Photography & Integrity

Joe Lavee said:

I hope you don't report it to the language police.

Click to expand...

Of course not. It's your site and you can make as many mistakes in it as you want. But denying these mistakes even exist, while they are plain to see, is like denying that the sky is blue.

Joe Lavee said:

Can you quote and point to the paragraphs?

Click to expand...

Well, I'll point a couple:
"combinig" instead of "combining", home page, line 4;
"eill" instead of "will", event digital booth, line 2.

I'll let you find the others. But I'm sure these have been pointed out to you before by others.

Mark Smith said:

Joe Lavee said:

Let me add to it another angle. Re wedding photography, are the BG
better off if it is photographed digitally or film?

Click to expand...

Doesn't Happen Joe.
Most wedding photographers use digital, I believe not only is it
easier to shoot digital but its better for weddings.

Click to expand...

One of my nieces got married 2 years ago. She looks at prospective photographers and for the most part the onest that shot digital had poor quality portfolios. She went with a 5x5 medium format film photographer with 30 years experience. The results were very, very good.

It doesn' matter what service you provide or product you manufacture. It all comes down to your ability to entice customers to buy the service/product you have to offer.

If you can get lots of people to buy rocks you find down by the river, more power to you! I'm very happy to hear the poster who had a couple request that black and white film be used for part of their day.

More and more I'm thinking of removing myself from the heavily traffic of the mundane and go to the outer rim of black and white film (processed and printed without computers via a local black and white film only lab) and velvia and kodachrome.

I am far from an experienced wedding shooter..

But I will say, digital has many advantages in this specific area.

However, I suspect..that most people will hire someone based on them being pleased with the photographer and his/her work. They probably do not really give a damn about medium as such.

It is true that some may request film for jobs like this. Again, what exactly is the problem here?

People don't complain about film grain, only those who are on these forums do that ;-)

The OP clearly has a hatred of film..but why should this be of any concern? Simply use what you like. Live and let live..

This guy features on the masters of wedding photography 2 dvd..and he certainly delivers the goods

http://www.davidoliver.com.au/Default.aspx

And he loves using film..

Where is the problem? So he should warn his potential clients that by his using film, he is going to be giving them inferiour photographs? What nonsense..

I don't question the artist, or what tools he uses. I just say is this good...that is ALL that counts. Who asks a painter what paint brand he uses, or questions his choice of brushes? Hell, some even paint with their fingers..

I think you can get the point I make here....
--



I am not the 'Ghost Hunter', nor am I the Irish actor in the 'Quiet Man' ;-)

We all know Joe's intent of this thread. Unfortunately, it backfired on him and made him look foolish. I had a great chuckle at the fellow quoting the spelling errors that Joe said didn't exist. He obviously will say or do anything to further his crusade.

The most funny thing of all is that everyone he is attacking about film, use digital as well. We value both and understand the strengths and weaknesses of each medium. Is is obvious that Joe has a few issues in his life that have been brought out by posting on DPReview. I'd suggest anger management for starters. And then maybe he can turn his focus on issues of truth vs fiction.

This thread is proof simple that he is on the attack......as he is attacking a number of us even when a civil post is made. He's just trying to stir up rubbish.

The best part is, he doesn't realize that everyone is laughing at him....not supporting him. I came back today after photographing a family at the beach for a portrait session to a half dozen more emails wondering what his problem is. The more he posts, the more foolish and silly he looks. It's sad he doesn't get it....but I guess it's entertainment for the rest of us.

Fred Ferkel said:

handle that as well. I wouldn't try to sell a client film just
because I didn't have the right digital equipment though.

Click to expand...

No matter which business you are in, there is likely better equipment, software, skilled staff than you have or can afford. You have to sell your business services/product to prospective clients. You do what you must to get clients and you must also do what you must to make sure they end up happy.

The longevity of properly made film prints is well known; however, the longevity of prints made from digital purposes such as inkjets with archival inks, is yet to be known since they have been mainstrem for only 5 to 10 years.

Dave Luttmann said:

I had a great chuckle at the fellow quoting the spelling errors that Joe
said didn't exist.

Click to expand...

.
.
.

Dave (and Barry),

Perhaps there is something that can be pieced together here.

We will take Joe at his word that he is a photographer, and let us say for discussion he is quite a good photographer. Okay?

Does Joe have a bit of an attitude situation? Clearly within this thread, and many, many of his dpreview posts, his attitude is focused on film. And, without stretching his concepts too much, this thread is about those who use film. It seems underlying Joe's OP and follow-on is that those who use film to any degree at all, especially if they are in business, are liars and lack some degree of integrity--if only because, by Joe's lights, they are not telling clients that digital really would be better for them.

Of course, there is also Joe's site spelling/grammer denial.

Here's a speculative question or two... Is is possible Joe keeps his attitude constrained to film/spelling/grammer? Is Joe in a situation where he must deal with the public and his business depends, at least slightly, on how his prospective clients react to him (and any visibility of personal attitude)?

If he keeps what seems to be his overall attitude in check in real life as well as he keeps in in check on dpreview, would that be an asset to his business?

And finally, if his business were to falter due to his attitude, does it seem he would admit that and work to polish his attitude a bit...or is there the possibility he would blame that on some "lack of integrity" of those competitors he is sure are using film and lying to clients about its merits?

Just asking.

But maybe we can understand why there is a ticking sound coming from Joe.

Ed

--
http://www.blackmallard.com/cal_ls/
California Light and Structure

http://www.blackmallard.com/o_barn/
One Barn

charlesh said:

Dan, with those haughty letters behind your name and the awards you
say you won, it's pretty petty to come to a new thread to personally
attack someone who hasn't even commented here yet. Sad stuff, don't
you think? No, of course not, and I'll expect the insults to follow
from the both of you shortly, as you did in a previous thread.
--
charlesh

Click to expand...

Hi,
This is only my second post in this thread, you are I believe at number eight,

Let's start at the beginning shall we? I did not come here to attack anyone, however the thread is about photography and integrity so I felt I should comment re Dave Luttman's assertion that many people ask to have their wedding or at least a portion of said wedding shot in film.

I then asked Mark Smith a respected professional photographer and teacher of photography if he agreed with this scenario, and whether or not he would find these claims extreme.

That has been my sole posting, excepting this one, to this discussion.

How you can assume that this is some sort of attack on Dave Luttman is beyond comprehension. Dave has, and I'm sure he will confirm this, on many occasions stated that clients frequently ask for film to be used at their weddings. I would question the validity of this claim.

My interpretation would be that Dave may "suggest" that clients may like some film shots, I doubt that many young couples embarking on Marriage would concern themselves with whether or not they should ask the photographer to shoot digital or film.

As to the "haughty letters" after my name, why are you so upset by them? Is it because you don't have any and feel inferior? I know for a fact that the PSA that's Photographic Society of America has a similar Honours system, and would welcome your application to have your work considered for judging.

So Charles who of us is guilty of personal attacks and insults?
--
Kind Regards
Dennis P O'Neil APSNZ
'War does not determine who is right, only who is left'

Ed Leys said:

Dave Luttmann said:

I had a great chuckle at the fellow quoting the spelling errors that Joe
said didn't exist.

Click to expand...

.
.
.

Dave (and Barry),

Perhaps there is something that can be pieced together here.

We will take Joe at his word that he is a photographer, and let us
say for discussion he is quite a good photographer. Okay?

Does Joe have a bit of an attitude situation? Clearly within this
thread, and many, many of his dpreview posts, his attitude is focused
on film. And, without stretching his concepts too much, this thread
is about those who use film. It seems underlying Joe's OP and
follow-on is that those who use film to any degree at all, especially
if they are in business, are liars and lack some degree of
integrity--if only because, by Joe's lights, they are not telling
clients that digital really would be better for them.

Of course, there is also Joe's site spelling/grammer denial.

Here's a speculative question or two... Is is possible Joe keeps his
attitude constrained to film/spelling/grammer? Is Joe in a situation
where he must deal with the public and his business depends, at least
slightly, on how his prospective clients react to him (and any
visibility of personal attitude)?

If he keeps what seems to be his overall attitude in check in real
life as well as he keeps in in check on dpreview, would that be an
asset to his business?

And finally, if his business were to falter due to his attitude, does
it seem he would admit that and work to polish his attitude a
bit...or is there the possibility he would blame that on some "lack
of integrity" of those competitors he is sure are using film and
lying to clients about its merits?

Just asking.

But maybe we can understand why there is a ticking sound coming from
Joe.

Ed

Click to expand...

Ah a telling reply from the forums pseudo intellectual.

--
Kind Regards
Dennis P O'Neil APSNZ
'War does not determine who is right, only who is left'

Dave Luttmann said:

We all know Joe's intent of this thread. Unfortunately, it backfired
on him and made him look foolish. I had a great chuckle at the
fellow quoting the spelling errors that Joe said didn't exist.

Click to expand...

You mean like trees?

I guess math isn't your strong point. I said I would charge tree times as much for full film. 1/3 of $12,000 is $4000 for regular pricing for me.

I've archived this post of yours just showing that even when someone makes a civil post towards you, you attempt to attack them in response.

You must be a lonely person in the real world to have to flex your web muscles in the web world.
How sad for you....and anyone who googles you for business

Kind Regards
Dennis P O'Neil APSNZ
'War does not determine who is right, only who is left'

Lacol said:

Well, I'll point a couple:
"combinig" instead of "combining", home page, line 4;
"eill" instead of "will", event digital booth, line 2.

I'll let you find the others. But I'm sure these have been pointed
out to you before by others.

Click to expand...

May I join in................ Here are a couple of yours........ see if you can spot them yourself without any help from the grown ups )

Many here might be already familiar with Godwin's law, that states that the longer a thread goes on, the higher the chances of nazis or Hitler being mentionned.
Now it seems there is a new law of Internet forums:

The longer a thread about someone being banned, the higher the probability of censorship being mentionned.
Now we need a name for this new law.

shall I MENTION them or can you manage on your own?

Kind Regards
Dennis P O'Neil APSNZ
'War does not determine who is right, only who is left'

True, you are not only selling your services but your skills. As for archival longevity for PRINTS, although it is true that the latest pigment inks last for quite some time (no one is sure exactly how long), the digital image itself is just a set of numbers and barring accidents, and with regular "refreshing" of the information, can last essentially forever. Colour film dyes used in negatives and slides are to a larger or smaller extent "fugitive" and will, over time, fade and degrade the image.

As I said to Joe...glass houses. I am certainly not jealous of the letters behind your name, as they mean absolutely nothing to me, but you certainly have made it known that you are an award winner. Good for you. I've run into a few college profs with all kinds of credentials and letters in front of and behind their names who absolutely stunk at teaching, so.... And, my life is just fine without the need to add hollow 'honors', but thank you for the reference.

It doesn't matter if this is my 83rd post to this thread, my response was to the sad OP who purposely started this pathetic thread with a sole purpose in continuing with the other ridiculous (now closed) thread, of which you were an active participant/thrower of insults.
--
charlesh

How he misses the point completely? How he jumps to the defense of the OP no matter how ridiculous, no matter how the OP attacked everyone regardless of the civil posts he received, no matter how the OP fabricates information and posts, etc, etc.

Don't respond to this individual as no matte how ridiculous the posts that Eaton or Lavee makes, he will jump to their defense as they are normally posting something derogatory about film or people that use film in part of their workflow.

In Lavee's and Eaton's defense, despite their anger management issues, at least they have shown that they actually do indeed take photos. DP O'Neill just makes excuses why he can't show a single image.

What these three have proven they lack is not just credibility....but integrity in how they treat other people. Unfortunate;y for Joe & his business....people can find how he treats others just by reading this thread.

You know, I was wondering how long it would take for such a reply to appear. Actually, I was expecting it to come from Joe, but it seems like you beat him to it.

Such childish reaction normaly shouldn't deserve a reply, but hey, I have nothing better to do right now.

You could argue that I shouldn't give lessons about someone else's grammatical errors when I make such mistakes myself. And you know, you would be right. If you check my posting history (as, apparently, you already did), you'll see that I'm not a grammar ****. Everybody makes mistakes. As a non-native english speaker, I actually appreciate it when someone constructively points out my mistakes, so that I can improve my english skills.

However, something seems to have eluded you: This is not about spelling mistakes. The errors on Joe's site may not even be his, if he hired a web designer to build his site. This is about denying they even exist . I never deny I make mistakes. When they are pointed out to me, I try to correct them in future postings. I and other posters in this thread actually did a service to Joe by pointing out the mistakes in his web site. Some potential clients could find ironic that they find grammatical mistakes on a web site that talks so extensively about quality control. Correcting those mistakes simply makes good business sense, and I have no doubt that that's exactly what Joe's going to do. As for you, I laugh at your immature and pathetic attempt at embarassing me. Your reply had nothing to do with serious debating or constructive criticism, and everything to do with childish posturing. You talk to me about my spelling when your french is as good as my english.

You've discovered that this is what DP O'Neill is all about. The topic will get twisted in order to have his comments delivered as a personal attack. In the end, he comes out in support of something ludicrous....excusing spelling mistakes on a professional site and comparing that with posts on an internet forum.....he actually supports someone who claims the errors don't exist....even when we can see them with our own eyes. Now isn't that the strangest twist of logic you've witnessed.

The best thing is to avoid posting replies to Joe Lavee, Scott Eaton and DP O'Neill as they will support eachother in the most ridiculous statements....even when such statements are blatant fabrication. People who post support of others when they are obviously fabricating information cannot be trusted themselves as being credible.

At least Joe and Eaton have images we can view....DP O'Neill for some reason cannot show any and suggests we need to fly to New Zealand in order to view them. Sounds odd doesn't it? I think you know the reason why just as a lot of us do. ;-)

Regards,

I wrote a thread that deals with misinforming clients about the merits of film and look what happened.

All the digital challenged/film fanatics are jumping up and down, they have a tantrum.

They are so deeply concerned and upset that it causes them to loose their commonsense and react in a comic, hysterical fashion.

They exchange emails and advice each other, one is threatening to suit after being caught contradicting himself, another feels insulted on behalf of all film users.
Instead of debating the issue, they are trying to discredit the writer.

One anal professor thinks that there are some grammatical errors on my main page web site.

Hallelujah, threw at them the rope to pull them out of the swamp, now they have an issue.
This bunch jumps on it like a hungry dog on a bone.

It is comical, they engage in nitpicking. "Joe, I've seen several syntax or capitalization errors on the front page of your site."

Is this the subject of this thread? Of course not, but instead of dealing with the message, they attack the messenger.

... and the message is very clear. Some of you which are "Digital challenged" or don't have digital gear, overstate film merits and hence lack integrity.
... and now the next wave of attacks.

Dave Luttmann said:

You've discovered that this is what DP O'Neill is all about. The
topic will get twisted in order to have his comments delivered as a
personal attack.

Click to expand...

Lutti, pleassssssse your credibility is very questionable.

You keep writing laughable stories. Your basic charge for photography is $4000 right? and you have more work than you can handle, right? You have to turn away work, right?
Is it the disposable cameras and the style bellow what they are after?
http://members.shaw.ca/cheryl.dewolfe/wedding/
Or your famous and mysterious 4x5 landscaping

The Davinator said:

In the end, he comes out in support of something
ludicrous....excusing spelling mistakes on a professional site and

Click to expand...

Yes Lutti, talking about the subject, on your "professional site you claim to be a portrait photographer, and yet, you don't have EVEN one image.
Your COMMERCIAL and LOCATION images are old, dated Aug 2005.

You have an obsession with disposable cameras. Did you shoot your location images with it?

The Davinator said:

comparing that with posts on an internet forum.....he actually
supports someone who claims the errors don't exist....even when we
can see them with our own eyes. Now isn't that the strangest twist
of logic you've witnessed.

Click to expand...

Lutti, don't concern yourself with my site, your site needs plenty of attention.

Buy the way, your wedding images are awefull, do something about it. I have seen better stuff at the beginners forum.

The Davinator said:

The best thing is to avoid posting replies to Joe Lavee, Scott Eaton
and DP O'Neill as they will support eachother in the most ridiculous
statements....even when such statements are blatant fabrication.
People who post support of others when they are obviously fabricating
information cannot be trusted themselves as being credible.

At least Joe and Eaton have images we can view....DP O'Neill for some
reason cannot show any and suggests we need to fly to New Zealand in
order to view them. Sounds odd doesn't it? I think you know the
reason why just as a lot of us do. ;-)

Click to expand...

You are the last one that can talk about showing images. Bellow, is this your idea of showing your work?
http://members.shaw.ca/cheryl.dewolfe/wedding/

The Davinator said:

Regards,

Click to expand...

Ed Leys said:

Dave Luttmann said:

I had a great chuckle at the fellow quoting the spelling errors that Joe
said didn't exist.

Click to expand...

.
.
.

Dave (and Barry),

Perhaps there is something that can be pieced together here.

We will take Joe at his word that he is a photographer, and let us
say for discussion he is quite a good photographer. Okay?

Does Joe have a bit of an attitude situation? Clearly within this
thread, and many, many of his dpreview posts, his attitude is focused
on film. And, without stretching his concepts too much, this thread
is about those who use film. It seems underlying Joe's OP and
follow-on is that those who use film to any degree at all, especially
if they are in business, are liars and lack some degree of
integrity--if only because, by Joe's lights, they are not telling
clients that digital really would be better for them.

Of course, there is also Joe's site spelling/grammer denial.

Here's a speculative question or two... Is is possible Joe keeps his
attitude constrained to film/spelling/grammer? Is Joe in a situation
where he must deal with the public and his business depends, at least
slightly, on how his prospective clients react to him (and any
visibility of personal attitude)?

If he keeps what seems to be his overall attitude in check in real
life as well as he keeps in in check on dpreview, would that be an
asset to his business?

And finally, if his business were to falter due to his attitude, does
it seem he would admit that and work to polish his attitude a
bit...or is there the possibility he would blame that on some "lack
of integrity" of those competitors he is sure are using film and
lying to clients about its merits?

Just asking.

But maybe we can understand why there is a ticking sound coming from
Joe.

Click to expand...

What a title: "Photography and Integrity."

I thought we were going to be talking about some sort of moral issue.

Instead the "delemma" is whether it's immoral to tell a client that film is better than digital. If only all moral delemmas were so easy...

Now I shoot NO FILM, have not shot film in over ten years. Digital is better for the photographer, not for the client.

Now my clients couldn't give a $hit what I shoot. But if they asked, I would tell them that film has better DR, but that I personlly no longer own the equipement to give them that superior quality. Is this the delemma?

There's definitely something wrong with a persons head whose moral questions revert to film vs digital.

Dave

has found grammatical errors on your site...as have others, yet you stubbornly(or ignorantly)refuse to acknowldge that fact. Now, insulting another photographer's work is pretty low, so I'm going down low here myself...the wedding photos, and especially your corporate stuff, ain't gonna win you no prizes, Mr. Joe. If I were a client looking for a photographer, found your website, saw the quality of the images and how poorly the text is written, I'd be going elsewhere. Have plenty of clients? Good for you. Get your last insult in, go email DP, have a good cry, and maybe this thread will mercifully max out soon. Re-reading this thread, you really are something.
--
charlesh