Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Digital Cameras & Shooting Techniques => Topic started by: Spryseks on January 08, 2011, 08:04:09 pm
-
Hey Everyone!
This is the seminar i went to and liked it a lot. If anyone has gone to similar seminars please share.
http://shootthecenterfold.com/
-
So what's everyone's take on this?
Reasonably priced but short seminar far far away by two of my favorite contemporary glamour photographers tainted by astroturfing. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing)
-
Astroturfing, I've learnt something new today.
Certainly looks green and flat to me.
I look forward to your next post.
Cheers,
-
Certainly looks green and flat to me.
Given the subject matter of the seminar, I doubt there's much flatness going on..
-
"Astroturfing" very cool, that is a new one for me too.
Don't you love it when someone drops in on their very first post and thinks that no one will figure out what they are doing. So ends the credibility of the legitimacy of what is about, in my opinion.
I had seen ads for this program elsewhere. Personally after many years of Playboy, I find their usual photography boring. The lighting, scenes and such no matter how many lights or "rapport" with the models results in just a formula "look".
As far as fixing things "in camera" and not in Photoshop, well it is my understanding from when of their more creative shooters of the past, that is just not the case. Once upon a time when Playboy had the money, getting it right meant a re-shoot when necessary. Re-touching was forbidden for the centerfold. Now you can easily detect the Photoshop skin softening and retouching.
Anyway for the amateur "glamour" shooter, of which there are plenty, maybe this would be cool. But I shoot great female bodies all the time, and I would not pay to go. And we sure have some shooters here who shoot beautiful naked women much better than anything I have ever seen in a centerfold.
-
I think that the real problem with the Centrefold has always been the same thing: camera format.
I remember during all those years when I subscribed to the magazine that the foldout was always the single sad moment. The same shooters did beautiful 'general' stuff of the same girls in the normal parts of the issues, but the big format turned everything into still life, and that doesn't work with people. I wouldn't blame the photographers for that.
It's somethimg I always disliked about some fashion photography too: overlit, losing the whole point of the exercise, which is about look and emotional kick. But I believe it was a Hef thing. As he pays the bills... But then, some people also buy inflatable dolls, so perhaps plastic (rubber?) skin has its appeal and following.
Rob C
-
It's somethimg I always disliked about some fashion photography too: overlit, losing the whole point of the exercise, which is about look and emotional kick. But I believe it was a Hef thing. As he pays the bills... But then, some people also buy inflatable dolls, so perhaps plastic (rubber?) skin has its appeal and following.
Talking of Mr Hefner, he just took Playboy private (http://www.forbes.com/2011/01/10/playboy-hefner-private-markets-equities-porn.html?boxes=marketschannelnews) for a cool $210 million, and got engaged with a 24-year-old.
With the same math, the parents of my third wife haven't even been born, yet :P
-
Talking of Mr Hefner, he just took Playboy private (http://www.forbes.com/2011/01/10/playboy-hefner-private-markets-equities-porn.html?boxes=marketschannelnews) for a cool $210 million, and got engaged with a 24-year-old.
With the same math, the parents of my third wife haven't even been born, yet :P
Wasn't there once a comedy song "I'm me own granpaw'?
That's about as far as my maths takes me, I'm afraid.
Rob C
-
About the seminar: those guys sure have better jackets than our hosts at LL. A bit on the used car salesmen side though. Could that be a bad sign?
I remember during all those years when I subscribed to the magazine that the foldout was always the single sad moment. The same shooters did beautiful 'general' stuff of the same girls in the normal parts of the issues, but the big format turned everything into still life, and that doesn't work with people. I wouldn't blame the photographers for that.
Rob, it is scary how often you nail those things. I really like your photographic insights because you seem to find the right words for what I vaguely feel but can't always express. Keep them coming!
-
About the seminar: those guys sure have better jackets than our hosts at LL.
Just to be perfectly clear, I do own several really nice jackets (I buy good clothing ya know) but my uniform for videos is Hawaiian shirts (can't remember how that happened).
Michael, on the other hand, has a bunch of old 1980's suits (which is why he doesn't wear a jacket on videos).
Just saying....
BTW, notice the moire on Arney Fretag's jacket? I mean, really...he should know better!!! Jarmo's and David's jackets don't moire–what's up with THAT?
-
I have but one suit, black, that has seen two funerals. I hope never to wear it again in my life and certainly not afterwards - for that, I'd prefer to be myself in jeans and T-shirt, possibly wearing the 'Celluloids'. They should burn well and add a distinct bouquet of their own.
;-(
Rob C
-
As far as fixing things "in camera" and not in Photoshop, well it is my understanding from when of their more creative shooters of the past, that is just not the case. Once upon a time when Playboy had the money, getting it right meant a re-shoot when necessary. Re-touching was forbidden for the centerfold. Now you can easily detect the Photoshop skin softening and retouching.
Photoshop didn't invent retouching, it just introduced it to the masses.
Playboy was way ahead of the curve of the massively retouched image.
Even before electronic retouching, working on dye transfers, if you saw a acetate overly on a playboy centerfold work print, there was so many china maker corrections you couldn't see the model underneath the acetate.
Also the centerfold and cover were printed in Gravure.
At the time Penthouse took nudes to a more realistic look, a little older, less retouched, a little more real, though they used a David Hamilton Fog filter which I believe cut down on some of the retouching costs.
For brief moments, OUI was the the nude art magazine, but eventually came out in many styles, now I believe it's a wedding magazine.
The branding of playboy was the girl next door.
Penthouse, the lonely rich housewife.
Oui was the European encounter.
At least that's what I've been told.
BC
-
Cooter
Funny how different folks have different takes.
a. Branding of Playboy, circa 60s to mid-70s wasn't quite girl-next-door, thought they did chat about the mythical creature; what it was about was the Playboy Philosophy which was 'If you don't swing, don't ring' also writ large above the Chicago Mansion in Latin, something like: Si non oscillas nolli tintinare, which is my version of the code and far from any version the Romans would have dug, but then, even Italian would have thrown them.
b. Penthouse was, to me, the dirty side of the raincoat, best avoided at all costs. Why Playboy felt compelled, eventually, to seek out rainwear too defeats me. Should have stuck to its guns and original, solid, fan base. I'd probably still be buying. You could actually spend happy hours reading the thing and learning. A dictionary was always a useful aid to that end. Maybe they now use bubbles.
c. Oui was wonderful, the European touch of sophistication mixed with a discrete decadence that many couldn't quite understand, or if they did, not in numbers sufficient to float a battleship. I mean, Francis Giacobetti who did so much to put Pirelli on the world map was one of their own... From its cast of founding fathers came French Photo folllowed by the American Photo version which also seems to have found insufficient support Stateside to survive in its original form or identity. Sad world. I blame Guccione and the highly glossed lowest common denominator.
Note: this is all only personal opinion based on nothing more nor less.
;-)
Rob C
-
Sad but true, regarding the literary decline with Playboy. (I know that was the old joke...' I read Playboy for the interviews')... but at one time, they really were the icon for the publishing of Science Fiction (The Playboy Press). I even know of a Catholic Seminary that bought their Science Fiction book offers and short story offerings. John Updike and others were publicized by Playboy.
I subscribed for years, but alas, fell away as it declined.
-
You were told right. (imho)
The internet changed all this. It was not because of lack of interest from the magazine operators.
Who needs HQ pics to watch when there are millions of free pics in the cloud. Life is too short. Especially after 50 :D
Eduardo
Photoshop didn't invent retouching, it just introduced it to the masses.
Playboy was way ahead of the curve of the massively retouched image.
Even before electronic retouching, working on dye transfers, if you saw a acetate overly on a playboy centerfold work print, there was so many china maker corrections you couldn't see the model underneath the acetate.
Also the centerfold and cover were printed in Gravure.
At the time Penthouse took nudes to a more realistic look, a little older, less retouched, a little more real, though they used a David Hamilton Fog filter which I believe cut down on some of the retouching costs.
For brief moments, OUI was the the nude art magazine, but eventually came out in many styles, now I believe it's a wedding magazine.
The branding of playboy was the girl next door.
Penthouse, the lonely rich housewife.
Oui was the European encounter.
At least that's what I've been told.
BC
-
I only read the articles.
-
I consider Jarmo Pohjaniemi as one of the best in the industry. He has created his own style which few do, especially
being mentioned along with Steve McCurry, Marc Chagall, Guido Argentini etc..
-
So, what exactly is your monetary connection to this seminar? Your posts reek of being "shameless plugs". If you have some type of business connection with this seminar, please be honest and tell us. If you do not have a business interest in promoting this seminar, please accept my apology.
-
Considering all of his posts here have been about this subject, makes you wonder.
-
I consider Jarmo Pohjaniemi as one of the best in the industry. He has created his own style which few do, especially
being mentioned along with Steve McCurry, Marc Chagall, Guido Argentini etc..
If shooting for Playboy and Hawaiian Tropics type companies is what you aspire to,
then terrific you've found your hero.
Exactly what is his style?
Where can I see his photos other than at the model wannabe sites?
-
So, what exactly is your monetary connection to this seminar? Your posts reek of being "shameless plugs". If you have some type of business connection with this seminar, please be honest and tell us. If you do not have a business interest in promoting this seminar, please accept my apology.
Hey Bryan, i was at the seminar/workshop yesterday which lasted 12 hours. I am a great fan of playboy and playboy photography.
I always thought playboy photographers were very talented and to some extent i thought their work at pb didn't do justice to their
talent.
The workshops yesterday at shoot the centerfold were the best every i have seen, i am blown away at the knowledge and experience
Jarmo and Arny and David shared with everyone. Lots of one on one training....simply the best seminar ever.
Sid
-
Trying to get the hang of posting pics.
-
Perhaps the subject is Shoot The Centerfold Seminar?
Thanks for the welcome, skeptisim is healthy ;D
-
Photoshop didn't invent retouching, it just introduced it to the masses.
Playboy was way ahead of the curve of the massively retouched image.
Even before electronic retouching, working on dye transfers, if you saw a acetate overly on a playboy centerfold work print, there was so many china maker corrections you couldn't see the model underneath the acetate.
Also the centerfold and cover were printed in Gravure.
At the time Penthouse took nudes to a more realistic look, a little older, less retouched, a little more real, though they used a David Hamilton Fog filter which I believe cut down on some of the retouching costs.
For brief moments, OUI was the the nude art magazine, but eventually came out in many styles, now I believe it's a wedding magazine.
The branding of playboy was the girl next door.
Penthouse, the lonely rich housewife.
Oui was the European encounter.
At least that's what I've been told.
BC
True...
-
I think that the real problem with the Centrefold has always been the same thing: camera format.
I remember during all those years when I subscribed to the magazine that the foldout was always the single sad moment. The same shooters did beautiful 'general' stuff of the same girls in the normal parts of the issues, but the big format turned everything into still life, and that doesn't work with people. I wouldn't blame the photographers for that.
It's somethimg I always disliked about some fashion photography too: overlit, losing the whole point of the exercise, which is about look and emotional kick. But I believe it was a Hef thing. As he pays the bills... But then, some people also buy inflatable dolls, so perhaps plastic (rubber?) skin has its appeal and following.
Rob C
They did talk about this during the early session of the seminar. It was about pb format, i think photographers went beyond that and
created their own style within that format.l
-
Quite an event!
http://www.sexymuse.com/blog/2011/02/02/1114
http://www.sexymuse.com/blog/2011/02/05/1131
-
Great pic - great composition. And you were careful enough not to use flash!
One can almost smell the dusty carpet.
-
They did talk about this during the early session of the seminar. It was about pb format, i think photographers went beyond that and
created their own style within that format.l
That's even more gibberish than text generated by Markov chains.
-
What I have noticed over the last few years is that more and more photo workshops pop up everywhere. There's more money in selling the dream of being a photographer than actually being a photographer.
I see more shooters teaching classes and workshops nowadays. I would rather just do something else interely than the mundane of teaching others how to shoot the same thing over and over.
The strength of any type of art lies in the originality of the creators and not the repetition of all the emulators.
It's even more telling that some of the most well-known, established photographers with long and illustrious careers have several workshops - Joe McNally perhaps the best example. If even someone who's shot for National Geographic and LIFE sees more business in workshops, it's not very encouraging for pro wannabes.
-
John and feppe - you both echo my own feeling on this. I was never up in the exalted and rarified air that some of these people are supposed to breathe, but I can assure you that I never had the least interest in, nor time to indulge at playing camera club host. There is something sad about it all right!
But then, it's not new within the arts: guess how many people exit art school to resurface within a short while doing the same thing but from the other side of the desk in some local school where they deal with kids not in the least interested in any of it. They are the fortunate ones. It seems that most such people pocket their diploma and head for the hills and become farmers, aim for that distant beach and become surf bums or drop into the last-chance saloon of the unemployment bureau. It also happened with photo-school leavers, but now it's caught up with those already established in their profession. Truly a bad career choice if you are still able to make choices and don't have that compulsion that might, just might, save you and let you succeed, though it will probably destroy you instead.
Rob C
-
That's even more gibberish than text generated by Markov chains.
As true as it is funny.
-
John and feppe - you both echo my own feeling on this. I was never up in the exalted and rarified air that some of these people are supposed to breathe, but I can assure you that I never had the least interest in, nor time to indulge at playing camera club host. There is something sad about it all right!
But then, it's not new within the arts: guess how many people exit art school to resurface within a short while doing the same thing but from the other side of the desk in some local school where they deal with kids not in the least interested in any of it. They are the fortunate ones. It seems that most such people pocket their diploma and head for the hills and become farmers, aim for that distant beach and become surf bums or drop into the last-chance saloon of the unemployment bureau. It also happened with photo-school leavers, but now it's caught up with those already established in their profession. Truly a bad career choice if you are still able to make choices and don't have that compulsion that might, just might, save you and let you succeed, though it will probably destroy you instead.
Rob C
Come to think of it, pretty much in every profession or field for that matter most come back to it even after reaching their peak and retirement, in
some form of a teacher, trainer, consultant etc. Take for instance football players as soon as they retire they are on espn as an expert commentrator or something. I simply think we are too hard on our profession, hobby or a photography enthusiast when it comes to things like these. Well being a
critic is okay but being a harsh critic it gotta produce some sort of challenge not negative mentatlity. My two cents on that hope i didn't offend anyone.
Sid
-
It's even more telling that some of the most well-known, established photographers with long and illustrious careers have several workshops - Joe McNally perhaps the best example. If even someone who's shot for National Geographic and LIFE sees more business in workshops, it's not very encouraging for pro wannabes.
IMHO if i want to be someone like National Geographic or LIFE photographer that means i am impressed more on their career success rather than
their talent.
That LIFE magazine subject brings memories of TIME LIFE photography annual issue which contained the best photographers work from around the
world. I think i have dated myself here.
-
IMHO if i want to be someone like National Geographic or LIFE photographer that means i am impressed more on their career success rather than
their talent.
That LIFE magazine subject brings memories of TIME LIFE photography annual issue which contained the best photographers work from around the
world. I think i have dated myself here.
And here I thought you were a Markov chain - actual content :P
Getting in prestigious magazines is obviously not guarantee of "talent," but most photographers would almost kill to get on the pages of NG. Besides, Mr McNally is talented and successful, yet he still sees ROI on doing workshops. I've seen his spirited tutorials on Kelby Training and he's very good at teaching, and of course it could be that he just enjoys doing them - that's what everyone arranging workshops claims.
-
I've seen his spirited tutorials on Kelby Training and he's very good at teaching, and of course it could be that he just enjoys doing them - that's what everyone arranging workshops claims.
To be clear, yes Joe enjoys teaching...and yes, he's good at it. Not all good photographers make for a good teacher. Different mind and skill set. And yes, in this day and age, it makes a lot of financial sense to have a diversified source of income...it allows you to pick and choose what you shoot and gives you more flexibility–which is also a factor in how good of a photographer you can be.
I spent 25 years as an advertising photographer. I'm not a reformed ad shooter and teaching, writing and developing software allows me to pick and choose what I shoot. I no longer shoot for clients, I shoot for myself (which is a lot more fun).
-
To be clear, yes Joe enjoys teaching...and yes, he's good at it. Not all good photographers make for a good teacher. Different mind and skill set. And yes, in this day and age, it makes a lot of financial sense to have a diversified source of income...it allows you to pick and choose what you shoot and gives you more flexibility–which is also a factor in how good of a photographer you can be.
I spent 25 years as an advertising photographer. I'm not a reformed ad shooter and teaching, writing and developing software allows me to pick and choose what I shoot. I no longer shoot for clients, I shoot for myself (which is a lot more fun).
And that's where we disgree fundamentally: without the client's desire/need for you to do something for him, there is just no buzz (for me). It's more about being thought of as essential to something than about the money. I know perfectly well this isn't good business, but it's still the basic motivator even if in practice you do use your business head first! I can't buy that in teaching where those who seek one out don't know much, because if they did they wouldn't need one's input. A professional level of client usually does know who and what he needs. It's about that informed external respect for what you can do, and the willingness to pay well for a part of it.
Who said it isn't an ego trip?
Rob C
-
And that's where we disgree fundamentally: without the client's desire/need for you to do something for him, there is just no buzz (for me).
Do you honestly think it's "fun" to shoot for today's clients? Really? Back in the day I used to say that my goal was to shoot "really neat stuff" for an "obscene amount of money" and for "really talented art directors"...any two of the proceeding three criteria would be sufficient. Today, it's really boring stuff for little money with people who don't know shyte. Heck, I would still be working of I could get one of the three criteria...but it just ain't worth the hassle...I much prefer going out to shoot, whatever....with no idiots, a$$holes nor tiny payments involved.
I got into photography for the love of the art...was willing to work in the field for lots of money and now I'm back to shooting for the love of the art. Over the years, I've learned a lot...I'm happy to pass it long–for compensation of course :~)
-
1. Do you honestly think it's "fun" to shoot for today's clients? Really? Back in the day I used to say that my goal was to shoot "really neat stuff" for an "obscene amount of money" and for "really talented art directors"...any two of the proceeding three criteria would be sufficient. Today, it's really boring stuff for little money with people who don't know shyte. Heck, I would still be working of I could get one of the three criteria...but it just ain't worth the hassle...I much prefer going out to shoot, whatever....with no idiots, a$$holes nor tiny payments involved.
2. I got into photography for the love of the art...was willing to work in the field for lots of money and now I'm back to shooting for the love of the art. Over the years, I've learned a lot...I'm happy to pass it long–for compensation of course :~)
Well, taking your (1) first: I have no idea about today's clients; I'm retired and I imagine clients were ever the same - the good, the bad and the downright ugly. But they needed what I could provide, and that mattered.
Moving on to (2): same reason to start as mine, but once I realised that I had a moneymaker too, I didn't like giving it away. Probably became a hooker by trade... but expensive enough to cut the clients down a fair bit, which might have been great for the ego but questionable for the bank.
But we do what we do, and there's no second chance.
Now, I would rather do nothing than spend it doing classes and demos. Frankly, I don't think I could. It was either for real or not at all. Just like love.
;-)
Rob C
-
I consider Jarmo Pohjaniemi as one of the best in the industry. He has created his own style which few do, especially
being mentioned along with Steve McCurry, Marc Chagall, Guido Argentini etc..
This Art Basel display of work includes lot of great photographers. Among them is that famours NG cover picture of Afghani G
girl along with Jarmo's work. I could be a little biased since i am from Miami and so is Jarmo, but you don't see a lot of photogs
(whether they are from NG, Maxim, Time or Playboy) in that list of known names unless they are best at what they do.
-
This Art Basel display of work includes lot of great photographers. Among them is that famours NG cover picture of Afghani G
girl along with Jarmo's work. I could be a little biased since i am from Miami and so is Jarmo, but you don't see a lot of photogs
(whether they are from NG, Maxim, Time or Playboy) in that list of known names unless they are best at what they do.
Seems to me that all that's needed nowadays is a pair of oversized knockers and the hell with the rest.
Was a time that some notion of beauty and/or chic played a part; guess this new way is progress.
Rob C
-
Spryseeks,
You still have not answered my question I posed before. The last time, you danced around it like a stripper on a pole. So, I will ask once more:
Do you have a monetary interest in the promotion of these seminars? If you do, then be honest and own up to it. If not, you should contact the promoters of the seminars as they should pay you something for your persistent and shameless promotion.
-
Spryseeks,
You still have not answered my question I posed before. The last time, you danced around it like a stripper on a pole. So, I will ask once more:
Do you have a monetary interest in the promotion of these seminars? If you do, then be honest and own up to it. If not, you should contact the promoters of the seminars as they should pay you something for your persistent and shameless promotion.
Hey Brian,
Like i mentioned earlier i am a big fan of Playboy to begin with, and i have several threads and one biggest thread in playboy forums which has 387,000 posts in it. My idea has always been to bring fans, models, photographers, editors
and graphic designers to same thread and interact with each other. It became a huge success there and when i came accross never-happened-before seminar i wanted to share the same senitment of creating a discussion outside the playboy community. I am the biggest fan of pb photogs specially Jarmo and Arny i like their technique and i want to
discuss this with other photographers.
I don't mean to make you uncomfotable or anyone else for that matter, but i like your straight-forwardness. I prob would do the same this if i were in your shoe, but then again i am open to any criticism as long as it involves the subject of this thread but not personal.
If you feel like you have more to say about this just shoot me a message.
Sid
-
Seems to me that all that's needed nowadays is a pair of oversized knockers and the hell with the rest.
Was a time that some notion of beauty and/or chic played a part; guess this new way is progress.
Rob C
It goes with the times i guess. For instance what beauty was couple of centuries ago might not be the same
now.
-
It goes with the times i guess. For instance what beauty was couple of centuries ago might not be the same
now.
I'm not able to talk about several centuries ago - old but not quite that old.
Frankly, I think the problem is/was that Playboy felt that it had to abandon the high ground and roll in the mud with the competition. In my possibly jaundiced view, the guy buying those mags today has no friggin' idea about, nor interest in, beauty. He wants toilet fodder. That shot posted a couple of posts back - a heavy, hard-looking (to me) woman playing coy behind a fine veil is not alluring, it is ridiculous in its improbability. Think of a cow wearing a string of pearls - see what I mean? That's improbability.
Rob C
-
Hey Brian,
Like i mentioned earlier i am a big fan of Playboy to begin with, and i have several threads and one biggest thread in playboy forums which has 387,000 posts in it. My idea has always been to bring fans, models, photographers, editors
and graphic designers to same thread and interact with each other. It became a huge success there and when i came accross never-happened-before seminar i wanted to share the same senitment of creating a discussion outside the playboy community. I am the biggest fan of pb photogs specially Jarmo and Arny i like their technique and i want to
discuss this with other photographers.
I don't mean to make you uncomfotable or anyone else for that matter, but i like your straight-forwardness. I prob would do the same this if i were in your shoe, but then again i am open to any criticism as long as it involves the subject of this thread but not personal.
If you feel like you have more to say about this just shoot me a message.
Sid
You do not make me uncomfortable at all. But, you still have not answered the question. All it requires is a simple yes, or a no. Maybe you are a politician..... :D
-
You do not make me uncomfortable at all. But, you still have not answered the question. All it requires is a simple yes, or a no. Maybe you are a politician..... :D
;D @ politician.
-
;D @ politician.
Okay, you can be discounted, then.
Rob C
-
You do not make me uncomfortable at all. But, you still have not answered the question. All it requires is a simple yes, or a no. Maybe you are a politician..... :D
My apologies Bryan, all this time i didn't even realize my first post, i just fixed it. It was a copy and paste excerpt from their site about the upcoming seminar and i wanted to hear pros and cons on that.
And to answer your question : No i don't have anything to do with any monetory benefit from their site. I am just a playboy fan and their photography techniques.
Maybe i am an honest politician ;D hmm Honest Politician? now that's a perfect oxymoron!
-
Okay, you can be discounted, then.
Rob C
When was attending their seminar late last month, i came across this gentleman who is a senior photographer for
bullzeyc online magazine, which i check now and then after meeting him. He posted some good stuff about the workshop
too :
http://blog.bullz-eye.com/2011/02/10/shoot-the-centerfold-photography-seminar-a-huge-success/
E
-
When was attending their seminar late last month, i came across this gentleman who is a senior photographer for
bullzeyc online magazine, which i check now and then after meeting him. He posted some good stuff about the workshop
too :
http://blog.bullz-eye.com/2011/02/10/shoot-the-centerfold-photography-seminar-a-huge-success/
Dammit, coming to UK and Germany? And here I thought I'd wait for John Paul Caponigro or Joe McNally to come here before going to a workshop.
-
Dammit, coming to UK and Germany? And here I thought I'd wait for John Paul Caponigro or Joe McNally to come here before going to a workshop.
Rumor is they have something lined up for June....waiting for an annoucement/press release so i can sign up for next workshop.
-
Dammit, coming to UK and Germany? And here I thought I'd wait for John Paul Caponigro or Joe McNally to come here before going to a workshop.
feppe - we're dealing with a robot.
Rob C
-
Pretty good site i found :
http://www.usa.canon.com/dlc/controller?act=GetArticleAct&articleID=3126
since i am a Canon user this is very helpful.
-
Spryseks, consider starting over again. Perhaps even delete this account and create a new one. After you've gotten to read the room a little better, feel free to post. We know you were trying to generate some viral interest in the STC seminar, but this was the wrong place for it.
-
Spryseks, consider starting over again. Perhaps even delete this account and create a new one. After you've gotten to read the room a little better, feel free to post. We know you were trying to generate some viral interest in the STC seminar, but this was the wrong place for it.
Wrong place?
-
Wrong as in wrong forum for the viral marketing approach to try to drum up business for the STC seminar, whereinafter you are called out and try to come up with "conversational" content after the fact. If you want to have a real conversation, have one by all means. Otherwise, I /hate/ being manipulated. I don't believe for a second, not a second, that you just "felt like" having a conversation about the STC, so you came here, created an account, and posted your ad twice: "What's everyone's take on this? <ADVERTISEMENT>" This is as fake as it gets and it pissed me off.
At this point, you either want to be a member of the community or not. My advice is to get to know the room better before posting in the future.
-
Wrong as in wrong forum for the viral marketing approach to try to drum up business for the STC seminar, whereinafter you are called out and try to come up with "conversational" content after the fact. If you want to have a real conversation, have one by all means. Otherwise, I /hate/ being manipulated. I don't believe for a second, not a second, that you just "felt like" having a conversation about the STC, so you came here, created an account, and posted your ad twice: "What's everyone's take on this? <ADVERTISEMENT>" This is as fake as it gets and it pissed me off.
At this point, you either want to be a member of the community or not. My advice is to get to know the room better before posting in the future.
Getting pissed off is not good for health. Like i said i didn't mean to come across like that, but then everyone has their own choice of words. Well i am here and this is my community, just like playboy i am a fan of Shoot The Centerfold also. So, let's move on and have
good conversation. Shoot me a message and we can talk about your personal opinion on me.
-
More good stuff about this seminar!
http://www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?thread_id=728695&page=1#last
-
Well i am here and this is my community, just like playboy i am a fan of Shoot The Centerfold also.
Not really, the "community" is a lot more than a single thread in which YOU started...as far as I can tell, you've contributed zero to this "community" except for starting a thread that sounds like an ad for the workshop. But, I can tell you that there is such a thing as bad publicity and so far, that's what you've been engaging in.
-
Not really, the "community" is a lot more than a single thread in which YOU started...as far as I can tell, you've contributed zero to this "community" except for starting a thread that sounds like an ad for the workshop. But, I can tell you that there is such a thing as bad publicity and so far, that's what you've been engaging in.
Point noted. Let me start all over again with a new thread only for workshops and seminars of any kind and have
serious discussion on it's pros and cons. Thanks for the advice.
-
Hey Everyone!
This is the seminar i went to and liked it a lot. If anyone has gone to similar seminars please share.
http://shootthecenterfold.com/
Starting all over...
I have read about other workshops by FHM photogs and independent professional photographers organzing something
like this. If you are one of them please share that experience or if you have been to one .
-
Starting all over...
Uh, no...you are just adding a new post to the same old thread...do you know how to start a new thread?
(hint, you did it the first time).
Have you actually read any other threads in LuLa? Do you have anything to contribute?
-
OK, we're done here.
Michael