Why I HATE Umbrella Lighting...

<p>I hate to reference Johnathan Swift twice in the same thread, but I guess I used him above b/c of the large amount of respect I have for Swift. He stirred the pot: his "Modest Proposal" (and political jab, "Gulliver's Travel", etc) got a lot of people talking. However, he didn't look like a shameless self promoter, or know-it-all in the process.<br>

<br>

Bradbury's "Fahrenheit 451" was another good stir the pot piece of work. A book about the evils of censorship, that was actually censored itself in some school libraries. Hitler's "Mein Kampf" has stirred the pot too, but strangely no one has given him kudos.<br>

<br>

There's a right way and a wrong way to get people talking.</p>

<p>I do love the interpretation some people have;<strong> Melissa Arcuri </strong>"agrees with Mr. Ben" about the fact it's not overpriced modifiers that are important-- however, Mr. Kanarek never said that-- not even close. He picked on the cheapest of all modifiers, and when asked which ones he used to make his picture, rattles off a list of hardware.</p>

<p>Several others decided that Kanarek's post must be about softlight, in total disregard for the title "Why I HATE umbrella lighting". I'd hope that someone w/ as much experience as Ben has, could come up w/ the wordage "soft lighting" if that's what he means. His post is a rant that umbrellas are used in only one, boring way, which is why he hates them. </p>

<p>Really, this argument can be used for anything you dislike: you don't like hip hop, why? B/c it all sounds the same. You don't like country and western music, why? B/c it all sounds the same. I'd shoot nudes, but they are all the same lighting and posing in front of a sweep or muslin. I (personally) hate shooting swimwear... why? B/c it invariably is the same 5 poses in front of a beach-- and if it's a local beach, then every photographer in the area shoots at the same rock, pier, etc.</p>

<p>Fashion... *pffft* Is always about "breaking the rules". Miami fashion (being from Florida) is normally wide angle lens for distortion shot very low, and lots of wind. Frankly, I'm tired of it now-- though it was cool to begin w/. Even one of Kanarek's shots-- great for the genre, I'll not take that away from him-- but the out of focus face looks bad to me. I also hate the insertion of lens flare by fashion and art photographers-- mimicing amature mistakes as professionals just isn't my thing.</p><div></div>

<p>How much would you pay now?<br>

Wait!..Put away that check book!</p>

<p>Ben will soon be releasing his 3rd installment for all of us; the great unwashed.</p>

<p>Come on Pete...I have the greatest of respect for all of you here. </p>

<p>It doesn't show. Have you ever even been to Boise?</p>

<p >Benjamin,</p>

<p >You, and everyone that you come into contact with, would be much happier if you could recognize that your ego is working against you. I wish you well.</p>

<p>If Benjamin has challenged you to the extent he obviously has then you need to get out more, it's umbrellas people nobody died.<br /> Look at his pictures he is obviously very good at what he does, he has posed a statement and got people talking, that is what forums are for, no wonder the rating system sucks, if being different means being attacked.</p>

 

<p>Simon, being talented is no excuse for bad manners. Benjamin, I and the nearly 200,000 other people who call Boise home are awaiting your apology.</p>

<p>This is total comedy.</p>

<p>Y'all are being self-trolled. Benjamin is not a troll and is not deliberately offending anyone. He might be a little full of himself, but aren't most creative folks?</p>

<p>Garry nailed it, tho': it's blatant self promotion. And there's nothing necessarily wrong with that, as long as it's within photo.net guidelines, which means no signature URLs and repeated blog-spamming.</p>

<p>Benjamin is just stirring up some tired blood here. Maybe that's a good thing. The only thing that makes me shrug and say "eh" is that he's pretty much just regurgitating his blog entries here instead of just engaging in spirited *and* constructive discussions. Like a lot of aspiring pros, he doesn't understand the difference between participating as a photo.net community member and crassly using photo.net to boost his Google prominence. Since virtually every post on photo.net is picked up by Google quickly, sometimes within an hour, a lot of clever folks recognize photo.net is a great vehicle to boost their name recognition.</p>

<p>So, Benjamin, plus points for being a clever fellow, minus points for doing it wrong. Too bad, because you could benefit from photo.net through constructive and interactive participation instead of just reprinting articles from your blog. As I suggested via e-mail a few weeks ago. But, not my forum, not my problem, so it doesn't bug me.</p>

<p>But some of you folks are taking this way too seriously and way too personally.</p>

<p>Yeah, Pete, Ben has the "greatest of respect" for you, just not for your work if lit using an umbrella. As for me, I Kan-a-(w)rek my photos with an umbrella if I want to, Ben. ; )</p>

<p>In truth, I've never been one to mind being shown something new, even if it comes from a self-adulating, misanthropic guy like the OP, whose ability to write well far outpaces his ability to show a little humility. Me, I'm here to learn and, when and where I can, contribute.</p>

<p>I bet he loves the attention!</p>

<p>Wow, someone send Captain Willard up the river, Colonel Kurtz methods have become "unsound". I myself<em></em> would have to agree with Dan, this post has provoked quite a bit of thought and gave some insight to how others approach their lighting even if it is in a unnconventional style, if thats all you take from it I see no harm done. Cheers for that Benjamin, enjoyed your pics as well.</p>

<p>heres what I do with umbrellas, well actually just one. I have more on my site www.felixtm.com</p>

<p><img src="http://www.felixtm.com/photos/597841996_9BGaj-L.jpg" alt="" width="800" height="533" /> <br /> <img src="http://www.felixtm.com/photos/576218651_Fjefw-L-7.jpg" alt="" width="400" height="600" /></p>

<p><img src="http://www.felixtm.com/photos/467715005_QzMVP-L-6.jpg" alt="" width="800" height="554" /> <img src="http://www.felixtm.com/photos/458076307_m3ofA-L-3.jpg" alt="" width="800" height="534" /> <img src="http://www.felixtm.com/photos/591414190_whjMF-L.jpg" alt="" width="800" height="534" /></p>

<p> </p>

<p>Why shouldn't I take it personally?</p>

<p>Ok, Benjamin's work reminds me of a Parisian brothel. Now we're even.</p>

 

<p>Felix, great stuff.</p>

<p>I wish to apologize to everyone living in Boise, Idaho. It was the first thing that came to mind and was not ill intended. I have never been to Boise, but did do some research on it once. I really am sorry. I should change the town to something like "Rats Ass" in Lower Slobovia, a tiny hamlet near the Carpathian Mountains. But then again, there might really be a Rats Ass, Lower Slobovia...</p>

<p>Some very nice captures there Felix! Bravo!</p>

<p>Howdy!</p>

<p>Thank you very much! Apology accepted. And no, I've never been to one of those other establishments in Paris, so I don't really know what they're like either. ;^<)></p>

<p>As luck would have it, my wife is from a tiny hamlet near the Carpathian Mountains named Khotin. But I'm pretty sure there's no such place as R.A.L.S.</p>

<p>Later,</p>

<p>Paulsky</p>

<p>aren't you wondering (I am) what benefit you are deriving (or hope to derive) from photo.net?... t</p>