Shooting with the masters - William Neil

[LesPalenik]

I envy you.

You must be a really, really, really very good old buddy with Michael when you can say such things to his face publicly. I am sure you guys just laugh it off, hug it out and go for a drink, right?

Nobody needs a buddy like that. It appears that lately, some members replaced their mood stabilizer prescription with a much more economical $12 Lula subscription and their aggression release sessions with the forum platform.

[Ray]

However straying from the usual drag also brings with it increased risk in the wilderness (I've come face to face with a sleepy rattlesnake at 3') so I'm loathed to talk about going "off piste" there lest it lead to others putting their safety at risk.

There's nothing to fear but fear itself. 

[HSakols]

I don't know if it is possible to have a "secret location" at somewhere like Yosemite.

There are plenty of secret locations I have in Yosemite, even in Yosemite Valley.  Keep in mind Yosemite Valley makes up less than 5% of the national park.  The most dangerous place you can be in Yosemite is on the road!  I've had my own life endangered when a car stopped on a blind corner to take some photos.  The most dangerous animals in the park are the mice which can carry Hanta Virus. 

[dreed]

The part 3 video feels much better to watch and it is again great to see talk about using longer lenses to isolate items of interest ("What is the image about?")

[hsteeves]

The first two parts seemed to deal with the background and backstory of the man, video #3 is more about how he shoots.  For many people, this is what they want. For those who are interested in the concept of photographing pieces of the landscape, I suggest David Ward, British photographer, the book, 'Landscapes Within'

[kencameron]

That the lines between what we say to people's faces publicly (as is the case in this example), and what we say about someone in the circle of our friends and privacy of our home got so blurred that they seem non-existent.

I agree the post in question crossed a boundary. OTOH, Michael is putting himself out there as a performer, on a paid site. When I see him on a video I see the writer and photographer whose work I have admired for years, and I have no issue with his delivery style. A visitor to the site who may or may not become a subscriber lacks the advantage of knowing who he is, and it may be of some value to him, as a business man, to know that not everyone is impressed. Of course he needs to stay true to himself, but still, there might be...room for improvement.


Edit: "not everyone's wife is impressed".

[Rand47]

I agree the post in question crossed a boundary. OTOH, Michael is putting himself out there as a performer, on a paid site. When I see him on a video I see the writer and photographer whose work I have admired for years, and I have no issue with his delivery style. A visitor to the site who may or may not become a subscriber lacks the advantage of knowing who he is, and it may be of some value to him, as a business man, to know that not everyone is impressed. Of course he needs to stay true to himself, but still, there might be...room for improvement.

True.  And then there are just bad manners and a lack of civility.  "Just being honest" seems as to have become code for license and narcissistic indulgence. 

Rand

[dreed]

Indeed, Les.

(Anti) social etiquette of the Age of the Internet? That the lines between what we say to people's faces publicly (as is the case in this example), and what we say about someone in the circle of our friends and privacy of our home got so blurred that they seem non-existent.

Where does one post reviews of video that they view on LL if not here?
And if there is something that we don't like, we should ... keep it to ourselves?
How else does one improve except through feedback - both positive and negative?
Maybe what others perceive as being "tedious" came across completely differently to me.
I've never felt as awkward watching 1&2 as I have watching any of the clips Michael has done.

It felt more like Kevin was a Spanish Inquisitor than an interviewer. I couldn't see any real dynamic between them - the body language was just as loud as the conversation. The third clip is better. If clip 1 & 2 were shot before 3, then maybe something to learn is to do the 1&2 sort of clips last.

[LesPalenik]

And if there is something that we don't like, we should ... keep it to ourselves?
How else does one improve except through feedback - both positive and negative?
Maybe what others perceive as being "tedious" came across completely differently to me.

Over the years, I've seen many on-line or in-person presentations by various artists Some are better in delivery than in substance, some excellent on both counts, and some presenters may have had a bad day. Either way, all deserve respect - in contrast to the armchair critics who would be better advised to channel their energy to more constructive expressions.

[amolitor]

I only watched one segment.

I was struck by how Kevin was fixated on boiling it down to 'quick tips' while Mr. Neil seemed to me to be politely pushing back and talking about process.

'Work the subject, try things out, look for the picture'

'So you're saying to use a longer lens for isolation?'

'Huh?'

The thing is that quick tips only get you a little way. Eventually you have to start working the subject and trying to find the picture.

[Zorki5]

Eventually you have to start working the subject and trying to find the picture.

Which is also a "quick tip". Something along the lines of "don't stop working the subject even after you took a shot that you think is good or even great; keep trying different angles, framing, light etc."

[amolitor]

I think of a tip as a self contained, immediately actionable, thing. 'Use a long lens' is a tip.

'Working a subject' is a direction that unpacks quite a lot, which for me places it somewhere pretty far away from the 'tip' end of the spectrum.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Andrew, here is a tip for you: "same difference" 

[dreed]

Over the years, I've seen many on-line or in-person presentations by various artists Some are better in delivery than in substance, some excellent on both counts, and some presenters may have had a bad day. Either way, all deserve respect - in contrast to the armchair critics who would be better advised to channel their energy to more constructive expressions.

So how do we show that respect?

I'm confident that as Kevin gets more experience with interviewing and talking to new people on camera that he'll get better at it - like everything, practice makes perfect.

[daws]

...Where video does work well, is for entertainment, when you have time to kill.  It is also good for conveying visual sequence based guidance (such as how to assemble something). It is a specialist medium.

Text is still the most effective medium if you only have one channel available to you.

I agree. I prefer text (books, ebooks, websites) because it can be randomly accessed, referenced, indexed, annotated, browsed and re-visited easily. Compared to text, videos (other than guidance or training for sequential activities; professionally produced entertainment, or edu-tainment) are a frustratingly clumsy medium of educational reference for me because of the difficulty of indexing, marking, organizing and retrieving desired bits of information.

[LesPalenik]

I'm confident that as Kevin gets more experience with interviewing and talking to new people on camera that he'll get better at it - like everything, practice makes perfect.

To me, they both looked OK. Natural, relaxed and more knowledgeable than some other TV or youtube personalities.
I'm aware that some may like the delivery style of Scott Kelby or Donald Trump, but as a Canadian with European heritage, I prefer the more subtle and meaningful reportage.
The good thing is that fortunately we have a choice what to subscribe to and watch. I am thankful to Lula, Kevin, and Chris for such content.

Compared to text, videos (other than guidance or training for sequential activities; professionally produced entertainment, or edu-tainment) are a frustratingly clumsy medium of educational reference for me because of the difficulty of indexing, marking, organizing and retrieving desired bits of information.

Very good point.
One possible way to facilitate search and indexing would be to add some relevant tags and keywords from the video to the accompanying article to make it searchable.
   

[amolitor]

I have been known to offer the tongue in cheek tip 'open your **** eyes!' which is, as I see it, what Mr. Neil is saying. Walk. Look. Observe how the relationships between objects and masses in the frame change.

This is what photography is. The rest is just technical details.

If Kevin wants to be a better interviewer then, with respect, he needs to pay more attention to what's being said by the interviewee. I felt as if Kevin was cherry picking what Mr. Neil was saying, and commenting on what were minor details. Settings. Equipment. Things that new photographers think are interesting. Mr. Neil was talking about things which, to be honest, most new photographers find largely incomprehensible.

This disconnect made the video rather weird. Is it a video for beginners, or for people who've been shooting for a while? Or both? I don't know.

[Rand47]

I only watched one segment.

I was struck by how Kevin was fixated on boiling it down to 'quick tips' while Mr. Neil seemed to me to be politely pushing back and talking about process.

'Work the subject, try things out, look for the picture'

'So you're saying to use a longer lens for isolation?'

'Huh?'

The thing is that quick tips only get you a little way. Eventually you have to start working the subject and trying to find the picture.

Heck, you're missing half of the fun of two different human beings interacting.  William in his context has become a thoughtful, reflective shooter.  Kevin is like the perennial kid in a candy store (we should all be so lucky).  So when William is sharing his stream-of-consciousness approach to the thoughtful approach to exploring a subject, the "kid in the candy store" latches onto some exciting "data points" from that and exuberantly flings them back at William for confirmation.  That's fun.  That's how humans tell stories to each other. 

If we start parsing which "personality/approach/way of being-expressing" is "the better of the two" we all end up being poorer for the exercise.

My .02

Rand

[Christopher Sanderson]

Heck, you're missing half of the fun of two different human beings interacting.  William in his context has become a thoughtful, reflective shooter.  Kevin is like the perennial kid in a candy store (we should all be so lucky).  So when William is sharing his stream-of-consciousness approach to the thoughtful approach to exploring a subject, the "kid in the candy store" latches onto some exciting "data points" from that and exuberantly flings them back at William for confirmation.  That's fun.  That's how humans tell stories to each other. 

If we start parsing which "personality/approach/way of being-expressing" is "the better of the two" we all end up being poorer for the exercise.

My .02

Rand

))

[Isaac]

The most dangerous place you can be in Yosemite is on the road!  I've had my own life endangered when a car stopped on a blind corner to take some photos.

On the 27th December, I saw 2 cars (without tire chains) that had skidded into the rocks (along seemingly straight sections of the Yosemite valley loop road). Being roadside didn't feel safe.