leanne_newton

csab` is a he. Henk is right,

children learn to control their expressions,

and even learn to smile at the camera

at a fairly young age...

The `out of control` spontaneity is achieved by

breaking the barrier of formality

and recording

the `real` space between photographer and subject.

I refer here to `staged` portraiture.

It can help a lot when the subject doesn`t

even realize that the picture is happening,

possibly through inexperience,or

in some cases they might simply be feeling

so good about themselves

that they simply don`t

care how they look.

It`s up to the photographer to choose

the approach, I think.

I think everyone has made good points here.

John`s right, often enough people are just looking

at the camera, csab` is right too,

most people do believe the images `come out well`

because of the equipment used, some people think

the model does it all alone...

And everyone is right, in their own way.

I think different situations call for different solutions,

so it is up to the photographer

to make the choice that best suits the photo at that

moment.

I prefer a two way conversation

to a monologue,

but sometimes there just isn`t that choice

available.

Your question, Grant , brings up the argument

of why we take pictures at all, why we write

letters or post to the internet.

 

In the midst of the politically correct,

ie perfectly in tune with `beauty` as recognised by the majority,

qualifying your every contribution with

`IMO` , I think , etc

it is a relief to pick up your camera and express your point of view freely.

Sure, in the past it was necessary

to get published in print....difficult

to get the space and the freedom

of expression, both.

Here there`s another set of rules to play by.

Rules of any kind are set by a society to

control thought and action.

Some rules are good,

others are best broken.

I think `talent` is a delicate thing.

Don`t mess too much with it.

Shoot in absolute honesty,

nothing else is interesting.

If someone shares their shyness about this approach

which is that in revealing you also are revealed,

I mention here that everyone is `talented`,

the need for honesty begins

with selfknowledge

and the courage to face your own limits.

That is when you will start to produce work

which is both interesting to yourself,

and possibly to others too.

That we all agree on what constitutes

a `good` picture, the `right` approach, aesthetics etc

is the beginning of conformity.

Conformity is the opposite of self expression and

only sets limits.

Of course this is only my personal view of it all,

my humble opinion,

etc...

Harvey, I love your unerring ability

to call a spade a spade...

I agree with Kaa...I will attempt to reply to this too, Tom --

 

It is often said that it is our duty to "show" through photography, but often enough I suspect it is a voyage of discovery, motivated by sheer curiosity. The mental process ( "The Hand of the Artist") may not be easy to define in terms of technique used.

 

Technique can be chosen for a variety of reasons, not least the medium of the publication of the final result.It is subject to the fashions of the day, the new technology available in producing and distributing imagery...all of which is certainly a vital part of photography.

 

But how then, do we still hear the voices of the great photographers of the past, who had no access to much of the "technique" we have available today ?

 

Is it possible that the strongest imagery was not created as a product, to be promoted and sold,

but for experimental and personal reasons.The desire to be published is a basic one : human vanity/ desire for recognition, which in a perfect world should have little to do with the creation of the artwork.

 

I'll end cryptically, in keeping with the spirit of this thread...

"the words of the prophets are written on the subway walls and tenement halls...and echo, in the sounds of silence."

I am not a street photographer, which is why I

am interested in the opinion of others on this.

 

I do think it is one of the most difficult

areas of photography to excel in...although

to the untrained

eye it may look easy enough.

 

All of my pictures are posed,

any `candids` are of people I know.

 

Thanks again Anno,

for starting this very interesting discussion.

I appreciate the opportunity of learning from

photographers I admire.

Well, I'm just thinking out loud here, wondering whether people ( subjects of street photography) are shy about being published on the www. I am interested in what others think of this possibility....

You know, Anno, this is an interesting discussion. My take on this is that with the advent of the internet photo-site galleries, with people vying for ratings etc., we now have literally anyone out on the streets shooting pictures of people they don't know...

 

And , in the not so recent past, this activity was perceived as being restricted to "artists" of the street - shooting genre, or at least to people working on a coherent series of photographs...people serious about their photography.

 

( How you are perceived has more to do with your behaviour, I think, than the camera you are using.)

 

In a previous thread on this forum, I mentioned being snapped by an old lady...using her digital p&s, actually a neighbour I only know by sight, and I ask you ? What did she take my picture for ?

 

So, I'm with the general public on this. It is one thing to be photographed by a "real" photographer working on a body of work, and quite another story to have people lurking with cameras who think of you as a bit of movement to record on film.

 

In a recent critique I (unfortunately) got involved in, the subject was a couple kissing outside a pub. The photographer snapped this while pretending to tie his shoelace.

 

Now, just for a moment, think of this situation from the couple's point of view. What if these are people having a "secret" love affair, had a bit too much to drink and risked being photographed in public in a compromising situation, and now have this moment of indiscretion published on the web ?

 

What is our "moral" position on this ? Do we all need to watch our backs , dress well at all times and try to avoid any contact with people holding cameras? How do we protect ourselves and our children from this unwanted surveillance? This invasion of our privacy?

 

To me, there is a difference between people who are unable to find models shooting randomly at pretty girs in the street, and "street" photographers who are recording our times through their art/vision.

 

The law currently favours the artists but I wonder how long this will last.

 

Joe Soap is putting the entire genre at risk, IMO.

I am very interested in hearing what others think.

Goodbye everyone...

 

regards,

TFP is a concept that is used by professional models and photographers to improve their portfolios. It is quite usual for the model to pay a photographer to shoot her portfolio pictures. It is unusual for the photographer to pay the model.

 

Remember that I am talking about a certain level here -- people who are making pictures for professional reasons, to further their careers in the commercial arena.

 

Quite obviously, if the model is paying, the model is the client and has certain specific needs.

 

ie. The model needs a good headshot, color and black and white, as flattering as possible. Ditto a bodyshot, wearing swimwear or lingerie, depending on her market...more athletic types do swimwear, more romantic/ classic types will be chosen for lingerie work.

 

These two pictures are enough for her to get work, if they are done well.Look at Robert's pic above -- how much more do you need to see ?

 

At this point, some variety is needed, to fill her 'book' with different 'looks' - hair worn in different ways, different styles in makeup, a bit of fashion -- showing her legs, or her ability to wear clothes well, or how she moves in front of the camera.

 

In all of these pictures, the model is the subject and the background should be chosen to show her as clearly as possible. A white wall is fine.

 

I hope you can believe me when I say that photos of this type will not get the photographer anywhere.

 

Hence the invention of TFP. The model is guaranteed at least one or two shots which can be used for her 'book'. An experienced photographer can shoot this in a roll. Shooting digital may not be a good idea, if you show the model the results right away you may spend all day on this stuff.

 

TFP is also for the photographer to try out new ideas, equipment, techniques etc.

 

If you do not do this, you are working for free.

 

If you allow the model to harass you forever, some will. Agree beforehand on the number of prints ( 2-3), meet afterwards and let her choose her pictures....and let her pay for extra prints/scans that are not included in the original agreement.

 

I hope this helps a little more.

When work is published in a magazine, ie editorial, the photographer usually gets a credit. Advertising work means having to contact the ad agency/client to ask the name of the photographer most of the time, but I cannot see how professionals could be worried about this post. The only suggestion which worries me is the idea that there would be nothing wrong with stealing other people's work, and posting it as your own.

 

So it is right to check the facts, in my opinion..

To be clearer, I need money to eat, and to support myself, and to further my personal work, which costs me money to produce.

 

I could not care less about having my name published, I want to be paid cash. I do not feel any obligation to supply the world with my vision for free. Whoever wants it / needs it must pay for it.

 

Photo.net is a for-profit organization, and should be careful about unauthorized publishing of copyrighted work. I haven't checked the terms of use but I hope that there is a disclaimer, which places the responsibility on the person who posts.

 

Before licensing images, photographers should read the fine print -- any publication will place the onus on you for all rights and releases to the material you are providing, in the event of any problems to do with copyright.

The ratings system can't be fixed, in my opinion. Mate rating, hate rating, retaliation etc. are all alive and well, but I do seem to remember time and energy being dedicated to discouraging this practice...THIS is far MORE SERIOUS.

 

To read Simone's comment re copyright causes me to shudder....and these kind of comments always seem to come from people who are contributing nothing new to our culture,

beyond a couple of pretty, not-particularly-interesting-to- steal kind of pictures.

 

In the same way you will find people who have jobs which bring in a monthly wage + benefits denigrating "freelance" artists as ridiculous for charging industry standard prices for their intellectual property.

 

You will have a world of images to look at - all coldly executed, lacking in energy and fire ( that which we call talent ) but probably aesthetically appealing...and yes, I imagine that a lot of great work is not published on the net.

 

Look at what can happen, and even on a photo-site there are people who couldn't care less. Sad.

Cross processing is alive and well

in fashion photography.needs printing and processing

by a professional lab,

though. They sometimes charge more for

the hassle....

 

This does look a bit dated,

colour wise, because most people now use

tungsten film for this...

and because of the effect of the film

markings/writing on the 2nd shot,

which photographers used to use to show

full frame.

I`m not against experimenting with film,

on the contrary.

Some pro labs I know are actually very keen

to try new effects, out of sheer curiosity.

Meant to say "feedback".

 

And BTW, portraits are appreciated here too, if the subject is sentimentally moving -Young children, old people/especially rural ones...

 

Seriously, just do your own thing, shoot some new stuff and post it. We can all stand to improve our work. This is one way of doing so.

I had a look at your work. The feebnack is ok, I think. So are the pictures.

 

On photo sites I think that there are a lot of enthusiastic amateurs, and a hefty section is just the general public, people who just enjoy looking at images. More than making them.

 

So there's no point in posting subtle, commercial work if you are looking for feedback. Too boring for them. Got to post beautiful models/ flowers, stunning landscapes,

clever still life, - aesthetically appealing stuff.

 

Then you too can shoot for ratings on photo.net.

 

I think you could do with exploring a bit of personal work, you won't be on the front page, but there are people who are interested in experimental stuff, (long as it's tasteful,

not too out there).

 

Welcome to photo.net:)

Now I see...tend to assume people are posting the finished image, and it's been ages since I shot neg, only use slide, so I didn't catch on right away. Well, see if there's something else on the roll, with a bit more eye contact, this one is a bit weak for lack of it.

Very cool images. Are you working on a series ?

I like the first one more, the color balance is

better. The white ( writing, what is it ?) in the

background I find distracting, in the 2nd shot...

I would also have preferred light in the eyes here,

especially as the subject is so strong. This would work better with more eye contact,

I think.

Wow Erin,

it`ll take me a couple of years to qualify...

In your experience, does this e-mail circle help,

or does it exclude new input ?

 

`Into every life a little rain must fall`~

( Wodehouse, I believe )

TFP means Time For Prints.Or Taking the Picture. Whichever you prefer....

 

 

Now, Kevin Riggs, you are overcompensating your models, as a matter of fact you seem to think that they are doing you a big favour by shooting with you, and in the pictures it even looks as though the girl feels like she is doing you a favour too !

 

Call the prettiest girl you know, get some STYLING worked out,

( swimwear is fine, shorter skirts- show a little leg- something sexier, more modern...) and shoot something new.

 

Display this new stuff to future models, and get them to pay expenses AND prints.

 

www.whoistesting.com will give you an idea of what other photographers are doing.

 

If you are interested in shooting stock, pictures of people doing things, engaged in some activity or other, are the easiest to place. You will never sell "girl staring".

 

Hope this helps, good luck shooting and post your new stuff for us to see....

Instead of banning people, they should be given skull-and-crossbones icons ... no, I guess people would start vying for them, it would look too cool ! Anyway, just a thought...

Yes, it will show that you care more.

 

regards,

I think that photographing the homeless, as a way of showing your photography skills, can lead to discussion about morals and ethics because it seems like exploitation of people who are defenseless, and have no right any more to privacy or respect. And they can't afford lawyers either, so you're safe enough there.

 

So it continues a social trend of dehumanizing people who have lost their footing in this world.

 

So unless I see something truly startling photographically, I tend to dismiss this kind of photography as being too easy, even if it is nicely done, in the case of Duncan's series, but I actually find them TOO tasteful, that's what's wrong with them.

 

It is the view of someone who is not emotionally involved, just looking, for the sake of looking. Not seeing. And so I learn nothing new by looking at the pictures.

Actually I think they need help with the site. For some reason, to see the photography , I think you'll have to go with the Italian...

http://www.exodus.it/mostrasos/SOS1.htm

 

( Choose the option for the English text at the bottom of the page.)

 

This was done by people I know, I've done a portrait of the photographer, and I think it is an admirable body of work.