This 17 year old is the Ryan Woessner of photography!
That is pretty crazily amazing!
Those photos look like paintings…
Not MY paintings 
YOUR paintings don’t look like anything, because I haven’t seen any of them.
Just like that tree in the woods.
It was supposed to be an ironing board
Amazing photos. Pretty slick website too.
I agree, the website is artwork in its self. Beautiful photography, that boy is very talented.
Amazing photography. I agree, it is indeed a pretty nice website.
Sickeningly talented.
quick questoin:
Im not trying to be a jerk or a downer or anything but how much skill does it actually take to be a photographer all you really need is a good camera and the right moment right?
thanks
have you seen wedding pics taken by someone with a good camera who fancied themselves a wedding photographer?
ehhhh nope
what i’m getting at is it’s the Carpenter, not the hammer.
ok sorry calm down they are good pictures i wasnt trying to start anything
sorry/thanks
i’m at no place where I need to calm down from…
You asked can anyone do it with a nice camera. the answer is no.
That’s all I was saying
He has a very unique style. I feel like they’re significantly post processed though. I realize there’s quite an art to that, but when I do most of my photography, I try to capture what I’m shooting for before loading them on to the computer. He is very skilled and I understand that the post processing he does helps emphasize the effects and mood that he’s trying to convey. I’d rather they were mostly done right from the camera. Also, it’s one thing to say it’s entirely the photographer who creates the image, but a lot of it has to do with the lens the photographer uses (disclaimer: Brian, I know there’s a ton more to it than that, I’m not completely ignorant :)). A wide aperture creates extremely cool bokeh (his 85mm f/1.8 is a great example of this) before putting these images on the computer. In order for someone with a standard P+S camera to make such an effect, post processing is essential.
Not to compare myself at all, but since it’s a photography thread, I’ll link to my site: www.kylewarrenphotography.com
I have not processed most of the images. Images of snowsports have been adjusted to bring out some of the detail and reduce glare, but other than that they’re almost all directly off the camera. I could use photoshop (if I was skilled at it) and enhance them to further convey the mood of the shot, but I prefer images off the camera, as they were seen. Just my $.02.
I’d be curious to know what others think.
Kyle
If that were true, that guy’s work wouldn’t stand out, would it? Show us some of yours.
If that doesn’t answer your question fully enough, allow me to add that the good photographer doesn’t need a “good” camera. In the first college photography class I took (many years ago), they used to have everyone do the first semester with a $5 camera with a plastic lens, 3 f-stops and only a few shutter speeds. This proved to the students that the vision is in the eye of the photographer, and the equipment is not necessarily a factor.
Unfortunately, the year I took the class those old cheapie cameras were no longer available and we had to use our own equipment. However, all the example pictures we were shown when assignments were being described to us were previous students’ works with the $5 cameras. They were pretty amazing; some nearly on a par with Joey L.'s work.
Anyone can point and shoot. Not everyone knows what to look for. Got a light pole growing out of your head? is there a bright light behind you? Should every shot be taken from eye level? Should the subject’s head be dead-center in the picture (the hallmark of a basic snapshot)? Etc.
I was about to say that also, that the pictures all look to be edited afterwards in some way…
I was thinking though, you can’t really get the effect of some of those shots with just the camera, can you? What I’m saying is, can you even get pictures to look like some of those in his gallery with camera lens and settings alone?
Disclaimer: I have no real experience in still photography (kinda lost interest in making still pics after getting into video)
Disclaimer #2: I just thought the guy’s work was great, and answered a question saying it wasn’t the camera, it was the photographer, I’m no still photographist.
Kyle, I looked at your site, and you have a lot of great action shots, well done. You take great shots ‘with’ your camera, not ‘because’ of it (which I’m sure you know)
Just seems like with today’s technology, not spending any time on post in your work, IE, creating even better art from the starting image seems like half the battle (keeping things ‘real looking’ just much better) (i meant ‘your’ as a general term )
and no…not everyone with photoshop is a post production expert 
It’s hard to tell how much has been changed from editing. Clearly a lot of color has been lost from some of them and a lot of the backgrounds have been darkened. It’s tough in a setting like the street to get such a white light on a person with such a dark background. I’m really no expert, I just know that they look excellent and very well done, but definitely not right off the camera.
The brighter center could be due to vignetting of the lens. I’m not sure how much of this is intentional since almost all his photos have some degree of vignetting. (Vignetting is the darker shaded corners of the images with a slightly lighter center, due to use of a lens at a low stop.) I’m not very informed on the subject, so I won’t try to continue down this road. Just look at all his images and see how many of them have darker corners than the rest of the shot… a lot.