"I'm not a technical photographer.."

Timmyjoe said:
In the early 90's I worked for a model shop in Brooklyn. We did lots of the product models for the different photo studios in Manhattan at the time. I remember "babysitting" models in different studios, and the "artist" would come in from time to time, look at the ground glass of the 8x10 cameras, tell the assistants what he didn't like, and then leave. The assistants were responsible for lighting, framing, exposure, etc. etc. and the "artist" would just pop in from time to time, and when it was close to what he wanted, he'd call for a Polaroid back, make an image, and have the assistants bring it to him when it was ready. So yeah, I guess he wasn't much of a "technical photographer".
Click to expand...

He was executive producing... ;)
 
I equate knowledge of the technicals of photography like I understand the language I use to communicate. When I speak I don’t think about how I will pronounce each word. I do think about the subject, organize it then either speak or write. In Toastmasters, a section of a meeting usually contains what is called Table Topics. Check it out. It has helped me when I would make photographs at an event.

When I was in business, at each initial client interview, I would do a facial analysis of each person. And remember it. I wouldn’t tell them about it during the interview; I did it.

Once I got the basics down as taught to me by Monte, I would instinctively use them and, in many cases, vary a little from them to give what I viewed as a good photograph.

At any rate, understanding the basics provided me a foundation to make beautiful photographs.

Simple. Lots of smiles!
 
Back in the day, the 70’s when I sold cameras you had to have a basic grasp of the technology. This knowledge was necessary so that when a customer came over to the counter with a stack of prints and questions you could help them get the results they expected. Out of focus, camera shake, motion blur, over or under exposure, too much DOF, too little DOF, you name it, we saw it. Of course, even then there were PHD cameras (Push Here Dummy) but that wouldn’t save them from camera shake or subject motion blur.
 
ptpdprinter said:
I thought AL went bankrupt and had to sell the bulk of her work to a Canadian gallery. Too many assistants?
Click to expand...

She was buying expensive property around the world and living well beyond her means. Things collapsed because she couldn't keep up the lifestyle.

Edit:

I looked it up and she was in debt for $24 million. She owned multiple homes in expensive areas of NY including a 228 acre estate.
 
If you're not technical you better have someone working for you that is if you're in the commercial photo world. Clients aren't going to pay top dollar for sloppy work they have to spend a fortune to fix.

I have two friends that assisted her, that's another story, and she directs the shoots which is technical in itself. She may not physically move the lights and camera but she like many others direct where they should go. Camera choice, lens choice, lighting are all based on technical knowledge. She's not letting assistants make the creative decisions and she's directing the final touch up on lighting.
 
x-ray said:
She was buying expensive property around the world and living well beyond her means. Things collapsed because she couldn't keep up the lifestyle.

Edit:

I looked it up and she was in debt for $24 million. She owned multiple homes in expensive areas of NY including a 228 acre estate.
Click to expand...


Currently reading the Jann Wenner bio in which AL figures quite a bit.
It seems that she`s always lived it large from the begining.
 
Chriscrawfordphoto said:
She doesn't think about technical stuff because she pays others to do it for her. The notion that 'truly creative' photographers don't need technical knowledge is horse****, but its one of those idiotic zombie ideas that just won't die.
Click to expand...

She said that’s not what she’s thinking about. I’d agree that if one is caught up in the technical details they are not likely able enough to pay attention to the frame or the moment. She clearly knows enough about the technical end to make the pictures, she seems to not obsess about it when working. A good plan I think.
 
sepiareverb said:
She said that’s not what she’s thinking about. I’d agree that if one is caught up in the technical details they are not likely able enough to pay attention to the frame or the moment. She clearly knows enough about the technical end to make the pictures, she seems to not obsess about it when working. A good plan I think.
Click to expand...

yes, it makes sense in my opinion
robert
 
Chriscrawfordphoto said:
A lot of AL's work is studio work, which requires a lot more technical knowledge than outdoor photography. So, yeah her claim to not be a 'technical photographer' rings hollow. Like I said in my first post in this thread, she doesn't do the technical parts of photography herself; she has an army of assistants who do it for her. I doubt she is dumb about it, though. I'm sure she has the technical know-how but because she can afford to pawn it off on her assistants, she does.
Click to expand...

Not completely true Chris. One of my past assistants worked for Albert Watson on a local project. Watson's first assistant was formally AL's first. He told Dave (my assistant) many stories in the two weeks they worked together. Dave repeated some of them to me. On one occasion, she wanted to copy Penn's lighting and his background lighting in particular. She ordered a gray background. They spent hours trying to recreate Penn's work - with no success. She became quite upset. Someone finally told her that Penn used a white backdrop and achieved gray through his use of lighting.

Apparently, in the digital world, she can't work with out help. She was described by her former assistant as, a great art director, not a very good photographer (I took liberties with that as, I don't remember it all).

He said, she was very difficult to work for. She became angry when creative things didn't go well and often blamed her staff for the failures (she would go into "very verbal" rages). The story I do remember in detail was, a shoot where her staff of 7 and some famous person were in a rental studio. Things weren't going well. This wasn't technical stuff. She wasn't getting the imagery she wanted. She began berating her first assistant in front of the crew and portrait subject. It got really bad. He finally told her that the lighting was as requested and that he would no longer be her punching bag for her creative failures. He quit, and walked out of the studio. While out front, cooling off, he was joined by her entire staff. They all walked out on her. She was left alone with her portrait subject. Watson snapped up this guy as soon as he knew he had left Annie.

I'm not on here much of late but, thought you would find the above interesting.

pkr

Edit: AL is a grad of the SF Art Institute. The SFAI, at the time she went to school there, didn't believe in the use of artificial lighting. My printer went to school there during the same time period. None of the SFAI grads I interviewed for assistant jobs knew anything about studio lighting. Most, had never used any kind of electronic lighting in their work.
 
sepiareverb said:
She said that’s not what she’s thinking about. I’d agree that if one is caught up in the technical details they are not likely able enough to pay attention to the frame or the moment. She clearly knows enough about the technical end to make the pictures, she seems to not obsess about it when working. A good plan I think.
Click to expand...

Most successful pros dont obsess over silly details like lens rendering and bokeh or a lot of nonsense that the amateur word obsesses over. 50 years as a pro I've never met another seasoned pro talk about rendering or bokeh or any other nonsense like that. Most real pros know the technical details like the back of their hand to the point it's second nature. You go into a job with the confidence that you can handle anything thrown at you. You develope a style that you carry over from job to job and a way of lighting, working with talent and such.

I was working with a client one day on a particularly tedious job. After the shoot I made a comment to the creative director about not breaking a sweat on a difficult job. His comment was "that's why we hire you". You know what to do to make the job happen and produce a great image. It's based on many years of experience and learning from others. You certainly have to think about what you're doing but you know exactly what to do.
 
Not having a clue about how to use your equipment (camera being the central part) and focusing about irrelevant technical aspects (max. resolution of the lens, highest ISO, MP, sensor size etc) are two very different aspects.

If you take a real (as in real life, not video) masterclass, you should know how to handle your camera. Otherwise go to a community college course.:rolleyes:

All these artist have some experience that worked for them in their situation, creative phase in life, business situation, reputation in the market place. Whenever attending or watching those folks sharing their insight, you have to take this into consideration and filter what is applicable to you. Don't take every word as a rule written in stone.

=> very much in the same line is the Jay Maisel video that Vince linked to. Great !

AL is doing portraits, most of the situations she has been in a couple of hundred times before. She is using a Hassi, medium format with AF lenses and heavy tripod, or enough light to keep the shutter speed low enough for excellent results. She has technical stuff covered. I guess there are a few standard lighting set ups, she figured out distance and aperture by now. So, obviously she doesn't have to think anymore about the technical aspects (and has helpful assistants), instead she can concentrate on the subject and to press the shutter at the right moment ... or hundreds of times and select the best after post production.
 
Most successful pros dont obsess over silly details like lens rendering and bokeh or a lot of nonsense that the amateur word obsesses over. 50 years as a pro I've never met another seasoned pro talk about rendering or bokeh or any other nonsense like that. Most real pros know the technical details like the back of their hand to the point it's second nature. You go into a job with the confidence that you can handle anything thrown at you. You develope a style that you carry over from job to job and a way of lighting, working with talent and such.

I was working with a client one day on a particularly tedious job. After the shoot I made a comment to the creative director about not breaking a sweat on a difficult job. His comment was "that's why we hire you". You know what to do to make the job happen and produce a great image. It's based on many years of experience and learning from others. You certainly have to think about what you're doing but you know exactly what to do.
Click to expand...

Agree.

Beauty is in the eye of the checkbook holder.
 
I don't like all of her work but I do think she has her own technique, vision. Lack of technical skill certainly hasn't hindered her career.
 
I read the whole thread. Some fascinating insights. But it's the Jay Maisel short video I take away with me. Thanks Vince.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom