andy_laycock

I'm curious as to who this person was. Was he/she a photographer? Is this person any good and do you respect their opinion?

 

I looked at your photos and although I'm not really into the subject matter some of them were quite good. I do know that portraiture is very difficult and full of pitfalls and can take many years to master. I will say that I agree with this person about cutting off the heads. It seems that there is a fine line to doing this and in some of the cases you appear to have gone over it and have probably done it too much in general.

 

Have you taken courses in portraiture before? The problem with looking at someone like Cowart is that he's manipulated the crap out of many of them and has an army of assitants, wardrobe people and make-up artists, whereas you are working with a very basic set-up and without all of the bells and whistles. However you could probably use his basic composition as a blueprint for your own to see if that adds to them. Good luck with it, you are certainly better at portraiture than I am.

"The point being that the non-aesthetic almost "dead-pan" style of these types of photographs is usually a clear indication that they should not be taken at face value."

 

Nicely put. It's something that seems to be overlooked by many photographers when looking at conceptual art. Usually the reaction is "My 2 week old daughter can do better than that" or "If you have to read a description or have an art background to understand something then the photographer has failed" etc. etc.

 

As I always say, some photography is meant to be dealt with at some point behind the retina.

I agree with Rob Bernhard in that all subjects lend themselves to BW in one way or another. However I will say that animals/wildlife would seem to be a poor subject, or at least more difficult to render clearly - with the exception of the work of Nick Brandt.

I don't take digital portraits.

Karen, if you were given that amount of money what would you have chosen? I'm sure no matter what you chose that some people there would think you suck, and would probably write into a forum letting everyone know this. I think being able to make decisions are often more important than pleasing the most people. I can't really picture the images of the cut grass but it does sound intriguing.

 

BTW if you have an MFA what are you doing working in a hospital? Just wondering.

"Do you think anyone really cares? What a freak show. Sheesh!"

 

What a dick!

�Does the general public know, understand and appreciate this point or does it become a case of doing it for ourselves and the rest be damned?

Being freed from the cliche is satisfyingly very freeing but having little to no understanding in a world sans Soho becomes the sound of one hand clapping.�

 

I�m not sure I understand your point Thomas. If you are implying that there has been no effort to �share� him with the world at large then you are mistaken. He�s appeared in numerous high profile shows in a number of cities over the past 30 years. His books are sold everywhere including the major chains and his documentary is sold on Amazon. The general public seems to have little interest in photography as art, but most people interested in art, especially photographic art, will know who William Eggleston is.

Mike, in the documentary on him he's asked if he shoots digital. He answered no and I didn't get the impression that he has any interest in it.

Hey Thomas, yes I did realize you were making peace with your feelings on Eggleston and I find it quite big of you to do so. I guess I've always liked him since my interests have always been the common objects around us when everyone else was going nuts over Velvia dreamscapes, overcooked 'fine art' prints and bums sleeping on park benches.

Believe me he's had to put up with considerable hatred from people like you and it hasn't even slowed him down one iota. There was one memorable moment in the documentary about him where he's looking at his latest prints and says something to the effect of "I think this is the best work that I've ever done". His friend then replies that he says that every time he looks at his latest work. He's been photographing since he was a boy and now in his late 60's he's still finding excitement and passion for his photography. And no doubt he'll continue to produce consistently good and honest images.

 

There's no reason to hate Eggleston. He's not stopping anyone from shooting what they want and in fact he's allowed many to follow their creative pathways in the face of hostility and pressure.

It would be nice to hear from any Katrina survivors out there how they feel about this. So far we are only speculating on what their reaction might be. I'm not an avid reader or watcher of the news but I don't recall there being an outcry about photographers taking advantage of other peoples misery etc.

It's odd that this should come up because I just installed Spybot yesterday and set it to inform me when it detected spyware downloading. One of the first sites I visited was PN and, lo and behold, it found (and blocked) spyware attempting to download from this site.

HP I think that many do get credit during an exhibition or in a book. To me it would seem to be good business sense more than anytyhing. If you are happy with your printer then by bringing them more business you can make sure they stay afloat. I mean this in general terms as I'm sure there are exceptions and not every printer is running a business nor desires the credit to increase their customer base.

 

However I don't think you are going to see credit given on each and every print for all time and why should there be.

Well put mona chrome. Every point you make sums it up nicely IMO.

"I give the artist my ideas on how to treat the image to get the final result that's desired."

 

I would make the following changes "...how to treat THEIR image to get the final result that THEY desire".

Take it easy Swineheart. Nobody's attacking your abilities as a printer (sheesh). I do have an idea of what a master printer is and in fact many of the best photographers were master printers of their own work and the work of others. But still if there weren't artists taking the photos what would printers do for a living? They would have nothing to print. It seems quite logical to me that if you are going to print then you need something to print from. If you are printing your own images then you are the artist and printer, but if you just print for a living then....well hopefully you get the drift.

 

By the way should the framers also get credit in exhibitions? How about the paper producers for books?

"My friend commented... "Well, if he was so damn worried about how the door was painted, then why didn't he do it himself?" It was there that I realized and commented, "He did, he just used my hand." :)"

 

Good one Thomas.

If it weren't for artists, there would be nothing for printers to print. They would become carpenters or mechanics :)

Thomas, models do not get credit for the majority of fashion work. They never have and probably never will.

 

As for the main question, I see no reason to give formal credit to the printmaker. They chose the profession and are paid for their work regardless if the print sells or not. If a photographer wants to give credit then that's great but there should be no expectation.

Thanks for posting this link. I'm a big fan of British photography of all sorts and John Davies is one of the best social landscape photographers around. Other favourites of mine are Tony Ray-Jones, Chris Killip, Fay Godwin, Martin Parr and Nick Wapligton. I'm not sure what it is, but nobody does it like the Brits.

Thanks for your advice Richard. Fortunately the glue was quite soluable in isopropanol and came off easily - even in the small depressions. Apparently Minolta does not service these cameras anymore but still has some parts. Hopefully they still have pressure plates because I have a feeling that this one does not function properly.

Thanks for your response Tom. I did check the rewind and it's fine.

 

I finally went ahead and removed the plate and found that it was just glued on with contact cement. I can only guess that the pressure plate itself does not keep the film flat against the guides and someone tried to modify the system. I'll try a roll without it and see what I get.

I've just purchased a used Minolta CLE rangefinder (online) and although it

appears to be in great shape when you throw some film in it the advance is so

tight that it slips and the film only partially advances. When there is no film

in the advance is silky smooth.

 

I think the problem is due to a highly-polished metal rectangle (about 1mm

thick) that is attached to the pressure plate (see photo). It almost looks as

if it is an after-market addition since it's crooked. I suspect that it's

sandwiching the film so hard that it can't move easily. Does anyone have this

type of camera or have seen something like this? This camera was not cheap and

it's useless as is.

But Ellis, as soon as someone agrees to give you money for taking a photo for them then they have essentially 'hired' you. This means that the one or two photo shoots that I have done in the past would qualify me to call myself a professional.

"You become a professional photographer when you start charging money for your photography and people start relying on you to do the job you are contracted for"

 

These are two very different things. How do you know when people start relying on you? Are you a professional if one person comes back for a second project? Do you need more than one person? It's a grey area and you did a lousy job describing it.