jzucker wrote:
Love mert and marcus but not sure how that invalidates brian demint. It's a very different style IMO.
to my untrained eyes and taste, demint's lighting is too soft and color palette not much carefully refined. but that's a personal preference tho. if i had a choice between MM's and demint's, i would definitely go to MM's.
mshi wrote:
to my untrained eyes and taste, demint's lighting is too soft and color palette not much carefully refined. but that's a personal preference tho. if i had a choice between MM's and demint's, i would definitely go to MM's.
fortunately, we don't have to make a choice. This isn't the NFL. It's art. I appreciate them both and demint is good enough to share his techniques which I greatly appreciate.
jzucker wrote:
fortunately, we don't have to make a choice. This isn't the NFL. It's art. I appreciate them both and demint is good enough to share his techniques which I greatly appreciate.
horses for courses but glad hearing you've found yourself a new artistic destination.
Attended a free webinar he hosted on tuesday. In it, he mentions that he works as a swing shift supervisor at a missouri power plant. Photography is just a hobby for him!
Makes it all the more impressive but kind of depressing that a guy who photographs for vogue magazine and does major product campaigns can't make a full living at it!
jzucker wrote:
Attended a free webinar he hosted on tuesday. In it, he mentions that he works as a swing shift supervisor at a missouri power plant. Photography is just a hobby for him!
Makes it all the more impressive but kind of depressing that a guy who photographs for vogue magazine and does major product campaigns can't make a full living at it!
I only know one person personally, who makes their living solely form photography. All the rest have spouses with great jobs.(attorney, doctor, state worker, etc.) It's really hard to make a good living in photography now. Not impossible, just harder than it used to be.
tedwca wrote:
I only know one person personally, who makes their living solely form photography. All the rest have spouses with great jobs.(attorney, doctor, state worker, etc.) It's really hard to make a good living in photography now. Not impossible, just harder than it used to be.
Yep...That's what I'm realizing. I thought it would be better than being a musician (my formal training) but I'm beginning to realize it's not much different.
I know all kinds of people who are suddenly pro photographers that used to be actors, advertising people, movie production, etc. People think it's easy (after all, you CAN get very rich quickly if you give a bit of $$ to one of the rock stars ;-)
jzucker wrote:
Yep...That's what I'm realizing. I thought it would be better than being a musician (my formal training) but I'm beginning to realize it's not much different.
cineski wrote:
People who are teaching aren't shooting. Best to learn assisting someone.
Best to go back in time and study with Picasso also but it's not very practical. Not too many folks in my town (cleveland) doing work on the level of Demint and photographers are a funny bunch. Many are not interested in sharing for fear of losing their edge.
cineski wrote:
People who are teaching aren't shooting. Best to learn assisting someone.
I live in NYC and I shoot and teach. Today-more-so than in the past people in the imaging business are doing more and more things as the business has become more competitive and with downward pressure on revenue. Teaching for some of us has become a revenue opportunity or an opportunity to replace what's been lost as the value the market places on our photography has declined. Even big names like Lois Greenfield, Bobbi Lane, and Jay Maisel teach and have for sometime. The guys from Still Motion are another example of people who shoot but have realized there is a huge market of people thirsty (in many cases for a shortcut to success) for information and who are willing to pay for it.
Taking a class is never going to give you the keys to the kingdom and is no replacement for actually shooting and the experience you get from shooting. Assisting is still a viable route to take, but may not be an option in every market.
That's a quandry. If you're really interested in learning, I'd highly recommend contacting some photographers in a bigger city and take an internship for even a few weeks. It'll cost you money but will be a very valuable experience. I've taken a few inspirational classes and all of them pale in comparison to real world assisting.
As for Demint, I don't personally see the draw. He's (as you say) a hobbyist. He's probably shooting for exposure only which as we all know is a bad way to be a pro photographer.
Aside from assisting, the best way to learn is to study lighting books and to make a tear sheet book of photographs you like from magazines. Get some cheap strobes and light mods and recreate those images. Then put your own stylistic touch on it. Do this over and over and you'll have a much better grasp on lighting.
jzucker wrote:
Best to go back in time and study with Picasso also but it's not very practical. Not too many folks in my town (cleveland) doing work on the level of Demint and photographers are a funny bunch. Many are not interested in sharing for fear of losing their edge.
Thanks for the advice but I wasn't asking what the best way to learn is. I did study with my uncle (Monte Zucker) and I'm a published jazz guitarist and author so I do know something about what it takes to become an artist and how to learn.
And yes of course I'm constantly experimenting and trying to emulate other artists, light patterns and poses. I have much to learn of course but so do most of us...
Sorry for the confusion. Since you were asking for help in wether a lighting class was good or not, I made the mistake of assuming you were going to that class to learn and thus my response reflected this.
jzucker wrote:
Thanks for the advice but I wasn't asking what the best way to learn is. I did study with my uncle (Monte Zucker) and I'm a published jazz guitarist and author so I do know something about what it takes to become an artist and how to learn.
no problem. I wasn't asking if a lighting class was good or not. I was asking what folks thought of Brian's work and was just excited to be going to one of his seminars.
jzucker wrote:
no problem. I wasn't asking if a lighting class was good or not. I was asking what folks thought of Brian's work and was just excited to be going to one of his seminars.
mshi wrote:
So you were promoting someone's seminar here?
dude - get a grip. I already stated I was excited about attending a seminar. Do you mind if I share my excitement? Sheesh, this place can be such a downer sometimes.
