If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
THE RETURN OF THE GARY FONG!
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 |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
THE RETURN OF THE GARY FONG!
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. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
THE RETURN OF THE GARY FONG!
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. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
THE RETURN OF THE GARY FONG!
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. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
THE RETURN OF THE GARY FONG!
"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. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
THE RETURN OF THE GARY FONG!
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 |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
THE RETURN OF THE GARY FONG!
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 |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
THE RETURN OF THE GARY FONG!
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. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
THE RETURN OF THE GARY FONG!
Colin.D wrote:
2SQUID wrote: 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. 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. Your post Colin had no effect on me. Quite the contrary, mine sure did hit it's target. If you think for a single second inventing lies about me and my business is going to pass, you really do need to seek mental help for your problem. Your sort of attitude in later life is often caused by untreated or multiple instances of Gonorrhoea. With your past history that is highly likely. Have you had a blood test by any chance? So it looks like I was right about you Colin. You are a pathetic bull**** artist looking to make yourself feel important. Worse, you think it's OK to do that at our expense. It's not and never will be or ever has been. No history or evidence to support your claim of having been a "Professional Photographer" yet you want us all to believe your attack on me is a qualified one? Only lamers do that? Pigs fly old man, make sure you keep one hand on the wheel of your chair at all times or learn to duck. Here's my "Mythical Business Premises" before I moved to a larger studio (which I made reference to in aus.photo when I started renovating it, 9 month before I moved) http://www.douglasjames.com.au/evidence/shopfront.htm Note That Technology Australia Pty Ltd is the company I owned when I first developed my enlargement algorithm to enlarge digital images Which you are one of the few to have seen first hand. We also developed IP address, network cameras for security applications. Techno aussie was an early providers of wide format printing in SE Queensland when we bought a $60,000 Agfa printer. And before that, the original "Linux Shop". All very mythical, isn't it? "Pack of lies", you say? Excuse me Colin... Nothing I've said in this thread is not public knowledge, freely available to anyone using Google. Let's not forget who cast the first stone too... IT WAS YOU. It is very clear that at some point in your life, you did some disgusting things to someone who knows you very, very well. How else would they know the highly personal things they posted about you, your family and your behaviour? It goes like this Colin... You cannot be a criminal or a person of ill repute and not expect someone who knows you to straighten the record when you try to make out you are a hero type. I have the membership archives from NZIPP. Anyone can get them, it's not like I stole them you know? I didn't need access to criminal records in any country to get them... Public record mate. Whoever spilled the beans on your sordid past, must have really been done over by you in a big way. Are you not a religious person Colin? It's never too late to adopt some principals to live by. Adopting God's behavioural suggestions might rid you of the diseases you say you are riddled with. Medicine doesn't seem to be doing much except making you a nasty old ******* no one wants to know. Shape up mate. Get a life. Stop being a nasty ******* and people will interact with you. Keep up what you are doing and maybe the last episode will look tame compared to what they'll do next time. Try and drop the obscenities too, will you? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
THE RETURN OF THE GARY FONG! | George Kerby | Digital Photography | 4 | July 25th 08 05:28 AM |
THE RETURN OF THE GARY FONG! | George Kerby | 35mm Photo Equipment | 1 | July 10th 08 05:02 PM |
THE RETURN OF THE GARY FONG! | Cal I Fornicate | Digital Photography | 0 | July 9th 08 04:46 PM |
THE RETURN OF THE GARY FONG! | Cal I Fornicate | 35mm Photo Equipment | 0 | July 9th 08 04:46 PM |
THE RETURN OF THE GARY FONG! | George Kerby | 35mm Photo Equipment | 1 | July 9th 08 03:04 PM |