|
MrButterpants posted:Keep this thread rollin'... I got to see the filming of the first Spiderman movie. It was a fuckoff bright day in October, so they had some lackey/slackjaw holding a PVC frame supporting a plain old white bedsheet (or so it looked) over Tobey Maguire and Kirstin Dunst while they filmed a scene. In the end cut, it was easy to spot what and how they did it. That's how they gobo the sun in the big leagues. :cowboy hat and cigar smilie that I can't be arsed to figure out right now: various posted:...snarking about picture meaning and quality... Yeah, I haven't posted here in a long time. I'm not quite sure I understand the new rules, either. But quit bitching at each other. Everyone has different styles. I might not agree with Reichstag's style and purpose, and I do agree that only redeeming feature of that one picture is that girl's tits, everyone has their own thing going on. Stop making GBS threads up the thread. If all you are going to do is talk about how cliche someone's work is, you might as well just go back to PHIZ and jerk off over your Holga shots. If they make you money, great on you. If they don't, hey, try to be constructive. Personally, I'm not a big fan of ConfusedUs or the guy with the "16 year old whores" avatar (sorry, I can't recall the name right now), but I understand what they are doing, and they offer good criticism, AND *MOST ESPECIALLY* they are making a living at what they do. Anyways, sorry about the rant. I like that there's a new photo forum. I hope Mannequin and Brad can keep everything in line. edit: I fully expect to be flamed and/or probated. But really, though, I'm trying to import a voice of reason into the 2009 CC threads. plaguedoctor fucked around with this message at 09:25 on Sep 12, 2009 |
#
¿
Sep 12, 2009 07:58
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 2, 2024 11:41 |
|
|
brad industry posted:Why do you think this? What do you think a portrait is? I can think of plenty of unflattering or even degrading pictures of people that are extremely successful as portraits. My avatar is a pretty famous Arnold Newman one (Alfred Krupp, Nazi war industrialist) where he had to actively deceive the subject and then flee the country after he took it. Is it not a portrait? Well, I think that's a hot issue that comes up in these kinds of threads. Right now, I'm making some cash doing portraiture for high school students -- senior photos and all that. But, unlike the guy with the 16-year-old-whore title, I'm in a place where people DON'T want that. They want their portraits to be ultra-super-traditional. And, while it's boring and all, that is how I'm making money. That is what people want in the cultural wasteland of east Washington. Whereas, if I were in a cultural Mecca like New York or San Francisco or Tokyo, I'd be able to get away with having less than flatting pictures. Portraits are hard to define. They kind of depend on what you are going for, where you live, and what the subject wants. Like I said before, I'm not a huge fan of ConfusedUs's baby pictures, but then again, that's what people want where he lives. Hell, I would make more money as a Walmart photographer in my town. But that's not the point. I'm working on my own thing, but at the same time, trying to put it into a global perspective. And these days, in the Big Cities, having a well-done picture is not necessarily a good thing. So yeah -- portraits are "taking pictures of the person". If the person is a wanted drug-dealer, it's going to be a different portrait from Mary-kate Olsen. Portraits are hugely subjective in that way, and the post is also going to be hugely subjective. Anyways, yeah. I don't mean to start poo poo. I just think there is a huge, HUGE difference between art school (hey, long time no see!) and the actuality of commercial or profit-making photography.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2009 07:49
|
|
|
poopinmymouth posted:Yeah, but without being a kill-joy, commercial photography as documentaries has kind of been figured out. That's why there are franchises that can set up a portrait studio and definitely make money. I guess that's what I'm saying. If you are a part of whatever high-school-portrait thing, then, hey, more love to you. But if you just want to be negative, then you have to supply something else. You can't just say "this sucks". Of course it sucks, but at the the same time, that's what the plebians want. If you want to provide something better or something more, you have to give them a reason to want that.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2009 08:35
|
|
|
poopinmymouth posted:um, no? Photography can be an art form. You don't need to provide pleasure to your subject in any way. In fact some of my favorite portraits, the subject absolutely hates how I portrayed them. Re: also psylent and Brad Industry as well--- Yeah. Of course. But, in the end, and especially if you are wanting to make money off what you are doing, the client/subject is going to be the end-all-be-all of the shoot. The one with the money is the one who is calling the shots. For example -- I used to be art director for a small company in Japan. What was my immediate thought? Of course, I wanted to make everything easy and understandable for the end-consumer. *BUT*, who was paying my salary? In the end, I was simply following the CEOs orders. He had no idea about marketing, art direction, advertising or anything. BUT, he was the one writing the checks. *SO*, I totally understand art. If you want to make things intentionally ugly, that is totally cool. If you want to make BECK-style ironic photos in the way of "I'm a loser baby", and you have an audience that will pay money for it, that's totally cool. But, most of the time "personal vision" and "economically viable" are mutually exclusive. That's basically what I'm saying. To use an old example -- everybody likes "Friends". But people that know about TV and storytelling think it's poo poo. Okay, be edgy and forward-thinking -- great on you, but at the same time, you still have to eat.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2009 07:36
|
|