you are not a photographer

[Roger Hicks]

Boasting? No, and I shoot only for my self, not for clients, maybe I would have more work if I did shoot for clients.

Luckily, I have clients who either buy my work, hire me for my commercial or editorial style, which is editorial across the board I guess. But either way, they know I shoot for my self and they like it that way. I think one of the most entertaining things people who are not full time pros like to do is claim they have more fun than a pro does, like it is more pure or something. When in reality, some pros have struck a wonderful balance of getting to do any kind of photography they want, any time they want, because they have their priorities straight, are more live in the moment driven than retirement driven and have simply bought more of their time back by not squandering it on making as much money as they can.

There is a lot of attitude these days in the photo world, it is just different when you go hang out at a festival, take a workshop or go hang with your lens toting bros than it is on a site that is flooded with everything. The difference being that on a site like Flickr, there are lot less Great Captures there than any of the places I go to see good work.

I'm glad it's not just me...

And, as it did for you, the site made me laugh. Enough to go back to it? I doubt it. I doubt I spent 5 minutes on it, for that matter. But 'sour', 'mean.spirited', that sort of thing? Not really. Poor taste, maybe, but hey, poor taste can be funny sometimes. As the site demonstrates.

Cheers,

R.

 

[leicashot]

I'm glad it's not just me...

And, like you, the site made me laugh. Enough to go back to it? I doubt it. I doubt I spent 5 minutes on it, for that matter. But 'sour', 'mean.spirited', that sort of thing? Not really. Poor taste, maybe, but hey, poor taste can be funny sometimes. As the site demonstrates.

Cheers,

R.

Thats disappointing to hear from you Roger. I think you'd be thinking differently if it was your pictures they were using as examples. Its not funny when you're on the other side. I know, because I'm my harshest critic.

 

[Roger Hicks]

I hope a lot of the supporters of the site posting here are amazing photographers. Just because you 'don't' use photoshop doesn't mean you're any better than those that do.

Wonder what you'll be thinking when one of your own pictures is attacked (not critiqued). Critique would also entail the photographer being told how to improve their pictures. There is a difference and its obvious many of the site's supporters don't know the difference.

It happens. Indeed, there are plenty who've attacked my photography as a whole, my writing as a whole, and indeed me personally (verbally, not physically).

I figure that as long as I can do what KM-25 describes, with enough people liking what I do, I'm ahead of the game.

Cheers,

R.

 

[leicashot]

Boasting? No, and I shoot only for my self, not for clients, maybe I would have more work if I did shoot for clients.

Luckily, I have clients who either buy my work, hire me for my commercial or editorial style, which is editorial across the board I guess. But either way, they know I shoot for my self and they like it that way.

If you're shooting for yourself, how does that work when working for a client? If a client hires you, you're shooting for them?

 

[dcsang]

If you're shooting for yourself, how does that work when working for a client? If a client hires you, you're shooting for them?

Not to step on Rogers (or your) toes but isn't that the type of client EVERY photographer would love to have? The one who's vision matches yours and vice versa?

Cheers,
Dave

 

[leicashot]

Not to step on Rogers (or your) toes but isn't that the type of client EVERY photographer would love to have? The one who's vision matches yours and vice versa?

Cheers,
Dave

Thats true and no toes being stepped on, but surely the client gives you a brief of what they want, and possibly 'who' they want it. You then follow those instructions shooting the way you want. Pretty similar in the way its usually done right?

 

[leicashot]

It happens. Indeed, there are plenty who've attacked my photography as a whole, my writing as a whole, and indeed me personally (verbally, not physically).

I figure that as long as I can do what KM-25 describes, with enough people liking what I do, I'm ahead of the game.

Cheers,

R.

Fair point, but if people are talking about your work and writing in general Roger, it's almost a compliment in disguise because of the attention.

This site randomly pulls pictures without their knowing and attacks for the sake of almost 'revenge-like' intent. There is a big difference. It's anger driven and its very obvious to me.

There is nothing on the site that will stop whats going on. Only spread the anger, without offering any resolutions. What good is that? I'm betting most that support the site are also horrible photographers who blame 'other horrible photographers' for their lack of skills and success - at least those having their images attacked post their pictures online. If you think there is too much **** out their online, don't go there. It's not going away anytime soon....ok I'm out of this topic now. Cheers guys and thanks for listening.

 

[Ranchu]

the problem with what you are saying is that one must assume folks such as km-25, and myself as i agree with most of what he said, aren't smart enough to see past what the 'establishment' is telling us. truthfully i find that a little insulting. this could also apply to the 'establishment' itself. most of the work 'hyped at me' (if i may borrow) most certainly does not suck. the bulk of of it is inspiring and very, very good.

The implication is that the group has formed between them a set of aesthetic criteria that they communicate amongst themselves in order to exclude those they want to exclude, and include others, for reasons that have little to do with aesthetics. It is difficult for me to give much credibility to such a group's views of what's good, and what's bad.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

The irony, as I see it, as that while people see humor in that site, others see right through it. Perhaps this site should be submitted to "yourenotacomedian" and "thistrendsnotforyou", where actually funny, witty sites take on the content itself for others to judge, not venting pre-packaged judging, like:


http://damnyouautocorrect.com/

http://epicwtfs.com/

http://www.passiveaggressivenotes.com/

http://www.yousuckatcraigslist.com/


No, this site (OP) is definitely a bad "metoo" iteration. In their parlance: the content may be funny, but you're just bombin' it, yo.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Fair point, but if people are talking about your work and writing in general Roger, it's almost a compliment in disguise because of the attention.

This site randomly pulls pictures without their knowing and attacks for the sake of almost 'revenge-like' intent. There is a big difference. It's anger driven and its very obvious to me.

There is nothing on the site that will stop whats going on. Only spread the anger, without offering any resolutions. What good is that? I'm betting most that support the site are also horrible photographers who blame 'other horrible photographers' for their lack of skills and success - at least those having their images attacked post their pictures online. If you think there is too much **** out their online, don't go there. It's not going away anytime soon....ok I'm out of this topic now. Cheers guys and thanks for listening.

I just don't see the anger that some do. We ALL make bad pictures sometimes -- and the less experience we have, the more proud we are likely to be of indifferent or bad pictures.

When I started, 40+ years ago, there was nothing like the opportunity that there is today for getting really bad pictures to a really big audience. We learned how bad we were 'in private', as it were.

Surely no-one can argue with the basic premise that just buying a camera and Photoshop doesn't make you a photographer. After that: well, maybe it's a sledgehammer approach, but then, so are many of the pictures it selects.

As my brother said some decades ago, "Why did you tell him to his face he was a ****wit?" And I replied, "He might never have realized otherwise."

Now admittedly, to someone's face is very different from holding them up to ridicule on an anonymous website, which is something I wouldn't do, but equally, more exposure brings more comments.

There are plenty of nasty sites around, including "________ IS A ****", which consists of nothing more than a screen-filliing insult with the name filled in (apparently I was nominated some time ago). This one (Not a Photographer) would have been a lot funnier if the photographer had used his/her expertise to recreate such pictures, but basically, it's a feeble joke that wouldn't really justify the effort.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Not to step on Rogers (or your) toes but isn't that the type of client EVERY photographer would love to have? The one who's vision matches yours and vice versa?

Cheers,
Dave

Dear Dave,

And writer! But unless the match is pretty damn' close, they're unlikely to be repeat clients anyway. That's one of the BIG differences between magazine photography and advertising: much smaller gaps between repeat commissions from the same person.

Cheers,

R.

 

[emraphoto]

There's so much being said in this thread (hey, that rhymes, maybe I can become a poet?) and I don't think John's intent was to start such a huge discussion (or maybe it was?).

I would concur that there's a LOT of ***tastic photos online. The quote from Stewie Griffin (a la "Family Guy") is true for a whole load of people, not just women.

I can only speak to the wedding crap that I've seen online. I rarely post a lot of my wedding stuff online because, really, who gives a **** if some other photographer (wedding or otherwise) likes the work - sure it makes me feel "ok" but in the end, if the customer doesn't like it, then the work sucks; MY work sucks regardless of what *I* think of it or anyone else thinks of it EXCEPT for my client. If it's a crappy photo, my client may like it and then that's all that matters.

HOWEVER - herein lies a problem already stated earlier in the thread - people, in general, don't know what is good versus what is ****. Most of the time what the general pop'n believes is good work is from a combination of things: 1) Online Back Slapping forums 2) The media (print or online) 3) Their friends/peers/influential folks they know. Many people also lack the ability to discern between a trend and true lasting style. For example, good lighting and proper use of it never goes out of style. Taking photos and adding a bunch of actions to them in order to make them look "vintage" is a trend. There's a difference and people usually don't know the difference till it's 15-20 yrs after their wedding and they look at their album filled with "vintage" photos and wonder what were they thinking when they hired that photographer....

Spyro's quote on this forum always rings true to me in discussions such as these: http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1319519&postcount=30

Thanks for starting the thread John 🙂

Cheers,
Dave

just found it funny Dave. that's it, that's all

as Roger mentioned, funny/less than 5 minutes/probably won't go back/possibly bad taste

the sourness that has arisen from it has been a surprise though. folks seem to get really bent out of shape about making sure you accept the error of your ways from their perspective. being a forum for discussion (RFF) i have always expected a more moderate approach to said discussion but i suppose i am naive?

 

[Colin Corneau]

Thats disappointing to hear from you Roger. I think you'd be thinking differently if it was your pictures they were using as examples. Its not funny when you're on the other side. I know, because I'm my harshest critic.

It it was Roger's photos used on that site, I reckon he'd have bigger problems to contend with than hurt feelings.

 

[KM-25]

Spyro's quote on this forum always rings true to me in discussions such as these: http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1319519&postcount=30

I heart this!

 

[Nikon Bob]

If you are a professional photographer trying to make a living selling your images to clients, you should give them what they want. You are selling a product, much like car manufacturers, and not everyone wants or can afford a Benz. If you think you are trying to sell Benz class images and are losing out to supposed inferior images then you don't have access to enough of the right clientele. There could be a number of reason for that and one might be that your images are not Benz class. It is a waste of time moaning and dripping about supposed inferior images. As with most consumer products there is a product level to satisfy the different levels of consumers. Know your level and fill it, forget about others.

Bob

 

[Roger Hicks]

Hmmm...

How about "buying a Harley-Davidson does NOT make you a motorcyclist."

Frances and I went to Daytona Cycle Week a few years ago. The Chamber of Commerce reckoned there were 100,000 motorcycles there. They were probably right. At most half of them were ridden by motorcyclists. The rest were trucked in by poseurs.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

I don't feel the site does what it does governed by anger, and I wouldn't imagine they're attacking imaginary horrible photographers because they're horrible photographers... But more important than what I feel, is what an image deserves -beyond who made it- in the eyes of a wide internet public: it deserves as many opinions as viewers... Any great image won't be on that site, so the site is being fair in that way... Unless they really attack people in a personal way, with precise names and an offensive text, they're just giving quick web opinions on photographs they don't like, not on people directly, and that isn't insulting... And relevant either... Why consider their site important enough as to feel affected? Any great photographer can make bad shots sometimes... It's not bad images what matters, but good ones, and any good photographer can (should? must?) be sure about how good their best photographs are... The site isn't interesting in any way, though... No interest in what's bad on the images and no interest in the words they use to comment...

People say tons of idiot things, so we shouldn't consider most people too seriously...

When someone sees an image of mine done with a 4x5 view camera for classic architecture photography, they say photography should be a less cold act... When someone sees an image of mine getting a nice moment in a dangerous place with an almost hidden camera, they say that photograph could be sharper with a more expensive lens... When someone sees me with a more expensive lens or camera, they say I'm a snob... When someone sees I share a test, they say "you're not a photographer", and here I include RFF members having said that, more, and lots of bad words. And some of them have lots of horrible photographs uploaded, not only in my opinion, but in other forum members' opinion... Yet, our opinion doesn't matter, or theirs, only their and our photographs... At least on that site we read no vulgar language or personal attacks making no sense...

Cheers,

Juan

 

[emraphoto]

indeed, i was the second person to look at the OP, cannot believe where such a no interest story has gone, still this has given a guide as to where the lowest common denominator on RRF sits

Why 'the lowest common denominator'? Understanding that i am aware of the definition.

 

[jan normandale]

I think that the site is a commercial site to sell advertising for commercial sites like Walmart and to sell their logo'd T-shirts, and coffee mugs./QUOTE]

I have to confess, I am thinking about getting a couple of the bumper stickers for my snowboards....;-)

Could be fun and it might help cover their costs.. why not? They might even end up collectible.

Also and BTW + FWIW... I'm impressed with the legs of this thread. Who knew?

 

[jwc57]

This thread reminds me of a thread on another forum, made up of digital photographers.

In a discussion that began about photoshop being abused to make people look thin and bypass actually taking care of themselves, it turned to abusing tools to enhance portraits, such as smoothing skin, removing wrinkles, and removing blemishes even pores.

The comments have been that digital is much better than film, that digital is too sharp. Film was more forgiving, I guess meaning that film wasn't as sharp. Another stated that photoshop was needed to remove anything distracting in a portrait such as a piece of clothing out of place etc. Things we used to pay attention to before hand, things that made us slow down and think before hitting the shutter.

After reading those comments, I wondered if these new digital pro photographers have even used a film SLR or was film experience solely a P&S from the 1990's.

In other threads, they wonder openly why anyone would choose to shoot film anymore...at all. Professionally or otherwise. I believe the value of photography drops every year.