Tom H.

Yes, but by your logic, the closest thing to the old film negative, would be a digital negative? So a raw file. That's why the argument makes no sense. If the photographer refuses to share his raw, then that surely is reason enough to doubt him... If he does share it, I truly don't see the issue here... For me, it's mostly a poorly judged PR stunt to raise their profile again after the recent scandals... Nothing more.

You clearly have a sense of where you want to go with your vision, so focus the bio on that sentiment. No need to mention other people, it's about you and your ideas. Good luck, I'll check in from time to time to see how you're doing. Also, a great book on portraits is "Road to seeing" by Dan Winters. He also succeeds in bringing out something extra from his subjects, no matter the location or the technique used. It's a good read. Technique comes second to everything else, and light is light. It serves a purpose, and the subject determines the mood and the technique that is needed. I dabble in both, whatever the situation demands. Learning to light also made me a lot better at using and seeing natural light.

It only goes down to 1/32 power? What the hell? Even my cheap Chinese flashes go down to at least 1/128 or even 1/256...

But the same silly arguments were used back in the day against photographers who used colour film instead of black and white, as it was considered as too commercial and glamourising for editorial and news reporting...

A nice book on the ever opposing tensions in photojournalism, artistic vs realistic, is Russell Miller's "Magnum". Also, people claim nowadays we just "burst away", but the likes of Cartier-Bresson would take anywhere from 700 up to 1000 frames a day too... Many greats still have stockpiles of undeveloped film lying around because they shot so much. There are plenty of contact sheet books out there that clearly show just how darkroom processing used to work. As well as the editing of negatives of what you may consider unique and true images...

And I am the first to agree with him that HDR is usually an assault on the senses. But his arguments against "too colourful images" is silly. Back in the glory days of film, you could go anywhere from greyish black and white to LSD like trippy colours too... Or why else are we using "film simulations"? If he wanted to make his misty mountain look moody, he could easily have done so digitally too, just like a moody film selection would have done. But yeah, for most older people, "things used to be better in the old days"...

So can film images, especially by masters of the art and the darkroom. It's no coincidence that the tools we use most in photoshop are actually named after dark room tools. There is a long established record of doctored film images. The medium has been hijacked by 24 hour news cycles, demanding ever more "breaking news" and sensation. Blame editors, shareholders and the reader for not having the decency anymore to pay a proper wage for proper reporting. And the patience to let a photographer build a proper reputation, while weeding out the frauds...

I agree on clarifying the context somehow, perhaps splitting the galleries into smaller sections? Like "Italy", or "Street photography". But disagree on sharing how it was taken. People who know photography, can have a good enough guess. People who don't know, usually don't care. I only share technical data if it's relevant or a teaching situation. Never in a portfolio.

I don't mind the sentiment of trying to be unique and different. But two things bother me a little on how you phrased it. First, there is nothing inherently wrong with being mainstream. To each his own, if others want to photograph in that way, it's their choice. And secondly, and don't see this as a critique or insult, but I didn't see anything different about your photography to be honest. It's a nice collection of images, well taken, but not particularly artistic or special. But then again, I follow quite a lot of people online, and I can count the unique ones on one hand... I'm pretty sure I'm very mainstream, even if I try to be different... Nothing wrong with the sentiment and the intention, but it doesn't show yet in your work I feel. And even if it did, it's not something I would be saying about myself.

Nice ones! Also, I'm suddenly in the mood for mushrooms tonight... Don't care in what form. Perhaps on a pizza?

I move my content that's not quite worthy of showcasing to a blog section. It's a good way to show recent work, without having to move it into a portfolio. One or two nice ones from each set, eventually might make their way into the front page portfolio that way. But a website is an ongoing project. I review mine from time to time, some stuff you might not like anymore months later...

I saw, but I think they are quite heavy while loading, your page is significantly slower than mine it seems. I export for web at 1500px long side, 72dpi and 70% in Lightroom, and that is a great medium between small size and still decent image quality while watching on a bigger screen. And I really dislike slow websites Even with a faster line, the galleries are still loading while I'm browsing. Not good... As far as design goes, well, who am I to complain? Content seems fine too, some really nice images in there! I feel the travel and people sections may need some culling, or splitting in separate topics. I'd split your biography into two side by side colums, one Korean, the other English. Makes for an easier read. Also, your bio is mostly about other people? I see what you did there, but half of it seems overly negative I feel. I'd move the focus of the text to yourself, and maybe mention your intentions to produce beauty from the ordinary only at the end. Same for the contact page, two side by side colums, not the Korean/English overlapping. Just my 2 cents. Cheers, Tom

The pics took quite some time to load. What size jpeg are you uploading? I use 1500px and 72 dpi. That should be fine for web use. But my WiFi is spotty so it could just be my connection.

Looks good on my phone. Lovely work. Will check it out in depth later on the big pc. Is it squarespace perhaps? Looks similar to my own as far as layout goes on mobile.

Some more from my sessions with Jennifer. Fuji X-T1, 56 1.2 APD and 16 1.4

Great stuff!

This argument against raw is just silly, no one needs raw to manipulate the scene or context. Nice example from today, when in worldwide media Brussels is depicted as being under siege. The video is in Dutch, but the images show plenty. http://deredactie.be/permalink/2.41872?video=1.2504950 If they just said it was to reduce filesize and processing speed, that I could understand completely...

One from a few months ago, forgot to edit this one back then. Fuji X-T1, 56 1.2 APD

Mornings over Northern Italy are the best. Fuji X-T1, 56 1.2 APD

Over Budapest. Fuji X-T1, 56 1.2 APD

Istanbul by night, on the return flight from Tel Aviv. Fuji X100T.

Damn Kirill, I'm so jealous, where do you keep finding these gorgeous subjects Amazing portraits, congrats! Some quickies by me, shot a colleague in a hotel room on layover in Madrid. Straight out of camera, exported via wifi to the phone and quick chromatic filter C4 applied in VSCO, to give the classic chrome some punch. No edits done apart from that, not even cropping. Fuji X-T1, 56 1.2 APD.

Indeed.

Why not just order from Belgium? I order from Holland and Germany all the time.

That is indeed the case yes. Wasn't the case when I looked last week.