lance_lee4

the westons are famous enough, yes.

any more examples?

<p>Hi everyone,<br>

just curious, among the famous and successful photographers that we know (internationally), how many got into photographer because their parents were photographers too.</p>

<p>In the movie business, it's common for sons and daughters especially to inherit their fathers' passions. example, Sofia Coppola and Francis Ford Coppola.</p>

<p>Not necessarily a famous father (or mother) that grooms a successful photographer child, it could be just a poor struggling dad with a son who took over the passion and did better, career-wise.</p>

<p>Does anyone know of any examples?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Is photography reductive? I can't argue about the selective process that is inherent in photography- but even more than just finding the photo and the location- but in it's framing, in the selection of techniques, in editing the images, etc., etc. We chisel away at the stone to find the photograph inside.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Let's compare photographs to paintings.<br>

Paintings start with a blank canvass, you have to add strokes and paints. It's additive.<br>

With photography, you get everything in your photographs wherever you point your camera to. to make it more like a painting, you discriminate and leave things out of your frame. You simplify. Less is more.<br>

In other words, photography could be a subtractive process.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Could it be because I've 'learned' that painting is a higher form of 'art' than photography and if I had been taught the opposite the opposite would be the case? Could it be that painters are more romanticized and written about and are considered as contributing more significantly to world culture and history</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It's a combination of both, Alan.<br>

but more importantly, paintings are more "iconic" in the sense that they are simpler in an abstract way. Photographs tend to be more detailed since they are more realistic representative of what we see.</p>

<p>In short, it's easier for our minds to remember abstract, simple impressions (paintings) than to recall realistic details (photographs)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Early on, I taught myself a valuable lesson at art school. Pay attention when something implants a little voice in my head. At school I was directly exposed to many different styles and tastes. Many of those differences were not to my taste but they did speak to me and eventually opened doors. When I began to tune in to those whispers I found great rewards. I find I have to often set my taste aside and be less discriminating in what I allow in</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Acquired Taste - One that is unpleasant on immediate experience or is likeable only after being experienced repeatedly.<br>

after substantial exposure to something new, you may grow to like it.<br>

In other words, taste and creativity may go hand in hand.</p>

<p>I'm in the midst of building a portfolio gallery page for <a href="http://www.beijingcp.com">Beijing Center of Photography</a> and we are deciding between using Flash or just simple php gallery software like photopost etc.<br>

I found a pretty affordable solution for flash using solutions provided by slideshowpro.net<br /> it costs just between US$29 - 30+ dollars <br /> before i plunge into that solution, i have just a couple of questions.<br>

(1) why is Flash the standard for photography portfolio online?<br /> (a) is it because it gives the option of full-screen display?<br /> (b) harder for thieves to steal images online? (it is still possible via screencapture)<br /> © just because it look sleek and smooth?<br>

(2) i'm also exploring AJAX and other php options for portfolio display. does anyone has any relevant experience in this?<br>

cheers, Lance | <a href="http://www.asiaphoto.com/forum.php">ASIAPHOTO.COM</a></p>