|
nonanone posted:I feel like I've already said this, but instagram isn't about "creating a body of work" and I think you're kind of using it wrong if you're trying to do that. You can photograph deep meaningful art projects AND instagram your food and shoes you guys. It's like complaining about disposable cameras on vacation. I don't know why the media keeps trying to equate to like, a real Thing. Phone photography is a real thing. Instagram is just a fun app. Yea I agree with this. I see instagram as a side dish - not the main course but still enjoyable and useful (as part of any photographer's social media plan). It's the people who shove their instagram photos in your face saying "look at my urt" that annoy me. There are tons of photographers who actually upload their DSLR shot photos to the network and completely forgo the filter part of it. It's not a religion, but some people are turning it into one.
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2013 21:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 19:06 |
|
|
I've always thought people loved the old ascetic a generation after it was popular because that's what they grew up with. My parents loved black and white pictures because the pictures their parents had in scrap books and on walls were mostly black and white. The current fascination with lovely lovely Terry Richardson style snap-shots and toy cameras, light leaks and hosed up iFilters seems to come from our own parents scrap books that were loaded up with Polaroids and wonky colored snapshots of that time your dad and his brothers totally got wasted in the desert, but its cool because it was totally the 70s back then and like everyone was doing it. Also, look at that hair.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2013 22:36
|
|
|
squidflakes posted:I've always thought people loved the old ascetic a generation after it was popular because that's what they grew up with. Depressingly I think you're giving people too much credit for remembering the previous generation's aesthetic. The instagram generation by large probably has had no meaningful interaction with film, except maybe having pictures taken of them as a toddler. I'd think the fascination with the earlier generation now is because photography has reached a point where the average conventional photograph is really bland because everyone has that capability to produce it on their phones and because commercial photography is approaching a level where it is so perfect that the eye just slips over it. How many six figure ad campaigns does a person see in a day? It's just white noise. That's why the polaroid/lo-fi aesthetic is popular because it is a thing that's a visually distinct element to it. A picture of a cup of coffee with some ridiculous filter is suddenly visually interesting just because it doesn't look like a coffee cup should. The level it is at I think is fine. It's a fun way to share pictures and for the average person to produce aesthetically pleasing results for themselves. I think any higher level discussion just becomes really wanky because it feels like bloggers or academics are so desperate to blow hot air about how filters or whatever is changing photography. It's not really, it's mostly kinda neat.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2013 22:54
|
|
|
So Richardson gets bagged on a lot here, and I've always been puzzled by his fame, but I can't figure out how it started. Wikipedia isn't very helpful and has a big pretentious paragraph about how pretending amateur porn is serious artwork is "exploring themes of sexuality." What is the appeal of Terry Richardson? Is he just a good marketer? Networker? How did he convince anyone his work was quality, or who originally decided it was genius? Does anyone know or is everyone as baffled as I am?
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2013 22:55
|
|
|
mr. mephistopheles posted:So Richardson gets bagged on a lot here, and I've always been puzzled by his fame, but I can't figure out how it started. Wikipedia isn't very helpful and has a big pretentious paragraph about how pretending amateur porn is serious artwork is "exploring themes of sexuality." What is the appeal of Terry Richardson? Is he just a good marketer? Networker? How did he convince anyone his work was quality, or who originally decided it was genius? Does anyone know or is everyone as baffled as I am? He's a good photographer. His work does have quality. I think his father was a photographer which is where he got his break. As a person he seems pretty terrible especially through his personal work. I've photographed some of the same girls he has and they didn't have anything bad to say. I'm not sure if he's calmed down or if he's just stopped photographing getting blown by transexual prostitutes though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2013 23:04
|
|
|
I was always under the impression people didn't think he was a very good photographer, or at least if he was he didn't show it in most of his work. If people appreciate him as an artist I don't get why they trash him so much as a person. Tons of famous artists are massively terrible as people, but Richardson seems to get singled out a lot.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2013 23:26
|
|
|
mr. mephistopheles posted:I was always under the impression people didn't think he was a very good photographer, or at least if he was he didn't show it in most of his work. If people appreciate him as an artist I don't get why they trash him so much as a person. Tons of famous artists are massively terrible as people, but Richardson seems to get singled out a lot. A lot of armchair photographers with 20,000 dollar equipment setups that take pictures of birds think he's not very good but the people who pay him six figures for a campaign do. I think the latter are more important. There are a lot of top photographers who are as sleazy as Richardson looks, but they cultivate a more professional image. Terry doesn't really give a gently caress. He has never officially been accused of sexual misconduct other than through rumour and blogposts. People really seem to like to hate him though and are ready to believe the worst about him. I'm not sure what it is. Maybe that he's doing more with less than anybody else? He's shooting the top models in the world doing poo poo like eating spaghetti with minimal equipment. He shot Gisele Bundchen with a nintendo 3DS which to me is hilarious. I don't think a lot of people that heavily criticise him really have a good understanding of his work or range. They think it's all Terryworld cocks in armpits or what he puts on his blog. He's capable of shooting some loving outstanding work. I think he does get lazy a bit and sometimes phones it in just because he can. I judge artists based on their work and I really like his work but his personal image is so terrible that I almost hate mentioning that I like his work because I end up having to justify myself constantly because some dude who doesn't know I exist loves getting his cock out.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2013 23:42
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:A lot of armchair photographers with 20,000 dollar equipment setups that take pictures of birds think he's not very good but the people who pay him six figures for a campaign do. I think the latter are more important. I like to think that they're jealous and spiteful, because for all the $$$$$ worth of equipment, all they have to show is birds, cars in an autoshow, or zoo animals. They look at his style and dismiss it right off the bat because he's not using a Canon 1Dx6000.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2013 00:43
|
|
|
mr. mephistopheles posted:I was always under the impression people didn't think he was a very good photographer, or at least if he was he didn't show it in most of his work. If people appreciate him as an artist I don't get why they trash him so much as a person. Tons of famous artists are massively terrible as people, but Richardson seems to get singled out a lot. Because the accusations of sexual abuse and abuse of his "star power" to manipulate models is directly tied to his work. Paragon8 posted:Not to mention that everyone raging about filters to make things look lo-fi are forgetting that black and white photography is basically embracing the retro aesthetic of the inability to produce color easily that became artistic tradition because it was the easiest and cheapest medium of photography for a long time. You were on the right track but this is so stupidly wrong.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2013 00:52
|
|
|
He's just turned up as one of six photographers commissioned to work using Fuji X series cameras. He shot flowers. If you ask me, not interestingly so. Both links NSFW due to photos not by Terry. http://www.aperture.org/2013/01/photography https://fujifilmxseries.wordpress.c...series-cameras/
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2013 00:58
|
|
|
Pablo Bluth posted:He's just turned up as one of six photographers commissioned to work using Fuji X series cameras. He shot flowers. If you ask me, not interestingly so. But that's the sort of hilarious thing about Richardson is that he did something that nobody expected. Fuji were probably expecting some raw sexy shots or whatever, but he just shot flowers.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2013 01:17
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:Because the accusations of sexual abuse and abuse of his "star power" to manipulate models is directly tied to his work. Is it though? I've had enough arguments with people about Roman Polanski (and he's just one example in one medium, far from the only) to know a good deal of people don't agree with that. I mean, I personally do, but that's far from a universal belief. Paragon8 posted:But that's the sort of hilarious thing about Richardson is that he did something that nobody expected. Fuji were probably expecting some raw sexy shots or whatever, but he just shot flowers. This is kinda awesome actually.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2013 01:30
|
|
|
mr. mephistopheles posted:Is it though? The defining trait people ascribe to Richardson is an ability to get his subjects to do things they normally would not do, the difference of implication in the power relationship is what leads many people to ascribe coercion to overly sexualized/possibly demeaning images of young inexperienced models, but makes a picture of a celebrity tweaking their nipples 'cheeky.'
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2013 01:39
|
|
|
BobTheCow posted:Pictures of the Year International judging has begun, there are live webcasts each day if you're a fan of hearing an automated "out" every two seconds for photos that you would kill to have in your own portfolio. In relation to this, allow me to present Cats of POYi: http://poyicats.tumblr.com/ If that isn't an instant goon favorite I don't know what is.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2013 17:40
|
|
|
I probably shouldn't have singled out Terry Richardson, it was my own lazy mental shorthand for describing people doing the sorts of shots posted on Terryland, without themselves being good at it. Mainly, thinking that because he can take a picture with a thrift store camera while loving a super model wearing a torn Misfits t-shirt and a DEVO power-dome, well they can too, and if their pictures look "exactly" like his, they will be famous, place their dicks in models, wear the power dome, etc.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2013 22:23
|
|
|
squidflakes posted:I probably shouldn't have singled out Terry Richardson, it was my own lazy mental shorthand for describing people doing the sorts of shots posted on Terryland, without themselves being good at it. Mainly, thinking that because he can take a picture with a thrift store camera while loving a super model wearing a torn Misfits t-shirt and a DEVO power-dome, well they can too, and if their pictures look "exactly" like his, they will be famous, place their dicks in models, wear the power dome, etc. Just got this email from a friend who is on Model Mayhem. She does lots of nude modeling. Whitezombi's Friend posted:got my second "offer" on MM for "POV blow job" by the "photographer" I mean, just hire a hooker why dont you? I think I wouldnt be so annoyed if an actual porn "director"approached me and asked me to shoot stuff with an actual male "actor" but these so called photographers paying models to blow them and they take photos
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2013 22:55
|
|
|
When I look through Terry Richardson's stuff there's a whole lotta the standard thing going on (getting blown by random people, cock in armpit, etc), but then sometimes there's just these completely nonsensical what-the-hell shots that made looking through the previous fifty almost worth it. Almost. Actually most of the problem I have with any given one of his photos is that he's in it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2013 23:34
|
|
|
Well, since we're talking about prostitution -- does anyone else barter with their photography? I kind of just started thinking about doing this more. I wanted to get my guitars set up by a luthier and realized it'd be almost $100. So I e-mailed one and asked if he'd be willing to trade promotional photos for setting up my guitars. He agreed and now I'm going to do an hour of photos and in exchange he'll set up my guitars. I'm thinking about e-mailing my mechanic and seeing if he'll trade labor charges for photos of the custom work he does...
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2013 00:25
|
|
|
You have to separate out his professional work and his personal work if you want to criticise him as a photographer.       These are all shot by Terry Richardson. When he puts in the effort he can do some really awesome stuff. His recent Kate Upton Harper's Bazaar editorial is awesome, and so was his Kate Moss one. His location stuff is pretty awesome and when he wants to his white wall stuff is as well.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2013 00:40
|
|
|
Whitezombi posted:Just got this email from a friend who is on Model Mayhem. She does lots of nude modeling. I think it's a two way street on MM. I just started casually looking for models on MM the other day and I swear that half the models were nasty fat chicks that had pussy shots on their profile. I'm not trying to be mean but I don't know what they hell they're doing aside from finding a john or looking for a gig on dictionary a photo shoot for the words "ugly" "fat" and "nasty". I don't know if it's gone down hill or it's just this new town I'm in.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2013 00:48
|
|
|
dakana posted:Well, since we're talking about prostitution -- If your mechanic agrees, please let us know! I'm looking at photography-dollars levels of expense for some body work on my car in the next ~6 months and an approach to possibly getting that discounted might come in handy. I've never tried to offer photo services for any sort of trade, the only thing that's happened is I get roped into being the "official" photographer for an event (e.g. office christmas party, 2-day workshop, etc.) that I'm a participant in, so I don't feel comfortable asking for anything (and what could they offer? an extra serving of cake?). Once, the stated reason was "because you have the largest camera". I should really get into LF and show up to these things with a 4x5 press camera or something, at least then such reasoning would make (a bit of) sense.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2013 03:39
|
|
|
Just take a Pentax ME.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2013 05:24
|
|
|
A pretty sweet rhyme from a guy from reddit. Reddit's photographers don't seem to like it. http://www.reddit.com/r/photography/comments/182vqy/how_can_i_create_pictures_like_this_a_question/c8b4aiw quote:They be like Reddit (what?)
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2013 05:37
|
|
|
Everyone upvote that post and all its comments.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2013 12:47
|
|
|
Hey guys remember that Intro class with Skolgund that I was scared of being forced to shoot her style? Well turns out it's really loving basic and what they meant by must have digital camera is a $50 p&s. There are people in the class that can't open a file in loving photoshop. This is my hell but at least it's an easy A I guess. Would have much rather what I was afraid of happening. First project was shoot a portrait with both your hands and feet in it. We've been working on 3 prints for these for 3 weeks.... This can't be it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2013 15:46
|
|
|
Santa is strapped posted:A pretty sweet rhyme from a guy from reddit. Reddit's photographers don't seem to like it. Am I the only one that read this in Emilia Clarke's voice from Game of Thrones?
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2013 15:58
|
|
|
KidDynamite posted:Hey guys remember that Intro class with Skolgund that I was scared of being forced to shoot her style? How the hell is Sandy Skoglund teaching that class? I guess it's easy money, but she's way too overqualified for that stuff.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2013 16:31
|
|
|
Fragrag posted:How the hell is Sandy Skoglund teaching that class? I guess it's easy money, but she's way too overqualified for that stuff. Fragrag posted:I guess it's easy money
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2013 16:42
|
|
|
I'm working on the new My First DSLR thread. Should 4/3 still get a section, or should I stick to m4/3?
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2013 03:37
|
|
|
Bob Socko posted:I'm working on the new My First DSLR thread. Should 4/3 still get a section, or should I stick to m4/3? As someone who first began (effort-style) photography on an Olympus E500, it pains me to say this, but... neither. Are there even new 4/3 bodies being released? And m4/3 isn't a DSLR. Maybe a brief mention because you can pretty much get them for free used and you can adapt quite a few lens mounts to 4/3 bodies? I'd mention mirrorless cameras as sort of an aside, with a link to the appropriate thread, because they are by definition not DSLRs.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2013 07:45
|
|
|
For autists who are going to argue that point, let's just break down the attributes that mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras possess: [x] Digital [x] Single [x] Lens [ ] Reflex So no, they are not DSLRs.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2013 07:47
|
|
|
MILC is a better acronym anyway.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2013 17:42
|
|
|
Mother I'd Like to Caress?
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2013 18:41
|
|
|
dakana posted:Well, since we're talking about prostitution -- I do this a lot. What will usually happen is I'll put together a quote/package for a client, say it comes to $40,000. They come back to me and say they only budgeted for $25,000. If the client provides a product or service I can make use of, I will propose to accept part of my payment in trade in order to meet in the middle of my quote and their budget. So in the end I'll take $25,000 cash plus $7,500 in trade/credit (which is nice as it doesn't show up as income). It also helps out a lot because if I have a good relationship with a client I'll end up using their services and buying their products durning and after the project and they in return will use mine. Basically we'll just end up keeping tabs for each other. Right now my trades have been for clothing and furniture. In the past I've used it for travel, hotel rooms and house rentals, photo equipment, and housing (75% off rent in a building a client owned). I'm not sure how it is in other industries, but as a self-employed photographer working for larger companies there are a lot of perks. If you build a good relationship with a client and they like your product they'll not only keep coming back, but they'll pass you on to their trusted network of friends and businesses, and at a certain point it becomes less about the money and more about loyalty. A "keep it in the family" thing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2013 19:21
|
|
|
Bob Socko posted:I'm working on the new My First DSLR thread. Should 4/3 still get a section, or should I stick to m4/3? I can give it a quick write up if you'd like, but I'm pretty sure I'm like the only 4/3 DSLR owner that still posts here. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2013 20:37
|
|
|
DJExile posted:I can give it a quick write up if you'd like, but I'm pretty sure I'm like the only 4/3 DSLR owner
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2013 21:10
|
|
|
So I guess Bryan Adams is a pretty good photographer http://vimeo.com/59093875
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2013 21:18
|
|
|
I appreciate the offer, DJExile, but I think I'm going to pass. One of my goals with the new OP is to cut down on its size as much as I can, and one fewer mount (plus the omission of mirrorless offerings) will help a lot with that. If some other 4/3 shooters come up (say, if you have kids and they inherit your equipment) (because you're the only one), or if Olympus makes a meaningful push to reinvigorate the line, I'll happy to edit in a section later.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2013 23:21
|
|
|
No worries, I acknowledge as much as anyone that Olympus has pretty much abandoned their 4/3 line in favor of m4/3. Not that I entirely blame them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2013 23:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 19:06 |
|
|
DJExile posted:No worries, I acknowledge as much as anyone that Olympus has pretty much abandoned their 4/3 line in favor of m4/3. Not that I entirely blame them. I WANTED to like their system, the 35mm f/3.5 macro lens is a loving great lens for the price, but with the sorta lackluster pro-level body selection and expensive/non-existent lenses I sorta couldn't justify it 
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2013 00:04
|
|