for the customer....for yourself

First, photography is a hobby for me...not an occupation. But, as

the photographer in the family or cirle of friends, I get asked, and

have done, pics for people.

 

So, the topic of discussion is this. I did my daughter's wedding

last year (2002, I mean)...they love the pics (and believe, my

daughter would tell me if she didn't think they were good for

her)...as for my opinion, they are ok, but definitely not the best

stuff i've ever done....oh, they're exposed and composed well

enough, but there is that "pow" missing, that I sometimes get in

what we'll term "personal work" (for now anyhow). Almost...well,

actually not almost...to the point I didn't really want to turn them

over to them....but did. This is not a percieved difference...i've

been struggling with the whole concept for over a year

now........and i've read enough to believe there are other

photographers in the same situation.

 

So, how do you all handle the philosophical side of this situation.

Where, in your personal work, you create an image that is for

yourself, and if some one happens to want to purchase a

copy...that's fine too...but you are doing it really for yourself.

And you are merciless in your edditting of all this stuff. And in

your "for hire" work, you have to provide it all (not that absolute

garbage...but a whole bunch of stuff that is just so-so, but the

customer is more than happy...they are actually pleased to death

with it all).

 

Now, some of you are strictly "for hire" and don't go after the

artistic image.............and some of you are strictly artist and

don't go after the for hire stuff.........so, no offence, but don't

reply to this. You just have not experienced both sides of this,

and that is what I want to know. For those that do "for hire"

and "personal artistic work", give me some insight. And don't tell

me there is no difference..............there is a dif........at

least for me there is. I realize it's not as "black and white" as I

just described it all.......but it is stacked up in two major piles

of different philosophy of thinking about them.

<i>So, how do you all handle the philosophical side of this situation.</i><P>

Keep reminding yourself that one is "art" (whether good or bad) and one is "product." (The two aren't always mutually exclusive, though.) The function of and motivations for creating the two different kinds of work are typically very different. Assess the product in terms of how well it serves its function.<P>

In some sense, I think it's a matter of setting aside your ego and accepting that, for paid work, the client's needs are more important than your own.

Thomas

 

Could you PLEASE try to differentiate your text from text you are quoting. Currently it's impossible to tell and that makes reading anything you write almost impossible to read and understand.

If you don't know html, try at least using quote marks. I agree with Bob. I don't bother to read most of your posts because I can't figure out what's going on in them.

 

But learning a minimal amount of html, which would allow quoting in italic, would be a whole lot better.

mike dixon........yeah, that "art"/"product" concept was in my list of reasons why I shouldn't concern myself...and seems to be the general answer from other photographers I know, and from reading some "art" photography books when the photographer mentions their "commercial" work as being something to "pay the bill".

 

still, its an interesting experience to go thru.

To get back to the question, if there is one, and if there is one, my understanding of it...

 

Well I just do what I do. Sometimes people buy it and sometimes they don't. I've gotten published always because I've shot stuff people want. The few things I do strictly for the money, well people know what I do so I sell what I would do anyway. That means I won't get the big jobs, but I'd rather just keep doing what I do and not worry about it. I'm still looking for that book contract, though...

Some 'art' creators have the knack to put on canvas what they are seeing in their minds. Education can help, but all the education available at Yale (for example) would not produce a 'new' Rembrandt.

 

 

 

Some photographers have the 'eye' to create good visual images and do not have a lot of formal education in photography. Some gain 'experience' with education, but that does not give the 'photographic eye' to each student that does the formal courses in photography.

 

 

 

Photography courses (education) may help some and in other folks, there is no way to help them improve. Not the best answer, but life is that way....

Thomas I went through the same type of experience a few years ago, a couple of times, and it convinced me that although I love photography in general I had no interest in doing it for anyone but myself. I have to give grudging respect to those that can do it for money, but it's not for me.

Thomas:

 

I do not understand your question. Try explaining it again.

Try to put as much effort into your work no matter the circumstance. If you don't like the results, but they are required for an assignment, live with it and go on. If your client is happy, you should be satisfied, if not happy. Charge everyone for your work! Tell your daughter that you are giving her 20,000 for her wedding, but 19,000 of it is for your bill! ;)

 

You may find that you don't like doing assignment based photography, like Andy. That's totally normal, and your personal work kicks butt anyway, so stop worrying and go take some more pics!

Thomas (Gardner) - sorry, but it's not sufficient.

 

Either learn basic HTML - which should take you under 60 seconds - or I will have to delete all posts in which you make undifferentiated quotes. Sorry about that but it's simply too confusing to everyone to leave these posts in the forum.

 

Your choice.

For the record, the URL that I posted of Hans Becker's photographs was found by 'googling' his name. He did not send me this URL and we have never had any contact whatsoever.

Andy:

 

My mistake. I sent that to the original poster, Thomas Sullivan. My apologies.

 

But since the scans there are not up to 'snuff', I did not wish to present them here. I shall when I am ready.

"But since the scans there are not up to 'snuff', I did not wish to present them here. I shall when I am ready."

 

I think we'll all look forward to seeing them. It's not often we get to see somebody who is genetically predetermined to take perfect photos :)

I think you may have misunderstood. I was referring to physical ability, just as in an athlete. Too many people think photography is an exercise in 'art'. It is certainly not 'art'. Getting the perfect 'timing' in any sort of photography (not only sports) is a physical skill that some people have more aptitude for than others, just as anything else we do. It is something that cannot be taught, really. I happen to have good timing skills, as well as the ability to compose very quickly and instinctively. I seem to recall having this ability from the earliest stages of my photographic efforts.

 

But I certainly do lack other photographic skills. That is why I am not a pro: I cannot stand working with products or doing weddings, portraits, or most of the other kind of work that professional photographers do, (including magazine or newspaper work, though I did a lot of that in the past). So I don't. Do not put me in a studio, please. I am hopeless. But put me in a crowd at some event, and I will come back with some great stuff. I work best amidst chaos. If I have complete control, as in still life or product photography, I am at sea.

 

Unless it is something that demands a very quick response, I am lousy at it.

Hans I was responding to your original comment about getting it 'dead on' or something like that. I believe TS said that it does not always happen and you said that it did for you and that you were blessed with the proper genetics for it. I assumed the discussion was about many facets including exposure, that's why I was looking forward to seeing your work because I've never heard a claim that bold before. I think it was my misunderstanding.

Andy:

 

Exposure is not a problem for me. When I say I can hit it 'dead on' I mean without great difficulty. See attached.

uhh, u cut off that dudes head....

<p>

nice, um, timing...

Yes, the defender slipped into the frame at the last instant, after I was already waiting for the ball-carrier to reach his peak. The timing, though, is perfect.

Yes it is a nice photo Hans but I'm not sure that's what T Sullivan was talking about.

perfectly bad

Grant:

 

Fortunately for me, your opinion is of no importance. You obviously have no experience with using very long lenses and sports.

werent you the one who said somehwere that one should not speak of things they know nothing about...?

<p>

i think so....

LMAO!

 

It may only be my humble opinion, but I've seen hundreds of thousands of photographs including hundreds of Grant's. He's one of the very very best there is (in the world.)

 

Timing is only a very small part of photography. Thinking is much much more important. I see no thought whatsoever in your photo. To be honest, it just ain't that great.

It is perfect, thank you very much. It is perfectly exposed, perfectly focussed, and shows the perfect peak of action. Have you ever tried to follow a rugby runner with a 400mm lens? I did not think so.

 

Sure, the defender's head is cut off, but he was not even in the frame when I started to take the shot. Those things just happen, over which one has no control. The things over which I had conrtol are perfect.