David Pollack wrote:
Oh boy, the whiners are out in force tonight.

Let see if I remember, oh right, 6 total photos, a couple models and well, we all know.

lol Why you running away Willis? This is just getting fun.

David Pollack wrote:

NO WHINING, please feel free to defend the photographic qualities of your Harley shot, until you can do that, there is not much for you to say.

Why should I defend anything to you, you have no examples to show any expertise.  I said I was a hobbiest.  My question was why you had a bad attitude toward convertibles and motorcycles, which I think you avoided answering honestly.  The picture is something I took to give the lady next to the Harley.  She happens to have been a friend and enjoyed getting a pic with an antique Harley.

Rich Davis wrote:

Why should I defend anything to you, you have no examples to show any expertise.  I said I was a hobbiest.  My question was why you had a bad attitude toward convertibles and motorcycles, which I think you avoided answering honestly.  The picture is something I took to give the lady next to the Harley.  She happens to have been a friend and enjoyed getting a pic with an antique Harley.

Don't sweat it brother. We are just getting started with Willis.

MKPhoto wrote:
Take two?

Can't get any worse. Hopefully.

Green day "Wake me up when September End" maybe third time will be the charm.

Throw out 80% of your photos and you might actually have something.  (there, that actually is better.)

GWC

Jouissance Images wrote:
You to need to work a bit on your spelling, Mr. Critic.

JPT GWC

Dagger133 wrote:

I didn't take issue with his oppinion of my portfolio, "I believe yours stinks, others disagree with you, but that is neither here nor there."  I definately take offence at the personal attack on my professionalism as a stage hand. For the record he pulled the referance to my theatrical career from my profile not my portfolio. He put it into the thread, not me. His self important stance has moved from "THESE WILL BE JUST MY OPINION WHICH MEANS NOTHING" to "What you cannot debate is the truth in my comments on photography."or this in referance to Vissible Metaphor,  "The difference is that I know what I am talking about and you clearly do not."

Robert Clarke wrote:
Ok, Hit Me

god no

gwc

BSP Master Photographer wrote:
So entertain us... what is so oblivious about being one or not- besides having a 4 year degree and doing it for more years than you are of age??

What is so obvious?  lets see lighting, design, style, editing, production values, creativity.

I am not sure if you are saying that you have a 4 year degree and have shot "for more years than" my age? but if I read your post correctly, you better be asking for a tuition refund. Sorry, but seriously do you think that the photos you show look professional? 

You may have been the greatest war correspondent with Pulitzer Prize lever battle photos but that does NOT make you good a lifestyle/glamour/nude photogprapher.  The worst food photos I ever saw were in the portfolio of Mario Casilli (look him up) I assisted him in the 1980s and Mario who was the nicest guy in the world and one of the greatest celeb/playboy photographers ever. He always wanted to shoot food and kept trying. His food shots were a train wreck.

You don't like my opinion? Great, if I were you I would not like it either, but I sure as hell can defend it.

ogwc

JAE Photography PA wrote:
Let's hear it!

GWC

Rich Davis wrote:

Why should I defend anything to you, you have no examples to show any expertise.  I said I was a hobbiest.  My question was why you had a bad attitude toward convertibles and motorcycles, which I think you avoided answering honestly.  The picture is something I took to give the lady next to the Harley.  She happens to have been a friend and enjoyed getting a pic with an antique Harley.

If you had wanted to give her a nice gift, you might have hired a professional to take a decent photo of her and the bike. YOU put the photo up as an example of YOUR "work."

You asked, I answered. Fact not fiction. Look at the photos.

Mac-V-Sog 1971 wrote:
I am a TOTAL GWPW! lol

Don't need to say anymore than you do. You say that you are an "AMATUER...... will never be a professional. " That is fabulous and honest.

nuf said

Frozen Instant Imagery wrote:
I thought GWPW meant "Guy With Pocket Wizards"?

big sword alert

GWC

WickedStudioNET wrote:
have at it!

damn, you don't fit any category. not bad enough for GWPW, not tacky enough for GWC, certainly not professional, not JPA

let go with "amateur hopefully having fun"

2days Photos wrote:
Some of my images have a little love   What ya think?

THANK YOU. the first professional in days.  Yes, a certain "fantasy photoshoot" mall look, but consistently clean, well lit, well styled, well produced.

PROFESSIONAL

edit: okay, every pissing and moaning whiner, look at this PHOTOGRAPHERS images. The photos have a consistent level of professionalism. It ain't subject matter, it ain't how great the llamas are, it ain't national advertisements, it is the quality of what the shots are for what they are. Period.

David Pollack wrote:

THANK YOU. the first professional in days.  Yes, a certain "fantasy photoshoot" mall look, but consistently clean, well lit, well styled, well produced.

PROFESSIONAL

edit: okay, every pissing and moaning whiner, look at this PHOTOGRAPHERS images. The photos have a consistent level of professionalism. It ain't subject matter, it ain't how great the models are, it ain't national advertisements, it is the quality of what the shots are for what they are. Period.

David you are more than kind I appreciate your time and thoughts. Now off to peak at your gallery here.

David Pollack wrote:

If you had wanted to give her a nice gift, you might have hired a professional to take a decent photo of her and the bike. YOU put the photo up as an example of YOUR "work."

You asked, I answered. Fact not fiction. Look at the photos.

You still haven't answered the question!  Everything but the question.  I don't care about your photo opinion, can't you tell?

David Pollack wrote:

damn, you don't fit any category. not bad enough for GWPW, not tacky enough for GWC, certainly not professional, not JPA

let go with "amateur hopefully having fun"

I'm an enigma...I like it!  Thank you for looking.

I'm having fun, learning and hopefully getting better every shoot.

Rich Davis wrote:

You still haven't answered the question!  Everything but the question.  I don't care about your photo opinion, can't you tell?

Obviously you care GREATLY.

nuf said

Justin wrote:
"O wad some Power the giftie gie us
To see oursels as ithers see us!"

Who am I to argue with Mr. Burns?

Have at it.

and who is the louse?


GWC

David Pollack wrote:

Obviously you care GREATLY.

nuf said

Not smart enough to answer the question that quoted you.  I'll give you my fun rating: BOZO!

Now nuf said :-).

Devin Workman wrote:
Have at it. I'll go put my big boy pants on.

nothing wrong with the photos, problem is nothing right with them either.

jpeh

Revenge Photography wrote:
Wow.. this one is still going..

OK take a look again, I've read the manual and think I know what some of the buttons on my paperweight are for now.

I never knew a paperweight had buttons or a manual.

gwpw

David Kilper wrote:
I'm guessing your tear sheets came from your stock site, rather than actually being hired to shoot for said implied clients.  Upload 10k crappy images and one is bound to get picked, yeah?

I know a lot of GWCs that make their livings that way.


*rolling my eyes*

nice high school senior photographer

Rich Davis wrote:

Not smart enough to answer the question that quoted you.  I'll give you my fun rating: BOZO!

Now nuf said :-).

What question? the question of whether you are a GWC or GWPW? Already answered

JPA

Only4ureyes Photography wrote:
Let me know, I can take it:-)

You say "..... a great way to releave stress. So I'm far more than a GWC, but not a professional photographer either:-) "  wrong


creepyGWC

David Pollack wrote:

I never knew a paperweight had buttons or a manual.

gwpw

Still? ... I think I've been had :p

Kammeron Michelle wrote:
What about the AWCs?  Artist With Camera  LOL

!) Anyone can call themself an artist and it can never be disputed.

2) I like you MUCH better in front of the camera than behind it but keep trying.

WTH (woman trying hard)

Touched Photography wrote:
I'm game

jpa