Photography On The Web - Minor Annoyances
Remember when I wrote a post way back about 80% of all photography stuff you read is bullcrap? Whether it be on the web or in print or wherever. I really wasn’t trying to blast any particular person or photographer - some that will remain nameless deserve it but I really wasn’t. I believe most photographic bullcrap are lies of omission although some are despicable deception to feed individuals own ego. Like a bunch of numb-nuts spouting the virtues and their apparent god like abilities of using one light and their entire portfolio consists of images made with 4 or 5 lights used in very very obvious ways.
I strive to tell the whole story - sometimes I screw up. If I do I really really want people to call me on it. when something just doesn’t make sense. The reason for this is that I like to pass on what little wisdom my experiences have brought me in a meaningful and helpful way. If there are things that just don’t add up they are distractions that get in the way of that goal.
Those distractions as I said are probably unintentional - here is an example. Joe McNally’s latest post. I do not know Joe, never met him. I am sure he is a standup guy and a wonderful teacher. He probably deserves every bit of the reputation that he has. He is also probably a lot more sophisticated than his down home simple boy persona that he puts on. I just glanced at his latest post and I see a giant distraction in his description of what he is doing vs. the images he has illustrating it. In fact the illustrations are a bit contradictory. I am sure that he did not mean them to be. In fact I am sure there is a good explanation even if it is just the point of view that he chose for those illustrations.
I am going to call him on it - just because I would want someone to do it to me. Not in a nasty way, just in a curious searching for clarification way.
Ps. Five points for anyone that sees the same discrepancy that I do - you don’t even need to read the post.blog comments powered by Disqus