Kowa lenses tested on the GH4 (Guest post by Lee Mullen).
I’m not a reviewer as such but more of a hands on professional and only had the lens for 2 days. I have taken it out to shoot mainly outdoor landscape shots.
These were all taken on the Panasonic GH4.
What I can say is that the lens is built like a tank and has a very similar, if not better physical feel about it than Voigtlander Nokton M4/3 lenses which I also own, that is real quality metal and very smooth focus and an adjustable clickless iris ring with the ‘T’ markings shown (for video shooters like myself). It has some weight in it and really does feel quality made as you would expect from a Japanese optical product.
Image wise, it is very clean and rectilinear with no noticeable barrel/mustache distortion and very sharp in the corners.
Like most ultra wide angle lenses, it does suffer with chromatic aberration, but thankfully Kowa have reduced this pretty well and when looking at comparison images taken with a Tokina 11-16mm using a Metabones Speedbooster, the Kowa is heads up with little CA to notice. Even both lenses at T3.0 (f/2.8), the Kowa is sharper than the Tokina and has a less of a clinical look about it. The Kowa Prominar has some nice characteristics about it’s own look.
On the GH4 it attaches lovely with no play at the mount.
Kowa supply the lens with a nice very wide proper lens hood which has a tightening screw like in the old days. It also comes with a padded case.
Overall, as I professional photographer shooting landscape, HDR, events and real estate photography here in Western Australia, plus a shooter of cinema like video, I can definately recommend this lens which fills the ultra wide gap in the native Micro Four Thirds void. No need really for Speed Boosters or slow ultra wide angles, this will impress you.
Gan Eden
Gan Eden Photography & Video Productions
Western Australia
The new Kowa Micro Four Thirds lenses are already available on eBay:
12mm f/1.8 in [shoplink 50867 ebay]Black (Click here)[/shoplink], [shoplink 50868 ebay]Green (Click here)[/shoplink] and [shoplink 50869 ebay]Silver (Click here)[/shoplink].
25mm f/1.8 in [shoplink 50870 ebay]Black (Click here)[/shoplink], [shoplink 50871 ebay]Green (Click here)[/shoplink] and [shoplink 50872 ebay]Silver (Click here)[/shoplink].
89 Responses
this is one ugly processing right there
…can we see your work please??
Agreed. Small wonder cameras are rapidly declining in sales when simply nasty barbs are so prevalent on forums. Egomaniacal nit wits who never post their “masterpieces”, just bray from the sidelines at those who do. Why waste time in such company?
Admin, you do a great job getting the information out, but can you also patrol this forum to keep it civil, fun and instructive? And thank you to the OP for sharing some helpful hands-on info and images.
I do most of the moderation on this site.
Most of the troll posts are filtered or deleted before you even see them. Unless a deleted post has a response, you won’t even see the “this comment was deleted” placeholder so that’s probably why you think this site isn’t monitored.
I won’t delete legitimate critical comments, but I do delete obscenity, name calling, personal attacks, name copiers and name changers. I also delete posts that are designed to do nothing but incite arguments.
Everyone has an opinion of what’s legitimate and what’s not, but I try not to be too heavy handed. The only complaints I’ve seen come from the trolls. They know who they are and they eventually slink away.
Anyone that’s frequented the site more than a couple months can tell you that there’s been a drastic drop in troll traffic.
So in short, these forums are patrolled. I’m a volunteer so have patience that trolls aren’t always deleted immediately, but they will be so don’t bother engaging them. They don’t have a stage here.
Thanks! Your efforts are appreciated. It makes a big difference in how enjoyable these forums are.
I haven’t had a chance to thank for your work, this site was in terrible need of moderation, you’re godsend. As you said, anyone who’s been on this site for some amount of time will know how bad it was, I’ve been here for 4 years and this is the most civil it has gotten since the first 2 years when most of us first commenters were only G1, E-P1, PL1 and GH users and there was no NEX system or DSLR users feeling threatened by this emerging platform yet.
An unfortunate side effect of the moderation here seems to be that the situation over at SonyAlphaRumors have gotten out of hand lately. It’s almost as if the trolls are spending more time there now that this forum is harder to troll.
You need to be doing better! I can see a load of trollsh*t here already from the likes of Ulysse who you seem to have overlooked!!
Thanks for the feedback. You may not agree with ‘Ulysse’, but there’s nothing in this thread that I consider trolling. Nothing repetitive, no personal attacks or obscenities. An ’empty’ comment isn’t trolling.
When you flag comments they’ll pop up for my review if you’d like to call attention to other comments in other threads, but there’s nothing here.
But isn’t that just your perception?
I specifically addressed your ‘Ulysse’ comment; No deliberate repetition, personal attacks or obscenities in this thread.
Did you have other examples that you consider ‘overlooked’ ?
Just the general nastiness here that seems to be allowed – it doesn’t help anyone. These clowns commenting negative nonsense does nothing nor provides anything of any value. Trolls and keyboard warriors are given power when a mod ‘overlooks’ the intent to cause crap……
‘General nastiness’ is your perception, but not one I share. I think the great majority of posts here are respectful, or at least tolerant.
I’m not going to censor someone with a legitimately stated criticism, even if I don’t agree with it. Nor am I going to censor occasional snottiness. That’s not the same as trolling.
I think that I do a pretty good job of weeding out individuals that do nothing but troll. Again, I’d be happy to look at any examples you can provide.
I already provided examples and you choose to ignore them. People are getting fed up of it mate. If you want less and less people coming back here, your choice. Take the specs off….. wasting my time talking to a person who cannot see….Chao.
In fact you provided one example, which I addressed above.
Any others to share?
…and of course, because you’re a ‘mod’ you’re right……
Enjoy your life.
How is the situation in any way as you describe?
Most of the critical comments are legitimately pointing out that heavily-processed images don’t allow a decent view of what the lens produces.
Secondly, how is it so bad to get some critique on a photography blog like this? Several people think the images are over-processed, That’s a pretty OK thing to say, it’s not groundless and it gives the photographer some genuine feedback. I think they are really over-done and that the processing is heavy-handed. I don’t think it’s bad to say it, if the photographer reads it they can take onboard the opinion and ignore it or not as they like. It’s preferable to the usual chorus of ‘great pics’.
And finally, how is it in anyway relevant that the people critiquing the post-processing don’t give links to their own work? Criticisms can also come from people that don’t take photographs, or would you never think about critiquing a painting unless you had also painted?
Here’s a selection of some of my photos, http://e.xposu.re . Does the level of quality of my photos impact in any way what I think about someone else’s photos?
I can understand getting mad about insults or things like ‘shit photos’ or whatever, but in this case people just gave their opinion on the PPS, and it’s absolutely relevant considering the images are their (presumably) to showcase the lens.
Thanks Steve – you hit that nail on the head! We are wasting our time arguing with such egomaniacs here. Let them rot.
I completely agree with Ivan. Photos are ordinary and the last one with the crowd is very TOO, TOO, TOO MUCH PHOTOSHOPED. Where is the reality of the lens ? Of the DMC-GH4 ? If someone want to show a material, It needs to show the photo or the film in the REALITY. NO ONE CORRECTION afterward !!!
Cheers..
Ivan gone all quiet??
I actually like the second photo. But others are just disgusting, and honestly dont do any favor to the lens at all. The point of such “reviews” is beyond me. You basically walk around, shoot bunch of pictures, then overprocess them in fake tasteless HDR, with million sharpness, clarity and vignetting applied, colors wrecked upside down.
What i care about, are pretty, reallife pictures without ANY processing (ooc jpegs best) with natural colors. Which are pleasure to look at. So by looking at pictures, you can have idea of what the lens is really capable.
Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication
Dear Ivan
I completely agree with you. Photos are ordinary and the last one with the crowd is very TOO, TOO, TOO MUCH PHOTOSHOPED. Where is the reality of the lens ? Of the DMC-GH4 ? If someone want to show a material, It needs to show the photo or the film in the REALITY. NO ONE CORRECTION afterward !!!
Cheers..
If you believe that OOC JPEGs “don’t have any processing” there’s no help for you. And if they’re Olympus or Fuji JPEGs, the colours are nowhere near natural – they’re vivid and pleasing, but definitely saturated. Likewise, most OOC JPEGs are highly sharpened, with some sharpening and noise reduction evident even when set to the lowest setting (in almost any camera).
Processing is like taste, but if you aren’t starting from a RAW file – preferably one from RawTherapee or some other processor that doesn’t incorporate OEM profiles, you certainly aren’t getting a “natural” image, whatever that means.
I’ve seen Ivan Kutsarov’s work and frankly it is too bland, plain and disgusting…. then he has the audacity to come post dumb useless comments here out of some kind of envy…..you reveal the character you are Ivan and I’m glad not to know you.
As I said, can WE all see your work with this lens please???
Is this some sort of file format hipsterism?
If the final image meets your artistic goals, how you get there (OOC Jpeg or RAW with an extensive workflow) doesn’t matter. Only the end result matters.
Steve – thank you, that’s exactly my point.
The idea of a “natural” image as Ivan is so vehemently defending, is dubious at best, and totally mythical at worst.
There is no such thing as an objective photographic reality. There wasn’t in film, there isn’t in digital, and there won’t be in whatever we’re using in the future. Whatever captures your perception and lets you translate it, that’s what works.
You are one long haired motherfooker……
What an arrogant long haired pr!ck
Oh yeah, those HDR (highly doped rendering) images are perfect for judging a lens…
Not a very kind person are you? Are you always negative and mean? HDR is not a bad thing mate!
Kindly share your efforts!!
Like many people you are mistaking the term HDR with Tone mapping : HDR means high dynamic range and its purpose is to overcome the lack of dynamic range when capturing a scene. “Tone mapping” is an effect that pushes the details and colors of a photograph (like a stamp) and can make the image look very caricatural. A photographer called this effect “clown puke” back in the days, a well deserved denomination!
…and is there a law that says people cannot shoot or edit in Tone Mapping or HDR?? Too many gestapos about…..
Why are you so sensible about criticism ? No law can make a skilled person, if you keep hiding behind barriers thinking you are making “art” by pushing some sliders to the extreme, you may never evolve in photography.
Using the wrong term also demonstrate your lack of knowledge in editing. This lack of knowledge just reflects the amateurish processing of your pictures.
Looks a pretty decent lens. How much is it?
Overcooked HDR events photography? It’s confusing!?
…oh..yeah, I forgot…the lens,
BTW..the basics…Which one is it? There are three.
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz…..zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz đ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz…..ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ……zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz……
tard…..
Seems we have the ‘name chasers’ here who only buy Olympus and Panasonic AF lens and are utterly troubled by a fully manual ‘no name’ lens so they decide to troll and ruin things. I hope admin remove their whining no contribution comments and get a friggin life.
….but you are referring to ALL of the comments!
Nope
in the picture of lake with ducks, is it a real vigneting provided by the lens or post processed in software?
It seems too uneven for a lens to produce that effect.
I do think the amount of processing is inappropriate for a lens review, as it makes it difficult to see what the lens actually produces. The review also failed to state which lens it was reviewing (although it’s reference to UWA does clarify things). The lens looks good, but at its price point it’s more than the Panasonic 7-14 and probably pretty close to the Oly 7-14f2.8. It’s probably better for video than either of those, so that’s a plus.
But it is not a review as I have already stated, it was a simple bunch of a few SAMPLE images taken on the fly. Please don’t look into it more than that. Just sharing some honest opinions……
That you are not a reviewer or you say it isn’t review, is not affecting to anything. Yes, others makes a mistake that call you or your post as review while you say it isn’t.
1) there are no honest opinions, there are just opinions.
2) You say you wanted just show bunch of SAMPLES, well, those are not good as samples from that lens as the samples are more about your photoshop editings how do you want your photos to look and how do you serve them to your clients.
3) What others want to see, is samples from the optics, pure as possible, without post processing. So they know what others can get with that lens and then validate itself how they could process the given samples.
Now it was like a review, with samples of personal opinion, telling that new lens was used.
Well good for you mate, your opinion, just like mine. đ
I added the effect in Ps using Analog Efex Pro
Nice….. but, what was the lens used??
The 8.5mm I think.
Kowa Prominar 8.5mm 2.8 đ
This is amazing. The reviewer compared the image quality of a prime with a zoom mounted with a Speed Booster. And then decided that the prime is very good, blah blah, …. What a valid comparison and great conclusion!
‘….than Voigtlander Nokton M4/3 lenses which I also own…’
So attentive you are!
And he speaks about ‘very clean and rectilinear with no noticeable barrel/mustache distortion and very sharp in the corners’ right in the next paragraph.
He compared the Kowa with the Voigtlander only in the build quality. Then when talking about the image quality, those comments were made in comparison to the Tokina 11-16mm mounted with a Metabones Speedbooster.
Because we have a bunch of other native rectilinear 8.5mm available for review comparisons, right ? He explicitly said he was not a reviewer, do not criticize him as such then. Most reviewers have the luxury of owning, acquiring or renting whatever gear they need on demand for review purposes. This is only a regular user comparing what he has at hand, or do you believe a handful of overly critical comments by a bunch of strangers over the internet warrants the need to purchase or rent whatever gear they said is deemed necessary to please their taste, at the expense of his own money ? You people are out of touch with reality, not everything on the internet is free or made exclusively to please you.
PS, this isn’t personal, it goes for everyone on this site, on every thread, ever. Please, go out more, enjoy photography.
And your point is Mr Troll??
But it is not a review as I have already stated, it was a simple bunch
of a few SAMPLE images taken on the fly. Please don’t look into it more
than that. Just sharing some honest opinions……
The lack of distortion at this AOV is impressive and truly beneficial for video. I suppose it explains the asking price, which is quite ambitious.
Stills shooters might do better if they choose one of the native UWA zooms.
Hi Sneye, yes it really does have ZERO distortion which is perfect for video. I hope shoot video in the near future. đ
Thanks for posting, Gan. Most appreciated.
Thank you for the appreciation. We need more of it in this world. đ
Those are some seriously fugly POS…
Puny sensor and no af…LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL
Man, people are jerks.
Nice images, Gan. The duck pond and the sunset are both lovely.
Yes you are correct, man lives by his ego (jerks) and not by his heart but some of us are trying to living beyond that. Cheers mate. đ
Not sure why all the negative crap here about the price when this lens is only $899 from a seller on eBay!!
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Kowa-single-focus-lens-Black-Micro-Four-Thirds-PROMINAR-8-5-F2-8-BK-/141601812763?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item20f820311b
That’s a pretty darn good price. That’s about the same price as an old Nikon 18mm/2.8.
Expensive, but apparently not out of line for its capabilities.
I don’t think they *completely* succeeded in their goal to make this lens so hideous as to dissuade buyers who are attracted to its excellent optics…….
…and your vain comments are based on??
Appearances, of course. đ That top photo is so unflattering. The catalog photos definitely look better, but it’s a very heavily-influenced Military-Industrial look, don’t you think? Some people like that, sure, but is surely isn’t what the camera makers are doing. I would have thought they would want to appeal to the same people who like the looks of the cameras that their lenses are made to fit. Logical.
I don’t really give a hoot what a lens looks like. I care about:
1) Performance/Specs/Features
2) Ergonomics
3) Availability
4) Price
Looks come last – Sure I might decide on a black lens if I’m going to use it on my GH4 mostly, or a silver one it it’s going to spend most of its life on my GM1, but I basically just get the lens I need.
Which means you agree with my first post. Thanks!
Hey if it makes you happy, sure whatever đ
People want a review, well read this!
http://m43lens.blogspot.tw/2014/09/kowa-prominar-85mm-f28-test-review.html
That was very good review, thanks for the URL!
Told shortly and clearly every important factor (from coma to distortions and flare)
Comments to this thread are a perfect display of how photographers have some of the most inflated yet baseless egos of any craft. I can’t think of a more impressive concentration of back patting and self congratulatory posers anywhere on the internet.
You want to bag on someone’s generous gift of sharing unique images from new equipment, then you better assign your real name to your handle and link it to your flickr. Short of that, every single anonymous commenter to this thread is a consumer, not a photographer. They have a few extra dollars to feed their greed obsession, and justify it all by claiming to be authorities on subjects they barely understand.
Don’t understand what I am saying, then inventory how aroused you get by the words “organic sensor”.
/rant
Comment, written by anonymous “CN”…..
If you really would want something like that, you would have written it with your own name, postal address and then links to your photos in online.
Is ‘Juurikas’ a real name then?
If you find me trashing someone’s work I will do just that.
But, thanks for providing an example!
It’s OK CN, every successful artist in his field will always get the envious, jealous critics…..and they aren’t worth pi$$ing on.
And I used to thing that Mac versus PC comments were bad. đ
The problem with this site is that it isn’t being moderated properly. Too much sh*t gets thru the net. Not good enough.
Thanks for the review Gan.
I am currently using a Metabones Speed Booster with Nikkor 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5 zoom. I also have the Olympus 9-18mm f/4-5.6 which isn’t a lot of use in pre-dawn situations as too hard to focus manually with no focus scale. I have been considering this and also the Voigtlander 10.5mm f/0.95 and the Olympus 7-14mm f/2.8. The Voigtlander isn’t as wide as I would like but the f/0.95 aperture would make it a joy to focus in poor light. No real issues with focus on the Olympus 7-14mm f/2.8 as the push-manual focus scale will be good enough. Lack of front filter attachment is an issue. The Kowa 8.5mm may be just the right compromise.
Curious about the filter thread. I believe there is one on the body that is 67mm but it has a non-standard thread pitch. The one in the lens hood looks as though it is recessed and the hood isn’t a 2-part or retractable design so is it actually usable with a Lee filter holder?
Thanks Peter.
I also have my eye on the Voigtlander 10.5mm as well. Now perhaps that would be a good comparison ‘review’, video or otherwise (without upsetting the perfectionists ;-)).
Yeah you really do have 2 options for filter. I decided to buy a 86-82mm step down ring so I can use one of my high grade Variable ND filters by B+W and it fits perfectly inside the hood. Of course the other option is the 67mm filter thread on the lens itself of which you can still use the hood, in fact, you could possibly get away with two filters at once if set up correctly because the lens hood can be ‘loosened’ a touch forward to allow possibly both.
This is for you egoistic trolls who like to shoot arrows into peoples hearts with arrogant harsh, defamatory or put down words (I hope you learn before this life ends):
Ignore the useless empty comments from the likes of Ulysse. They come here with a set agenda to put down yet you never see any evidence of their own work – proving to me they talk hot air……
Why Photographers Behave Badly Online (And How To Make Sure You Donât)
Iâm still debating whether I want to bring this up. But itâs time.
Have you ever hesitated to share an image on a forum because you were
afraid someone would turn on the nasty hose and drench you with
negativity? Have you ever obsessively written and re-written a forum or
blog post because of what people might say if you misspoke? Have you
ever had a lump of fear rise in your throat when you introduced your
work to a wider audience or otherwise exposed yourself to anonymous
attacks?
Youâre not alone.
Jodi over at MCP Actions recently posted new rules of conduct
for her facebook and blog comments. This was triggered by waves of
negativity, arrogance, and destructive criticism that made new
photographers in her community feel âhurt, frustrated, and scared.â
(Good move, Jodi!) Her new rules emphasize respect, empathy, and
awareness of othersâ views. Iâm a fan.
Her brave stance also nudged me to ask: Why were the new rules necessary in the first place?
Why do we, as an industry, âeat our youngâ?
Why do people instinctively look at others a few rungs below them on the ladder and want to knock them down further?
Whatâs with the unproductive nastiness that scums up what could have been a useful and constructive critique of someoneâs work?
I see at least five basic reasons for the rising tide of âmean.â And I believe the potential
for it hides inside all of us. Perhaps itâs time we parade a few
things into the light so we can find better ways to respond.
(Note: Not every one of these
applies to every âmeanâ incident; this is simply an exploration of why
one human being might behave badly toward another human being.)
Reason #1: We sacrifice a lot to be a photographer.
Zach Arias said
âPhotography will take everything from you if you let it.â Heâs
right. We get up early and stay up late. We blow our exciting birthday
money on (yawn) a flash stand. We sacrifice time with spouses,
children, friends. We abandon other hobbies. We plunder our bank
accounts. We exhaust ourselves.
And weâre threatened and angered by anyone who appears to be giving less and getting more than we are.
When we see people who appear to be less talented, less committed, or
less invested â particularly when they seem to be doing well â itâs
hard to handle. We feel defensive. WE had to give up so much to get to
where we are â who the heck is THIS clown?? And theyâre making more money than me? Ridiculous. An outrage.
Itâs a toxic cocktail of cognitive dissonance and sour grapes.
If someone in your neighborhood bought the same house you have for 25%
of the price, youâd feel sick to your stomach â you donât want to think
that you wasted all that money. Itâs physically
uncomfortable. So you look for reasons why their house might actually
suck. Itâs on a worse piece of land, the materials used were shoddy,
the contractor was just copying your design. There must be SOME reason
why itâs okay that you spent all that money. And youâll find it, even if you have to invent it.
Little wonder why people attack others online when theyâve entered
this mental place. The minute their hands hit the keyboard, theyâre no
longer speaking like the decent person they probably are. Theyâre
writing from a place of fear and anger, a fight-or-flight reaction to
survive and defend their holdings.
Reason, consideration, and kindness flee.
Reason #2: Criticism is a bonding tool.
Oh, the juicy, guilty pleasure. To sit in a group and dump on
someone, to point out all the reasons they stink, and re-validate why
you are better than they are. When youâre feeling small, itâs the
fastest way to gain the illusion of greatness and make some new âfriends.â
Richard S. Gallagher wrote: âThere are two essential ingredients to a
clique: a sense of who you are, and a sense of who you are not.
This is why there is often a strong incentive to gossip about people
who arenât like âus,â and why this kind of criticism often bonds people
closer together.â
When we feel threatened by the âstate of the industryâ or by âall
those cheap photographers,â it feels safe to turn to a forum for
validation that our sacrifices are worth it. That WE are the REAL
photographers. We are not like THEM, those un-talented dolts who donât
know what they are doing. And WE are going to verbally shut them down
so that they canât threaten us anymore.
Then we lock arms like some sick game of Red Rover to keep anyone else from joining our team.
Reason #3: We feel validated when we finally know enough to be able to critique someone else.
We remember too sharply the days when we didnât know what f/2.8
meant. Itâs crystal clear in our minds what it was like to ask
questions and get dumped on by others. Well guess what, weâve now been
around the block a few times and weâre not the slowest kid in the class
anymore. We get it. And hereâs our chance to show it!
We want to appear as smart as we now feel, so instead of caring about
the recipientâs feelings, we write coldly, clinically, and
sarcastically.
Reason #4: Mean = Lazy.
Paul Saffo
said âThere are two ways to get famous in cyberspace: Say something
clever and memorable, or say something outrageous. And unfortunately,
itâs a lot easier to be outrageous than clever and memorable.â
Itâs easy to be sarcastic and hard to be supportive. Itâs faster to
be angry and harder to be helpful. Building is a heckuva lot harder
than destroying, so the quickest way to get our validation fix is to
selectively shoot someone down. Itâs the lazy manâs choice. And weâre
all lazy at some times in our lives, especially when weâre hurting.
Reason #5: People are more comfortable inflicting pain when they donât see the consequences of their actions.
A variety of stomach-churning studies suggest that people are more at
ease inflicting pain on other people as their physical distance from
them increases. When theyâre up close and personal, compliance with
study procedures drops â no one wants to confront the results of painful
actions up close.
Although these studies werenât examining emotional pain, I
would bet the principle translates. If you had to see the flushed
faces, the tears, the dropped jaws, the wounded expressions, and the
wilting âI really was trying my bestâ sentiments, people would be
significantly kinder.
Partly because we donât like feeling like jerks, but partly because
weâd see that the recipients of our words arenât so different from us.
Itâs a mom who is struggling to learn a new skill with four hands
tugging at her leg all the time. Itâs a burned out graphic designer who
just took on a second job and is still trying to reignite his passion.
Itâs a human â a real person â who is probably a lot like someone you
already know and care for. Someone of value, someone who wants to go
home and fall into the arms of someone they love, just like you do.
We all say we know what the solution is.
If you canât say anything nice, donât say anything at all. Etc etc. But I think we can expand that a little. Judging from where we are, kindergarten rules appear to be forgotten when faced with the hurricane winds of adult insecurity. Here are some additional alternatives to avoid acting on the bitter emotions described above:
Practice self-care.
When youâre frustrated and threatened, recognize it and step back. Go
look at your best work. Re-read happy emails from past clients.
Re-affirm why you became a photographer. (It wasnât to feel like
this.) Seek validation from the people who love you, and then go create
more beautiful work. It will do much more for you than an outburst.
Understand that success is not a fixed commodity. There is always more. If someone else grabs some, it doesnât lessen the amount that remains.
Commit to always using your energy to support.
If you want to validate how much you know, start teaching. Add value to other lives.
Above all,
never say anything to another photographer that you wouldnât say to your
grandmother (or insert other beloved elderly relative here). Sometimes
it doesnât matter what is âtrueâ â âtruthâ can be reframed and told in a
kinder way. Take the time to look for it.
And the biggest secret I can share:
Selflessness always fills the hole inside you faster than selfishness
will. It will seem counter-intuitive, but when youâre hurting, try it
anyway.
http://psychologyforphotographers.com/why-photographers-behave-badly-online