Reading mode: Light Dark

My new blog style website

Go to last post
It might attract viewers, but are they the viewers that you want? Sadly they probably are.

I've been in the colour and B&W professional portrait business for twenty years and think that your portraits are badly lit, the pp is badly done, the pictures are tacky, and the B&W conversions are lousy. I have no particular view of the site itself as this is wiped by the sad images.
Sorry guy, but you did ask.
Jules
Davidismyfriend said:
Here is my new blog style website http://news.davidshama.com , it seems that this style of website attracts a lot more traffic then the classic. After just two month online it reaches my old website in statistics.
tell me what you think

--
http://www.davidshama.com
Click to expand...
--
Julesarnia on twitter
Vibeke Dahl on Twitter is..
https://twitter.com/DahlPhotography
 
JulesJ said:
It might attract viewers, but are they the viewers that you want? Sadly they probably are.

I've been in the colour and B&W professional portrait business for twenty years and think that your portraits are badly lit, the pp is badly done, the pictures are tacky, and the B&W conversions are lousy. I have no particular view of the site itself as this is wiped by the sad images.
Sorry guy, but you did ask.
Jules
Click to expand...
Gosh, I find that rather harsh. I've just spent a while admiring the pictures, and see a lot of my own landscape and outdoor object style there translated into people pix. Lighting is a very subjective matter, and what's good for me might be dreadful for you, and vice versa. I wouldn't say the PP is badly done at all - on the contrary, there are some grungy looks there that could take a lot of work in PS and/or SFX. Also, I like the informal and often humorous situations of the models in many of the pix.

I would only add one comment though - one of those models (Black Eyes, Pink and Red) looks like a really good night's sleep and a couple of fine dinners would work wonders for her.
 
Halibut, I didn't expect eveyone to agree with my views as some people like tac and are not even aware that it is. But they are still tacky in my view and I'll say it again I don't like the PP or the b&w conversions.
Jules
Halibut said:
JulesJ said:
It might attract viewers, but are they the viewers that you want? Sadly they probably are.

I've been in the colour and B&W professional portrait business for twenty years and think that your portraits are badly lit, the pp is badly done, the pictures are tacky, and the B&W conversions are lousy. I have no particular view of the site itself as this is wiped by the sad images.
Sorry guy, but you did ask.
Jules
Click to expand...
Gosh, I find that rather harsh. I've just spent a while admiring the pictures, and see a lot of my own landscape and outdoor object style there translated into people pix. Lighting is a very subjective matter, and what's good for me might be dreadful for you, and vice versa. I wouldn't say the PP is badly done at all - on the contrary, there are some grungy looks there that could take a lot of work in PS and/or SFX. Also, I like the informal and often humorous situations of the models in many of the pix.

I would only add one comment though - one of those models (Black Eyes, Pink and Red) looks like a really good night's sleep and a couple of fine dinners would work wonders for her.
Click to expand...
--
Julesarnia on twitter
Vibeke Dahl on Twitter is..
https://twitter.com/DahlPhotography
 
Haha, I can only laugh....
Yes they are the viewers I want, the ones that appreciate my style.

Twenty years, is that supposed to mean you're good?

Are you so close minded that you think there is only one style of photography, Soulless portraits like the ones you do? The thing is with a style like yours, that is so "academic", is that it's very forgettable, it serves it's purpose, it's nice, but that's it...
Academic can be outstanding in some cases but you are no Irving Pen...

I am not saying my work is better, who I am to say that, but at least I try my best and put everything I've got in it.

My black and whites and color pictures are all taken with film, so not converted. Have you forgotten, or maybe never knew how to use film...
I like raw and simple pictures, everything is very little to not retouched.

Anyway, I have nothing against you but you seem lack a little self confidence to attack the others like this...
Cheers
JulesJ said:
It might attract viewers, but are they the viewers that you want? Sadly they probably are.

I've been in the colour and B&W professional portrait business for twenty years and think that your portraits are badly lit, the pp is badly done, the pictures are tacky, and the B&W conversions are lousy. I have no particular view of the site itself as this is wiped by the sad images.
Sorry guy, but you did ask.
Jules
Davidismyfriend said:
Here is my new blog style website http://news.davidshama.com , it seems that this style of website attracts a lot more traffic then the classic. After just two month online it reaches my old website in statistics.
tell me what you think

--
http://www.davidshama.com
Click to expand...
--
Julesarnia on twitter
Vibeke Dahl on Twitter is..
https://twitter.com/DahlPhotography
Click to expand...
--
http://www.davidshama.com
 
I agree with Jules, but that's just me. No hard feelings.
JulesJ said:
Halibut, I didn't expect eveyone to agree with my views as some people like tac and are not even aware that it is. But they are still tacky in my view and I'll say it again I don't like the PP or the b&w conversions.
Jules
Halibut said:
JulesJ said:
It might attract viewers, but are they the viewers that you want? Sadly they probably are.

I've been in the colour and B&W professional portrait business for twenty years and think that your portraits are badly lit, the pp is badly done, the pictures are tacky, and the B&W conversions are lousy. I have no particular view of the site itself as this is wiped by the sad images.
Sorry guy, but you did ask.
Jules
Click to expand...
Gosh, I find that rather harsh. I've just spent a while admiring the pictures, and see a lot of my own landscape and outdoor object style there translated into people pix. Lighting is a very subjective matter, and what's good for me might be dreadful for you, and vice versa. I wouldn't say the PP is badly done at all - on the contrary, there are some grungy looks there that could take a lot of work in PS and/or SFX. Also, I like the informal and often humorous situations of the models in many of the pix.

I would only add one comment though - one of those models (Black Eyes, Pink and Red) looks like a really good night's sleep and a couple of fine dinners would work wonders for her.
Click to expand...
--
Julesarnia on twitter
Vibeke Dahl on Twitter is..
https://twitter.com/DahlPhotography
Click to expand...
--
http://photos.susanslattery.com
 
I like this gallery better. She's not a pro as far as I can tell, but there's something about her eye I find very compelling, and bonus: no boobs.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mojo-fire/sets/72157605792263380

One more thing: good pictures are everywhere and it's all totally freaking subjective.
Davidismyfriend said:
Twenty years, is that supposed to mean you're good?

Are you so close minded that you think there is only one style of photography, Soulless portraits like the ones you do? The thing is with a style like yours, that is so "academic", is that it's very forgettable, it serves it's purpose, it's nice, but that's it...
Academic can be outstanding in some cases but you are no Irving Pen...

I am not saying my work is better, who I am to say that, but at least I try my best and put everything I've got in it.

My black and whites and color pictures are all taken with film, so not converted. Have you forgotten, or maybe never knew how to use film...
I like raw and simple pictures, everything is very little to not retouched.

Anyway, I have nothing against you but you seem lack a little self confidence to attack the others like this...
Cheers
JulesJ said:
It might attract viewers, but are they the viewers that you want? Sadly they probably are.

I've been in the colour and B&W professional portrait business for twenty years and think that your portraits are badly lit, the pp is badly done, the pictures are tacky, and the B&W conversions are lousy. I have no particular view of the site itself as this is wiped by the sad images.
Sorry guy, but you did ask.
Jules
Davidismyfriend said:
Here is my new blog style website http://news.davidshama.com , it seems that this style of website attracts a lot more traffic then the classic. After just two month online it reaches my old website in statistics.
tell me what you think

--
http://www.davidshama.com
Click to expand...
--
Julesarnia on twitter
Vibeke Dahl on Twitter is..
https://twitter.com/DahlPhotography
Click to expand...
--
http://www.davidshama.com
Click to expand...
--
http://photos.susanslattery.com
 
Davidismyfriend said:
Haha, I can only laugh....
Yes they are the viewers I want, the ones that appreciate my style.

Twenty years, is that supposed to mean you're good?

Are you so close minded that you think there is only one style of photography, Soulless portraits like the ones you do? The thing is with a style like yours, that is so "academic", is that it's very forgettable, it serves it's purpose, it's nice, but that's it...
Academic can be outstanding in some cases but you are no Irving Pen...

I am not saying my work is better, who I am to say that, but at least I try my best and put everything I've got in it.

My black and whites and color pictures are all taken with film, so not converted. Have you forgotten, or maybe never knew how to use film...
I like raw and simple pictures, everything is very little to not retouched.

Anyway, I have nothing against you but you seem lack a little self confidence to attack the others like this...
Click to expand...
I admire your confidence. Yes we used film for many years, longer than many photographers doing the same sort of work as ours as in the early digital (printing) days b&w was terrible. As for yours being shot on film, why bother if you are showing or selling digital images? It's all in the conversion to digital still, and your conversions are not good.

Anyway, good luck to you is all I can say. perhaps there is a market for your sort for stuff. What do I know?
Davidismyfriend said:
Cheers
JulesJ said:
It might attract viewers, but are they the viewers that you want? Sadly they probably are.

I've been in the colour and B&W professional portrait business for twenty years and think that your portraits are badly lit, the pp is badly done, the pictures are tacky, and the B&W conversions are lousy. I have no particular view of the site itself as this is wiped by the sad images.
Sorry guy, but you did ask.
Jules
Davidismyfriend said:
Here is my new blog style website http://news.davidshama.com , it seems that this style of website attracts a lot more traffic then the classic. After just two month online it reaches my old website in statistics.
tell me what you think

--
http://www.davidshama.com
Click to expand...
--
Julesarnia on twitter
Vibeke Dahl on Twitter is..
https://twitter.com/DahlPhotography
Click to expand...
--
http://www.davidshama.com
Click to expand...
--
Julesarnia on twitter
Vibeke Dahl on Twitter is..
https://twitter.com/DahlPhotography
 
I use film because it renders differently, it has texture, it's too bad you stopped using it, your pictures have a very distinctive digital quality, they really look digital... And, yes there is a market, I earn my living shooting editorials and campaigns here Paris. If there is something you don't like about my "conversion" it's just a matter of taste. Good luck too you
JulesJ said:
I admire your confidence. Yes we used film for many years, longer than many photographers doing the same sort of work as ours as in the early digital (printing) days b&w was terrible. As for yours being shot on film, why bother if you are showing or selling digital images? It's all in the conversion to digital still, and your conversions are not good.

Anyway, good luck to you is all I can say. perhaps there is a market for your sort for stuff. What do I know?
JulesJ said:
Cheers
JulesJ said:
It might attract viewers, but are they the viewers that you want? Sadly they probably are.

I've been in the colour and B&W professional portrait business for twenty years and think that your portraits are badly lit, the pp is badly done, the pictures are tacky, and the B&W conversions are lousy. I have no particular view of the site itself as this is wiped by the sad images.
Sorry guy, but you did ask.
Jules
Davidismyfriend said:
Here is my new blog style website http://news.davidshama.com , it seems that this style of website attracts a lot more traffic then the classic. After just two month online it reaches my old website in statistics.
tell me what you think

--
http://www.davidshama.com
Click to expand...
--
Julesarnia on twitter
Vibeke Dahl on Twitter is..
https://twitter.com/DahlPhotography
Click to expand...
--
http://www.davidshama.com
Click to expand...
--
Julesarnia on twitter
Vibeke Dahl on Twitter is..
https://twitter.com/DahlPhotography
Click to expand...
--
http://www.davidshama.com
 
I like it when photographers ( try to ) brake the rule...your work is really good... how boring if we all had the same (YAWN) style...anyway, art is also about catching the attention span of the viewer... for better or worse, but I looked at your photos because I like them.
greetings
Matthias
 
This is very common site style wise these days.

As for content, there is a big difference between snap shot based industrial work which promotes and embraces a style of rather calculated starkness (Larry Clark- Tulsa comes to mind) and work which looks unfinished and sloppy. Dust particles on the negatives left in the scans along with loose exposures and processing must be a Bohemian thing that I just don't appreciate.

If ultra minimalist is your thing and you have developed a paying audience then good for you. Can't get better than that.

If it makes a difference I work exclusively in MF film, process the negs and print all of the wet darkroom enlargements by hand. I do the scans too.

--
denniswilliams
 
I would think it better to have some theme or themes to which your pictures belong, so that the comments would be focused. Otherwise, I surmise it's soft porn.....
 
Thanks yes,

It doesn't make a difference but I personally prefer film, and it shows in your work. Just one thing, I understand what you say if it's in reference to my last job "Lola" but for the rest of my work I don't see what's loose or sloppy.... did you look at the other pages?
Anyway, it's very subjective,
your work is technically very good
DenWil said:
This is very common site style wise these days.

As for content, there is a big difference between snap shot based industrial work which promotes and embraces a style of rather calculated starkness (Larry Clark- Tulsa comes to mind) and work which looks unfinished and sloppy. Dust particles on the negatives left in the scans along with loose exposures and processing must be a Bohemian thing that I just don't appreciate.

If ultra minimalist is your thing and you have developed a paying audience then good for you. Can't get better than that.

If it makes a difference I work exclusively in MF film, process the negs and print all of the wet darkroom enlargements by hand. I do the scans too.

--
denniswilliams
Click to expand...
--
http://www.davidshama.com
 
I looked through your website, and sorry, but I just am not getting it. It may be my monitor, because I found it actually a bit difficult on my tired old eyes. Could be that it is just so far removed from the work I do. (nature/landscapes) You might even have the same feeling about my type of photography too. Different strokes...

Glen
http://www.FocusOnNewfoundland.com

 
Congratulations David. I like you do things this (your) way. If you enjoy it that's fine. If you get an audience, it's paying. I wish I had a little of your eccentrics. I always finish (mostly unaware) my works biased to the safe side no matter if I started by looking or exploring the dark side.

Besides, soft porn is a million times better than hard silicon! America is infatuated with silicon.
Eduardo
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top