"I started using Photoshop since i was a little kid, I would use a 1 mega pixel camera and invite my friends over. I would then take photos of them and photoshop them really tiny fighting my toys and what not. I think after that, I've always had an interest in photography. One funny thing though, i failed photography and Photoshop twice in high school. Just because i never wanted to do the projects our teacher gave us. Instead i would Photoshop the teacher like hulk and what not. Ha hah. I have never done a 365 or 52 project, even though I'm dying to do one. Just don't think i have the time at the moment." - Javier Gil
What are your thoughts on these?
via - Reddit.com
![[Pics] Manipulated Photos Of Notable Historic Figures Before The Digital Era (Before And After Images)](https://cdn.fstoppers.com/styles/small-16-9/s3/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/3.jpg)
![[News] Elle Removes Clothing Via PhotoShop, And The Model In Question Is Not Exactly What I'd Call Happy](https://cdn.fstoppers.com/styles/small-16-9/s3/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/coco-rocha-elle-cover.jpg)
what happened with f-stoppers concentrated on "making" and "behind the scene", not on crappy photos from flickr?
I guess you don't look at this site very much?
I do like these flickr sets a lot. I see it as a great extra.
These are legit. This photographer has range.
Nope
i like em, but i think the 4th could have been more interesting with the treeline coming out from her neck/shoulder area, wing like
I had the same tought.
Seriously? This is "gorgeous photography"? What, can you pay to have your photography posted here? Sign me up!
Now I think "over-Photoshopped and over-processed JPGs" would be a more applicable title.
This is not a low-blow at the photographer that is Javier Gills... but more so at the editor that posted this.
At least edit the grammar in the post. Seriously, Fstoppers. Usually your work is stellar - raise the bar!
Just curious but would you also consider your work to be over-processed (referring to the 'personal' section of your site)?
I ask because personally I like this style and would like to know what level of split-toning and colour grading is considered acceptable and where does one cross the line to then be considered over-processed.
The personal shots on my site are just that - personal shots taken and edited with an iPhone. I'm not going critiquing to push anyone's buttons at all - Javier's especially.
All I'm saying is for Fstoppers to raise the bar quite a bit higher. If this is considered "gorgeous photography", then what words do you use to describe Leibovitz, Serrao, and Avedon?
Not to mention that half of the pictures are a little out of focus. That's all.
These photos where grabbed from a different website where they were originally posted. That explains the "out of focus" you are complaining about. They where stretched by the fstoppers staff to fit their layout. http://imgur.com/a/ungtf
That's a very strong and rude opinion, don't you think? What makes you an authority on the subject?
- Javier Gil
It's a strong opinion, yes. When your work is on the internet, I've learned personally that you have to be open to critique, even strong critique. Rude? I think it was rather blunt, and if you'd rather everyone say only positive commentary, then excuse me.
Nobody made me any authority on any subject; but this *is* a forum open for discussion, and so with the question "What are your thoughts on these?" being posed at the end of the post, I felt it was applicable to give me thoughts, though they may be a bit different than what you think.
Look, Javier. I'll apologize if it came across as rather, blunt, and, a bit rude perhaps. I sincerely do apologize.
I do believe it came across as quite a bit harsher simply because we happen to work in the same city, and know some of the same people (including half of the models in the images shown here).
Anyways, that is all I have to say here. Again, my apologies.
You say that your comments came across as harsher because you live in the same city, and know the same models. I'd think that would influence you to temper your remarks, rather than make them harsher.
Honestly, it sounds a bit like you think YOUR images of the same models are better, and maybe should have been featured instead?
This is really none of my business, but I'm in the same market as you guys. I think local photographers need to stick together, no try and tear each other down.
And finally... I was pretty clear to me that any apparent softness of the images are artifacts of web posting.
Maybe he just thinks the images could be better, based on his opinions of Fstoppers' quality, which is fine.
He accused the person featured in the article of paying to have the feature done. That goes WAY beyond "thinks the images could be better".
But I'm totally new here. Maybe such negativity runs rampant here, which is why it's apparently so well tolerated. Now I know why I'm not a regular here.
"What makes you an authority on the subject? "
The fact that he's a reader on the site, and has just as much a freedom to critique the posts as you do his.
What makes you an authority on David's opinions? Accept everyone's opinions to help make your art better, he's not trying to be a dick, he's just expressing his opinion.
If you expect everyone on this planet to love your art, you're fighting a lost cause.
And Javier, if you would seriously contend that these images aren't heavily photoshopped, I'd like to see your originals ;P.
And as far as his issues with focus go, the one with the lovely woman on the path IS out of focus, I'm about 90% sure the focus is about two-three feet ahead of her on the ground; the rest are from formatting.
I wasn't implying that you were critiquing the works, but was just curious as to what your opinion was on the use of such editing techniques.
You're a more established photographer than I am and I was hoping you could impart some of your knowledge. I've seen many comments on Fstoppers of late that take a dim view of any sort of colour alteration. Is there a place for it in the industry? Where is it acceptable and where is it not?
But, 'Albi Ki' , this site is not = to a random person's personal site.
This is Fstoppers, which used to be synonymous with high quality. Most of these...
...are incredibly underwhelming, to be blunt...
Here's the thing. These photos that Fstoppers have been featuring on the site suck. They're all processed in the same way (desaturated, split toned, vignetted) and the processing is so heavy that the photos aren't even about the subject. Hell, some of the photos featured don't have a subject (like that one guy who was just photographing bushes and random items in his house).
Anyone here who has any sort of taste and can recognize when someone just goes out and buys a Canon with a 50 f/1.8 and shoots without knowing what the hell they're doing (focus is off, image quality is bad, processing is overdone, composition is questionable) gets bashed by all the other everyone-gets-a-gold-star readers.
"You're just jealous. Can you do better? Why all the negativity? I think these photos are great!"
I'm not jealous. I can do better. The negativity comes from a place that has great contempt for where art is going--where everyone gets credit just for showing up and making a half-assed effort. The photos aren't great, they're horrible.
The editorial team at Fstoppers, if one exists, should really consider how this sort of stuff is bringing down the overall quality of the site. I mean, some of those images up there look like they were low-res thumbnails that were enlarged! If everything else about the photo is going to suck, at least have a high-res file!
Sorry everyone, I just had to repost this entire comment.
QFFT.
Here's
the thing. These photos that Fstoppers have been featuring on the site
suck. They're all processed in the same way (desaturated, split toned,
vignetted) and the processing is so heavy that the photos aren't even
about the subject. Hell, some of the photos featured don't have a
subject (like that one guy who was just photographing bushes and random
items in his house).
Anyone here who has any sort of taste and can recognize when someone
just goes out and buys a Canon with a 50 f/1.8 and shoots without
knowing what the hell they're doing (focus is off, image quality is bad,
processing is overdone, composition is questionable) gets bashed by all
the other everyone-gets-a-gold-star readers.
"You're just jealous. Can you do better? Why all the negativity? I think these photos are great!"
I'm not jealous. I can do better. The negativity comes from a place
that has great contempt for where art is going--where everyone gets
credit just for showing up and making a half-assed effort. The photos
aren't great, they're horrible.
The editorial team at Fstoppers, if one exists, should really
consider how this sort of stuff is bringing down the overall quality of
the site. I mean, some of those images up there look like they were
low-res thumbnails that were enlarged! If everything else about the
photo is going to suck, at least have a high-res file!
I think I see where you're coming from now. Perhaps readers could offer a constructive critique for the benefit of other readers. This may also assist editors in understanding specifically what their readership dislikes about the selected works and the types of photos they'd prefer to see.
Ehm, why'd my comment just get flagged for review and then taken off? Because it had some justified criticism?
What's the matter with you guys? These photos are awesome. Javier, ignore these Negative Nancy's. I like your work.
I like Javier's work as well, my comment was about the fact that the pics of the motorcycle and the lightning seemed kind of out of place, they don't belong in this otherwise inspiring portfolio. Javier, you reading, and what are your thoughts on this?
Yeah, I agree with that. I also think that the lightning shots are a little out of place. I would have yanked those from this collection :)
Negative Nancy - haters: please note how both Ett and myself write 'out of place'. We're not saying these shots are bad, we're just noting that the shots don't belong in this portfolio. Editing your work is extremely important, as leaving out shots can make the rest of the shots seem even stronger. This claim is not hating on Javier, it's just feedback. Kinda lame that that often gets dismissed as hating.
I think that there is something to be said for someone's photography to have been recognized on it's own, without any type of promotion. I think what FStoppers was doing here was to give examples of the range Javier Gil has as a photographer. Everyone has their own style, there is no reason to hate! If you enjoyed these photos there are more at his website, http://javiergilphoto.com/ and on his Facebook, http://www.facebook.com/javiergilphotography?fref=ts. Check it out! <3
What an awesome privilege to be discovered by this website amongst so many other talented photographers. I've seen some of your amazing work on the web. I'm not surprised to find that Fstoppers took the liberty to feature you today. Can't wait to see more of your talent soon. Cheers!
I don’t like a single one of them. Ugly models.
Whether you like the art or not, don't EVER insult the models. Or get off of here.
Well, hot damn. Look at you Javier. You know how much I love your stuff.
Some nice stuff.
But feel that the style is all over the place - lacks some consistency.
Bit too much post-processing for my liking - but that's personal taste.
Somehow a few of them are let down by lack of sharpness - not sure if intentional or accidental.
Thank you, i had originally posted these to show the range of improvement ive had through the years. The over processed photos are the old ones. Heres a like to the recent ones ive done.
http://imgur.com/a/xxV3m
Man that is awesome. Great post-work, awesome set up and great range in your portfolio!!!
Thank you Siggi!!!
Dude needs nicer glass. That is some hideous and distracting bokeh!
How to get featured on Fstoppers:
1. Make sure your photo's subject is more or less questionable--it gives it that artsy feel when you don't know what the hell is supposed to be going on. And shoot it at your max aperture! You didn't pay for f/1.4 for nothing!
2. Desaturate and scale back that contrast!
3. Split tone, duh!
4. Vignette--the more the better!
5. Add some grain to further that vintage look!
6. (Optional) If you have access to a pretty girl, throw her into the picture! She doesn't even have to pose as long as you have some eye candy to salvage the image!
Feeling lost? Here's an example that took me literally two minutes to shoot and process! http://i.imgur.com/G8QzL.jpg
I call this piece "Grasping at the Last Strands of Autumn"
GORGEOUS. INSPIRING. BEAUTIFUL.
Thanks for the feedback!
What are your thoughts on these more recent photos i've done? http://imgur.com/a/xxV3m
If it's art for the sake of art, I like the last image best.
These make your old images look like shit. They should have posted these in all honestly, bravo man.
Thanks M, I had no clue what was going to be posted on here. I would have chosen my newest work instead. But that wasn't up to me. Thanks for all the feedback on the above comments.
Marc.... hahahah you really crack me up buddy.
Are you sure that image wasn't featured here as a header last week?