THE RETURN OF THE GARY FONG!

Annika1980 wrote:
On Jul 25, 2:49 am, 2SQUID wrote:
This is how we shot cake cuttings in 2005 - 2007.http://www.douglasjames.com.au/examples/cut-cake.htm

Where the heck is the filing cabinet?


Forget the filing cabinet, what about the stray plate with something on
it, parked beside the cake? And where are the bridesmaids' bouquets
which should be arranged to encircle the cake?

Doug displays a very common problem with inexperienced photogs; he
doesn't seem to see any distracting elements that might be in shot at
the time of shooting, and neither he nor his assistant (whose job it
really is) appear to see such things as extraneous items, or missing
things like bouquets.

I remember one wedding I did, where my wife (whom I affectionately
called my 'gadget bag', because she did the meter readings, carried the
extra lenses and bodies etc) in her role of scene watcher and people
organizer, realized there were no flowers at all, and asked where they
were, to the consternation of the wedding party. Somebody had forgotten
to get them from the florist, and nobody had noticed ...

Colin D.

On 7/25/08 4:19 PM, in article ,
"2SQUID" wrote:

George Kerby wrote:


On 7/25/08 1:49 AM, in article ,
"2SQUID" wrote:

Jeff R. wrote:
Robert Coe wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 12:48:49 +1000, "Jeff R."
wrote:
Bob, you probably missed it, but Douggie took the opportunity to
jump in very early in the thread tomake a stupid observation which
demonstarted that he hadn't read the post. "Your flash must've been
on a six-feet long pole" or words to that effect.

Most attacks on Doug are defensive responses. This was one of those.
How do you figure that? Bret's sneering reference to Doug was in his
original post and obviously preceded Doug's puerile response.

Bob
"Sneering" responses to Doug are perfectly appropriate. The nature of
his messages here (and elsewhere) deserve no better.
In this thread though, the fact remains that Dog made an ignorant and
abusive response which demonstrated that he simply hadn't read Bret's
post - or failed to understand it.

Waste no sympathy on D-Mac.
His personal attacks and childish sexual taunts preclude such treatment.

Unless - of course - you are extending human compassion to those who are
truly in need of help and sympathy and pity.

Doug would surely qualify there, and that would be a creditably decent
response.
Just don't expect him to return it in kind.

Bret's example of a cake cutting was something straight out of a 1960s
wedding photographer's standard kit of photos. Other examples he's
posted from time to time of his wedding and portrait skills are from the
same boring era of skill and show not the slightest ounce of
imagination. Proving that when Dad said Bret needed to learn how to take
a decent photo, he was totally (if bluntly) correct. Bret took offence
and the brawl started.

This is how we shot cake cuttings in 2005 - 2007.
http://www.douglasjames.com.au/examples/cut-cake.htm
Nice ceiling, but the chandeliers look pretty cheap.


Yes. That venue is billed as 5 star, $150 a head. I guess the *****
gives them that advantage. I often wonder at how the decorators of these
palaces think. The worst one is Brisbane City Hall.
whhhhooooshhhhhhh

Colin.D wrote:
Annika1980 wrote:
On Jul 25, 2:49 am, 2SQUID wrote:
This is how we shot cake cuttings in 2005 -
2007.http://www.douglasjames.com.au/examples/cut-cake.htm

Where the heck is the filing cabinet?


Forget the filing cabinet, what about the stray plate with something on
it, parked beside the cake? And where are the bridesmaids' bouquets
which should be arranged to encircle the cake?

Doug displays a very common problem with inexperienced photogs; he
doesn't seem to see any distracting elements that might be in shot at
the time of shooting, and neither he nor his assistant (whose job it
really is) appear to see such things as extraneous items, or missing
things like bouquets.

I remember one wedding I did, where my wife (whom I affectionately
called my 'gadget bag', because she did the meter readings, carried the
extra lenses and bodies etc) in her role of scene watcher and people
organizer, realized there were no flowers at all, and asked where they
were, to the consternation of the wedding party. Somebody had forgotten
to get them from the florist, and nobody had noticed ...

Colin D.

Opportunistic photography, sometimes called Photojournalist style,
focuses attention on a key element of a scene. What else is in it is
only noticed by people like you and Bret.

Those interested in the wedding discard visual information they became
accustomed to at the wedding and focus their attention on the principal
subject matter. If either of you knew anything about event recording,
you would know that.

Tell us again Colin what you did in "your day". What is an exposure
meter? Is it anything like the Kelvin meter we use to get absolute white
balance? Maybe it's like the flash meter we use to make sure of even
lighting?

No wait... I remember. It is an invaluable piece of kit to determine the
setting our cameras are very accurate and extremely fast doing
transparently. I often see them in curio and collector sales. You can
even buy them on Ebay.

"Extra lenses" you say? curious stuff. Were you so poor you couldn't
afford two cameras? I never do a shoot with one camera. Always have two
of them, one on each shoulder. The Fuji S5 with a wide to mid range lens
and the D3 with a mid to long range lens. One on each shoulder.

So how's the old "Gadget bag" these days? She must have had some muscles
developed to be carrying around all those dark slides and lenses.
Scurrying around behind this fast shooting photographer, double dark at
the ready as you fired off 2 shots in quick succession. LOL.

Perhaps you and the Chattanooga jackass are best sticking to insects and
cats. Neither of you seem to have a handle on what a wedding
photographer does in this century. It's probably just as well. Both of
you confuse album fodder with portraiture.

I've seen the incredible shockers Bret takes. His wide angle portraiture
is simply stunning stuff. Never seen anyone make a 5 stone kid look like
a 20 stone wrestler before. Beautiful themes shots of "Lurch" as he
races down the isle too.

There seems to be an extreme shortage of examples of your claim to fame
Colin. I can't recall ever seeing a wedding shot of yours mate. You
*were* a professional photographer in New Zealand, weren't you? I've
gone back as far as 1978 in the NZIPP archives of past members and can't
find mention of you. What was the name of your studio?

All I can find on about you on the Internet is a bunch references to you
having a heap mistresses and some other unsavoury stuff. Any truth in it
BTW? Sounds like a juicy, sordid tale I wouldn't mind reading when you
write your book.

George Kerby wrote:


Yes. That venue is billed as 5 star, $150 a head. I guess the *****
gives them that advantage. I often wonder at how the decorators of these
palaces think. The worst one is Brisbane City Hall.
whhhhooooshhhhhhh


Not for a single second.

2SQUID wrote:
Colin.D wrote:
Annika1980 wrote:
On Jul 25, 2:49 am, 2SQUID wrote:
This is how we shot cake cuttings in 2005 -
2007.http://www.douglasjames.com.au/examples/cut-cake.htm

Where the heck is the filing cabinet?


Forget the filing cabinet, what about the stray plate with something
on it, parked beside the cake? And where are the bridesmaids' bouquets
which should be arranged to encircle the cake?

Doug displays a very common problem with inexperienced photogs; he
doesn't seem to see any distracting elements that might be in shot at
the time of shooting, and neither he nor his assistant (whose job it
really is) appear to see such things as extraneous items, or missing
things like bouquets.

I remember one wedding I did, where my wife (whom I affectionately
called my 'gadget bag', because she did the meter readings, carried
the extra lenses and bodies etc) in her role of scene watcher and
people organizer, realized there were no flowers at all, and asked
where they were, to the consternation of the wedding party. Somebody
had forgotten to get them from the florist, and nobody had noticed ...

Colin D.

Opportunistic photography, sometimes called Photojournalist style,
focuses attention on a key element of a scene. What else is in it is
only noticed by people like you and Bret.

Those interested in the wedding discard visual information they became
accustomed to at the wedding and focus their attention on the principal
subject matter. If either of you knew anything about event recording,
you would know that.

You mean you are trading on hoping the customer won't see your gaffes?
Bull**** Doug. Weddings are not developing news, they deserve proper
images properly shot.

Tell us again Colin what you did in "your day". What is an exposure
meter? Is it anything like the Kelvin meter we use to get absolute white
balance? Maybe it's like the flash meter we use to make sure of even
lighting?

I doubt you have ever used a Kelvin meter for white balance, specially
at a wedding. There's no time to buggerize around with that sort of
paraphernalia. Exposure for black groom's clothing and white wedding
dresses has to be spot on. an incident meter is the best way.

No wait... I remember. It is an invaluable piece of kit to determine the
setting our cameras are very accurate and extremely fast doing
transparently. I often see them in curio and collector sales. You can
even buy them on Ebay.

Cameras very accurate? More bull****, not to mention patronizing
sarcasm. Where's the mid-gray in a bride/groom shot? Your choice is
black, white, or skin tone - his, or hers? Why do you think real photogs
pay the thick end of a grand for a Sekonic or similar meter?

"Extra lenses" you say? curious stuff. Were you so poor you couldn't
afford two cameras? I never do a shoot with one camera. Always have two
of them, one on each shoulder. The Fuji S5 with a wide to mid range lens
and the D3 with a mid to long range lens. One on each shoulder.

Re-read my post. I said my wife carried extra lenses *and bodies* And
I'm not talking about yesterday. Ever heard of film cameras? That's
what we older photogs used before the 1990's. When integrity was part
and parcel of the job.

So how's the old "Gadget bag" these days? She must have had some muscles
developed to be carrying around all those dark slides and lenses.
Scurrying around behind this fast shooting photographer, double dark at
the ready as you fired off 2 shots in quick succession. LOL.

Your sarcasm does you no favours, Doug. Nobody thinks you're clever.

Perhaps you and the Chattanooga jackass are best sticking to insects and
cats. Neither of you seem to have a handle on what a wedding
photographer does in this century. It's probably just as well. Both of
you confuse album fodder with portraiture.

Well, without making too much of a point about it, Bridezillas,
one-legged grooms, beach weddings featuring windsurfers, wedding cakes
with filing cabinet backgrounds, and with stray plates alongside, etc.,
don't convince me that you have any sort of a handle on it either.

I've seen the incredible shockers Bret takes. His wide angle portraiture
is simply stunning stuff. Never seen anyone make a 5 stone kid look like
a 20 stone wrestler before. Beautiful themes shots of "Lurch" as he
races down the isle too.

Deluding yourself, Mac. Brett's images are light-years ahead of yours,
both technically and aesthetically. And 90% of inhabitants of the photo
groups agree.

There seems to be an extreme shortage of examples of your claim to fame
Colin. I can't recall ever seeing a wedding shot of yours mate. You
*were* a professional photographer in New Zealand, weren't you? I've
gone back as far as 1978 in the NZIPP archives of past members and can't
find mention of you. What was the name of your studio?

I'll leave that to you. It's about as elusive as your mythical business
premises.

And I've said before that copyright issues prevent me from publishing
any wedding pictures, unlike you. Did you get permssion from Bridezilla
to publish her images? No, I thought not.

But there are images of mine on the net, and in the shoot-in, if you
care to look.

All I can find on about you on the Internet is a bunch references to you
having a heap mistresses and some other unsavoury stuff. Any truth in it
BTW? Sounds like a juicy, sordid tale I wouldn't mind reading when you
write your book.

You know very well how that came about, and you are the lowest arsehole
****ing scumbag to bring that up again.

Boy, my post must have really grabbed you by the balls for you to
retaliate with that pack of lies.


Colin D.

On 2008-07-26, 2SQUID wrote:
Colin.D wrote:
[snipped]

All I can find on about you on the Internet is a bunch references to you
having a heap mistresses and some other unsavoury stuff. Any truth in it
BTW? Sounds like a juicy, sordid tale I wouldn't mind reading when you
write your book.


That's a very specific search engine you must be using. Google alludes
to nothing like that without a lot more digging than a non-grudge-bearer
would perform.

If you're going to persist in this "I'm not me, I'm my child" pantomime
you'll have to try harder to forget the things that only daddy would
remember.

--
savvo orig. invib. man

"2SQUID" wrote in message
...
Jeff R. wrote:
Robert Coe wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 12:48:49 +1000, "Jeff R."
wrote:

Bob, you probably missed it, but Douggie took the opportunity to
jump in very early in the thread tomake a stupid observation which
demonstarted that he hadn't read the post. "Your flash must've been
on a six-feet long pole" or words to that effect.

Most attacks on Doug are defensive responses. This was one of those.

How do you figure that? Bret's sneering reference to Doug was in his
original post and obviously preceded Doug's puerile response.

Bob

"Sneering" responses to Doug are perfectly appropriate. The nature of his
messages here (and elsewhere) deserve no better.
In this thread though, the fact remains that Dog made an ignorant and
abusive response which demonstrated that he simply hadn't read Bret's
post - or failed to understand it.

Waste no sympathy on D-Mac.
His personal attacks and childish sexual taunts preclude such treatment.

Unless - of course - you are extending human compassion to those who are
truly in need of help and sympathy and pity.

Doug would surely qualify there, and that would be a creditably decent
response.
Just don't expect him to return it in kind.


For someone who stole Dad's images and tried to ridicule him only to be
presented with evidence proving you really are the stupid idiot respectable
people would recognise in an instant, you sure are a bugger for punishment.
Instead of making a point out of using Dad's images, you are just showing
everyone what a pathetic little individual you really are.

Bret's example of a cake cutting was something straight out of a 1960s
wedding photographer's standard kit of photos. Other examples he's posted
from time to time of his wedding and portrait skills are from the same
boring era of skill and show not the slightest ounce of imagination. Proving
that when Dad said Bret needed to learn how to take a decent photo, he was
totally (if bluntly) correct. Bret took offence and the brawl started.

This is how we shot cake cuttings in 2005 - 2007.
http://www.douglasjames.com.au/examples/cut-cake.htm

That shot just sucks. It looks like it was taken by a young child with a
cheap point and shoot camera. It looks like the bride and groom might be
groping each other behind the cake. If this shot was supposed to be of the
cake cutting shoundn't you be able to see just that ? The plate and piece of
cake on the table next to the wedding cake is distracting. The member or the
wedding party visible on the left only has half a head. The people in the back
of the photo along the wall all have halos around their heads. Third person in
from the end of the table looks like they have a small tornadoe on their head.
I could go on but you get the point.



I won't show you how we do it now

I would imagine that is because nothing has changed and you are still
shooting the same ****ty pics that any child with a point and shoot could do.


because we (dad and I) pride ourselves
in being amongst the most imaginative


You misspelled unimaginative !



and sought after wedding
photographers in the state.


Being wanted by the law for scamming people is nothing to brag about.



Our poses are widely copied by all the wannabe photographers who think they
can imitate us and make out they are somehow "Professional" in doing it.


You are probably looking at the childrens photo galleries. I can see how you
would think they are copying you. If they were using a cheap point and shoot
camera it just might look like a copy of your work.



If they bothered to develop their own portfolio instead of
copy ours, they might be.


From the crap you have shown so far who would want to copy it and claim it
was theirs ?



The greatest complement anyone can pay someone
is to copy their style. For you it is steal their work.

Here's a message for you Mr Ralph (the R in Jeff R) if you need to steal
another photographer's photos so you can make a point, you must be such a
**** poor photographer yourself that you are frightened someone might do to
you what you so freely do to others. To then try and deny you own the site
you posted the stolen photos on, only to be presented with ownership
evidence is pathetic. Just like you are.

Dad's description of you as the "Feral" from Rooty Hill surely must be close
enough to the mark as to pin you for what you are.

As for me? I'd describe you as a despicable little fool striving for
recognition when none is deserved. You and Mark Thomas must surely be the
biggest embarrassment to the teaching profession ever to walk into a
classroom.

On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 16:49:45 +1000, 2SQUID wrote:
: Bret's example of a cake cutting was something straight out of a 1960s
: wedding photographer's standard kit of photos. Other examples he's
: posted from time to time of his wedding and portrait skills are from the
: same boring era of skill and show not the slightest ounce of
: imagination. Proving that when Dad said Bret needed to learn how to take
: a decent photo, he was totally (if bluntly) correct. Bret took offence
: and the brawl started.
:
: This is how we shot cake cuttings in 2005 - 2007.
: http://www.douglasjames.com.au/examples/cut-cake.htm
: I won't show you how we do it now because we (dad and I) pride ourselves
: in being amongst the most imaginative and sought after wedding
: photographers in the state.
:
: Our poses are widely copied by all the wannabe photographers who think
: they can imitate us and make out they are somehow "Professional" in
: doing it. If they bothered to develop their own portfolio instead of
: copy ours, they might be. The greatest complement anyone can pay someone
: is to copy their style. For you it is steal their work.

Since you posted that picture unsolicited, I assume that you don't mind having
it criticized. It's underexposed, and the white balance may be off as well.
(It's hard to tell because of the underexposure.) And while it's a debatable
matter of stylistic preference, I believe I'd have illuminated the bride and
groom a little more brightly, relative to the rest of the picture.

But my main beef is with the awkwardness of the composition. In addition to
the fact that we can't see the knife (a mistake that Bret also made in his
picture), the guests can't see anything but the backs of the B&G. Normally
that wouldn't make any difference, since most cake cutting pix omit the
audience anyway. But you've deliberately incorporated them as a compositional
element, so the fact that they can't see what's going on makes the scene look
particularly staged. Maybe it's silly to knock a cake cutting for looking
staged, but I do think that your non-traditional handling of it, while an
interesting idea, isn't one I'd copy.

Bob

On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 16:49:45 +1000, 2SQUID wrote:
: This is how we shot cake cuttings in 2005 - 2007.
: http://www.douglasjames.com.au/examples/cut-cake.htm

One more point: You're still a professional photographer, aren't you? Do you
really want potential customers to see a caption like that on an image posted
on your site?

Bob

Robert Coe wrote:

Since you posted that picture unsolicited, I assume that you don't mind having
it criticized. It's underexposed, and the white balance may be off as well.
(It's hard to tell because of the underexposure.) And while it's a debatable
matter of stylistic preference, I believe I'd have illuminated the bride and
groom a little more brightly, relative to the rest of the picture.

But my main beef is with the awkwardness of the composition. In addition to
the fact that we can't see the knife (a mistake that Bret also made in his
picture), the guests can't see anything but the backs of the B&G. Normally
that wouldn't make any difference, since most cake cutting pix omit the
audience anyway. But you've deliberately incorporated them as a compositional
element, so the fact that they can't see what's going on makes the scene look
particularly staged. Maybe it's silly to knock a cake cutting for looking
staged, but I do think that your non-traditional handling of it, while an
interesting idea, isn't one I'd copy.

Bob

I don't have a problem with your opinion Bob. We all sink or swim with
our individual styles. This was our style last year when we shot 36
weddings. We all have to make choices too.

In that shot we bounced a GN60 Metz on full manual power, from a gold
reflector, aimed at an angle to the ceiling so it illuminated the whole
room. The purpose of that shot was after all to provide a view of the
reception with the B&G and their cake. Did we miss doing that?

Since then we have managed to position the cake so it looks like the
audience is in the middle of of it and managed to show the knife as it
neatly cuts a swath through the Bride's father's wallet. Photoshop of
course! Your alternative is what?

A "Mock" cake cutting? I hope not!
Shooting the couple in front of a wall? I hope not.
shooting the back of the B&G? maybe positioning myself on the edge of
the bridal table with a bloody great mirror to reflect the guests?

We all have eyes in our bum mate. That's why it's called hindsight.
Wedding photography is not a static thing, like Colin would like it to
be. Unless we continue to strive for individuality, we fall into the
quagmire with all the wannabes trying to impersonate our best poses and
best techniques.

We get to shoot as many weddings as we do because we continually strive
for something different to what you or the wannabes would do. Sometimes
it works, sometimes not. This one worked well enough but we don't do it
that way now.

I am curious about the "underexposed" comment. Whenever I "save for the
Internet" I use some automatic settings in Photoshop intended to produce
a photo with no glare or dullness. Out of curiosity Bob, do you use an
Apple Mac? 80% of the Internet is still on PCs you know.

I ask only because on my Mac, the image does indeed look underexposed
but when I set it to suit the Mac, it looks overexposed on the PC. When
I alter the Mac's Gamma to 2.2, it looks the same on both screens but
what I then edit and send to my Designjet printer is too light.

Given that the Internet is full of un-calibrated monitors and those
which are calibrated, are not synchronised, the fact you see it with any
reasonable values at all and only comment on the slight white balance
offset I use to simulate warmer lighting is remarkable in itself.

As for the caption? Oddly Bob, the page is not indexed. How would a
potential client find it? They don't use Usenet, you know? They use
browser based viewing and they use search engines to find me or go
straight to the site from one of my advertisements.

Is there something untruthful in what is there? Given that Bret Douglas
(Annika1980), Mark Thomas, Paul Furman and Jeff Ralph to name just a
few, have all stolen my clearly copyright images and used them for
illegal purposes... They'll need some "Flash" programming skills to get
this one.

Cheers.