Printable View
IMO Randall has taken over ever since he burst onto the scene. His work is at a level I don't think we have seen and I am proud to have shot with him and had dinner with him many times. He pushes himself, doesn't stay in one spot too long and his reward is shots like this. Did I mention he shoots Nikon? :tongue: I loved Whitebirds catch of a crosswind touchdown from this spot but I think Randall has outdone everyone with this. WOW!
Randal > Royal
Just IMHO
Simply awesome!!! This is an inspiration for me to get awesome shots like that.
LOL, I agree Royal is great but Randall has owned the homepage for over a year and he does it all with no access. Randall truly is a spotter and a sick photog. He also recently began screening so he gives of himself as well. A good man!Quote:
Randal > Royal
Just IMHO
I have to say that Randall is easily the best shooter in the United States. It's hands down to me.
I know your a fan Phil! He certainly is up there. His work is technically perfect and he is keeps it fresh. In fact I am surprised he was at the viewing area because he loves to explore new spots in Vegas and LAX. Not to mention one cool dude! I take any chance to have dinner or shoot with him and he has given me priceless advice like ditching my 80-400VR for the 300 prime.
I hope to meet him sometime, huge fan of his too.
And agreed threeholeglory!
Superb photos... does he do Vulcan Mind Melds any more? I need to pick his brain about my poor shots and how to improve them LOL. Having perfect light like Vegas doesn't hurt :-) In any case, superb work!
BTW, is there a spotting guide for Vegas of the level of NYC guides? Nick, thanks for the advise and tips you gave me the other day when we met. I am just looking for something I can print LOL. As my memory is not as good as it should be :P
Phil put together the map here from my memory. Basically the two major spots are the viewing area and rooftop. Though it's a grid and if you have wheels you can seek out spots like Randall does. If you ever have a question just PM me. I have shot many places there.Quote:
Originally Posted by gonzalu
You know, I am an idiot... I never even saw the Las Vegas guide here... DUH!!! Good deal. Thank you sir.
Quote:
I have to say that Randall is easily the best shooter in the United States. It's hands down to me.
So, at risk of being flamed, I gotta say that I respectfully disagree.
First though, some disclaimers:
1) Due to a.nets cookie cutter style of shooting and overall encouragement of lackluster creativity it’s entirely possible that I just haven’t seen everything Mr. Johnson has to offer – like if he uploads to flick or other non-crazy sites. So my critique is based solely on his a.net content and nothing else because I don’t know where/if he posts elsewhere.
2) I’ve never met the guy, so I can’t say anything about him on a personal level other than I’ve heard he’s a wicked nice guy.
That being said, I’m not sure that he’s the best one out there period. His quality and technical prowess is certainly top-notch; I imagine that he likely has some of the best Nikon has to offer and definitely has some sick editing skills to boot that make me drool. In this regard he’s one of the best I’ve seen, ever. And he is clearly dedicated to be out there often to get a variety of shots in different conditions in multiple locations around the field. But his composition overall isn’t anything particularly striking to me. And maybe that’s just because I see his a.net stuff, but I don’t see anything that’s really outside the box to me. Photogs like Kevin Scott, Ty Rogoway, Jim Raedar, Ron Stella show not just top notch quality & dedication but also fantastic, out of the box composition coming up with fresh ideas and new perspectives. When I view Randall’s shots I’m floored by the quality, the crispness, the color, the tight shooting, the to die for editing skills. But at most it makes me want to spend $15,000 on the best equipment and spend a week spotting in Vegas and LAX. When I view photos from Kevin/Ty/Jim/Ron I want to get out to the nearest field and start shooting at something (with a camera of course). They consistently come up with fresh angles, new perspectives, and crazy ideas that make me wish I’d’ve thought of that and give me inspiration to try something similar and, more importantly, come up with something new. They push the envelope of how I at least think about, photograph, and even view airplanes. I also have the benefit of knowing where else a few of these guys post so one can really get a feel for the real photographer, and not just what a.net has deemed acceptable, and maybe this is the case with Randall too (in which case I’m happy to eat my words and recant most of what I just said), but on the face of what I see on a.net, I’m just not convinced.
Jeremy you need to remember that Randall doesn't have the access the people you listed have and he doesn't really feel the need to have an hook at Nellis. When you can't get close to the aircraft it's not that easy to start doing "outside the box" things. Yet if you look at a lot of Randalls stuff he has ventured to spots (again also outside the fence) that not too many people go to. Also I take insult to your "real photographer" comment as I would think many others here will as well. Just because your Jetwash buddies can camp out on the side of the active at Nellis and shoot different angles that us mortals doesn't make them any more real than the people that upload to anet, JP or what have you. If you want to stop uploading to anet fine, I respect that but to try to deem anyone who does a "cookie cutter" is not only a stretch but pretty much insulting. Like I said we aren't blessed with being able to get access or shoot Boeing Field all the time. From what I have seen from your "pushing the envelope" shooters it's not much different than what I see from the creative guys such as Florian and others on anet.
sorry for the double post but @nick...I think what Jeremy was saying when he referenced "real photographer" is that you're seeing their whole collection of skills since you can see their work through all sites (flickr, photobucket, personal site etc.) and not only what a.net has posted. Airliners (as we've shot this point dead already) has a fairly strict standard for what they want to see in an image based on a number of factors including the technical aspect as well as the composition. To that end, what Jeremy is saying is that it can severely limit the type of shot we will see from that photographer. Perhaps in this case Randall has another site he uploads other shots to that have that more creative edge that Jeremy is looking to exploit in himself but has not found yet.
I don't have a hook at Nellis - I'd love to but all the shots you saw posted came from areas that were either public or similar to the view the public has. I had media access with NYC, which only accomplished carving out a space along the flight line right next to the public. Saved a spot was all it did, but I didn't get any pics the public didn't. The people I mentioned, some of them have access...others don't. A handful of the guys I mentioned don't have access most of the time.Quote:
Jeremy you need to remember that Randall doesn't have the access the people you listed have and he doesn't really feel the need to have an hook at Nellis.
Nick, its all about context here. Look back at what I said:Quote:
When you can't get close to the aircraft it's not that easy to start doing "outside the box" things. Yet if you look at a lot of Randalls stuff he has ventured to spots (again also outside the fence) that not too many people go to. Also I take insult to your "real photographer" comment as I would think many others here will as well.
It doesn't take rocket science (or does it?) to see that I'm referring to a photographer as a whole. A synonym for my statement would read: "I also have the benefit of knowing where else a few of these guys post so one can really get a feel for the whole photographer - the entire package that she/he has to offer". I think most people reading this (like threeholer), Nick, will realize I am not in fact insulting photographers as a whole, and instead pointing out the limitations of what a.net can offer.Quote:
I also have the benefit of knowing where else a few of these guys post so one can really get a feel for the real photographer, and not just what a.net has deemed acceptable, and maybe this is the case with Randall too (in which case I’m happy to eat my words and recant most of what I just said), but on the face of what I see on a.net, I’m just not convinced.
Thanks Nick, but not all my jetwash buddies camp out on the side of the runway. In fact, I actually only have one jetwash buddy, and most of the time he's right next to me on the fence at Boeing Field getting the same access as "mere mortals" like you, me, and everyone else.Quote:
Just because your Jetwash buddies can camp out on the side of the active at Nellis and shoot different angles that us mortals doesn't make them any more real than the people that upload to anet, JP or what have you.
I have no problem with people who shoot "cookie cutter", and I regret that I appear to have come off that way. The conversation revolved around saying Randall was the best photog a.net has to offer. I disagree, I think a.net has better to offer. Nothing wrong with that.Quote:
If you want to stop uploading to anet fine, I respect that but to try to deem anyone who does a "cookie cutter" is not only a stretch but pretty much insulting. Like I said we aren't blessed with being able to get access or shoot Boeing Field all the time.
Florian has a fantastic portfolio...and an even better selection visible outside of a.net...which basically underscores my point. I picked 4 of the guys I think really kick it up a notch, there's more, but I'm not going to list them all. Florian is certainly one them...so is Mark Garfinkel among others.Quote:
From what I have seen from your "pushing the envelope" shooters it's not much different than what I see from the creative guys such as Florian and others on anet.
I just love reading this thread and seeing passion about aviation photography. Kickass.
Nice one Phil lolQuote:
Originally Posted by Phil D.
Nice backpedal but the context was clear. You basically said these guys are real photographers and insinuated that people that upload to anet are not.Quote:
Nick, its all about context here. Look back at what I said:
It started out that way but degenerated into a rant against a site you feel only has photos from people that don't push themselves which is total bravo sierra. Was Phil over the top with saying Randal was the best out there? Like anything else it's relative. I feel he is most certainly one of the top guys out there and you used it as a way to further an agenda about angles and composition and I gave you the benefit of the doubt but as I look at the work of the names you dropped I don't see it. Randall pushes himself just as much if not more than the photogs you mentioned. In fact I don't see really anything much different than any of the outside the box stuff on anet already. Great example is contrail shots. I didn't see one from any of those photogs yet Randall has mastered them and totally kills everyone one he uploads and those are by far not only "outside the box" but pretty damn tough to pull off.Quote:
The conversation revolved around saying Randall was the best photog a.net has to offer. I disagree, I think a.net has better to offer. Nothing wrong with that.
Simply as I have stated on fb this was just a rant, and nothing much more. Hell I see more creative "outside the box" stuff from Florian's work than I do these guys. If you want to stop uploading to anet fine, but we didn't need the drama or the insults of people who feel anet pushes them just as much as any other place you can upload.
Now again if you would like to provide examples that we can discuss I feel that would be a lot more productive than to just throw names and accusations, so feel free.
Context was clear that time, and it's clear this time; sorry you can't see that.Quote:
Quote:
Nick, its all about context here. Look back at what I said:
Nice backpedal but the context was clear. You basically said these guys are real photographers and insinuated that people that upload to anet are not.
I'm done with you on this Nick. Have fun.
I don't mean to take sides here but 7 beers deep since this thread has heated up tonight alone and I can see how Jeremy meant that comment, which is to say the "whole photographer"...not intended as an insult by any means.Quote:
Originally Posted by jerslice
PS - I'm a lightweight.
Yes you clearly called us fake photographers. Oh BTW you are offbase about his equipment as well. He shoots with a D300 and a F4 300 lens and I can assure you they don't cost 15 grand. In fact they are consumer grade equipment which is more of a testament to his skills.Quote:
Context was clear that time, and it's clear this time; sorry you can't see that.
I'm done with you on this Nick. Have fun.
Agreed. I admit that my creative side is a bit behind a LOT of others, though looking at other photgraphers work is helping me to think more about different shots that can be made. Thanks to all aviation photographers out there for their passion about shooting and helping developing shooters improve.Quote:
I just love reading this thread and seeing passion about aviation photography. Kickass.
-Tad
The distinction being made here is the difference between a picture (an image) and a photograph (art).
What's the first rule of photography? Rule of thirds: don't center your subject. How many Anet shots does that describe?
The vast majority of images in Anet's database are pictures due to the exhaustive screening requirements. Centering requirements alone suck a lot of creativity out of submissions. The shots I submit are the most boring artistically, and the easiest to capture: center, focus, shoot. It takes far more skill and planning to create a photograph, especially since we are all so familiar with the subject. Just because an image is sharp, leveled and contrasted correctly doesn't make it a photograph. And that's the point Jeremy is trying to make - he's is looking for a forum to share something he's created, not a image that someone else told him how to make.
You summed it up the way that I read it. I mean honestly it is impossible to say that anyone is the best on the site. Every photographer has there own specialties, I agree that it sucks that A.Net really wont open there doors with more artistic/creative shots and instead take the same cookie cutter shots.Quote:
Originally Posted by threeholerglory
So I agree with what Jeremy is saying in he is not the Greatest of All Time as you made it sound but rather just a good photographer.
I think everybody needs to re-read this passage again, slowly:
This statement makes no judgment on the abilities of anybody on Anet in any way. It is merely stating that you can't judge somebody's photography skills strictly on Anet material. The screening process puts limits on what photographers can do, and if you want to"get a feel for the real photographer" you need to go outside Anet.Quote:
Originally Posted by jerslice
It doesn't say real photographers don't post on Anet. It doesn't insinuate Randall is not a real photographer. Just that if you judge strictly on Anet material, it is an incomplete picture.
One of the major downfalls of these constant rants is that Jeremy tries to treat anet as a living, breathing thing. He speaks as if anet is controlling all of aviation photography and some here especially this comment thinks it's the center of the photography universe. I think rational thinking people realize this is not the case. Anet was born from slide shooters. Guys who took 50mm, perfectly lit side on shots that documented the entire scheme of the aircraft and sold slides. Once anet exploded (during the digital craze) things changed. Now don't forget anet was always a site that had the highest standards and as of a few years ago they lowered these standards for the creative shots.Quote:
What's the first rule of photography? Rule of thirds: don't center your subject. How many Anet shots does that describe?
Now I am still calling major BS on Jeremy's claim that anet encourages cookie cutting photography. He does this because he thinks anet is a living thing capable of controlling photogs actions. Is it? Of course not. Just because a majority of uploads don't fit his "outside the box" vision of what av-photo should be doesn't make it so. In fact you take the time to search the DB you will find plenty of shot that fit his criteria. Do many get rejected? Of course, does it cause many to stop trying? Probably but that is life. It's out of anet's control and if you prefer flicker fine go ahead, knock yourself out. Reading his rant about anet not encouraging something, and Randall having 15k of gear obviously outed himself as someone with an axe to grind. It's a story we have seen many times by photogs that have to pull their pics or stop uploading that have to go out with the bomb throwing and name dropping. I don't know Jeremy but he sure came off as a drama llama here.
Again, I took the time to view the work from all his "real photographers" and I don't see it. Not taking anything away from them but as I look at Flo's work I see a heck of a lot more outside the box shots and he has little problem getting anet to take them. Again Jeremy if you have shots that you feel are outside of the "cookie cutting" usual shots on anet that you tried to upload please I would love to see them but to just continue to throw out bombs is just counter productive.
I'm only seeing one person ranting in this thread, and it isn't Jeremy.
You clearly didn't bother to re-read Jeremy's original statement. By the phrase 'real photographer' he was referring to the photographer's complete portfolio. He only made the point that he has seen photography off Anet that he prefers to a specific photographer's work limited to Anet's database.
If you think disagreeing with the screening practices of Anet is 'bomb throwing' then there's absolutely no point in continuing this conversation.
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make the horse realize that a mis-read phrase wasn't actually offensive if the horse wants to stay pissed off.
What's sad is that ALL of you still take better pictures than I do LOL. Seriously, I can only hope to match the quality of the images I see from all the people here and then those of Randall and Sam Chui and others I respect and look up to on A.net.
Access is definitely great to have but not really necessary when you can make a picture from outside the fence :-0 I know it can be done as I know a lot of A.net is from outside the fence.
Regardless, I need to tap into all your skills...
You wanna see poor images, just look at my crap ha!!
http://manny.smugmug.com/photos/1113531747_THeLZ-O.jpg
Cheers!
I did, more than once.Quote:
You clearly didn't bother to re-read Jeremy's original statement.
Of course it isn't because your trying to make the screening process something it isn't. By trying to take the fact that they are strict into that they don't want creative images. When you try to treat anet as the end all or the way photographers are measured it is pointless.Quote:
If you think disagreeing with the screening practices of Anet is 'bomb throwing' then there's absolutely no point in continuing this conversation.
I am not pissed off but I am not going to drink the kool aide either. Jeremy's words were clear and all the backpedaling won't change the fact that it was simply a rant against a site that doesn't accept his efforts at craetive images and instead of posting them for discussion he would rather take his marbles and go home by saying he is only going to post enough to get to a hundred and leave then take a parting shot at someone.Quote:
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make the horse realize that a mis-read phrase wasn't actually offensive if the horse wants to stay pissed off
I agree that it sucks that A.Net really wont open there doors with more artistic/creative shots
I disagree. I think Anet, realizing that it has competition, then made itself more competitive by allowing a new creative category.
What I do feel was a bit odd was that once the new creative category of shots were allowed, it was a screener's shot of a shadow of a plane on a field of corn that was accepted as the first shot.
I am trying to look at this discussion from many angles. Nick, may I ask a this: in your second post here, you said somthing to the effect that he does it all despite having no access. In the same way you are cocksure that Jeremy was ranting against Anet, is it possible you are taking an equally clear shot at those with access?
Truthfully, I don't think you are. But you could extrapolate that sense in the same way I suppose.
Let's face it. Shots at SXM are all very similar after a while. I tried to upload one as creative and was nearly banned.
And so, I posted it elsewhere.
To put this matter to rest, although I have not uploaded in a while, I have to say that I am one of the top photographers out there. And thus, we have come to the end of this discussion....pun intended.:cool:
http://images3.jetphotos.net/img/2/3...1144915053.jpg
http://images3.jetphotos.net/img/2/3...1144915053.jpg
Omg the moon! LOLOL classic.
LOL.
Too bad the Anet screeners had no sense of humor. The shot was creative IMHO but the title was the icing on the cake! :smile:
Last night, I wrote an impassioned editorial that took 40 minutes to compose about this issue. But, because my evening drink of choice is scotch, I didn't realize that when I went to post it my login had timed out and I lost the entire post. I was mad until today when I realized, I've said everything I need to say about this issue on the Anet thread "coping with rejections"(which is still going strong after over 100 posts). All I can say here is, if I spent what little time I have to be doing this obsessing over "motive" and "noise", I've missed the point entirely.
I had also included the same thing Dahemody mentioned about what seemed to be meant by the term "real photographer". I think that at least initially, that comment was totally misinterpreted.
And this is where I disagree with you, here is an example of a shot that Jeremy tempted with A.Net and was rejected just for motive-Quote:
Originally Posted by NIKV69
http://www.airplane-pictures.net/image111232.html
Honestly that was all they could come up with, now somebody like Royal uploads it and it is accepted no problems at all. So that is where I agree with him in A.Net doesn't accept creative shots unless you are one of there favorites and in the "club."
And I still plan on posting on there but I understand Jeremy's frustration with the site being inconsistent with everyone unless you are one of there favorites.
This is complete garbage. If this is true how does Florian's creative shots get in? Trust me he has slagged the site more than you guys and he has no trouble. The shot you posted of Jeremy's is a great shot but anet has a long standing thing with people in shots that block the aircraft. It's their thing whether you agree or not. If that shot just had the aircraft in the frame it would be an instant add. Again this has nothing to do with "real photographers" or "cookie cutters" or favortism. It's just a rant from a photographer that can't stand his phtotos getting rejected.Quote:
So that is where I agree with him in A.Net doesn't accept creative shots unless you are one of there favorites and in the "club."
I just checked Royals work and don't see any shots the same as the one Jeremy got rejected, except of course maybe this one?
I think it may have gotten accepted for other reasons but now you owe Royal an apology as well as the rest of the "fake photographers" out there that are cookie cutters.
Again if you want to insult the living heck out of people the least you could do is start to provide some examples because so far all you have been doing is yelling fire in a crowded theatre.
I've been quiet for a little while but feel the need to clarify the difference between where this thread started and where this thread is now:
1) This thread was about whether Randall was the best or one of the best photogs out there. Others chimed in with their thoughts so I did so with mine: I said he was good, and his skill level excellent, but not my favorite or the best out there. That's my opinion, and I suggested a handful of folks who I thought offered a portfolio's who appeal more to me. I also added that, due to my opinion on a.net limiting a lot of what can potentially be out there for composition, there may be an incomplete picture of Randall that I'm seeing. Anyways, that's all been said but it's time to re-iterate it a final time.
2) The thread is now about, at least through Nick's posts and replies to his posts, whether a.net allows creative shots, the fact that I said I would quit on facebook in a status update that I made to family & friends, and his insistence to not let go of the fact that he is incorrectly interpreting most of what I said. I'll leave the latter alone because it isn't worth persuing, but the other two need at least something from me. My facebook post about quitting a.net, which was not discussed here by me, is not (and I know you won't believe it Nick but whatever) related to my opinion of Randall as a photog based on what I saw of his on a.net - I would say the same thing again whether I was leaving the a.net community or not. I quit a.net because of many things, some of which I won't get into here but yes, I'm also tired of rejections for various things, creativity especially - but as I believe Nick has pointed out in other forums before and has basically said here it is what it is so either take it or leave it. I'm leaving it - I feel no need to be validated by their accepting my shots and I feel no need to get mired into the mess that otherwise has become the site for me. I'm not taking pot shots at Randall on the way out - didn't do it here, didn't do it on facebook...the decision to leave came after an unrelated event the following day from my initial post on this thread.
If we want to have a conversation about what a.net is right now I suggest we as a group pick it up on the new thread mirrodie made because that sets up a constructive conversation about a.net. This thread has blown out of control and has been dragged through a multitude of conversations that were not ever related to this thread. Time to move on.
Jeremy you have got to be kidding. You are the one that dragged this thread into the direction it has gone. Go read your own post. You could have discussed Phil's view of Randall without naming your fellow sour grapes cronies or bringing anet into the discussion but you chose this platform to launch into an agenda because your shot got rejected. Don't turn this on me because your post is there for all to read and it's pretty clear that you used Randall, Royal and the rest of us coookie cutters as a way to make basically a weak argument that anet isn't what your vision of photography is because they don't want a nose shot with people in front of it. Where is they would take a shot from Royal and Randall because they screen there. Now please if you want to stop throwing out bombs and actually begin to start providing us with shots and examples, you know maybe a shot that is already in the DB and one that you had rejected? Or maybe produce some shots from your "outside the box" buddies that anet routinely rejects we can continue. If you want to start a new thread fine I mean you already done enough here. You could have easily found Randalls other work on the other media he uploads to if you wanted to see his entire portfolio but you chose to pigeon hole him since you were in the middle of ending your marriage with anet. Coincidence? I doubt it.Quote:
If we want to have a conversation about what a.net is right now I suggest we as a group pick it up on the new thread mirrodie made because that sets up a constructive conversation about a.net. This thread has blown out of control and has been dragged through a multitude of conversations that were not ever related to this thread. Time to move on.
Nick I never actually said that nor have I said a single word about Royal. I actually haven't said anything since Thursday night...I don't know who you think you've been arguing with here on NYC for the past day and a half but it hasn't been me.Quote:
Don't turn this on me because your post is there for all to read and it's pretty clear that you used Randall, Royal and the rest of us coookie cutters as a way to make basically a weak argument that anet isn't what your vision of photography is because they don't want a nose shot with people in front of it. Where is they would take a shot from Royal and Randall because they screen there.
What bombs Nick, what bombs? I haven't said anything at all for quite some time here...I've made 4 posts...and three of them were leveled straight at countering your disillusion.Quote:
Now please if you want to stop throwing out bombs and actually begin to start providing us with shots and examples, you know maybe a shot that is already in the DB and one that you had rejected?
I'd be happy to continue discussing a.net on the other thread but my leaving is not entirely based on "rejections". I don't really upload there very much.
Whatever Nick, go on drinking your own kool aide.Quote:
You could have easily found Randalls other work on the other media he uploads to if you wanted to see his entire portfolio but you chose to pigeon hole him since you were in the middle of ending your marriage with anet. Coincidence? I doubt it.
Guys, I think there are some misunderstandings here, and it's my fault for letting the overly heated discussion get this far.
Peopel have different views and opinions on photography and different things that drive them. No one insulted anyone's ability here, and no one should say or imply that others' opinions are wrong (not saying that anyone did that her).
I'm jsut gonna lock this up and ask that everyone keep it cool from here. Thanks guys. Happy shooting!