| Author |
Message |
rinder99
Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 39271
Location: Contact www.rinderart.com/Books and Workshops www.rindersmithphotography.com Youtube/rinder
|
Posted: Sat Apr 28, 2012 12:46 pm
|  |
| PaulCowan wrote: | | Microstock really doesn't develop your skills in the right direction. Being able to do the technical stuff is important but being handcuffed to it as the "only right way" of shooting is definitely not boosting creativity. One of the reasons I mess about with film a lot is that the pressure to get a good stock photo to make some money vanishes the moment I pick up a film camera. I'm free to look at things in a different way because I know that the chance of anything passing inspection are remote. |
Hmmm. My best sellers are film Based and Mike Norton is 100% film. |
|
rinder99
Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 39271
Location: Contact www.rinderart.com/Books and Workshops www.rindersmithphotography.com Youtube/rinder
|
|
Posted: Sat Apr 28, 2012 1:01 pm
| |
Edward Weston Always said if he got 2 a year he was Proud of, he was happy.I agree.I can only count maybe 20 im proud of and none of them would be accepted as stock. I also did over 800 Paintings. I'll never sell the originals of 8 of them.When I teach I try my best to get folks away from thinking stock. It can and does Limit you.I saw a womans work yesterday. None would stand the slightest chance of being accepted here But the stories she told were amazing.So , I think there's many answers to What makes a good Photographer.And personal Vision Is right up there at the top. |
|
PaulCowan
Joined: 24 Feb 2005
Posts: 4182
Location: Evolving
|
|
Posted: Sat Apr 28, 2012 3:53 pm
| |
| rinder99 wrote: | | PaulCowan wrote: | | Microstock really doesn't develop your skills in the right direction. Being able to do the technical stuff is important but being handcuffed to it as the "only right way" of shooting is definitely not boosting creativity. One of the reasons I mess about with film a lot is that the pressure to get a good stock photo to make some money vanishes the moment I pick up a film camera. I'm free to look at things in a different way because I know that the chance of anything passing inspection are remote. |
Hmmm. My best sellers are film Based and Mike Norton is 100% film. |
It looks as if Mike is shooting Velvia 50, I'm mostly on Pro 400H which is a different ball game. Then there is the scanning which I do myself on an Epson V500, and which may be a bit dodgy. Still, I have got some approved and several of them sell quite well. But I'd rather not think too much about stock when I'm out shooting film. |
|
rinder99
Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 39271
Location: Contact www.rinderart.com/Books and Workshops www.rindersmithphotography.com Youtube/rinder
|
|
Posted: Sat Apr 28, 2012 4:41 pm
| |
Agree. |
|
mikenorton
Joined: 22 Aug 2005
Posts: 3496
Location: Guide Book http://www.lulu.com/shop/mike-norton/nortons-notes/paperback/product-5079819.html
|
|
Posted: Sat Apr 28, 2012 9:11 pm
| |
I think there are 3 digital images in my portfolio. The rest are 4x5 film mostly Velvia 50. I scanned them with an Epson Perfection 4490 Photo Scanner. I don't think about stock when I'm out shooting. I think about getting a good image because I think a good image will sell as stock and prints and who knows what else. |
|
PaulCowan
Joined: 24 Feb 2005
Posts: 4182
Location: Evolving
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 29, 2012 2:04 am
| |
Almost all my sales go through micro sites so it tends to dominate my thinking. I suppose that people who started with traditonal sales routes, such as galleries and exhibitions, have a different mindset and a wider range of outlets. |
|
mavrick
Joined: 20 Dec 2005
Posts: 2821
Location: colorado
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 29, 2012 2:47 am
| |
sorry guys but film blah blah blah is not indicative of what makes a good photographer. film vs digital film is a choice of format within each makes or creates images. the debate of whether one is better than the other ended years back.
shooting film is another way of saying "yes, i have enough money and time to spend on it." which doesn't make one good or great. |
|
rudyumans
Joined: 19 Aug 2008
Posts: 10636
Location: www.businesshelpforyou.org www.rudyumans.com
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 29, 2012 12:30 pm
| |
Two observations. Great is, like beauty, in the eye of the beholder and people behave like cows sometimes. Oh wait, they call that commercial. |
|
PaulCowan
Joined: 24 Feb 2005
Posts: 4182
Location: Evolving
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 29, 2012 2:57 pm
| |
| mavrick wrote: | | sorry guys but film blah blah blah is not indicative of what makes a good photographer. |
I don't think anyone said it was.
It doesn't cost much, either. |
|
mavrick
Joined: 20 Dec 2005
Posts: 2821
Location: colorado
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 29, 2012 3:36 pm
| |
ok. well the conversation was going that way.
i liked mike's note about combining the 5 important factors of photography. |
|
mikenorton
Joined: 22 Aug 2005
Posts: 3496
Location: Guide Book http://www.lulu.com/shop/mike-norton/nortons-notes/paperback/product-5079819.html
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 29, 2012 11:27 pm
| |
| mavrick wrote: | ok. well the conversation was going that way.
i liked mike's note about combining the 5 important factors of photography. |
Thank you. And they are valid if you are shooting digital or film.
I started shooting my portfolio when digital cameras were still on the drawing board, and some of it when the best digital cameras were shooting less than 1-mb pictures, and many when the digital cameras were maxed out at 3-mb for each picture. I personally want the best quality I can get with the least amount of weight to carry around. That's why I settled on a wood and cloth 4x5 inch field camera. The fact that I can make scans as large a 1.5 gigs now, and who knows how large I will be able to go in the future, is gravy. I don't have to go and shoot scenes over when the digital cameras mb gets larger, I just pull the original out and rescan it. I realize that we live in a throw-a-way-world. I just don't want my art to be throw-a-way. Now I'll get off my high horse and study some more. |
|
luissantos84
Joined: 29 Jan 2009
Posts: 1264
Location: UK
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 30, 2012 9:44 am
| |
| PaulCowan wrote: | It's a good question. I think there are different kinds of "great". There are those who are great because of their technique, either with a camera and lights or in the darkroom; there are those who are great because they take the trouble to be in the right place at the critical moment; there are those who are great because they have the right friends and the right promotional skills; there are those who are great because of their ability to see what the camera will create; there are those who are great because the right members of the "in-crowd" decide to say they are; there are those who are great because they were innovative; there are those who are great because their personalities enable them to connect with their subjects.
You really can't put a portrait photographer and a war photographer or a landscape photographer or a nature photographer in the same box. A portrait photographer needs to connect with his subject and have excellent lighting and compositional skills; a war photographer needs to have a quick eye and to be in the right place at a certain time; a landscape photographer needs patience and the ability to recognise how the elements of a scene can be made to work harmonously in the frame; a nature photographer must have a deep understanding of the behaviour of his subjects and a great deal of patience.
If you look at Snowflake Bentley or Karl Blossfeldt, they both achieved fame by meticulously recording natural forms as nobody had done before and few if any have done since. They worked with the technical proficiency of a laboratory scientist ... were they "great photographers"?
Are the top ten microstock photographers great, since they command huge salaries, or are they just technicians applying a formula? I suspect the decision on that one depends on whether you judge greatness by the popularity of their output or by its originatlity or lack thereof.
A TV programme on great photographers included a guy who took tedious photos of US filling stations back in the 1960s. Someone had decided this made him great. I didn't think so. In the end, greatness, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. |
great post Paul, thanks! |
|
| |
|
Log in
