Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: B&H & Adobe® Lightroom® 5 Digital Photography Summit  (Read 9640 times)
mistybreeze
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 177


« Reply #20 on: June 19, 2013, 10:59:44 AM »
ReplyReply

Not sure what's wrong with expressing an opinion. Author or not.

Negative opinions aren't just any opinion. Remaining anonymous can protect your business interests and the perception of your character. (If you care about those things. If you don't, then ignore me.)

If you don't have a good, personal relationship with a publisher, an agent, a PR firm, a major corporate sponsor, and/or a good lawyer, then I recommend seeking a good book on professional manners. It can never hurt a self-employed photographer to seek knowledge outside his/her bubble.
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8628



WWW
« Reply #21 on: June 19, 2013, 11:27:52 AM »
ReplyReply

Remaining anonymous can protect your business interests and the perception of your character.

That's why I'd never post anonymous! If I have an opinion I stand behind it.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 5536



WWW
« Reply #22 on: June 19, 2013, 11:58:08 AM »
ReplyReply

... Remaining anonymous can protect your business interests and the perception of your character...

Perception of your (anonymous) character would certainly be remaining... negative.

The question is, would you have posted your nasty remarks about Kelby's appearance under your real name? At least Andrew has the decency to stand behind his words, right or wrong. Throwing personal insults anonymously... now, that's classy. 
Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
RFPhotography
Guest
« Reply #23 on: June 19, 2013, 12:47:30 PM »
ReplyReply

Negative opinions aren't just any opinion. Remaining anonymous can protect your business interests and the perception of your character. (If you care about those things. If you don't, then ignore me.)

You mean like using a quirky pseudonym to register on a photography forum that prefers actual names and not including any link to your identity in a sig. line?  You mean anonymous like that?  As opposed to Andrew, who doesn't hide his identity?  As opposed to me and I don't hide my identity?  As opposed to the vast majority of the members of this site?  Yeah, OK, enough said.  Roll Eyes  If you're that worried about your rep. that you have to be anonymous to be an asshole then you've got far bigger things to worry about.

Quote
If you don't have a good, personal relationship with a publisher, an agent, a PR firm, a major corporate sponsor, and/or a good lawyer, then I recommend seeking a good book on professional manners. It can never hurt a self-employed photographer to seek knowledge outside his/her bubble.

What does that even mean?  First, you don't have 'personal' relationships with any of those people you mention.  You have working, professional relationships with them.  The two are entirely different.  I go out for a beer and a brat with people I have a personal relationship with.  They're called friends.  I don't do that with my publisher.  You speak about the professional manners of others and conduct yourself in the manner you do?  Wait, there's a word for that.... h..... hy..... hypo..... hypocritical, that's it.   Roll Eyes Roll Eyes
Logged
RFPhotography
Guest
« Reply #24 on: June 19, 2013, 12:49:29 PM »
ReplyReply

I agree but I didn't see the rule that authors are not supposed to express such opinions. That said, my book's out of print, I have no intention of ever writing another.

That's what the comment 'author or not' meant.  People are free to express their opinion whether they're an author or not.
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8628



WWW
« Reply #25 on: June 19, 2013, 12:52:20 PM »
ReplyReply

That's what the comment 'author or not' meant.  People are free to express their opinion whether they're an author or not.

I'm in full agreement.

Sorry, I was asking Misty. I don't see any difference either.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
mistybreeze
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 177


« Reply #26 on: June 19, 2013, 02:23:02 PM »
ReplyReply

would you have posted your nasty remarks about Kelby's appearance under your real name?

Maybe if my name was Joan Rivers, and "personal insults" my career. But since humorous writing is just a hobby, I prefer to exercise anonymously, because I think that's smart for my photography business.

Frankly, I didn't think my Kelby observations were nasty. IMO, nasty is a guy with two spare tires around his waist, staggering to the stage in ill-fitting clothes and a bad haircut, pretending to be a "fashion" photographer.

a photography forum that prefers actual names

Prefers or requires? I'm sure Google, Yahoo, and Facebook prefer my actual home phone number and correct address. Yeah, like that is ever going to happen.

you have to be anonymous to be an asshole

Are you calling me an asshole? You see, because I'm anonymous, I don't care what you call me.

What does that even mean?

Yeah, OK, enough said. Some skulls are too thick to bother.
Logged
Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 5536



WWW
« Reply #27 on: June 19, 2013, 06:39:27 PM »
ReplyReply

.. Frankly, I didn't think my Kelby observations were nasty. IMO, nasty is a guy with two spare tires around his waist, staggering to the stage in ill-fitting clothes and a bad haircut, pretending to be a "fashion" photographer...

So, he is not slim, hipster or with the latest haircut, thus does not qualify for the fashion industry? Since he is also not gay, that would definitely disqualify him, no?  Wink
Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
Rand47
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 542


« Reply #28 on: June 19, 2013, 06:44:56 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
But since humorous writing is just a hobby...

I'm relieved.  I'd hate to think of anyone depending on such tripe to earn a living.  Grin

Rand
Logged
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5421


WWW
« Reply #29 on: June 19, 2013, 07:00:57 PM »
ReplyReply

Frankly, I didn't think my Kelby observations were nasty. IMO, nasty is a guy with two spare tires around his waist, staggering to the stage in ill-fitting clothes and a bad haircut, pretending to be a "fashion" photographer.

Not for nothing, but when I read the OP, I was struck at the unneeded snarky nature of the Scott Kelby characterization.

Kelby was the first "digital star" to take the stage, looking quite robust at the waistline. His sport coat was ill-fitting, and I don't think he could close his jacket (even if he wanted to). He looked rather creaky, creepy, and frumpy. When someone who looks like this mentions the word "fashion," one who actually works in fashion can only cringe in disbelief. Who does he think he's kidding?

As somebody who has "girth" I don't take that sort of characterization "lightly". What part of that "characterization" was useful to what you wrote? Scott struggles with weight...people who struggle with weight, well, struggle with weight. To poke fun at that tells a lot more about the commentator than the subject of that characterization...

So, you work in "fashion"? Guess you are rather, uh, judgmental huh? Looks like a "creaky, creepy, and frumpy" sort of guy, so, you feel free to poke fun at them? Guess you were never the target of bullying? Want some bullying directed at you? People who like to poke fun at people's appearance are stuck up a$$holes with rather severe emotional baggage of their own. Generally, mean spirited people are, well, mean. Ya know what I mean? What part of what you wrote was "humorous writing" as a hobby...It's good that your writing is merely a hobby cause your writing is not in the least bit "humorous" (and I doubt you could get a job writing such drivel).

It's prolly a real good idea you post anonymously because your status in the industry would indeed be subjected to close scrutiny and likely take a hit. The firing of 3 Atlanta sports jocks making fun of a former Saints player with ALS comes to mind.

The best thing you could do is to post an apology...the second best thing you could do is quit visiting LuLa and writing that sort of stuff. Your choice...

Feel free to comment on Scott's speaking style or content, but learn to draw the line on stuff that is offensive.
« Last Edit: June 19, 2013, 07:03:00 PM by Schewe » Logged
RFPhotography
Guest
« Reply #30 on: June 19, 2013, 08:16:25 PM »
ReplyReply

Maybe if my name was Joan Rivers, and "personal insults" my career. But since humorous writing is just a hobby, I prefer to exercise anonymously, because I think that's smart for my photography business.

Frankly, I didn't think my Kelby observations were nasty. IMO, nasty is a guy with two spare tires around his waist, staggering to the stage in ill-fitting clothes and a bad haircut, pretending to be a "fashion" photographer.

Prefers or requires? I'm sure Google, Yahoo, and Facebook prefer my actual home phone number and correct address. Yeah, like that is ever going to happen.

Are you calling me an asshole? You see, because I'm anonymous, I don't care what you call me.

Yeah, OK, enough said. Some skulls are too thick to bother.

Good thing it's a hobby, because you ain't even close to being funny.

Your LuLa profile indicates you're 12 years old.  Given the petty and cowardly way you seem to go about things, that seems about right.  Actually, that's an insult to 12 year olds.
Logged
jpegman
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 100



« Reply #31 on: June 19, 2013, 08:47:49 PM »
ReplyReply


Your LuLa profile indicates you're 12 years old.  Given the petty and cowardly way you seem to go about things, that seems about right.  Actually, that's an insult to 12 year olds.

Gee BobFisher - you're 12 years old too. What does that say about you to criticize another juvenile?

Jpegman
Logged
mistybreeze
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 177


« Reply #32 on: June 19, 2013, 09:07:03 PM »
ReplyReply

I was struck at the unneeded snarky nature of the Scott Kelby characterization.

A lecture from you on "unneeded snarky nature" is precious.
Logged
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5421


WWW
« Reply #33 on: June 19, 2013, 09:26:05 PM »
ReplyReply

A lecture from you on "unneeded snarky nature" is precious.

Uh huh...and what about what I said? That your characterization of Scott was mean spirited bullying from somebody who hides behind an anonymous screen name to protect yourself from blowback?

So, are you proud of yourself? If so, disclose your real name?
Logged
Glenn NK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 259


« Reply #34 on: June 19, 2013, 10:34:49 PM »
ReplyReply

Well, to listen to Scott Kelby tell it (on his blog), he attended a (sold out) love-in. That's not exactly what it felt like in the audience. It was not sold out and the love was cautious and on reserve.

Javits told me they set up 1700 seats in Hall 1A. The day started with possibly 1500 in attendance (based on empty chairs). And about halfway through the day, half the chairs were empty.

The 9:30 AM - Doors Open entry line was blocks long, and Javits is undergoing construction. There was a cloud of sanded concrete in the air, inside and out. We were not offered masks or a forewarning. I'm still coughing up some unknown substance. The things we endure for an Adobe high.

B&H's David Brommer, who somehow manages to combine baldness, a mullet, and a ponytail all at the same time, cheerfully greeted the audience and began the summit. But not before Scott Kelby noticed that David misspelled Lightroom on a large visual flanking the four video screens, detailing the day's schedule. Kelby proceeded to change Light Room 5 to Lightroom 5. David was hoping no one had noticed. All I could think, how does this veteran B&H photographer honcho not know how to spell Lightroom?

Some young, Asian, Adobe guy named David, who said he was a LR product manager but looked like he was playing hooky from high school, took the stage to give a typical Adobe spiel. Near the end of his rah-rah-hey-hey, he mentioned Creative Cloud, and in an instant at least 1200 of the 1500 people let out a collective boo that filled the large hall. It was an awkward, embarrassing 15 seconds for David and Adobe. I saw Julienne Kost flinch, and Katrin Eisman's face and body language scream "I told you so." Nothing more was said about CC.

Kelby was the first "digital star" to take the stage, looking quite robust at the waistline. His sport coat was ill-fitting, and I don't think he could close his jacket (even if he wanted to). He looked rather creaky, creepy, and frumpy. When someone who looks like this mentions the word "fashion," one who actually works in fashion can only cringe in disbelief. Who does he think he's kidding?

The portrait photos Kelby used to begin his LR5 demonstration were god-awful. The art direction was a joke and the exposures were insanely bad, large chunks of facial skin were way beyond clipped. Maybe this made sense if he had planned on demonstrating the Exposure or Brightness slider to a group of blind photographers, but that was not the case.

Later on, Kelby performed his fashion "Shoot-Out" on stage. It was entertaining in an OK Corral sense, but the show seemed geared toward a Midwest audience, photographers who only fantasize about shooting an agency model. IMO, the presentation was displaced in this fashion capital, with the wrong photographer behind the camera.

Kelby openly complained about the $600 price tag of Canon's on-camera flash (I agree, the price is insane), saying he didn't understand why some manufacturers ignore this hard-time economy. Next to Adobe, Canon was the 2nd largest sponsor of this event. Canon endured the slap down while Kelby kept quiet about Adobe's CC pricing. One can only imagine how Canon felt about that.

Katrin Eismann didn't seem quite sure she was in the right place. At one point she said, "I only shoot dead things." There was an offer from an audience member to present a dead body. Perhaps he was offering the Adobe guy.

Ever the skilled speaker and performer, Katrin put her best foot forward and demonstrated she knew her way around the program. Did we not already know this? However, during her attempt to demonstrate this new and "cool" HDR feature, which required opening and closing the file in Photoshop, Lightroom 5 failed to do what it was supposed to do. We all know no software program is perfect, but what a pain when 1500 people are watching when the crap don't work.

It's somehow refreshing when this failure stuff happens to the digital gurus. We suddenly feel it's not just us. But when the gurus publicly admit they have no idea why the failure happened (Katrin tried twice), you certainly have to question your intelligence and wonder why you want to drop $150 for this product.

Adobe is really lucky to have Julienne Kost. Julienne is either a GREAT actress, or she loves the people she serves and educates, and she loves her job. Julienne makes the software look so easy, and she demonstrates a great sense of humor while trying to explain the silly keyboard shortcuts. And it was fun to watch her tackle other people's photos that were submitted beforehand. It would have been nice and helpful to see more of that work. I wish B&H would have given Julienne more time. A photographer of many styles can really learn a lot from her.

Julienne admitted that for masking, she relies on Photoshop, because you can't beat that precision. Without a robust, precise masking ability, Lightroom will always have its limitations for serious photographers.

In the end, I bought Lightroom 5. The improvements to the clone brush and the gradient tools alone make the upgrade worth it to me. As for the summit, one hour of that lengthy day was worthwhile. Most of the day was spent selling something you most likely didn't need.

(The Gitzo-Manfrotto trade-in was a winner promotion. B&H deserves credit for extending that one day.)

Well that was just loaded with class.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/denigrate

« Last Edit: June 19, 2013, 11:49:35 PM by Glenn NK » Logged

Economics:  the study of achieving infinite growth with finite resources
BartvanderWolf
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 3460


« Reply #35 on: June 20, 2013, 02:34:23 AM »
ReplyReply

Well that was just loaded with class.

Well, some in this thread may not like the OP's writing style, but it does somewhat resemble my impressions for the part (Scott's fashion shoot, mostly some test images, and the post-processing session by Katrin and Julieanne (they were quite entertaining as well), the unfortunate raffling goof-up, and a few shorter presentations) that I actually saw on the live stream. I missed the first part, so I cannot judge that part of the OP's report. I hope the to-be-posted recording is not edited too much, so others can judge based on actually seeing the event for themselves as well.

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
mistybreeze
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 177


« Reply #36 on: June 20, 2013, 09:25:16 AM »
ReplyReply

So, are you proud of yourself? If so, disclose your real name?

Oh, Jeff, darling, spare me your bullying board games. I've never been filled with foolish pride.

This thread is much funnier than I ever expected, but some of the replies don't surprise me.

So I called a platform artist - an overweight, middle-aged, adult male photographer - fat, and just look at the phony outcry from a bunch of chubby babies in need of therapy. Not one peep from any professional businessman about Andrew Rodney - famous author, blogger, platform speaker, businessman, and fellow photographer - who publicly denigrates Scott Kelby's success in business, accusing him of being the "P.T. Barnum of all Photoshop, LR and photography…90%+ (about) making money and hocking."

In one small paragraph, Rodney slaps down decades of success and hard work that Kelby built, and stands tall and proud that he posted such destructive words, using his own name. And Jeff, LuLa's premiere lecturing bully, is demanding an apology from me for calling Kelby fat? What world are some of you so-called professionals living in? Tell me, Jeff, are Andrew's destructive words what you call "working for free, on behalf of the photographic community?"

I can't take any of you blowhards seriously anymore.

For those with uber thick skulls or a big, fat, beer belly, the simple point of my OP is: If you're going to take to the stage to "teach" beauty photography, take a look in the mirror first and check if your addiction to donuts makes you look credible.

OK, so I may not want to have sex with an obese man because I find that naked look an utter turn-off. But being obese doesn't mean you have no talent. However, even with talent, you're not entitled to bad taste and looking like a slob in the fashion photography business (unless your name is Bruce Weber and you possess his genius). If you're going to pretend to be a fashion photographer, you better know how to dress when you take the stage, and accept that beauty = the appearance of good health in ALL fashion circles. Instead of blogging, try a treadmill. Otherwise, expect to be criticized. The fashion police are everywhere.

IMO, Kelby would have served himself and the B&H audience better had he taken a portrait of a zaftig business woman, and had Katrin and Julieanne tackle those very real retouching issues. The average CEO in America is overweight, and none of them, male or female, want to appear that way in a corporate photo.

Photographers who claim to shoot "fashion" are becoming a dime a dozen, thanks to Terry Richardson. Many think all it takes is shooting a pretty young girl in a fancy dress with an on-camera flash. Well good luck getting a spread in Vogue, or any other fashion job, with such limited thinking. Even boring, bring-home-the-bacon, fashion catalog photographers know, if they lack taste and style (and oftentimes a great physique), art directors are not going to be willing to bond and trust.

It's your foot, shoot it as you see fit.
Logged
Peter McLennan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1662


« Reply #37 on: June 20, 2013, 09:57:29 AM »
ReplyReply

Enough with the negativity already.  Relating someone's personal appearance and professional capabilities is irrelevant, disrespectful and ugly.

Instead, let's talk about the superb clarity, precision and artistry of Julianne Kost's video tutorials.
Logged
Morris Taub
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 368



WWW
« Reply #38 on: June 20, 2013, 10:05:17 AM »
ReplyReply

Enough with the negativity already.  Relating someone's personal appearance and professional capabilities is irrelevant, disrespectful and ugly.

Instead, let's talk about the superb clarity, precision and artistry of Julianne Kost's video tutorials.

Agree. J. kost is great. Also. I've been reading through, trying, some of the techniques in Katrin Eismann's book, Masking and Compositing, Second Edition. Man, it's a great book. I'm also enjoying Jeff Schewe's The Digital Negative. These two books are just loaded with great information. And despite my not upgrading Photoshop CS6 anymore, and some doubts about going past LR4 for now, I do intend to buy Jeff's book, The Digital Print.
Logged

michael
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4783



« Reply #39 on: June 20, 2013, 10:05:49 AM »
ReplyReply

OK kids, cool it with the personal attacks.

Michael
Logged
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad