snakecharmer

I second the 85 f/1.8, though you should think about where you feel your kit is lacking- speed, reach, width, etc, and then only you can decide. Me looking at your shots is not going to help.

It is so interesting to hear the discussion on what the definition of a "pro" photographer actually is. I thought about becoming a professional writer before I decided instead to go to veterinary school. Any time I told someone that I wanted to be a pro writer, they started talking about jobs with newspapers, jobs with corporations (writing instruction manuals, I guess), niche writing like romance novels, westerns, thrillers, and children's books. The most annoying of all were the numerous people who told me that I should write their life story, or my own. I realized in time that what I really meant to say was "professional creative writer" or "experimental novelist". For me, I don't think that the term "professional" necessarily means that you are headed for a burn-out. However, "commercial" might be a different matter, as someone else tends to be in control of the creative process, so that the photographer's job is to supply the technical knowledge and act as a machine taking the prescribed shots.

Tom, I have to disagree that a great photo will generally make a great postage stamp. Some really terrific photos succeed partly due to their intricacy of detail. Make the photo smaller and you run into the problem of optical resolution: the eye cannot distinguish one line from the next because they are too close together. The postage stamp of the black and white tree would lose some of its delicate wood grain.

Maybe sad, maybe just comforting for them. I would certainly feel much better about life if I thought that I knew everything.

 

Interesting, though, how as we get more comfortable we tend to stop creating. This has happened to me many times, and to many people that I know. We get into good relationships, have peace within our families, and suddenly it seems that there is less to talk about, and less art is being produced. The artists I admire most are the happy ones, because I know that creating in the absence of strife is a daunting task.

Oh, sorry Felisimo. I was actually responding to the Bob Dylan vs. Michael Jackson thing. ( :

Strange. Very, very strange. Over the past couple of days, I have been posting

things for critique but have not gotten critiqued on very much of what I have

posted, and have gotten an unusually low number of views. But I HAVE received

quite a number of comments and views on random selections of work long since

forgotten about (by me, anyway). I feel like my past is coming back to haunt

me. Has anyone else had a similar deja vu-type experience lately?

It was not my intention to sound accusatory. I have just found that there is serious freak-out potential where kids are concerned, and there is less potential for harrassment by authorities and less potential for embarrassment due to false allegations if you obtain the parents' consent first. You can like it or not, but it is reality, so grow up. And maybe you wouldn't care if someone photographed your kids. It was just a question, and I suspect that everyone has their own answer.

Also, if a stranger takes my photo, I feel that I have a right to know what the photo is going to be used for. The same would probably go for my kids, if I had any.

What is so wrong with asking the parents first before photographing? That would give a chance for you to explain who you are and for what purpose you are taking the photos. You could take their e-mail address as well and offer to send them copies of the photos. It would also give the parent the opportunity to say no.

It is perfectly legal to take photos of anyone so long as they are in public. However, there is a grey area when it comes to kids. How would you feel if it were your own kid?

Say, "That's a really interesting point you're making. I'd like to discuss it further with you sometime. Perhaps we could get together over lunch?" If the critic is sincerely interested in helping you, they will at least consider the invitation. If not, then they are probably just looking for a public forum in which to be condescending.

Geoff, just curious: Is the title really "The Medium Is the Massage"? Or did you mean mEssage, perchance?

I agree, the photographer who exploits and endangers little children will sell the most photos, hands down.

Break them with gusto! Break them like you mean it! Break them like you don't care!

Every time I start to half believe this rules nonsense I run across a photo that blatantly breaks the rules and somehow works perfectly. I have seen photos in which a model stands in the center of the frame, directly facing the camera, that could not be improved on by moving the model to one third or the other, or turning her body to the side.

Moreover, reducing an art form to a mathematic formula just seems wrong. If Faulkner had played by the rules (no run-on sentences, you must capitalize sentences, you must use traditional punctuation) some of America's greatest literature would have lost much of its passion.

The viewer's eye is full of insecurities and illusions. You can either be traditional and nurture those insecurities, or you can be an innovator and throw a stone at the viewer just to watch them duck.Either way, great work can be produced.

I am a little confused by the horizon talk anyway. I thought that the horizon was wherever the sky met the land or the sea. I live near many hills and mountains, so with a level gaze I often see 80% below the horizon and 20% above. And if you have a level gaze but are standing on a downward or upward slope, what then?

Another thought is to try to gear your showings specifically to your audience. If your friends can't appreciate photos without people in them (a big problem that I have when showing pics to my own family), show them only your portraits. Or if your friends enjoy action shots of sporting events, give that a whirl and show off your results. Also, I have found that my photos get a great reception when they are of activities or parties that I attended with said friends. You might not get a straight-forward critique, but people will likely choose their favorites and ask for copies of them, and that will at least tell you something.

On the John Peri issue: Oh, to be great enough to be hated. ( :

But, on topic, I agree with Jonathan that women do not necessarily wish to be depicted in a sexless manner, and that some level of eroticism is fine as long as it remains respectful of the woman and glorifies her strength and power rather than degrading her.

To me, there are two types of nudes that can work very well. One is the nude portrait (see the work of Jim Adams) which captures the model's personality and essence. Sometimes it even seems incidental that the model is nude because the emotion of the work is so powerful. The second type is the nude landscape (see the desert images by Stalker Stalker, the seaside images by Jonathan Charles, or my own portfolio if you prefer male nudes). In this style, the model acts as more of an object, but not in a degrading or uncomfortable way (any more than lying naked on cold rocks in winter is uncomfortable, anyway). The point of this type of image is to make the human body a part of the landscape itself. Stalker Stalker's work is often too slick for my tastes, but does exhibit nice form overall. (His nude portraits of blindfolded and shackled models make for an entirely different discussion, one which I will avoid for the sake of sticking to the point.)

Honestly, as a female, I would rather be the subject of a portrait nude. It is way more romantic than lying on cold rocks in winter. But I can see the purpose in either style.

No...unless the look of the photo is so fresh and unpretentious that you could never imagine it hanging on the wall of any place you have ever visited. Sometimes that can give me a strong hunch.

But I can generally tell if an amateur has an extraordinary amount of potential. For instance, I saw a photo of a cobweb today on pnet. It was really a pretty bad photo, but I could see that the photographer was experimenting and learning by the fact that a fast shutter speed was used to darken the background, while flash was used to illuminate the cobweb. On a lark, I viewed the person's portfolio. Only one other photo, but the lighting was spot-on and the composition rather nice.

I, too, often fall into the trap of driving around looking for something to shoot. But, to interpret the term loosely, all of this searching is really a zen of its own. Because, rather than setting things up around the house until the composition and lighting are just right, I am trying to really see the world for what it is and pluck the beautiful bits and fit them into a frame. Shooting outdoors feels more, well, natural to me than shooting studio. But if you are constantly feeling rushed and are not creating your best work this way, then it is not the answer for you.

Some of my most unusual work tends to come when I am very relaxed. The first time I tried Indian food was a few weeks ago. I was sitting on the patio under a rainbow-patterned umbrella, and after drinking too much Taj Mahal brew I became as easily amused as a three-year-old. I pulled out my digital camera and started taking photos of how I was seeing things at that moment: The colors of the umbrella reflected perfectly in a dinner spoon, the world as viewed through a glass of beer (literally). It was the most inspired I have felt in ages.

Breaking the rules is wonderful, liberating. Photographers that can do this and produce a successful image achieve greatness, at least in my book, because they make the viewer actually THINK about WHY they like the photo. This is why I don't consider Ansel Adams a great photographer. He tended to play by the rules.

I hope I am not hogging the forum too much. I just remembered that there is a separate issued implied by the original question which I have not addressed. That issue is the photography of traumatic moments in the lives of other people.

I have argued with my fiance about this before. He thinks that it is okay to, say, photograph a car accident he sees on the street. I disagree. I think that, unless you are specifically asked by the person involved, you should not photograph this kind of situation. I have serious issues with the publication of photos of dead and dying humans. I would not wish to be photographed in either of these conditions, so I err on the side of respect for the human being. There are other, less exploitive ways to document the world around me.

I also feel that it is wrong to rely on sensationalization or sympathy to garner attention for one's work. I can feel sadness for the boy in the photo you described, but that does not mean that it is a good photo or that I will like it.

I do not plan to look at the photo you mention in your "question". Mainly because I assume that you do not wish to garner ratings or critiques, but rather to stimulate a conversation here in this forum. (If this is not the case, please do not use the forums to garner votes; this is not their intention.) Looking at the photo would simply be straying from topic.

I do agree that the standard of CONSUMER photography has plummeted over the past thirty years. Evidence of this? Consumer-grade film has gone from the delectable panchromatic black and whites and readily available slide films to the crappy Kodak TMax b&w (horrible prints even when processed on Kodak's own machines) and the universal use of 400 speed color film for EVERYTHING. The average person does not know that better film exists because it isn't offered at Wal-Mart, and has no idea why their film photos seem to be of poorer quality than those of previous generations. It's very sad. Also, to get image quality comparable to that which I get with my $100 Canon A1 I would have to spend upwards of $1000 on a digital camera. I know this is true because, even shooting in raw mode with his expensive SLR, my boyfriend can seldom get his photos to enlarge as well as mine do.

As far as PROFESSIONAL photography goes, though, it's more of a mixed bag. There are still many professionals around who produce truly excellent work, either on film or on digital. And, yes, there are many also who should be ashamed to call themselves professionals at the craft because they produce cookie-cutter work which requires no real thought or technique. (Example: Wal-Mart portrait photographers-- the Help Wanted sign advertises that they can train you for the job in 1 week.)

I am on the fence about this one.

I think that copycat work is fine to help build one's technical skills, and it is not a bad place for someone who is not a natural artist to start.

But once enough of the skills are in place in order to allow communication through the photo to occur... That is when one's philosophy starts to matter, because it will be reflected in how one communicates and what one communicates.

Philosophy is also important because it encompasses photographic ethics. This leads us back to the endless discussions about porn vs. art. Also, the discussions about whether it is okay to take photos of people on the street without their permission. And discussions about how much Photoshop is too much, and when manipulation of a photo constitutes dishonesty. A well-defined code of ethics is important for any professional to have, artists not excluded.

Beau, Steve, you make me laugh because your comments remind me of conversations that e (my fiance) and I have had. ( :

I think that this thread brings up a good point. There does seem to be a disproportionate number of middle-aged men here on the site, as well as on other photography-related websites. I don't think that this is necessarily a new phenomenon, though, because many of these guys still shoot film and appear in fact to be hold-overs from the photography trend of the 1960s. Other possible reasons: 1. The typical male mind is inclined towards gadgetry, and this phenomenon seems even more pronounced in middle-aged men due to the gender roles that they grew up with. 2. Repetitive activities (playing video games, the click of a mouse or a shutter) are soothing and stress-relieving, which a guy nearing retirement but not quite there yet might need. 3. Since they were part of the "old wave" of photography, many of the middle-aged guys might just be having fun one-upping the kids' digital snapshots. 4. Those who have retired early have the time and resources to pursue the hobby and to read the related books.

Just some thoughts, and all or none of them may really explain why a given person enjoys photography.

At any rate, thank goodness for "old wave" photographers. They are currently one of the only resources that we kids have on shooting film.

Sadly, I find that "mass production" of photos is resulting in the death of the family album. I suspect that this slow death actually began in the 1980s with the advent of cheap-o point-and-shoots. It is continuing these days with digitalization of photography, where the vast majority of family photos end up hidden away on hard drives and never see print. Also, it is trendy these days to hide from the camera, declaring "Don't take my photo today, I look horrible!" And, indeed, it is trendy to look, well, horrible. Old photos of my grandmother show her looking perpetually polished and classy at family gatherings. My mother? Elegantly dressed as a child, but by her teenage years she had chosen jeans and tee shirts. My sister and I were children of the 1980s and sported the typical logos and sloppy tourist tees of that decade. So many photos, so few that we are proud to be in or willing to share with future generations.

I think that the death of the family album began with the 1980s idea that more is more, for this was the age of double and triple prints. This oversaturation overwhelmed the typical mother who was putting together the family album, so the task was abandoned and the photos were thrown into a shoebox or ten. Today's family is relieved that they don't have to deal with all those photos lying around, so they store their memories in pixels instead. No one has time to assemble albums.

Except my polished, classy grandma. Bless her heart, she collects photos of everyone in the family regardless of how unclassy and reluctant we look in them. She still uses film and still prints everything, just one set of prints, mind you. She has even gone behind our backs and ordered school and graduation photos that we otherwise would have done without.

Now that I am leaving the nest, I hope that my own set of family albums will extend beyond a wedding album and maybe a baby book.

I think that romance novels are most definitely porn. They generally have no believable storyline, or storyline at all except that which leads up to the "main event", the sexual encounter which occurs dependably in the latter one-third of the book. This is, of course, so that one can easily skip ahead to the good stuff. Also, they lack any real character development. The woman is a victim type, who the book repeatedly tells us is strong, but we see no evidence of that. We are also beaten over the head with how attractive, intelligent, kind, and desirable she is, like an antifeminist mantra: This is how all women should be if they want to get the guy. And the male character? He is always a protector, and frequently masquerades as a cad and womanizer during the first one-third of the book, because everyone knows that women love badboys. The sex scene itself generally occurs in a fashion reminiscent of a rape.

Okay, so it might seem as though I am going off on a tangent here. But I believe that nude photography can be examined in a similar way. Is the photographer taking advantage of his model? Is there sexual exploitation? Is there oppression of a certain group of people? (It is pretty naive to say that models for porn are generally in it for their own enjoyment. Usually there is something else at play, such as a desire for attention.) Is there violence, either real or threatened? Is there an obvious metaphor in the work that serves to degrade the model? (An example is an older issue of Hustler that depicted cockroaches crawling around a woman's vagina.) Unfortunately, we can't always know the answers to all of these questions just by looking at the image. But, as photographers, I think that we can set our own limits by asking ourselves, "If I had children, would I be comfortable with them seeing this: 1. at the appropriate age? 2. EVER?"

About birthmarks and tattoos:

One of my close friends actually chose her wedding dress to showcase her tattoo. So, regardless of how others might feel, she herself did not regard her tattoo as a mistake or flaw.

The same might possibly be true of other features, like large noses and even love handles. Remember, the groom will be looking at the photos, too, and he will expect to see in them the things that made him fall in love with the bride, the cute, quirky things.

If the person just does not lend themselves well to traditional glamour photography, talk to them in advance about the option of doing more fun, personality shots. One quality that is almost universal in less-than-beautiful people is a healthy sense of humor.

Is the point of pnet really to find the very "best" or "most brilliant" photos and showcase them, or try to emulate them? I think that plenty can be learned from sifting through all of those "mediocre" photos and asking yourself key questions: 1. What is the artist attempting to communicate? 2. How is this communication being accomplished, and is it the best way? 3. Is the communication effective/convincing/persuasive? 4. Does this work have surface aesthetic appeal or elicit an emotional reaction from the viewer? 5. Did apparent thought go into the composition and/or execution of this photo? 6. Is the work engaging? (i.e., Is it easy or difficult to look away from the photo? How does the photo guide the eye of the viewer?) 7. And last but not least: Do you think that the artist had fun creating the photo?

If the answer to ANY of these questions is yes, then I believe that the photo is successful on some level.

By "rating" photos in this way, it is possible to learn something from just about every photo on pnet. It is a much slower method than checking out the top rated photos every week and simply trying to copy them, but it does much more to foster independent creativity.

The rating system is a tool for recognition (albeit a dubious one at times), but my guess is that it was never intended as a learning tool.