File :-(, x, )
Joey Lawrence Tutorial NEWFAG
Does anyone know where I can find a torrent of the Joey L tutorial.

Searching around, I've foud that one existed but it was probably deleted.
>> Anonymous
1. Make friends with someone who has too much money
2. Have friend buy JoeyL tutorial DVD and copy it
3. ???
4. Profit
>> Anonymous
>>86226

seconded.

I'd expect /p/ to be all over this.
>> Anonymous
>>86242
>> Anonymous
searching for an hour still not found
i would enjoy this aswell
>> Anonymous
/r/ this please
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
joey lawrence?
>> Anonymous
>>86599

if only he would just go ON THE TONIGHT SHOW WITH JAY LENO, bill hicks may still be with us.

anyway apart from said actor, who is the other joey lawrence????
>> Anonymous
Some kid who charges metric fucktons of money for training DVDs on photography and photoshoppery.
>> Anonymous
Some kid who charges a metric fuckton for DVD training materials for photography and photoshoppery.
>> Anonymous
>>86720
>>86721
well done
>> Anonymous
DO WANT PLEASE
>> sage Anonymous
sage
>> Anonymous
He is overrated.
>> Anonymous
Good photos don't need photoshop.
>> Anonymous
>>86762
listen to this man!
>> Anonymous !MjcMqTX/iM
>>86763
Listen to the man that tells you to listen to the other man!
>> Anonymous
good photos may not need it. But a majority of photos aren't good. That's why you take so many in the hope that 2 or 3 will be great.

But for the rest, if PS is needed. Damn well use it when appropriate.

Are you going to swing from a trapeze without a net just cause a good acrobat doesn't need it?
No, you have that net there cause a couple of photos will need it.
Phototards insisting you don't are being elitist.
>> Anonymous
>>86783

You sir, get fuckin props for that comment. I agree.
>> Anonymous
can we focus on the getting that torrent.

search for about a minute and you'll find this:
http://www.flickr.com/groups/strobist/discuss/72157602430467381/page2/

in which some fag ruins it for everyone.
>> Anonymous
>>86760
I agree. He does have a talent for composition, but his visual style just is so awfully artificial-looking, so awfully baroque that it overwhelms the content, visual and otherwise, in most of his shots.
>> Anonymous
isnt that kid like 18 or something
>> elf_man !fBgo7jDjms
>>86810
Yeah.
I agree, a bit over the top, but very well done nonetheless. While there's clearly processing, it strikes me as fairly subtle, it's just that there's so much of it it has that slick, artificial look.
But you know, the guy makes his own fake blood, and does everything himself. Even if you don't like the style, it's impressive.
>> Anonymous
>>86810
17, actually. He started out as just some kid with a superzoom and Photoshop; he uses a 5D now, but almost all of the work on his site was taken with the point and shoot.

>>86811
It's well done, no doubt. But it just gets so much in the way of the subject, and even though I know he doesn't intend it like this, there's something quite off in processing portraits of homeless people the same way as one of a supermodel.

Still, he's just started, and could grow into using his skills maturely. I would say "would," but early fame has a way of screwing great talent over. Hopefully it won't here.
>> Anonymous
i wouldn't be surprised if some frustrated pro photog was using this kid as a front. he sets up the lights for him, teaches him how to use a camera, then uses the whole age thing as a hook to sell overpriced dvd's.
>> Anonymous
come on dudes
honestly, we should look, copy and make a torrent, rs or anything related of this

surely is at least a bit interesting...
I know there are lots of purists around but, I myself did a search for this and didn't found anything...

This tutorial sooner or later will be on the net, let's be the first ones to get it, now, go on on searching and if you know someone bought it, just make a fucking iso out of it
>> Anonymous
I think we all need to get over the whole "he used photoshop, it's not a real picture" - Photoshop can be used to add to photo's as much as kids (excluding JoeyL) can use it to subtract from photos with their shitty filters.

It's a tool. Use it or not. It's not worth arguing about.
>> Anonymous
I FOUND IT!

just kidding, im bumping the thread.
>> Anonymous
>>86899
Too much photoshop can move something from the realm of "photography" to "mixed media art," even though it's still a "picture."

And there's nothing inherently wrong with it, but it can often be disruptive, like if a novelist illustrated their book by arranging the text on each page to show what's going on on it.
>> Anonymous
i went through this kid's site, and i'm now pretty fucking convinced this is a hoax.

either he's the photographic genius of the century, or someone's doing his lighting and coaching him through shots. to my knowledge, i don't think anyone ever has gotten this good after three years with no instruction.
>> Anonymous
>>87014
I'm no big Strobist freak, but it doesn't seem to me that his lighting techniques are all that complicated. Good, well-done, etc., but I doubt they involve an extreme degree of anything.

And F. Scott Fitzgerald published his first book, "This Side of Paradise," when he was twenty-four, but wrote most of it while in college.
>> Anonymous
>>87014
the lighting isnt really all that genius. it looks pretty standard, and processed. sure, it looks good if you like that style, but its not genius.
>> OPFOR !8vKpfCqy8A
>>86226
You will never find the torrent here.
>> Anonymous
>>87022

no, it's not genius. but for being three years into photography (and a teenager at that), it's pretty fucking impressive. i haven't seen many (if any) other teenagers that can pull that off.
>> Anonymous
youre just all pissy that youll never be as good as him. pssh.
>> Anonymous
>>87029

god, i hope i never make photos like his. so, you get a half-point. i'm not pissy though; you're thinking of the word "skeptical." it's easy to get the two mixed up when your vocabulary consists of pronouns and profanity.
>> Anonymous
>>87024
3 years is a long time. some kids just start doing things earlier than others. the real reason you dont see a lot of kids doing photography is because its expensive. give me the gear and i could produce something like this.
>> Anonymous
>>87032
Thats what everyone on /p/ thinks.
>> Anonymous
>>87033
because its not all that advanced or incredibly unique. look at his gallery. every picture is the same style. if i did the exact same thing for 3 years, im sure id be good at it.
>> Anonymous
instead of buying this guys crap ask pskaught what he does. his lighting style is similar and you could tweak it however you like. i quite like the content of pskaught's pictures a lot more though.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>87022
>>87030
>>87034
>> Anonymous
true. we gleaned so much fucking info from that last thread. we got a hilarious picture!!!!

go to strobist instead. there are some parts of the strobist ethos that bother me (like the need to light everything like a commercial photo), but it's a great way to learn how to light without getting bogged down in strict academics.

and it's fukken free! and dave hobby is a miserly old scrooge, which means that you'll save more money in the long run anyway. and it sounds like joey L, if he is doing his own lighting, is getting a lot of pointers from strobist anyway, and then using that info to turn a pretty penny on instructional dvd's.
>> elf_man !fBgo7jDjms
>>87039
Heh, considering that strobist did an entry about him that was pretty much all positive.
>> Anonymous
>>87036
whoops i actually meant i quite like the content of pskaught's photos a lot more too.
>> Anonymous
>>87042
>>87039
reading that entry on strobist makes it seem like the real tutorial youre paying for is the post processing part. the lighting is really simple, and he has ideas of how to get the look he wants by oiling up the people or whatever, but thats nothing new.

as for the age thing, he grew up in the age of technology, not unlike some of us. its a lot easier for him to do something on the computer and photoshop since that may be the only way he's ever learned it.

even people on myspace do that sort of thing with the super high contrast photoshopping thats popular. is it the same look as Joey L? no. but they can easily use photoshop to do what they want. joey has this style and he can show you how to photoshop it like he does.
>> Anonymous
>>87045
True. I grew up around computers and the Internet from the age of four, and I'm extremely comfortable just figuring things out with them. Horrible at explaining it, though.

>>87039
>(like the need to light everything like a commercial photo)

Dear God I hate that: the monolithic imposition of style, the style itself, etc. etc.

Plus the idea that it's somehow a good thing for photojournalists to go firing off flashes at public events. People act sensational enough already without being reminded every flash recharge cycle they're going to be in the media. I'm not an available light freak per se, but I've found in my own photographs and in others that the less the person was aware of the camera, the more genuinely revealing the photograph is. Flash is a great way to control the aesthetics of a shot, but putting style above content is never a good idea for any sort of artist, especially for journalists.

Oh, and few flash layouts can beat a nice north window at the right time of day.

Still, I don't know of any lighting tutorial as exhaustive (or free) as the Strobist.
>> Anonymous
If you want good lighting you can just pay someone to set it up for your photographs. There are people who specialise purely in lighting. Lots of commercial projects and pros use them.
>> Anonymous
All his pics are heavily shopped. It's the shopping that makes them stand out.
>> Anonymous
not gonna lie
i just wanna learn how to photoshop that well from the dvd
photo editing is fun
but the tutorials on the web suck dick
>> Anonymous
i really love protest the hero
>> Anonymous
>>86226
>> Anonymous
podcast:

Photoshop user TV. It's free and you learn some really neat things.