since i'm bitchy and talentless today, i'm leaving the blog up to my co-editors. here's alfred with more news from flickr!

Friends,

Today I am going to speak briefly about a pervasive theme that saddens me down to the crumbling remains of my mortal coil. I speak of course of the tendency for foolish, foolish couples -- blind in their love and racing hormones -- to ask their friends to photograph their weddings.

I make no case for or against Mr. toomuchroom. He is an innocent in this. A good friend, even. But the thread he created on Flickr points out several problems with the genre of Friendship Photography. I will list them for you now.

1) "A good friend of mine has asked me to be the "official" photographer at their wedding this summer. Whilst I am extremely honoured that they have asked me there is a small element of anxiety in me with regards to it."

OK. I will try to remain calm but this is very, very important. If you feel the slightest pangs of doubt or uncertainty with your technique or your skills, simply don't do it. Tell your friends you don't want to do it. You will still be friends after you turn the down. You will not be friends when you fuck up their pictures. I swear to god, people KNOW YOUR LIMITS. There's nothing wrong with taking on a challenge but when the stakes are as high as they are I would be concerned that when the time comes to pull the trigger then you will hesitate and you will become a DEAD MARINE. And you will be in a world of SHIT. Because Marines are not allowed to die without orders.

2) "Although we will do the archetypal "wedding shots" of group photos, family and friends, my friends have said that they are more interested in me capturing the "real" moments of the day."

Everyone wants this now. They want it because it looks "cool" and "relaxed." I will now get personal. Mr. toomuchroom, you lack the ability to do this. I am currently looking through your photostream and you have secretfattaey self portraits with you in lee press on nails and a garish mask. Like you're trying out for the role of a gay phantom or some shit. I mean, really. Your pictures of hot air balloons are cute. Hot air balloons are slow as shit and are unlikely to go anywhere fast. Do you know how long it takes the bouquet to fly from the bride to her fattaey bridesmaid? About as long as it takes for your friend's head to be turned into a pile of goo by charlie, that's how long. Let me tell you, buster, there's no turning back after that.

3) "Anyway, I was just wondering if anyone had done a wedding before and if so have you got any tips for me. What moments to look for, equipment to use, the settings of my camera etc etc"

Have you never been to a wedding? Do you not udnerstand the costs involved? If johnson had signed that spending bill in 66 we would have had the guns and the men to hold Da Nang and send those motehrfuckrs screaming for their litttle hidey holes. That's what skimping on your wedding photographer can do for you. You end up with your friends in pine boxes an da bad case of trench foot bit you can't take your boots off because of the punjis ticks covered with human excrement. You fuck. You little pussy mama's boy. You left my boys out there to die. All because you can't take a wedding picture to save your live. You make me sick. I need a drinks.

--Alfred

today's worst person on flickr

Friends,

Rest assured I do not take my new charge lightly, nor do I take pleasure in its creation. While onerous, this task is an honor but also a great responsibility and a great burden on my everlasting soul.

Today's post comes from a gentleperson with the unusual handle of "baumies" who asks,

"Just wondering what is the most flattering f-stop for portrait photography. I thought I read somewhere that it is different for men and women. Any thoughts?"

I have many thoughts on this matter, Mr/s. "baumies." First of all, I would like to ask what fraudulent publication produced this spew, and what palsy you have to sufffer from to believe such nonsense. No response? Your silence will only lead to your doom.

Very well. Reading further, I see it takes four posts for someone, in this case an accidental genius calling himself "metzgarpaul," to offer the correct answer to the question. S/he says,

"You might be confusing focal length and F-stop when you mention flattering. A more telephoto lens is more flattering than a wide angle for portraits."

Well done, sir/madam.

The problem is that the thread continues for another FOUR POSTS OF PEOPLE SPOUTING THE SAME BULLSHIT ABOUT WHICH F-STOP IS THE MOST FLATTERING. NIGGA PLEASE. THE QUESTION WAS ANSWERED AND YOU IGNORANT FUCKTARDS IN YOUR HASTE TO PRESENT SOME FALSE-FRONT OF SKILL OR KNOWLEDGE BLEW RIGHT PAST THE ONLY ANSWER WORTH TWO SHITS ON THE POINT OF DISCUSSION. FURTHERMORE, ONE MR. alyn_smith SAYS,

"Really depends on the photo and the light available. I simply use anything between f1.8 and f22 depending. This is a very strange question."

WOW. YOU JUST SAID THAT. YOU JUST SAI THAT YOU CONSIDER THE USE OF EVERY STOP ON YOUR LENS WHEN YOU TAKE A PORTRAIT. REALLY. GREAT. I'M GLAD THAAT OUY TRY AND USE YOUR TOOL TO THE MAXIMUM OF ITS ABILITY AT ALL TIMES. YOU SIR, HAVE FULL COMMAND OF THE RANGE OF TOOLS AVAILABLE TO YOU AND I LOOK FORWARD TO WATCHING YOU STRUGGLE TO BUILD A HOME WITH THE MONEIES YOU EARN FROM YOUR PHOTOGRAPHIC SKILLS TO BUILD A HOME WITH A PAIR PF NEEDLE NOSED PLIERS AND A RUSTY SCREWDRIVER. A++++++ WORK WOULD VIEW AGAIN.

But indeed, gentlereader, the answer to the question lies within the bonus features of Amelie. I swear to god. In the bonus features they discuss which lenses they used on Impish Frog Pussy Audrey Tautou and why. It's visual. It's on DVD; it was one of the most popular movies of 2001. For those of you who forget, this is she:


(ed. note: i fucking hate her. christ.)

Moving on, and back to the thesis of this column, which revolves around stupid shit questions on Flickr, I would like to present the stupidest post on Flickr today. Interestingly, it comes from "baumies" his/herself. S/he posts,

"Yeah, that is a strange question! I meant focal length. Sorry about that! "

OK SO YOU ASKED A QUESTION. THEN YOU WAITED 48 HOURS TO REALIZE YOU ASKED THE WRONG QUESTION. THEN YOU DON'T BOTHER TO CORRECT THE QUESTOION IN ORDER TO GET AN ANSWER TO THE REDICULOUS PORBLEM YOU FACE. I ASSURE YOU THAT IF YOU HAVE TO ASK SUCH A THING, YOU HAVE NO BUSINESS TAKING A PICTURE OR EVEN WORRYING ABOUT THE APPEARANCE OF YOUR SUBJECT BECAUSE YOUR FRIENDS ARE PROBABLY FAT AND UGLY ANYWAY AND NO AMOUNT OF LENS TRICKERY OR POST WORK WILL SOLVE THAT. SOME UGLY CANT BE UNDID. NOW, IF YOU WWERE SHOOTING GEORGIA, LIKE I WAS MOST OF THE TIME,



YOU WOULDN'T HAVE AN Y PORBLEMS COZ SOMETIMES GOOD TAIL IS GOOD TAIL AND ANYTHING YOU DO WILL JUST SCREW UP GOD'S WORK. I HIT THAT SON.

-Alfred

From The Files Of The Ghost Of Alfred Stieglitz, HTPUG Photo Editor And Man About Towne

Dear Friends,

When first asked to write an entry for this blog I was surprised. It's not every day that a publication summons me from the spirit world to comment on the state of photography and technique so you must forgive my lack of command of public comment.

I have taken it upon myself to choose my subject and I will be penning this column with a link to the Worst Flickr Thred Posting Of The Day forthwith.

This thred, entitled simply "Making SLR photos stand out from point and shoot," is a profound exercise in stupidity. In fact, the base distillation of the question is, "I thought getting a bigger camera would help me take better pictures, but it seems it's not happening. What gives?" There are many subsequent postings from people that offer advice such as procuring an external flash or purchasing a faster lens. Nevermind the fact that getting a new tool /= immediate satisfactory results.

The worst post of the day, however, comes from someone calling himself "bluesguy NY." I was wondering who the bluesguy was in NY. I know the ones in AK and CA, but not in NY. Thank christ. He suggests that one of the benefits of using an SLR is the absence of parallax.

Parallax is illustrated below, using a TLR model rather than a digital compact, but that's not the point:



What this illustration doesn't show you is that the parallax effect becomes negligible the further and further away you move from the subject. If a bro (Dash, in this instance) is taking pictures two feet or less from his subject I would

a) complement him for being stupid enough to intrude on a performers' space

b) wonder why there was no one in the audience complaining about the dipshit photographer standing in their way

The post from "bluesguy NY," if that is his real name, adds that,

"With a point and shoot camera, you have to allow for seeing a different view than you will be capturing, resulting in cutting off people's heads or allowing off-center photos."

OH THANK GOD I FINALLY FIGURED OUT WHAY ALL MY FUCKING PHOTOS WERE OFF CENTER. PARALLAX. JESUS WEEPING CHRIST ON THE CROSS I KEPT WANTING TO HAVE ALL MY PHOTOS SENSIBLY CENTERED AND I KEPT LEADING MY SUBJECT FOR SOME REASON AND DESTROYING VALUABLE SYMMETRY NOW I HAVE THE ANSWER.

"SLRs also provide for the mounting of lens filters such as polarizors and star filters, and you get to see exactly what effects the camera sees."

HOLY FUCKING SHIT I CANT TAKE A GOOD PICTURT TO BE GING WITH AND NOW I FINALLY FIND OUT THAT MY PROBLEM IS THAT IM NOT USING A STAR FILTER OR A POLARIZER AND NOW I KNOW THAT GOD I CAN YUSE A POLARIZER WHEN THE SITUATION IS A DIMLY LIT STAGE AND LOSE TWO STOPS OF LIGHT WITHOUT TRYING NOW IM SHOOTING TOTALLY IN THE DARK AND A POLARIZER DOESNT DO ANYTHING IF YOUR LIGHT SOURCE IS NOT COMING IN FROM A CERTAIN ANGLE TO MAKE THE POLAIZOR DO THE THING IST MADE TO DO WHICH IS POLAIZE LIGHT.

AALL OF THIS WILL ANSWER THE QUESTION AS ORIGINALLYT POSED. PLEASE RECALL IT IS:

"Making SLR photos stand out from point and shoot."

or

"I thought getting a bigger camera would help me take better pictures, but it seems it's not happening. What gives?"

bluesguyNY, you are the first in our ongoing series, "Worst Flickr Thred Posting Of The Day."

--Alfred