mattvardy

<p>It's quite possible that views on the topic will vary depending on where we live/work. Personally my environment is over saturated with said "wannabe" photographers with no true passion or lasting interest in the field. My original post did sort of come from the standpoint of a student... even though I personally skipped college and made my own path and fortunately make a living at this. The problem I see and was alluding to would be that as photography continues to grow and becomes a household hobby, do you think people's perception of photography as "art" will change? In my environment, I feel like it is already starting to warp into something of less "value" both culturally and economically. Will people still go to school and study it? (I'm talking decades from now....)<br>

<br>

I guess if we compare photography to other arts like painting for example; any toddler can own a watercolour painting book with outlines as guides. They can screw up the entire thing... it's commonplace and fun. Yet painting is still considered art. So why would photography change - just because there's more users and it's easier to do? Hmph. I'm stumped... ;)</p>

<p>So one thing I'm wondering, if we take the Nokia cell phone for example (and probably other more advanced phones [in Japan?] I'm not even aware of)... it doesn't bother you that a credit card sized device sitting in someone's pocket with a pinhole sized lens will produce the same resolution image as your Nikon D series or Canon EOS, if not larger? $500-$1000 vs. FREE on a 3 year contract lol. It's a bit bizarre, no?</p>

<p>Well said Mike! Hit the nail on the head. And I agree whole-heartedly with those who feel this topic has been beaten to death. I'm just thinking out loud and if you read my formspring links I shared above you'd see the advice I share with people is that more photographers/cameras is not necessarily a bad thing. Film vs. digital = old news for sure.</p>

<p>Never said that. Why don't you explain your thoughts?</p>

<p>At the beginning of each new school year I receive and respond to questions asked by budding photography students at local universities and colleges. Without fail, I always get asked one of two things: a) "Is it hard to make a living when 'everyone's a photographer'?" or b) "Do you think advancements in technology have hurt or bettered photography?"</p>

<p>It's interesting to read such questions from students. Here they are in school studying and paying thousands of dollars in order to become something they are already doubtful of. I try my best to stay positive, yet realistic, and my answers usually go something like this: a) http://www.formspring.me/mattvardy/q/1400930743 b) http://www.formspring.me/mattvardy/q/917494614</p>

<p>Sometimes it feels like a month or so later my own opinions have changed - maybe I said the wrong thing, or gave the wrong advice? Things seem to evolve so quickly in our profession, it's hard to judge what's really going on sometimes - and most importantly where we stand and where we're headed.</p>

<p>Take for example the Nokia N8 which I recently became aware of. A cell phone available this winter all across North America that comes standard with a built-in 12MP camera. That's more megapixels than my Canon 40D - at less than half the cost! And to think this is only the beginning...</p>

<p>Every day I see on Twitter photos taken with iPhones, edited on-the-fly using Photoshop Express, with Polaroid and other digital effects added - like artificial colour casts and vintage blurs. The quality of these images, the majority of which are simple snapshots, is actually unbelievable.</p>

<p>Which brings me to the point of this post. I wanted to pick your brain on the topic and would love to hear your views as an artist. As digital technology continues to advance with no foreseeable end in sight - how does this affect the art of photography - will it endure? Or will it become so commonplace that it morphs into nothing more than a 'digital game' for all to play with?</p>

<p>Looking forward to reading your responses. -MV.</p>

<blockquote>Is Photo.net a place for photographers to still learn?</blockquote>

<p>Hey Chad, I've had you on my list of 'interesting people' for as long as I can remember. I just logged in today (haven't in quite some time) and came across this post. Interesting you raise this question because I was asking myself the same and is part of the reason why my participation has been slim to null as of late. When I first started out this site was probably the most integral part of my learning curve as a photographer, I was getting all kinds of great feedback on my photos from pros whom I admired, but things have changed.</p>

<p>I think because membership here has spiked in recent years the experienced photographers with advice to give vs. the newbies wanting to receive advice ratio is way out of wack. Ratings are meaningless and always have been this is nothing new. The only solution I see is to create relationships with a select few people who you trust, regularly offer critiques on their work and they'll do the same for you - and together you'll learn and hopefully become better. Relying on random people just doesn't work anymore since...well...there's so many random people now and the tight knit community we once knew has vanished.</p>

<p>Despite my lack of activity, I've always used photo.net as a source of information - the forums are fantastic for finding answers to commonly asked questions, as you know, and to be honest maybe the forums are the most valuable aspect of the site. Not sure if this is a good or bad thing.</p>

<p>So to answer your question I think it is a place to learn, but for the majority of people my guess is that the learning happens in the written forums, rather than in the galleries.</p>

<p>Hi Eric, just want to say hello and let you know I took the time to submit a vote for your work today. I didn't bother scrolling thru the endless pages of submissions, but after reviewing the first 12 on first page your work definitely shows the most promise.<br>

Like others have mentioned here you do seem to have a great eye for composition, these shots really remind me of some of my first landscapes...with silhouetted figures off center and creating a nice balance. I think my nature photos might be of particular interest to you, here's a direct link to some of them: http://mattvardy.com/index2.php#/rgallery/5/<br>

I'm going to try to be more active on photo.net so feel free to get in touch should you need any help or advice.<br>

Thanks John for the kind words, as well. Regards.</p>

<p>Thanks for all the advice guys, I'm going to try out some of these techniques this week</p>

<p>Note: I've had some success recreating this look with composites in photoshop however my biggest concern is, can this be achieved straight out of camera - to save me a TON of time on editing. Thanks :)</p>

<p>Hey this may seem like a very dumb question but I've been struggling with my lighting gear a lot and haven't found the proper balance of exposure/flash yet which allows me to capture the background in a photo as well as the subjects in my foreground.<br>

I know that it is probably just a matter of getting my settings correct, but so far has proven to be difficult for me. Is there a recipe for success you can recommend?<br>

The effect I'm going for looks like:<br>

http://photos-a.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc1/hs003.snc1/2780_70796319022_511824022_1711400_8026396_n.jpg or<br>

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3286/2331856392_f0a2839020.jpg</p>

<p>I was really just interested in hearing what the rule of thumb was, so thanks for clearing that up guys... sorry if my rambling thoughts didn't make any sense to you, I'm young and anything to do with laws and legal crap is all Greek to me. I'll take your answers into consideration and make sure I have a simple contract for clients to sign in the future if I anticipate the images will be published<br /> <br /> The only "action" I would take is verbal (if an image was misused, and I didn't have a signed contract), but beyond that I don't care enough to fight over the little details and can't afford legal services. My assumption is that most people would be willing to add a credit if I asked kindly.</p>

<p>Gooday all,</p>

<p>I have an issue that has been bothering me for a while and I haven't really understood fully where to draw the line in terms of copyrights, crediting and stuff like that.</p>

<p>I do a lot of entertainment photography, namely hi-profile band promo/press stuff and Basically I want to know if an online media website or magazine uses my image is it mandatory that they credit me in the publication? And do I have the right to ask them to?</p>

<p>And in order to ensure I am credited (if I am in fact entitled to be credited) is watermarking the only way to ensure this happens? That would be a crying shame because I hate watermarks and I don't think the bands would appreciate my name embedded on their photo.</p>

<p>Usually the musicians I have encountered have been very good at placing a credit underneath the photo in text in cases where there is no watermark which is awesome. I'm just really confused and discouraged that this is not always the case - especially when second and third parties receive the photo from the band for use in the media and I'm struggling to come to terms with it all.</p>

<p>Should I draw up a contract from now on that states 'although your images are not watermarked the photos remain copyright Matt Vardy and must be credited as such yadda yadda yadda' so that I can take some action to force people to credit me if they haven't. OR must I watermark everything if I expect any sort of return from being published all over the place....? Is there a solution?</p>

<p>I notice in some of the major publications for example Alternative Press Magazine that the majority of the photographers are credited, even though sometimes their name is hardly legible - it's still there.</p>

<p>I just need someone to give me advice and sort out the facts :) Thank you!</p>

<p>Matt.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Gooday all,<br>

I searched the forums but didn't find a recent thread on this...I'm hoping to get some solid advice here with this one because I am about to co-write and sign an agreement.<br>

What is a reasonable cut or percentage for an agent to take in exchange for sourcing and booking photo shoots for me?<br>

And also, should this amount be flexible according to the size and scale ($$$) of the shoot? What is the standard these days?</p>

<p>Thanks for your help<br>

http://mattvardy.com<br>

http://myspace.com/breakfortheshore</p>

 

I was recently approached by a 15 yr old girl about doing some photography work for her. Mainly for her personal

enjoyment, as a gift for a friend or relative. As soon as she mentioned her age I thought first "WOW you don't

look 15!", and second "OH SHIT I'M IN TROUBLE!"

 

So before I respond by saying yes I can do it, or no I cannot, I thought it would be wise to investigate what my

boundaries are.

 

Assuming there is no nudity whatsoever, (which is not my style at all anyways) in Canada is it "okay" to

photograph someone of this age? I imagine there are a lot of issues here, so how can I ensure I've got myself

covered?

 

Would a proper "Minor Model Release" do the trick?

 

Many thanks for your advice,

CONTACT is an annual month long festival of photography with over 500 local,

national and international artists at more than 200 venues across the Greater

Toronto Area in May. Founded as a not-for-profit organization 12 years ago,

CONTACT is devoted to celebrating, and fostering an appreciation of the art and

profession of photography. As <u>the largest photography event in the world</u>,

and a premiere cultural event in Toronto, CONTACT stimulates excitement and

discussion among a diverse audience that has grown to over 1,000,000 and is

focused on cultivating even greater interest and participation this year.<p>

 

The festival's success, to a great degree, is a result of the open call for

exhibitions and this continues to provide an invaluable opportunity for emerging

artists to contribute unexpected and memorable encounters with photography

throughout the city, alongside leading professionals. Since 2002, curated

programming and special events are a central focus of development. This includes

our primary exhibition at the Museum of Contemporary Canadian Art, high-profile

public installations, feature exhibitions, an international lecture series, a

film program in partnership with the National Film Board, portfolio reviews and

workshops. Through the ongoing development of the festival into a leading

proponent of photography, we increase exposure and recognition for local,

Canadian and international artists. CONTACT is committed to advancing knowledge,

creativity and innovation in photography.<p>

 

We are very grateful for the continued support of Hewlett-Packard (Canada) Co.,

our premier sponsor and our partner in the presentation of public installations

of photography throughout the city. Our gratitude also goes to Scotiabank for

their sponsorship of our primary exhibition at MOCCA and the new Scotiabank

Scholarship and Prize. Thanks also to Tourism Toronto, The National Gallery of

Canada and our official media partners, enRoute Magazine, Fashion Television and

The Toronto Star - for their continuing support of our activities.<p>

 

Our gratitude goes out to everyone involved in CONTACT 2008, including venues,

funding agencies, corporate sponsors, advertisers, education and exhibition

partners, CONTACT's board of directors, staff and volunteers and, especially,

all the artists and photographers whose vision helps us better understand our

world.<p>

 

Visit: <a href="http://www.contactphoto.com/">http://www.contactphoto.com/</a>

for more information<p>

 

Should be an amazing month-long event, be sure to check it out if you can!

My original post was deleted by the moderator before I had time to view the posts (due to the photo attachment). My apologies. Unlike the rest of you (apparently?) I live a very busy professional life outside of photo.net and don't check it hourly & heckle people!!

 

Thank you for the information though, I will look into the flickr page.

Please see the portraits at http://www.davehillphoto.com for the effect I'm

looking to re create.

 

I was wondering if anyone could help me understand how to create this effect...it

appears as if the skin is metallic & soft.

 

Is this the result of HDR technique, lighting, or probably a mix of both? ?

 

Obviously a lot of post-processing is required, but during the shoot what is

needed for this look?

 

Thanks,

 

Matt.

Hi Kali, I've had a website with Blu for about 2-3 years now. Like other people have mentioned, their customer service is absolutely horrible. Setting up a new site with them is quick and easy and they are of course very friendly (they want your busines!). But be aware once up and running, you become more or less just a number and you're on your own.

 

When I first bought my site I honestly believe there was only 2-4 people working there, one of them barely spoke English. Apparently due to overwhelming growth they've hired a few new customer service reps but still I can't say service has visibly improved at all.

 

Having said all that. Their flash designs, templates and user friendly interfaces are second to none.

Gooday all,

 

Wasn't sure where to post this question, but figured casual was most fitting...

 

I was wondering if anyone had any idea where I might be able to purchase

essential camera accessories (such as camera straps or lens caps for example) in

bulk? It's for a project I'm working on, not sure of the exact size I will need

quite yet but thought I would ask and see what's possible.

 

Preferably without a logo, just plain would be ideal.

 

Thanks for your help

 

M

To answer one of your questions, though, I would definitely pull her away from the wall if you decide to stick with this room/nook. You don't want metallic reflection bouncing onto the model, bringing the artist a little bit forward should prevent that, and any reflection hitting the artist should fall on their back - not ideal, but certainly better than having the reflections hit their side or even worse - the front!

 

To minimize direct light reflections off of the artwork, you might consider bringing light in from above with the strobe (if you have a tall enough stand), giving a glamorous effect, and then softly bouncing some light back into her face with a diffuse reflector from below (though I suspect the room is bright/white enough that the shadows over he eyes won't be too bad at all). The room seems so incredibly bright already, I would not put too much fire power into the lighting. In fact, you might get away without a strobe at all!

 

Hard to say though, I would still advise to take some test shots with the strobe in different locations if you are able to. Even arrange for a little more time during the shoot to ensure you'll be able to try more than just one option in case Plan A doesn't work, whatever that might be.

Hey photo girl, Gary makes a great point. I've also been asked to shoot this type of work before, and be careful - though it's easy to assume the artist ought to know what part of the home best represents what they do, often they don't consider what part of the home will photograph best. You as the commissioned photographer should select the room to shoot in, then if the artist insists on another location because of certain pieces of art - the artist may place these objects of interest in the room YOU have selected in order to showcase their work. This way you are 100% capable of doing your best, while showcasing the artist along with their work in the most effective way possible.

 

Just tell them, you want them to look their best along with their work - and if the room they have selected might hinder your ability to do a good job, tell them it's in their best interest to listen to you and shoot in a different area.

 

Also, without a doubt - arrange to take some test shots before the actual shoot. If you are worried how these reflective surfaces will react to a strobe - get the strobe in there beforehand and give it a try, see what happens.

good eye Sean...i think your right on this one. it would be very interesting to see if Torkwase will be able to mimic the effect without the aid of photoshop...i think it can be done with the right setup and equipment, and perhaps some slight dodging/burning to enhance the effect. would be much, much cleaner than this fabricated version by Demarchelier.

<div></div>

I remember about a month ago one of my responses was misunderstood by a moderator and removed..I wonder then if I have been blocked from contributing to the POW now or something ridiculous like that? Please check into it, let me know

 

Thanks Josh

 

MV.

This is pretty sad, John C is a good photo-friend of mine and commenting on the image was very important to me. Perhaps if you can't figure out the issue, you would be able to insert my comment manually somehow? I could email it to you or something...