Images of Photographers

[gungajim]

<p>I see a fair number of images on PN where the photographer includes another photographer who is in the act of creating an image as the primary or as a secondary element of their own composition. This seems to happen most frequently in travel images, which is my area of greatest interest. Even if the images are technically well done, I almost always find the presence of another photographer to be a distraction. Am I being overly sensitive and judgmental? How do you feel about this issue. P.S. I don't have a negative reaction to photos on our bio pages that show a self-portrait of the artist in action.</p>

[vancouverphotographer]

<p>Sometimes it creates a funny image ... I rarely do it myself but when I shoot with groups of friends, I might take some as behind the scenes shots just to share amongst ourselves typically.</p>

[mike_hitchen]

<blockquote>

<p> Am I being overly sensitive and judgmental</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No. It is just your preference of what makes an interesting picture. This technique when done properly can tall a story in its own right in as much as it shows the involvement of other people at the event. With the growth of digicams that do not have a viewfinder, this is becoming quite a popular image in wedding photography where the photographer includes in the shot the image on someone else's camera LCD when (for example) the bride walks down the aisle.</p>

[david_henderson]

<p>I understand what you mean, but for me there's a big difference between your "primary" and "secondary". The latter always smacks to me of the liklihood that the other photographer was in the way and our photographer decided to include them rather than miss the shot or wait. Then we have the choice after between Photoshop and Post-rationalisation. I think a lot of those photographs have the photographer as a distraction. </p>

<p>Once you've decided to make the photographer ( whose presence may well be serendipity rather than pre-visualised) the main subject or part of the main subject I don't think any more that you can call it distracting . You might consider it a bad or unappealing photograph for all sorts of reasons, but it isn't a distraction. In the example I've attached IMO the photograph doesn't really exist without the photographer. You can like it or not, but I don't think you could say that the presence of the photographer is distracting you from something else.</p><div></div>

[mbkissel]

<p>Well, it must not bother you too much. Your own portfolio includes several such images.<br>

<a href="../photo/11172812">http://www.photo.net/photo/11172812</a><br>

<a href="../photo/7454191">http://www.photo.net/photo/7454191</a></p>

<p> </p>

[bojepsen1]

<p>A photographer can be as good a subject as any other, I think.</p>

[tholte]

<p>I enjoy photographing photographers shooting their subjects. It's always interesting to see how other people work. It's often very educational and sometimes very entertaining.</p>

[MathewDH]

<p>One day here in Port Angeles I was shooting out on Ediz Hook and another photographer drove up to take some shots towards the city. I shot him because it reminded me of the photos of Ansel Adams at work. I sent him a couple different pics and he was blown away by them. Here is the best of the lot.</p>

<p>CHEERS...Mathew</p><div></div>

[gungajim]

<p>Thanks for all the comments, particularly the one from Mark pointing out that I am guilty of the sin against which I rail! So, based on thoughts provoked by your comments, I will rescind my objection and acknowledge that there are instances in which it can be quite appropriate. GJ</p>

[mbkissel]

<p>Jim, you have a terrific portfolio! You have certainly brought back great images from the far reaches of the globe as well as those domestically. I enjoyed seeing them.</p>

[dan_south]

<p>I shoot photographers for a variety of reasons.</p>

<p>Sometimes they're young and good looking.</p>

<p><img src="http://www.dansouthphoto.com/Street-Scenes/Summer-In-New-York/NY-WashPark2010-07-18109/1029094826_8u96K-L.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>Sometimes they strike interesting poses.</p>

<p><img src="http://www.dansouthphoto.com/Street-Scenes/Summer-In-New-York/NY-Downtown2010-07-30114/988928404_bLovS-L-2.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>Sometimes they're stylish European tourists.</p>

<p><img src="http://www.dansouthphoto.com/Street-Scenes/Summer-In-New-York/NY-Downtown2010-07-3025/988917995_ZkNrx-L-2.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>Sometimes they have an air of innocence.</p>

<p><img src="http://www.dansouthphoto.com/Street-Scenes/Summer-In-New-York/NY-Downtown2010-07-3006/988912942_kYnL2-L-1.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>And sometimes they exhibit sociologically interesting herd behaviors.</p>

<p><img src="http://www.dansouthphoto.com/Street-Scenes/Summer-In-New-York/NY-WashPark2010-07-1887/1028212532_p7wbS-L.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>Or maybe I just like to shoot them before they can shoot me!</p>

<p>:-)</p>

 

[scott_murphy_photography]

<p>I remember back in the 70's an enterprising photographer/publishing company put out photographer "baseball" cards. I still have a set of them, which are probably not worth much more than I got them for. Certainly not like a Frank Thomas or Sammy Sosa rookie card!</p>

<p>The cards included images of the greats like Adams, Steiglitz, Cunningham, Weston, et al.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/mikemandel/sets/72157608071445589/">http://www.flickr.com/photos/mikemandel/sets/72157608071445589/</a></p>

[scott_murphy_photography]

<blockquote>

<p>And sometimes they exhibit sociologically interesting herd behaviors.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>When I first read this, I must have read it too quickly, thinking that it said <em><strong>NERD </strong></em>behaviors! LOL. Let's face it, us photographers can be nerds. I don't see it as demeaning term, it's just the way it is! ☺</p>