Is this a clash of the egos or what? Typical photographers bickering about posing,style, composition, and lighting.
The one thing that would have saved this thread from the empirical toilet bowl it has become, is more constructive criticism.
In reality I probably spend as much time photographing as a full time photographer as someone with a day job. The other 35 hours a week is spent editing, marketing, selling, accounting, etc.
The big difference is the artist only has themselves to please - a relatively easy task (sometimes anyway). Trying to please complete strangers is a very different thing.
Cliftonyte wrote:
Is this a clash of the egos or what? Typical photographers bickering about posing,style, composition, and lighting.
The one thing that would have saved this thread from the empirical toilet bowl it has become, is more constructive criticism.
Great, constructive post. At least we don't pretend we're above the bickering.
Working against the flow will make you very tired but you will go nowhere.
When I got into this biz I didn't know much about how and why it worked and thought I'd change the world! Hey, I'm DIGITAL! I'ts a new world you old fat film folks! Move over, here I come!
Umm, I spent a lot of money and made very little. It sounds great to charge a creative fee and make prints/files cheap. But 'the industry' has other traditions - and there's a reason for it. It works. Why try and change 150 years of 'low session fee, sell prints for a lot of money' when it works very well? Times change, people do not. WHY they buy (emotions) isn't going to change until the biology of people change and I'm not up to waiting for that to happen.
The client only gets emotionally attached once they see the image. They get excited, they buy it - price is secondary in their minds at that point. This is why projection proofing outsells paper/web 3:1 (dollar average per sale). Using human nature to make money. Going with the flow.
If you want to make art, you can. If I want to make art I can too. I just don't have to support myself with a day job to do it.
Pretty girls pay me to take their pictures. You're right, my way sucks.
Serg: I recently when through a huge thread just like that was direct towards myself.
Your know what your doing. Your style is sick. The way you see the world is unique. People that want your work will come your way and hire you for YOU. If they want JCPennys let them go there. Don't change what you do. You'll lose your edge. And you clearly have one other wise there wouldn't be 200+ comments on this thread.
liamh wrote:
As this is a photography forum, I'll critique your shots.
The first shot is a poor choice of angle and has unflattering light. The second is a nice shot of the water, but a poor shot of the woman and in the third shot you've combined a bad pose (the poor girl looks like she's going to push that headstone over) with horrific post, in a tired location. To be honest, your shots here lack artistry, they look like something my accountant could have done
But good fun debating with you nonetheless.
Not a great critique - 'you suck' (more or less). Anyone can say that - it doesn't show you know more than my 7 year old. OK, we know you don't like the shots. Fine, I got no problem with that.
Now tell me what is wrong with them?
Unflattering light is a start. Anything right with the image, done well? What could have been done better?
second shot - I think you missed the point, but ok. I agree she could be more 'pretty' in this shot. But I challenge anyone, everyone, to recreate it. It wasn't easy to get and to have her look like some shampoo ad - yeah, that'd be great but she's senior not a model getting paid thousands and I don't have a production crew to assist. OK, now I"m getting defensive, sorry.
third shot...don't know about your area, but around here i've never seen a photo in a graveyard. My assistant saw mine and did something similar with a cheer squad, but it's not a tired location. Overdone post? Serge's PP is lot more overdone than mine. All I did was selective color to draw the viewers eye to the subject. Bad pose? You need to learn posing and composition then. She has shape, a waist, fingers, no fat rolls, and the facial profile is about pefectly executed. Could I spent an two hours in PS dodging and burning for some more drama? Sure. But unlike 'the artist' I have to make a living and spending hours upon hours on one image won't work. This took maybe 10 minutes in PP. And they bought the image. $39 in 10 minutes. In 2 hours that's $468 worth of value. And yeah, I admit, 'it's good enough' as opposed to perfect. Go ask your boss if you can take 2 hours to do a 10 minute job and see what he says. I already know the answer "we have plenty of other people that will do your job for less".
Professional photography is no different.
Are you the best at your job? Why not? If so, why aren't you president of the company then?
Because being good at something has very little to do with how much you get paid.
The mother paid me to follow her kid around my yard and take pictures. Essentially snapshots with a fancy camera and some very basic PS processing.
These shots required no skill, no knowledge, no posing, no lighting, no direction - almost anyone could have taken them. So I don't quite get why I would want to do it. Oh yeah, money
prof_fate wrote:
These shots required no skill, no knowledge, no posing, no lighting, no direction - almost anyone could have taken them. So I don't quite get why I would want to do it. Oh yeah, money
---
prof_fate wrote on his website:
Be Real. Be You.
On location or in the studio, day, night, snow or sun it's all about you! Bring as many outfits as you want, props, pets, friends! You know what you want -and that's something unique, something different - something special!
Will you...I have an idea...Can we... YES! We can do that and anything else too. Take a look at what we've done - pushing the limit is fun!
With number 3, I would wonder if you accidentally pressed the shutter when you got the bum in there. And what must the poor bum think? I just don't know about that one. Parents want to pay for senior pictures to commemorate their children graduating, not to pay for you to play artist for the day. Keep that one in your personal collection if you must, but refrain from showing those types to parents.
Four or six aren't bad at all.
jeremy_clay wrote:
prof, I'm not feeling any connection with your subject in 2 or 3 - especially 3. A graveyard is worse then with a homeless man, IMO.
You don't need to feel the connection - mom does - she's got the wallet
Secondly, the kid has to like them.
thirdly, my market area has to like them.
Who says it has to be all about art anyway?
I had fun, the girls had fun. I was talked about. It brought in business. It made money.
Is there something inherently wrong about taking photos that make money?
If I knew how to take a good photograph, I'd do it every time. --Robert Doisneau
Where does your eye go? To the guy in the foreground, right? Is he Brian? No. Then why in hell is he the focus of this image?
The photographer failed to get across a "portrait of brian" . You can call it art, but that's not the point. The client is paying for a senior portrait of themselves, not street candids of strangers and bums.
Now if you can get paid to take candid street photos of strangers and bums more power to ya!
prof_fate wrote:
Who says it has to be all about art anyway?
I had fun, the girls had fun. I was talked about. It brought in business. It made money.
Is there something inherently wrong about taking photos that make money?
If you take stronger photos and know a lick of business, you can be a photographer full time and you don't spend 40 hours a week on photos, you spend 20 (while making 4x more money then the Wal-Mart style shooters to boot). Why muddle around in mediocre images your whole life? Not creating something worthwhile, IMO, it may as well be a 9-5 day job - I'm lucky enough to push creatively with every shoot and do it for a living as well, I'm sure serg will get there with no problems.
prof_fate wrote:
Because being good at something has very little to do with how much you get paid.
I say this with all sincerity, but if you took more time with the art and skill of photography, your top wedding package wouldn't be priced so inexpensively - a stronger photographer who gives a *#&$ about his work and produces quality stuff will do your package below for $6k, $7k at least. He'd do less work, spend less time, and make equal to more money. Who's the fool?
prof_fate website:
Engagement Session
Signature Frame for your Reception
Full Coverage
Online Gallery for Sharing with Family and Friends
Proofs on DVD
First Edition Prints (all your images as 4x6 prints)
8x10 Storybook Bridal Album (80 images)
Your images on High Res DVD
Your album images on High Res DVD
11 Gift Prints
$2895
and of course, one of the richest around (you GOTTA go see these images - they are from iStock photo, watermark and all!) http://www.myhometownlinks.com/photographybyjames/
And he's got lots of customers, lots of money, lots of sales.
