What does /p/ think of the angry photographer?

>>2839497
He's cool, but a shitcunt.

>>2839507
Nice going, looks like it only needs one tripfag to NOT IGNORE an obvious bait thread.
Oh look, who it is! It's omi, resident Fuji fanboy, brandfag warrior and herpes ridden cocksucker!
Fuck off! There is a reason why "Hide Thread" or "sage" exist you filthy cunt!

>>2839508

Why are you so angry?

I like him and his magnetism are good for ASMR, whether they are legit or not I have know fucking idea kek but I don't take in any of the information anyway, I just watch them to fall asleep occasionally

Also, even if he is a crazy fat delusional asshole you have to respect him more than all those other dirty fucking shills taking advantage of people.

>>2839518
>all those other dirty fucking shills taking advantage of people.

what do you mean exactly?

im pretty new to this

>>2839527
He's probably referring to the fact that most photographers on YouTube get payed to make people buy stuff.

>>2839537

I am also referring to the fact that the push products under the guise of being professional photographers themselves when they are not at all.

I do not even particularly give a shit if they could actually back the shit that they fucking sell, these types of people are scumbags in real life why are they not treated as such for doing the same thing online?

What about chuck jines. All he pushes is his meet ups and workshops and he doesn't even do the workshops anymore.

Dude literally embedded himself into a den of junkies and hobos to do various projects. Guy seems legit.

most photographers should have 1 camera and like 2 lenses and take pictures

most photographers have a hard on for gear, spend all day beating off to gear specs and shitposting on camera forums about gear and take no pictures

Literally autistic

>he knows his shit about legacy lenses
>he knows his shit about DIY gear
>he has some problems with Sony
i still watch his vids

I can't take him seriously. The few images I've seen of him aren't even good. He plays with fucking sock puppets to fuck with Sony fags. Like this is a grown ass man here with nothing better to do.

>>2839761
the images he posts online are only for testing purposes. none of the artistic ones

>>2839762
>somehow knowing there's a secret portfolio of "artistic" work by AP
>being AP
QED

File: granger.jpg (89KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 1280x720px

>>2839537
Is that true for Matt Granger too? He seems mostly to avoid pushing gear unlike Jared Polin who stops every five seconds to shill something. A lot of his videos seem pointless and shittily made though, like he's just making random videos for more ad revenue

also, dem HIPS

>>2840312
That's filled pockets

>>2840346
That's klinefelter syndrome.

>>2840346
HAHAHAHAHH

>>2840346
Matt pls go

Guy seems like an absolute nutjob but also knowledgeable about photography / nikon products.

He also taught me that tony northrup was a lying bastard, so he's not all bad.

I watch his videos sometimes because they're rather entertaining.

>>2839497
I don't.

>>2840509
Source?

>>2841096
Are you retarded? He knows nothing about photography other than the jargon he read on wikipedia. Also when has he ever shown Tony to be a liar? The guy who literally steals others pictures and claims they are is to test a printer is pointing out others lies? wut.

He's mentally ill, no idea where he got his money but it's not photography, he hasn't got the slightest clue about anything photography related, he even has to steal others pictures and remove the watermark to even have any kind of "proof" of him knowing what he's talking about and even the images he stole are utter shit, so that right there says everything.

>>2841429
>>2841435
This. He really does really just spam jargon and buzzwords out of his mouth. He claims he knows 7 languages and that he is super intelligent, but I'm convinced that only he knows how to speak and write for any bs he wants to say on youtube.

In a video he referred to something as a "compositional composition" (I assume he meant compositional techniques or something) and since then I realized he does nothing but shit out his mouth. Any knowledge or information he gives is pretty much useless in terms of learning anything apart from trivial tech and gear knowledge. The few videos where he was helpful could have been 2-3 minutes long, but instead they are 15 min of yapping.

Good on Chealsea Northrup for calling him a twat. He is one. I want to bang her more for that.

>>2841447
The Northups aren't really that bad desu. Their videos about shooting portraits are actually pretty helpful

>>2841463
Yeah, they are cool and personable. The videos they make are mostly for beginners and they aren't in it for the artistic merit as much as selling books and marketing, but that's business.

File: 1461570275333.jpg (281KB, 1304x892px) Image search: [Google]

281KB, 1304x892px

>ITT

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	95 dpi
Vertical Resolution	95 dpi
Image Created	2016:02:23 22:12:37
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1304
Image Height	892

>>2839497
He answers all my questions on YT and seems to be a nice guy. Better than most YT photogs.

>>2842136
8/10 Nice moves!

>>2840312
>Granger
>not shilling something
some of his older videos were okay, a lot of his videos of the last year have been pretty poor. They also include more shilling of his website than they used to. He's now in the same league as Tony. Especially since he now has his own podcast video which is one of the worst things I've ever watched.

Educating Tina is probably the only good content from him of late.

>>2841096
>He also taught me that tony northrup was a lying bastard, so he's not all bad.

tell me more

>>2841096
>Someone who believes in the Aether enough to rant about it online, and "disproves" the concepts of Quantim Mechanics with "just think about it, I mean, it's obvious" told me some other guy who uses math, logic, and actual examples is wrong, so I like him.

>>2841463
>The Northups aren't really that bad desu

>muh books
>muh amazon affiliate links
>muh dxomark
>don't forget to multiply the f-stop if you're using crop sensor

yeah nah

>>2842179
And those things are wrong because...?

>>2842183

the first two are wrong because it makes him a shill

the third one is wrong because dxomark uses secret methods

the fourth one is wrong because physics

>>2842188
Oh so you're an idiot then. Okay, never mind. Carry on.

>>2842192
Putting a crop sensor behind a lens won't magically decrease the amount of light it is letting through.
This is elementary physics.

>>2842192

>name calling

confirmed for northrops fanboy IQ

>>2842199
Of course it does. It crops out the light you fucking retard. It's all about the angle of light.

>>2842204
Finish school first, kid.

>>2842199
No, it just only uses a smaller portion of the light.

Put out a wide brim bucket and a small brim bucket in the rain. You're suggesting they will both collect the same amount.

>>2842210
The rain is going at the same strength. That's the amount of light let through the lens.
You are even shit at analogies. like I said, finish school first.

>>2842212
Yes. The rain is the same strength. So the bucket with the wider brim is catching more of it.

???

Man, no wonder you like Theoria

>>2842212
Let's do some very simple math with rain drops!

If rain is falling at 1 drop per square inch per minute.

You have one bucket with a mouth that is 500 square inches

You have another bucket with a mouth that is 100 inches.

If both buckets are out in the same rain for 1 minute, and the rain is falling at 1 drop per inch per minute:
The 500sq/in bucket has 500 drops in it.
The 100sq/in bucket has 100 drops in it.

The rain (light) is the same, and the larger surface area has collected more in the same amount of time.

>>2842226
So with this analogy if you do the cropping afterwards, the picture suddenly goes darker and you have to compensate the exposure level to keep it at the same lightness as it was before cropping. Totally makes sense.

>>2842229
Cropping afterwards doesn't do anything to the original amount that entered. Why would it?

>>2842232
Exactly, the analogy is missing the lens. By this you are more likely in the living room with a hole in the roof and the rain is falling through the hole. Then you place the bucket under, but the f/stop is actually about counting how many raindrops are falling through the hole. It doesn't matter if it falls into the bucket or not.

>>2842234
Don't bother, they are obliviously to retarded to get it.

>>2842234
Because the lens has an f-stop number, not the sensor.

>>2842234
Putting a lens on a crop sensor does nothing to affect the light coming through the lens. It does, however, affect how much light is being used to make up the photo.

If you're looking at it from a test chart comparison of light transmission of a lens (Like a sony user) then sure, Tony is a retard. If you're looking at it like a photographer, where only the light that's making it to the sensor matters, then it makes sense.

Light captured has a lot more relevance to photographers than light transmitted.

If Tony is saying that the lens itself changes, then he's wrong, yes, but as I don't watch youtube people talking about gear, I'd like a link to show where he says that.

>>2842241
Sou you are saying photographers are bloody screaming idiots. That, or it's just you.

You guys are misinterpreting the point Tony was making, and I don't blame you the way he expresses it is somewhat unnecessarily confusing. The point has nothing to do with the light but the depth of field. He says you should multiply the aperture by the crop factor as well to get the equivalent depth of field. He conflates this issue with the very well known fact that smaller sensors have worse noise performance than cameras with larger sensors, which is why some people thought he's saying the light coming in is affected by the crop.

File: GoodOne.jpg (92KB, 679x516px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 679x516px

>>2842251
Great point!

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Width	679
Image Height	516

>>2842256
see
>>2842192

>>2842261
So you're referring to a post made by someone else to justify being dismissive and ignorant to someone who's genuinely trying to educate you and help you understand something?

>>2842204
What do Tony and his fanboys have in common besides being sue-happy? They never look at their camera's light meter

>>2842265
ISO is generally calibrated to compensate for it.

>>2839554
I could not make money with 1 lens and I need a back up body for jobs.
Minimum is a 24-70 and a 70-200 plus maybe a 16-35 or 85 1.4 depending on jobs and two bodies.

>>2842241
>If you're looking at it like a photographer, where only the light that's making it to the sensor matters, then it makes sense.

if you actually know how light and cameras work then no, it doesn't make sense.

>>2842254
>The point has nothing to do with the light but the depth of field.

f-stop is a metric used for the purpose of exposure.

the only thing f-stop has anything to do with is the exposure.

>>2841435
He used to own a gun range is the rumor

File: 1463359140133.jpg (213KB, 814x294px) Image search: [Google]

213KB, 814x294px

>>2842176

Northrup has a video up talking about full frame lenses on APS-C bodies and uses DXO mark to try to break the rules of physics.

The short of it is that he says lenses perform differently depending on the sensor underneath, which is wrong. A lens doesn't change how it collects or focuses light if the sensor changes or is replaced with a film or whatever

Angry photographer put up like 4 videos ripping northrup apart point by point.

If you have some time to burn they're humorous and you can learn some basic shit about lenses in his rebuttal.

>>2844530
Just watched those vids and they are awful. Angry photographer isn't funny and just comes off as an insufferable autist. Northrup said some incorrect things but the gist was broadly true: shooting fool frame lenses on APS-C makes the most sense if you are doing wildlife but otherwise APS-C lenses for APS-C cameras is best.

The resolution comparison he gives in the last vid is misleading. If you can't move or zoom, it's true that the denser APS-C sensor will give better resolution but if you can move or zoom so you have the same framing which is basically every other kind of photography, the higher resolution FF is better.

>>2842210
I'm coming into this midway and might be misunderstanding what you're trying to argue, but if you want to use the rain analogy, what matters is that both containers will fill up to the same depth, and it's the same with sensors.

On a physics level, yes, you may have collected more light overall with the larger sensor, but you need less light to make the same exposure if that makes sense.

From a photographer's standpoint, it's irrelevant, because exposure at the same f/stop, shutter speed, and ISO will be the same regardless of whether the sensor is a 645 Phase One monster or a fingernail-sized P&S sensor.

The place where crop DOES matter is effective depth of field between lenses of the same focal length. As a general rule, a 1.5x sensor will result in a stop more depth of field compared to an FF sensor with a lens of equivalent focal length. (i.e. a 35 f/1.4 on 1.5x will similar to a 50 f/2 on FF, and you'd need a 25 f/1 on m43 to do the same.)

>>2839497

He's the kind of dude you wouldn't want to talk about photography casually with at a bar because he's got such a chip on his shoulder about fucking photos.

Like I could have a beer and talk shop with Ken Rockwell and have a good time, even JewFro probably.

>>2844695

Angry photographer is utterly bizarre and obnoxious as are his videos, I agree.

But somehow, northrup is more obnoxious possibly because he is constantly fucking shilling something.

At least with angry photog you know going in this guy loves nikon gear, but he shits on nikon plenty when they make mistakes so at least he 'seems' more genuine than northrop.

>>2844530
Double the pixel density, double the sample rate of the image coming through lens, double the problems for a lens designed with full frame tolerances in mind to hit certain performance metrics. So yes, it does behave differently. Also, the idea that Aperture only effects exposure is moronic, strange how people have been using aperture to control DoF since the dawn of photography, wonder why.

>>2839508
holy shit lol chill

also, I'm not even a fujifag tyvm

already reported thread but mods are sleeping

>>2844724
The guy made a video shitting all over gravitational waves where he claimed he was smarter than Einstein and literally said nothing correct. He's about as genuine as jimmy saville.

I thought Angry Photographer was a really obese lesbian the first time I saw one of his videos.

>>2844744

He's so distinctive yet I've seen like a dozen different people that look like him. Fat, bald, tattoo'd with an edge.

>>2844735

>watching a photographer on youtube for his opinions on gravity

S M H f a m

File: 1460493362194.jpg (10KB, 250x235px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 250x235px

>>2839497
rambling, overconfident, tries to divorce himself from the gearwhoring scene but inadvertently falls back into it just by the nature of his channel

he's probably a really good photographer, and his tips are probably really good, but it takes too long to dig through his long repetitive videos to find the good tidbits

overall seems like he would be a cool guy irl and probably a great photographer

>>2844762
>great photographer
>is fat
>sits at home all day jacking off to his gear

>>2844762
Those who create informational videos and drool over gear day in and day out are rarely good photographers, for obvious reasons.

Seriously, fuck that guy.

>>2839518
>I like him and his magnetism are good for ASMR

We need more ASMR photo channels.

>>2844758
Nobody is doing that but the point is that those videos just show what kind of person he is, why would you trust his opinion on anything after videos like that? Especially when the best proof of his photography is bad photos that he stole?

>>2844793
Have you seen his photos on flickr? He's pretty good.

>>2844780
implying you wouldnt jack off to 30+ vintage lenses and 10 bodies. senpai pls

is he serial killer?
or ex convict?
just look at those tattoos
and fag voice

File: kek.jpg (13KB, 325x100px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 325x100px

hahahahahahahahahaha this fucking guy

File: 1459481717149.png (814KB, 604x717px) Image search: [Google]

814KB, 604x717px

>sonycucks mad because he's a nikonfag

EVERY
SINGLE
FUCKING
TIME
WITHOUT
FUICKING
FAIL

EVERY THING ON THIS BOARD COMES DOWN TO SHILLING

/p/ IS LITERALLY /v/

>>2845087
What's his flickr?

Sage for attention whores.

>>2845087
You serious? For someone who talks so much shit his photos are completely underwhelming. Nothing but snapshots and bad ones at that.

>>2846448
https://www.flickr.com/photos/134746128@N05/

>>2846731
He claims that he doesn't post any of his real work online and that his Flickr is just his fuckaround snapshits.

On one hand I kind of have trouble believing that his real stuff isn't out there, because otherwise how would he be attracting real clients without a portfolio of serious stuff?

On the other hand, he obviously has a full studio setup, and yet we don't really see shots taken in it on his flickr etc, so he must be telling the truth about doing a lot of shooting that he doesn't post.

I kind of wonder if he has a portfolio site under a totally different name that we don't know about.

>>2846798

He doesn't. You'll learn with time that pseudoscientific cranks like these are pathological liars and totally delusional about their own importance.

>>2846798
He got banned from dpreview and signed back up under a female pseudonym
he's just a pathological liar and a gearfag
having gear doesnt mean you use it lol

>>2846798
He claims they are fuck around snapshits because they are fuck around snapshits in every sense of the term. Just awful. Even a complete noob photographer could have potentially gotten better results from the same circumstances. Also funny that his excessive knowledge has nothing to do with the photography itself he posted on the flicker. Why would someone purposefully put shit online that shows no skill or knowledge when they claim to know pretty much everything? Because he's a fucking shitter and a liar, that's why.

>>2846886
he's isi?

>>2846886
Although I think you're probably right, I'll play devil's advocate a bit here. I'm actually a working pro (though not full-time like I used to be), and my fuckaround snapshits are about as bad as his. My skills in photography are more on the production and direction side, and less on the actual capturing (although I'm totally competent there), and the same could conceivably be true of him.

>>2846903
isi's not a gearhead on the same level and claims to know everything about the art, not the tech so not quite

and also she's skinny as a rail while this dude is a pure fat fuck

and I want to fuck her still, obviously nobody wants to fuck this fat guy

>>2846798

Offer cheap as fuck headshots, prom shots, pics of kids etc in your shitty studio. The truth is most soccer moms will look at it and go off price.

I know people around me that make money carrying around a sheet and a rabal using the pop up flash at kid's birthday parties holding up oversized numbers and shit.

You can make money in photography doing the shit like this if you're willing to go cheap, make a name for yourself, and then network to make clients. You don't really even have to have great results.

>>2846798
He used to bitch about other photographers on Youtube that didn't have portfolios available online. So he's either a hypocrite or full of shit.

Having a studio setup means nothing more than having a studio setup. Until he posts anything different than the current snapshits than there's no reason to believe he takes anything but snapshits.

>>2846731
>https://www.flickr.com/photos/134746128@N05/

Thanks my main man. So who the hell is that in his profile image? That can't be him...

>>2846963
>Having a studio setup means nothing more than having a studio setup
Exactly. Think of all the gear owned by people on /p/. Does that mean that it gets used, or that it's used to make good photos? Absolutely not. they sell that shit to anyone with a credit card.

>>2846963
>>2847041
I guess that's true. I don't know anybody with a full permanent studio set up in their house that doesn't use it regularly, but I guess that's probably because the photogs I know IRL are mostly pros I've worked with.

>>2844530
I just read this little gem on some website:

> The large pixel camera enables one to take higher ISO images and still maintain higher image quality over the small pixel camera (Figure 8) because a larger lens is used which delivers more light in the same exposure time.

>>2839497
this man's neck threw up. That's what we are now seeing as his 'face'.

File: EafP.3920ShillingsND5860.jpg (651KB, 1818x1089px) Image search: [Google]

651KB, 1818x1089px

>>2846419
shillings

Sign It Lads
https://www.change.org/p/vladimir-putin-a-portfolio-of-shots-by-the-angry-photographer-ken-wheeler-theoria-apophasis

File: hqdefault (1).jpg (39KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 480x360px

>>2854606

>>2839497
The more times I look at this fucker's face, I dont get any less upset. srsly, dat lower lip tho.

>>2854606
kek, I'm going to send this to him

hopefully he makes a vid about it

>>2854733
It bugs me, he's got all the features of a football watchin, TV lounging fatass Dad, but he's got sleeve tattoos.

lol he's streaming right now if you guys want to fuck with him

>>2855177
>>>/b/