gdanmitchell wrote:
This might be a fine opportunity to offer up a bit of a reality check for some readers. (And, yes, I realize that quite few of you already know this.)
One of the common misconceptions among many folks who aspire to landscape photography has to do with their notions about the actual lives of "professional landscape photographers." The perception seems to be that such people focus all or most of their attention on making photographs, a very romantic and attractive idea. (And there is something very special and romantic and life-changing about living all or a good part of your life in the creative world.)
It turns out that people matching the myth are extraordinarily rare. I know several who do more or less make decent livings as landscape photographers — but even they must do other things in order to realize a decent living: write books (though that isn't quite the money-maker most imagine either), offer workshops (potentially the biggest money-maker of the bunch, if you are up for it), lead tours (also potentially quite profitable, though it can turn one into more of a tour guide than a photographer), teach photography at an educational institution.
Then there are quite a few who have long careers doing other things, and their primary, reliable income comes from those sources, sources that free them up to pursue photography — actually making photographs — as their primary or only focus. There is also another interesting group from which I have a few acquaintances — people who had very successful careers, sometimes extremely successful, in the tech world or similar and who made the right investments and are now essentially able to self-sustain on the basis of their investment income.
Another very common situation is for the photographer to have a spouse who is reliably employed — one spouse works a "regular job" while the other pursues the artistic life... though it, too, is often replete with the workshops, writing, tour guiding, and other stuff.
As a photographer, it is always a question just how much to tell people about how this works. People often make assumptions about my circumstances that are not quite accurate — do I sustain the myth for branding/marketing purposes? do I demur to avoid punching a hole in their dream? do I tell them the full (boring) story? do I run with it and romanticize?
And, in the end, from what I've seen there is not precise a one-to-one connection between folks who call themselves professional landscape photographers and the quality of the work. In general, the more engaged one is in the business of photography, the more one understands about photographs and how they work, but there are some "professionals" whose work doesn't match that of some "amateurs" — using the latter word in the context of its original meaning... a person who invests himself or herself fully in an endeavor for "love."
I've never considered myself a 'Professional Photographer' but rather a very lucky person who has managed to make my living capturing and sharing photographs. The fact that my work has brought pleasure enough that folk buy my prints and have done so for the last 27 years or so leads me to believe that I might actually be doing something right so why change anything?
Glad I'm not starting out now though in this dog eat dog attitude..
Nigel Turner wrote:
I've never considered myself a 'Professional Photographer' but rather a very lucky person who has managed to make my living capturing and sharing photographs. The fact that my work has brought pleasure enough that folk buy my prints and have done so for the last 27 years or so leads me to believe that I might actually be doing something right so why change anything?
Glad I'm not starting out now though in this dog eat dog attitude..
Nigel Turner wrote:
I personally would just wish that you would stop using this forum to try and sell your workshops and Skype lessons and over hype your own self importance. I think everyone knows that you run workshops etc, and lets be honest Mark, you wouldn't post here on FM if it weren't for that reason.
I have a different view. The man posts images that get a lot of reaction here and weaves his services into his posts. Perfectly okay, in my opinion, to do so. As for hype and projecting self importance, every businessman and entrepreneur worth his/her salt would do well to emulate Mark. It is how it is done in Silicon Valley, for example. And it's the American way. At the end of the day, he has to deliver to his clients to whom he is answerable. His hype does not bother me in any way and if it did, I would skip his posts.
It doesn't look real to me. There's not enough separation between the highlights and the shadows and I would much prefer the cyan channel toned down a bit. Cool composition and idea, but it's just too over the top for me.
Yes I misunderstood your remark about making Fine Art Prints. Of course there is a big difference between making Fine Art Prints and actually selling them. But you did post on Facebook that.. and I quote your own post...
"16. No, I do not sell a ton of fine art prints right now. That is not my focus (although that will change in the future with some new gallery plans). I lead Photo Tours/Workshops in between my own personal shooting. I also sell Instructional Video Tutorials." end quote.
If you didn't run workshops and the lessons on Skype... you wouldn't be able to make a living as a Landscape Photographer.. isn't that a fair comment?
The best advertising that a Landscape Photographer can make is not to market one's work to other Landscape Photographers because they aren't your real clients, unless of course you want to market workshops.
I personally would just wish that you would stop using this forum to try and sell your workshops and Skype lessons and over hype your own self importance. I think everyone knows that you run workshops etc, and lets be honest Mark, you wouldn't post here on FM if it weren't for that reason.
It's about time that the MOD's here stood up and stopped this self promotion stuff but I very much doubt that given their record this year.
It's nothing real personal Mark... it's just that I'm so fed up of all the BS that seems to come with photography these days.
You know Nigel, honestly your instigating posts seem juvenile to me sometimes. And to be perfectly honest, your timing is a little eerie. The same day I just had an interaction with that old blogger/slanderer who spent years slandering and even stalking Marc Adamus with all those blogs and websites, here you come seemingly trying to stir up a hornets nest. At a minimum, it is very curious timing. Maybe there is no relationship whatsoever, but it honestly makes me wonder. Especially since you seem to like instigate spats with Marc too.
I'm not going to get lured into some big emotional controversy that you seem to want stir up on my post here. But I will address two things you said:
"You don't sell lots of prints!" (Paraphrase)
So what, I don't sell a ton of fine art prints at this stage in my business plan? That is not my goal (as I clearly and respectfully stated in my initial reply to your comments) at this stage of my life. I am genuinely glad you have enjoyed and enjoy a nice career. I don't get why you have to get into comparisons. Maybe unlike you, it is not how I measure my success. I measure my own personal success simply by meeting personal goals that relate to making a humble living serving others and being able to freely do what I love (photograph Landscape). It is that simple to me. As I mentioned above, I thoroughly love teaching and I feel a profound privilege being able to serve others sharing what we do with them, helping them. If I never sell a single print and do nothing in this field but genuinely help people realize their own photography goals or help them get their skills up, I will be (and am) quite content with my life. I mostly enjoy the relationships, friendships and camaraderie that comes out of the teaching services. So, the attitude of being measured by your standards, or the attitude "I guess there is no other way of making a living any more - except workshops" - well I do NOT relate, sorry.
You are "hyping your self importance." (not a paraphrase)
Actually, no. What you seem to be doing here is projecting your motives, presuppositions and opinions onto me. I'd really appreciate it if you would stop doing that. I share and interact on this forum for a wide variety of reasons including the main and simple fact that I have followers who let me know that they want me to share my work. In fact my Apology and 2 Photos post was a response to getting a more recent flow of emails from FM followers asking me why I don't post very much on FM anymore and asking me to post more often. That sort of thing encourages me to keep posting because far beyond ourselves others are often positively effected by our work (your nice work included). I do not get so much out of this forum business-wise to justify the efforts, if that was all that it was about. As one example, I literally get 50-100X more business effecting exposure out of a single 500PX post. No, I have enjoyed FM for over 13 years now and even more importantly genuinely appreciate the folks (including the lurkers) that often email me on the side thanking me for posting or inspiring them. It is more about them than myself.
Boy this forum has become a "showcase of the stars"! Just magnificient image Mark!!! Just pure pleasure to view. I feel like I am in an art museum here!
Dan
mstrickland wrote:
It doesn't look real to me. There's not enough separation between the highlights and the shadows and I would much prefer the cyan channel toned down a bit. Cool composition and idea, but it's just too over the top for me.
I appreciate the sound feedback here thank you. I take it all in.
oldrattler wrote:
Most excellent. Thank you for sharing
Thank you for your feedback in the mix. My pleasure, you are welcome. Yours (and others) comments shows what has always been true about art or landscape photography, we all have different perspectives and tastes. As we have always talked about on this forum, it is good to take it all in, learn everything we can from it, and then as artist we have to re-evaluate and then decide ultimately what we like and are going for.
Danpbphoto wrote:
Boy this forum has become a "showcase of the stars"! Just magnificient image Mark!!! Just pure pleasure to view. I feel like I am in an art museum here!
Dan
. Thank you so very much. I very much appreciate the encouraging words!
Denies "hyping self importance" by citing examples of followers asking you to post and telling how they said your work inspires them. Dude...come on. Only you know your true reasons for posting, but you have to be aware of how this comes across to others, right?
I'm curious if the moon has been enlarged in post. It looks like a pretty wide angle shot as far as the rest of the scene is concerned...but the moon appears too large to be that wide of an angle.
The moon is most likely enlarged and there is NOTHING wrong with that!
FACT: UWA lenses make moons UNREALISTICALLY small. Smaller than our brain interprets them so they look totally unnatural with shooting very wide. So I find enlarging the moon around 1-2x larger makes them more realistic.
I'm sure the OP knows why a particular color is acceptable in this image. And I hope he keeps it to himself. Not because of anything anyone has said, but because so many here are already so good as it is!
Great image. I would love to see a larger version someday.
mstrickland wrote:
I'm curious if the moon has been enlarged in post. It looks like a pretty wide angle shot as far as the rest of the scene is concerned...but the moon appears too large to be that wide of an angle.
Yes, it is a blend. The moon was slightly out of the frame as well. I have always hated the look of the moon being an unrealistic speck in 14mm shots. I am rarely a literal type photographer. But having said that, I believe this image tells the story of what I was seeing at the scene quite well. I am sure some will dispute that.
I respect you for being open and honest about where the moon came from. I have no problem with compositing in the right circumstances. Bringing in a moon that wasn't in the original composition is taking it a bit beyond what I would do, but to each their own. With that being said, the moon has been composited in front of the clouds in the reflection; a significant amount of clouds have been removed from the upper left sky, but not in the reflection.
From the very small amount of time I spend on here, it is clearly obvious that your posts stir up SOMETHING in a wide range of people. Perhaps that is your desire. After all, it does keep your posts relevant for long periods of time. I myself have bumped this post alone twice, and any publicity is good publicity!
Any photography is art, but I believe landscape photography is a bit different. Our substrate is not a blank canvas, but something that already exists. Sure we all make different interpretations, and nothing looks EXACTLY like the scene we witness. However, I believe there is implied integrity when presenting a landscape image; that the image presented at least looks close to the actual scene. Our experiences tell us innately that things should look a certain way. When an image deviates too far from what our brain tells us is "right," it causes the viewer to imply that the image isn't real. Because we are interpreting something that is real, anything perceived as fake causes a reaction, even if the photographer is honest about his methods.
Anyway, that's my 2 cents. It's worth exactly what you paid for it!
Archive 2015 · Southwest Supernova
. Thank you so very much. I very much appreciate the encouraging words!