alan_dale

This very cynical view of life in general and photography in particular

you describe may be true from your perspective, John -- but it does not

describe how I live my life. Call me naive, but I'd rather give up

photography altogether than spend my time and energy scheming and

strategizing on how I am "going to get to the top of my field." I'm in

photography because I like working with photography, I like working

with images, I like to draw and paint and hang out with people who like

that kind of stuff... My perspective on commercial photography (based

on a couple years first as an assistant and now as a shooter) is that

it DOES matter what you do...there are a few shooters in every

community who have their clients snowed and who shlock through the

work, talk themselves up, employ spin and damage control to great

effect when things go wrong and they seem to do okay -- but who wants

to do that? The difference between you and I is that I want to do

photography well -- I want to take pictures that please me and make my

living...you seem to see photography as an incidental in gratifying

your ego...I don't know how else to interperate phrases like, <i>It

goes without saying that you have to be skilled (a much better term

than talented), but you can make your own

breaks (or, rather, maximize the opportunity for them). So would

you rather maximize your chances or just rationalize why you aren't as

successful as you'd like to be?</i><p>Don't put me in "wants to

maximize" category or in "rationalize"... I think I belong in "probably

doesn't give a shit whether most other people consider him a hack or a

hero -- wants to take pictures and get paid, wants to enjoy life and

art." And while we are "maximizing our chances" or "rationalizing why

we aren't as successful as you'd like to be?" please tell us where you

fit in? You have revealed a little info about yourself but you don't

seem to be currently working on getting commercial photography work.

So at what point do YOU start to be a force to be reckoned with in

fashion photography? If it seems I'm beating up on you, its because I

think you are offering people irresponsible, destructive advice...they

come to the forum with an enthusiasm for photography of people and you

are actively discouraging people from shooting --- it makes no sense to

me. Personally, my advice to anyone who will listen is "shoot as much

as possible..."

almost forgot to add -- Eolo said this that I like very much:<p><i>I'm

trying to improve my tech skill as always....but Style is my goal......

buy style is difficult because is not

something you learn...is something that comes out with

time....with experience and with culture. So I suppose is

something i may be able to archieve in the future....starting to

work on it now. I'm studying a lot and I hope to be

able to transform what I'm reading in good images.</i><p>He makes

apologies for his english, but I think I get his meaning load and

clear...

I don't get it John -- are you just being contrary or what? Reading

over the thread, I can't decide what you want to say -- first you say

making portfolio pieces under less-than-ideal situations or with less-

than-million-dollar talent is a waste of time, then you seem to be

suggesting that all of us work on our portfolios. Then you say working

as an assistant is a waste of your life, then you almost seem to be

endorsing it. I think success in fashion photography is like success

in anything else...work hard, make yourself known and if you are

talented AND lucky AND in the right time AND in the right place then

perhaps you will enjoy some success. If you are a no one at ground

zero, then you have to start off with what materials you have at hand -

- in Eolo's portfolio he transforms a wooden railing into a very

graphic set for his picture...he didn't sit at home whining that he

didn't have a studio! The first step to success is ACTION.

Sorry - John - seems we've had this conversation before? Two

years ago I was an assistant. Today I'm a working pro -- I'm not

in the top of my field, but this year I signed on a house in one of

this nation's largest cities...so I maintain that I am doing

something right. I guess I could be making as much or more

money if I trained to do something else, but I didn't want to. I'm in

a position that I could never imagine two years ago. I think I

know what I'm talking about from direct experience. Stop making

excuses/explanations for why you aren't a big success while

holding other forum participants to a higher standard than you

hold yourself. I guess one <u>could</u> get lucky and just "be

discovered" or one could play the lottery -- personally, I think your

chances are better if you are a little more proactive.<p>

In photography, as in all professions, there are a lot of factors

that contribute to financial success. Only one of those is

knowing how to work the camera and that is probably not the

most important.<p>

Your assesment of Eolo's portfolio is dead wrong. The pictures

are good not because the people are pretty but because he has

an eye. Look at it again -- where he places people in the frame,

how he uses the 4 edges of the frame to dramatic effect with his

subject, light and dark, story telling. Its a world away from what I

do (product photography) but when you shoot for publication the

single rule applies: make every inch count. He does that very

well. Personally, I'd set up his site differently and edit it down to

12 or so shots with the chance for visitors to view high rez

versions but that's me.<p><p><p>

<i>...A portfolio of shots of the girl next door, is going to look just

like that. Whether you pay for it or your friends provide it, you need

professional quality models, hair, makeup, (and retouching).</i><p>

Portfolio shots of the girl next door are going to get you further than

NOTHING which is what you will have if you sit there and wait for

supermodels to show up and beg you to shoot them even though you are a

total unknown without a single portfolio piece. Portfolio shots of

some kind -- any kind -- can get you at least an assisting job.

Assisting a photographer who is shooting a job will teach you 10x more

than online forums and fashion magazines and will help you make the

contacts that are so important in every profession. You need more than

a "professional eye" and I take issue with the phrase "professional

eye" when one is not earning money from photography...the phrase "We

provide an advanced amateur photographer and fashion photography

afficianado's discerning eye" would be more accurate. Start with the

girl next door to learn about light, move on to the wanabees - then

maybe someday, the professional talent.

Is it just me, or do I hear a lot of sour grapes bitching behind the

comments about this guys site? All these wry, sarcastic comments like,

"Just be rich and have a fantastic studio and expensive

gear...extensive retouching" <p>On the other hand...<i>That's what

really impresses me about his work - it's almost entirely based on his

raw vision. He's just a really talented guy, and it's not like he has

anything better in terms of circumstance over what I have at this

moment.</i><p>What few of you have addressed in your envy and sour

grapes is that HE IS NOT a "raw talent." His illustrations on the

Necron site make it obvious that he has been working visually for years

--- I would guess he probably has been interested in art most of his

life. THAT investment of time and study is worth more than all the

monolights and expensive system cameras.<p>The thing I find

objectionable is people want to talk, talk, talk about what he does and

find something sinister in the fact that he uses photoshop -- but what

image in fashion magazines hasn't been altered in some way?<p>I look at

his site and see really nice work by a talented guy who works hard and

enjoys what he does. Edward Kang --- Take Eolo's portfolio and site as

an inspiration -- if you like what you see, make it your self

assignment to copy him for a while --- but shoot it with what YOU have

availible...eventually, your own pictures will come through. Eolo --

very nice work.

I've used the Fuji GX 680III monster enough to know that I don't like it. Less availible movements than a crown graphic that costs $400 and while it does have SLR viewing with those movements, it does not have adeqate coverage with all the lenses, particularly the wide angles...and it is with wide angles that I seem to want to employ most movements. And the cost? Brrr!<p> Also, the 680 only has front standard movements -- in my opinion, you would be better off with a press camera like Linhof. A budget option like the Crown Graphic might not be too bad either -- if you didn't like the crown, you could always sell it on ebay for more than you paid for it.<p>

For the same cost as the Fuji with a couple lenses, you could get a <u>real</u> camera like a Deardorff 8x10! Of course, the cost of 8x10 film holders will probably bankrupt you, but hey -- we all have to make sacrifices. An 8x10 contact print on FB paper from a 40+ year old Ektar lens I have been using looks better to me than most enlargements....

Scheme away, then...don't talk about it, scheme. If you are so

convinced of the importantance of creating the almighty "buzz" then get

to it.<p>

The thing about it, John, is that I think you have given us lousy

examples of success. People like Liebowitz have fame and fortune --

I'll grant you that, but unlike you I would NOT trade places with

Liebowitz even if the opportunity came up (which it will not) simply

because I have no interest in living her life -- I have no interest in

being famous for photographing celebrities. If that makes HER happy,

fine -- I have no argument with that, but to compare her life to mine

is to compare apples to oranges. I WANT to work hard in my field and

don't care if I never get the public accolades - I don't think product

photographers get the recognition that celebrity portraitists get

anyway -- and I see no shame in that.<p> I think it is seven years

years ago that I had graduated from school, I had no prospects and no

hopes of prospects, I had just recovered from a life threatening

illness that had wiped out whatever money I had and was living in my

parents house, dependent upon their generosity. Now I'm saving up for

the down payment on my first house...pretty good for a guy who, seven

years ago, couldn't get the jobs at camera shops and labs that he

desperately applied for as a stopgap measure against bankruptcy. Score

one for the workerbee.<p>

My definition of success? Satisfaction in what I do, for starters.

Getting the kind of the life that I want for myself --- having a good

time, doing no harm to others and enjoying the world. I enjoy (in no

particular order) art, good food, good beer, hiking and camping,

challenging and interesting work, mental stimulation, travel, the

company of a certain woman --- and I get regular doses of most of

these. My definition of success? More of the same. I want the house

only because the woman I love loves gardening, my apartment manager

does not allow dogs and I want dogs, some more room for my art

projects, more privacy, and a darkroom. My plan for the next 70+

years? More travel (I'd like to see Asia), more photography, my

brother wants to teach me how to brew beer, my woman friend and I talk

about children...life looks good. Do I want to worry about "how to get

to the top in my field?" Hell no -- I've got MUCH more important

things to do. <p>

To bring this back to THIS Lusenet forum, I suspect that photography,

in one form or another, will always be a part of my life but the form

it has may change -- especially in terms of the work I do to earn a

living. It already has -- I had very different ideas about job and

career seven years ago - I learned, changed, adapted. If tommorow I

decide that I want to do something else to earn my keep, I will change.

In the past two years I have learned a great deal about digital imaging

systems and suspect that will have something to do with the way in

which I make my living over the next 40+ years.<p>

Now - what was the question?

John, you seem to feel that people are using you as a punching bag -

and you are probably right...but were all in the cheap advice business

here on LUSENET so I guess you'll have to live with it.<p>

For a clue as to how and where things went wrong, look at phrases like

this one from your initial question:"<i>In the past, if you were at the

top of your field, you might become a celebrity. Today, to

get to the top of your field, you have to be a celebrity first.

Now how do I get that first 15 minutes of fame?</i>" If that phrase

didn't make you sound astoundingly self agrandizing, shallow, bitter

and cynical then I would be wondering why people were picking on you.<

p>

I haven't been doing this for a terribly long time, but long enough to

call myself "photographer" with confidence.<p>

Enough of my chest thumping. If you really want to do it, you will. I

don't consider myself a "people and fashion" photographer but in your

place, with the interests you have expressed I would start with wedding

photography and assignments for publications in your local area (like

city entertainment magazines). I've been a second shooter on 2

weddings and hated it -- would never go back because I can do other

assignments that suit me better -- but if one is good one can make a

lot of money doing that --- I know people who do. Every city and town

has a monthly or quarterly city magazine with features about the arts,

entertainment, restaurants, etc. One of my early assignments, 3-4

years ago, was taking interiors of restaurants for restaurant reviews.

The money wasn't much but with each passing assignment I could drop

another line on my client list. I would shoot extra film and some of

thiose are still in my interiors portfolio. That's how you get big

magazine assignments -- start with little magazine assignments, always

deliver on time, always deliver more than you were asked to, always

make your client look good.<p>

I probably shouldn't say this, but I suspect that I will never be

called a genius or innovator. I'm probably average smart, average

talent, etc., but I work very hard. Maybe there is some secret, some

way of getting the whole world to pay attention to you and beat a path

to your door --- personally I doubt it and suspect that if it were that

easy a lot more people would have done it by now.<p>

My suspicion of Natascha Merritt's biggest secret? A MONTHLY CHECK

FROM DADDY!

Trabant: a small car formerly made in the now defunct East Germany.

Makes a Yugo look like a luxury car. Popularly called "trabbi."

I don't understand -- are you unhappy because your pictures look "ugly" or because your camera's aperture blades look "ugly?" If the former, I'll bet changing to a camera with more aperture blades will not solve the problem but you are welcome to try... If the latter, well, I've got a few off brand lenses with multi-segment aperture blades that I'll trade you for those ugly old hasse lenses...

Don't worry about it. The degree of loss or gain in "sharpness" is probably so miniscule as to only be measureable in a laboratory.

I'm going to skip all the flap about whether or not Borges is

exploiting native peoples and attempt to address the original question

-- re: toning technique.<p>

Having seen the Borges prints in person about a year ago I have to say

that AS PRINTS they are astounding feats of technique. Selective parts

of the print are toned--how this is done, I don't know but suspect that

a brush is involved. The effect is much more subtle than they appear

in the scans on my monitor, leading me to think that the scans have

been "juiced up" so even people with the dingiest, uncalibrated monitor

will see that these aren't just straight prints.<p>

I'm not going to mention what I think about what he photographs and how

he photographs it, however.

sorry - that should be:<p>

Read <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=000cIT&topic_id=35&topic=">"Best Med Format for editorial and fashion photography"</a> for my totally

biased view of the Fuji GX-680. Understand I used the thing for 6 mos.

Read <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=000cIT&topic_id=35&topic=">"Best Med Format for editorial and fashion photography"</a> for my totally biased view of the Fuji GX-680. Understand I used the thing for 6 mos.

Shoot one roll of e-6 at various focal legnth and aperture

combinations. Ask the lab to process the film UNCUT - so it come back

as one long strip and not 36 pics in individual mounts (most pro labs

will do this and most pro labs will run your film in 1-3 hours

depending on their workload) I would think about shooting a plain

white wall evenly lit with something like newspapers inned all over it

to check sharpness across the image and possible vignetting. I once

had a Tokina zoom that was awful at 28mm but good at 70mm or so, awful

wide op0en but better at f11 or so. Once I tested it I knew how to

avoid using it for best results.<p>

My best advice to you is probably to sell that P.O.S and buy 85mm,

135mm and 200mm primes.

<i>Ms. Merritt's experience is now the norm for someone who wants a

name.</i><p>

But why do we assume that? I hear you saying all these high falutin'

things about fashion, about photography, about communication, about

establishing a photographic legacy...meanwhile you still have the

dayjob and you go online to dream about being a "photographer"(whatever

that means). "Time to either shit or get off the pot" as they say in

Southern Missouri.<p>

<i>Today, to get to the top of your field, you have to be a celebrity

first.</i><p>I would argue that for every flash-in-the-pan success

story there are propbably 100 work-a-day photographers who have built

careers for themselves by hard work, long hours, professionalism.

Where does Merritt go from here? Unless she can come up with another

good hook, her career is downhill with every year that she ages ---

psuedo intellectual porn is probably a limited market. And I'm not

convinced that a few exhibits and a Taschen book make a photographer

"successful" --- notorious, maybe - but if you measure success in

dollars, being a photographer publishing a book ain't shit compared to

being a photographer who can count on regular income to provide

photographs for publications or catalogs. Sure, this might open doors

for Merritt - but which doors and where do they lead? And do you want

to go through those doors?<p> Your problem is you want to go from

amateur to Avedon --- <i>"Today, to get to the top of your field, you

have to be a celebrity first."</i> What about all the people who are

out there working, building on their own success?<p>

Seriously, you don't need a gimmick --- you need a good portfolio ---

you need to be working in your field (fashion photo) and you need to be

doing it NOW. In your place, I would get a portfolio together, knock

on doors until I got assisting jobs with fashion photographers, do

that, continue to work on the portfolio, meet the clients, do the self

promotion and then maybe it would be possible that I would realize some

success in fashion photo.

Goldin due to subject matter and due to the idea of photographs as a

diarry of sexual identity and all that stuff in her (natascha's) artist

statement sounded like it was lifted from Goldin's notebooks.<p>

There are no new ideas under the sun - I just don't see the sense in

running down someone else for having the cojones to do something I

haven't done -- not that you guys want to see pictures of my ugly butt,

I am sure.<p>

"Panache" is the appropriately-artschool-I-wanna-be-folksy-but-not-

offend term.

...when I said "<i>if only to admire her "talents..."</i>" I meant

Natascha, but I expect you knew that

I'm afraid I have to laugh a little at your expense, JK. It is rather

funny - here you are, this aspiring fashion photographer saying always

"someday I'll shoot fashion..." and here this 21 year old gains some

fame, who knows, maybe some money too (people always assume that $$$

comes with publishing a book...seeing as I have known an artist or two

who has had a book published, well, I have a different perspective..)

anyway, this woman gains some fame and fortune, and you, a fashion

photographer wannabe, think she's superficial, that it's only her 15

minutes...<p>

Pardon me, but isn't fashion photography, by definition, superficial?

I mean, it is %100 about "look" about "buzz" about "sensation" about --

in a word -- "fashion."<p>

Hell, <u>I'd</u> do it with Natasha and let her photograph me in the

act ... I may have my standards, but then I also have my apetites. I

don't think it's great photoghraphy, I don't think its art -- but I

admire her panache anyway. Even though as far as her "art" goes, Nan

Goldin did it first and better, I'd rather look at her pictures than

Geddes or wegman or Maisel anyday if only to admire her "talents."

No - I think the diagonals running through her head are among the best

things here. don't change a thing

Brilliant. The line of the curb leading up from the corner is usually

such an obvious device - but now, with those additional diagonals of

cracks in the sidewalk, one of which leads back to her ear and the line

created by the position of her feet -- brilliant. I've looked at a lot

of your pictures online - I like this one best.<p>

Do yourself a favor - don't screw around in photoshop. if you had any

less depth of field, then those cracks in the sidewalk, that pile of

whatever on the sidewalk, all those other things half described would

dissapear.<p>

I actually really like it(the print) the way it looks on my monitor.

There are some potentially serious limitations to press camera movements, especially with the 2x3 Crown. With a 65mm on my Crown, the front standard barely makes it out of the box-like case, so all movements other than a little bit of upward shift are unavailible. The movements work fine with a 100mm lens though. For this reason in your place I would consider a view camera with bag bellows.<p>

If cost is no barrier, I would second the Hasselblad 903 SWC with 38mm Biogon. Phenomenal glass.

Very impressive fish eye camera, Greg!<p>

There are several low cost alternatives like TLRs if you don't like the Balda camera -- perhaps you could sell your "old 35mm" stuff on ebay and try one? I had a Yashica TLR that gave fantastic results for a couple of years before it gave up the ghost that I bought for less than $100.

Contact your (future) instructors and ask their opinion. In your place, I'd save the $$ to spend on film and paper and chemistry. What camera you use in school is lesss important than how much work you get done, what you learn and what kind of portfolio you end up with. Will you be shooting and processing c-41, E-6 qnd B&W? You are potentially looking at 1000s of $$ in chemicals/papers/films alone over the course of 3-4 years.<p>