While researching for a stock shoot the other day, I came across a website announcing an upcoming book by the sites owner. There was lot of hype about the books value to anyone wanting to become a real professional photographer. How buying the book would tell you the secrets of making huge amounts of money from this exciting new career. It would show you how to become a full time professional in a matter of weeks. We're not talking taking snaps at some wedding but flying the world to all the most exotic locations, living the high life and being paid copious amounts of money for you new found skills.
Sound good doesn't it! The funny part is though, I'd just read an article in a very respected international photography magazine by this very same person, bemoaning the fact that photography as we know it is over.... According to the author there are very very few big jobs around and they seem to be shrinking daily. Accelerated he believed by the current economic downturn. I guess the only logical thing for a photographer who can't find work is to write a book on how to make a fortune from photography. Sadly, this book will be snapped up by thousands of would be wanna be's, all hoping to share in an almost no existent dream. I think I'll just keep on doing lowly wedding snaps and pictures of people and not get involved in real photography.
Wednesday, 24 June 2009
Tuesday, 23 June 2009
Getting nude for the camera.
Our good friend Cate over at excite art, asked a nude art model for a models perspective of getting ones kit off for the camera. She posted the short article by an anonymous model this morning. Interesting read for anyone who has ever wondered about what the nude art modeling scene is like. See the excite art "Baring it all" post here.
PS Minimus, Wentworth, Australia.
Not the greatest image in the world but it brings a smile to my face each time I see it.This has got to be one of the smallest Paddle Steamers around. I'd call it a model but I'm sure its registered as a Paddle Steamer so that buggers that up. Funny thing is that apart from being tiny, the vessel is very well trimmed, and floats in the water just like her really big sisters. Must have been quite a feat trying to balance such a small hull with a heavy steam engine up one end and two people up the other. I've notice that a lot of the paddle steamers plying the Murray and Darling Rivers here in Australia, list badly to one side or the other. Not sure why this is, design or badly placed ballast.
Everything change, all stays the same!
Ok so I admit that the title to this post is confusing…. However the other day a client made a statement to me about how photography must be “so much harder for professionals now that everyone can take photos”.
Funny thing is photography has been available to the masses for all of my lifetime and most of the previous generation as well. Sure technology has changed but the actual concept, optical science and required vision have not. Most people today capture their images digitally rather than use film, but light still has to pass though an optical focusing mechanism before exciting a whole bunch of electrically excited receptors to create a picture. A wide angle lens still works much the same as it did ten, twenty, thirty or more years ago, as does a telephoto or zoom lens. Automatic exposure systems still get it right about 80% of the time as they did during the latter parts of the film era. Autofocus has been around for decades, admittedly it has advanced more rapidly since digital photography, that most likely because of the relative youth of the technology than anything else.
One thing that has remained constant throughout the relative short life of photography as a medium… is the photographers vision. From memory it was Henri Catier-Bresson who said something to the effect that there is nothing worse than a sharp rendition of a soft fuzzy idea. Ahmen to that.
Funny thing is photography has been available to the masses for all of my lifetime and most of the previous generation as well. Sure technology has changed but the actual concept, optical science and required vision have not. Most people today capture their images digitally rather than use film, but light still has to pass though an optical focusing mechanism before exciting a whole bunch of electrically excited receptors to create a picture. A wide angle lens still works much the same as it did ten, twenty, thirty or more years ago, as does a telephoto or zoom lens. Automatic exposure systems still get it right about 80% of the time as they did during the latter parts of the film era. Autofocus has been around for decades, admittedly it has advanced more rapidly since digital photography, that most likely because of the relative youth of the technology than anything else.
One thing that has remained constant throughout the relative short life of photography as a medium… is the photographers vision. From memory it was Henri Catier-Bresson who said something to the effect that there is nothing worse than a sharp rendition of a soft fuzzy idea. Ahmen to that.
Friday, 12 June 2009
A novel idea
Received an email yesterday from a prospective model, suggesting a TFP shoot. Traditionally a TFP or TFCD shoot involved both model and photographer exchanging their time free of charge and both parties gaining new imagery for their respective portfolio's. Nothing new photographers and models have been exchanging time for years, sometimes beneficially to both, mostly one will loose out because of wildly differing levels of talent.
Yesterdays proposal was different however as our model intended to charge her full rate for a her services, while in return I was to supply her with a full set of fully retouched images for her use along with full copyright of all images. Maybe just maybe I would have gone with it if she was bringing something to the table.... such as lots of photographic experience, a distinctive look or even a novel idea... but no, despite her claim to have worked with all best photographers in the world, her portfolio showed only crappy, happy snap photos obviously taken by raw beginners.
Reluctantly we politely declined her kind offer....
Yesterdays proposal was different however as our model intended to charge her full rate for a her services, while in return I was to supply her with a full set of fully retouched images for her use along with full copyright of all images. Maybe just maybe I would have gone with it if she was bringing something to the table.... such as lots of photographic experience, a distinctive look or even a novel idea... but no, despite her claim to have worked with all best photographers in the world, her portfolio showed only crappy, happy snap photos obviously taken by raw beginners.
Reluctantly we politely declined her kind offer....
Tuesday, 2 June 2009
When is art not art?
Now I’m not going to get into this one. I’ve never been a big supporter of the idea of labeling any photographic works as “art” or “fine art” or my favorite of all time “fine art nude”. In fact I’ll be honest and tell you that I have no idea what art is!
Years ago it was a common belief that photography couldn’t be art because it was to easy. Everyone could take a photograph, so photography couldn’t be art. Then if you take that tack, my argument would be that I have a welder and a pile of scrap metal in my shed, which in a few short minutes I could turn into a sculpture, an art form supported by those early detractors of photography as an art. I can however, guarantee that my sculpture would not be art.
So why bring up this subject again? A post on one of the photographic forums recently, once again arguing the case for photography to be considered art. The discussion trotted out all the old arguments for and against, with the exception of one lone voice, who in a tirade of venomous abuse which I won’t repeat here, declared that any photographer charging for his work couldn’t call himself and artist, because the act of accepting money for art, stopped the works from being art.
Years ago it was a common belief that photography couldn’t be art because it was to easy. Everyone could take a photograph, so photography couldn’t be art. Then if you take that tack, my argument would be that I have a welder and a pile of scrap metal in my shed, which in a few short minutes I could turn into a sculpture, an art form supported by those early detractors of photography as an art. I can however, guarantee that my sculpture would not be art.
So why bring up this subject again? A post on one of the photographic forums recently, once again arguing the case for photography to be considered art. The discussion trotted out all the old arguments for and against, with the exception of one lone voice, who in a tirade of venomous abuse which I won’t repeat here, declared that any photographer charging for his work couldn’t call himself and artist, because the act of accepting money for art, stopped the works from being art.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
