expand...
You're misunderstanding me as much as you are the article if you think I'm taking this personally.

It's simple, the article is about making the most of what's there by changing our behaviour before we take the picture.

It's supposed to teach people starting out that a little thought and planning can vastly improve an image.

Everyone suggesting the improvement owes more to the processing are both:
Objectively incorrect
Perpetuating the myth that vision and camera craft is less important than PP skills.

Now if you want to 'prove' either me or the article to be wrong, then the best way to do that is post your own example.

Not personal, not argumentative, just trying to keep it 'factual'.
 
Craigus said:
Completely agree. The before pics look like my mum took them on her iphone, not processed or given any thought at all. It's barely worth comparing them. I understand why he is showing them but it makes no sens to compare them to the "pro" ones.
Click to expand...
Again, I did suggest you ignore the 'pro' vs 'amateur' headline and concentrate on the difference between what your mum would take with a smartphone and what a 'photographer can find' in the same situation.
There's an awful lot of camera owners closer to the former, and that's the point of posting it.
 
The post processing in these images is skewing the vision of what could make the image better.

If we take the first shot for example, a comparison could have been done from the same low down perspective but highlighting the difference between shooting at say F11 and then at f2.8. If you shoot low down at F11 you will still likely get the foreground and background in focus and thus create a very distracting composition, shoot at F2.8 and you instantly get the isolation of the subject and a more pleasing composition and that's before any PP.

Creative shooting should be born in mind at the time of shooting and not solely left to the computer to polish the proverbial
 
Last edited by a moderator:
jakeblu said:
I amazed that many on here see the major difference in the compare shots to be PP only. Massively different poses and perspectives. Do poster really think the only difference in the first two is all down to PP. I guess they must be the type of photographer who believe any photo, regardless of how bad it is, can be saved in PS or Lightroom.
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone really thinks it's down to PP alone - lower angles, shallower DoF are apparent, as is the placing of the subject / camera relative to the light source where possible; he's definitely seeking out the best set of circumstances for a given scene - BUT his after style is heavily impacted by his post processing, really heavily. Those 'after' shots can't be created by the natural light in most cases - they are significantly 'improved' further by his skills as a post processor.

As you would expect really - it's a signifiant part of his brand, and it not really an article - more of an advert! Take from it what you will - I certainly recognise some of the before shots from my early days, and still to this day when I get lazy I'll come home and be disappointed - good reminder to spend a bit more time looking for the unusual or interesting.
 
stupar said:
The post processing in these images is skewing the vision of what could make the image better.

If we take the first shot for example, a comparison could have been done from the same low down perspective but highlighting the difference between shooting at say F11 and then at f2.8. If you shoot low down at F11 you will still likely get the foreground and background in focus and thus create a very distracting composition, shoot at F2.8 and you instantly get the isolation of the subject and a more pleasing composition and that's before any PP.

Creative shooting should be born in mind at the time of shooting and not solely left to the computer to polish the proverbial
Click to expand...

Same photographer - slightly more representative photo's - similar angles etc...
http://www.boredpanda.com/6-photos-...teaching-myself-photography-last-year-to-now/
 
Furtim said:
I don't think anyone really thinks it's down to PP alone - lower angles, shallower DoF are apparent, as is the placing of the subject / camera relative to the light source where possible; he's definitely seeking out the best set of circumstances for a given scene - BUT his after style is heavily impacted by his post processing, really heavily. Those 'after' shots can't be created by the natural light in most cases - they are significantly 'improved' further by his skills as a post processor.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. I think those "pro" shots (not concentrating on that word, just using it to describe which I mean) straight out the camera would be almost as underwhelming as the "amateur" shots.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top