Would the "famous" photogs be "famous" without their subjects/budgets/resources?
PhotoLasVegas
Registered Users Posts: 264 Major grins
I know this one will be very controversial...
I've seen photos from famous photogs that in-and-of-itself, the photo really is crappy (composition, lighting, even exposure, etc.). But, the subject makes the photo extraordinary.
I've also seen photos from famous photogs that are amazing, but IMO anyone with enough time and a basic understanding of lighting and exposure could have done it.
I hesitate to make an example because I want this discussion to be open to ALL "famous" photogs, but I'll still give an example.
I know this may be blasphemy, but I think that Ansel Adam's work, while amazing because of the subject, isn't anything special. I truly believe that anyone with (how many?) years of time, and a basic- to intermediate understanding of photography could do the same shots. Hell, I've seen photos right here on this forum that IMO are just as good as Adam's.
Just think about how many days/nights he was in Yosemite, taking photos - and he has a couple hundred "famous" shots (at most). And, the photos are of things that are already amazingly beautiful. My aunt's snapshots with her 2mp digital camera are pretty darn good - you'd have to work to make them look bad.
I also think about some of the famous war photographers. Let's forget for a moment, the risk and danger that they had to endure... and I know that timing does play a huge part - but these guys are taking thousands of shutters - and 1 or maybe 2 get published, making them famous. Right place, right time?
Another example would be some of the presidential photographers - famous photos of laws/treaties being signed, or of famous speeches. Of course "technically" they are perfect, but again - anyone in that place at that time, with a decent understanding of photography could have taken the same photo.
What about "street" photogs? 5000+ shutters to complete a book with 100 or so photos?
And don't get me started on some of the "fashion" photogs - 3 or 4 DAYS in the studio with $10,000 wardrobes, $4000/day hair/makeup budgets, a dozen assistants, and "supermodels"... to get 1 or 2 shots for a magazine cover.
No, there's no jealousy there - it's an honest question - if we put 10 average photographers into this type of situation, would most/all create amazing shots?
I've seen photos from famous photogs that in-and-of-itself, the photo really is crappy (composition, lighting, even exposure, etc.). But, the subject makes the photo extraordinary.
I've also seen photos from famous photogs that are amazing, but IMO anyone with enough time and a basic understanding of lighting and exposure could have done it.
I hesitate to make an example because I want this discussion to be open to ALL "famous" photogs, but I'll still give an example.
I know this may be blasphemy, but I think that Ansel Adam's work, while amazing because of the subject, isn't anything special. I truly believe that anyone with (how many?) years of time, and a basic- to intermediate understanding of photography could do the same shots. Hell, I've seen photos right here on this forum that IMO are just as good as Adam's.
Just think about how many days/nights he was in Yosemite, taking photos - and he has a couple hundred "famous" shots (at most). And, the photos are of things that are already amazingly beautiful. My aunt's snapshots with her 2mp digital camera are pretty darn good - you'd have to work to make them look bad.
I also think about some of the famous war photographers. Let's forget for a moment, the risk and danger that they had to endure... and I know that timing does play a huge part - but these guys are taking thousands of shutters - and 1 or maybe 2 get published, making them famous. Right place, right time?
Another example would be some of the presidential photographers - famous photos of laws/treaties being signed, or of famous speeches. Of course "technically" they are perfect, but again - anyone in that place at that time, with a decent understanding of photography could have taken the same photo.
What about "street" photogs? 5000+ shutters to complete a book with 100 or so photos?
And don't get me started on some of the "fashion" photogs - 3 or 4 DAYS in the studio with $10,000 wardrobes, $4000/day hair/makeup budgets, a dozen assistants, and "supermodels"... to get 1 or 2 shots for a magazine cover.
No, there's no jealousy there - it's an honest question - if we put 10 average photographers into this type of situation, would most/all create amazing shots?
Las Vegas Wedding, Family, and Special Event Photographers.
Canon 7d
2 Canon 40d
70-200 f2.8L IS, 50mm f1.4, 50mm f1.8, 28mm f1.8, Tamron 17-55 f2.8, ProOptic 8mm Fisheye
And a bunch of other stuff
Canon 7d
2 Canon 40d
70-200 f2.8L IS, 50mm f1.4, 50mm f1.8, 28mm f1.8, Tamron 17-55 f2.8, ProOptic 8mm Fisheye
And a bunch of other stuff
0
Comments
I have often wondered some of these same things. And while I think you are on to something, I think there are two things that matter most. Talent, and experience. I think these two things play off of each other. The more talent you have the less experience you may need to create that "perfect" shot. The more experience you get the more your talent grows. I have often taken a shot in a given situation right next to someone with more talent/experience than me, and I end up with something good, while they end up with something spectacular. I believe that it comes down to talent and experience that lets these famous photos (aka, Ansel Adams) become published.
Of course there is a certain element to luck, right place right time, etc... As for fashion photographers, I think that is more of a people skills thing than anything else. I could take the exact same equipment as a famous fashion photographer, use the exact same settings and not end up with something half as good because I wouldn't have the experience necessary to capture that "moment". The same goes for sports, wildlife, etc... I think this type of shooting you only get better through experience and seeing what works and what doesn't. The advantage to fashion photography is that you can control your subject, in sports and wildlife you don't have that luxury, but you still have to capture that moment.
Ok, enough rambling from me. Thanks for the thought provoking questions!!
I recently watched a photographer speak who said the same thing, and also with an answer to your question. He said Adams got the spotlight because he was a much better marketer than the other photographers who really were just as good. I believe that. I see a lot of talent and expertise out there, but who gets all the publicity, choice gigs, and resulting income? The photographers with the best people skills and self-promotional acumen. I don't think that's wrong. It means a guy deserves to be a superstar because he really does have a skill set that's both more whole and better balanced (planning, shooting, producing, marketing, selling, making friends, making deals).
The average photographers might create amazing shots, but I respect the abilities of professional fashion photographers. Because they are not there just to "make a cool shot." They are there to fulfill the photographic portion of a highly designed cover project where each component of the cover is meticulously specified; content, typography, layout, editing, and photography. A shooter can't just do anything they want. They have to meet the client's and art director's very specific requirements under time and budget constraints. I watched the Chase Jarvis live online studio shoot where he described what he was thinking as he went through it (it took hours), and my eyes opened to some of the little details he noticed that made him go back and shoot more frames and then go back and shoot more again after noticing another detail that needed to be fixed and they all made a difference when you saw the final product. Your average photographers may be unaware of enough details to cause the client to never call again. It's not just about taking a picture. It's about knowing what to tell the costumers, the makeup people, how to direct the set builders, how to set aside room in the picture for the cover text, how to set up the available lighting resources, when to flag them, when to hide a wireless strobe behind the footstool, to draw the eye to the proper places and also minimize post-production work, etc. And most of all how to make the client happy by fulfilling the brief, or at least convince them that they are happy. You can look at "taking the picture" as either a fraction of what's involved, or involving far more than what a lot of average photographers may be aware of if they have little to no experience working within that context.
In what way?
Canon 7d
2 Canon 40d
70-200 f2.8L IS, 50mm f1.4, 50mm f1.8, 28mm f1.8, Tamron 17-55 f2.8, ProOptic 8mm Fisheye
And a bunch of other stuff
hehe...that is a great blog. While funny, some of it holds quite true for this forum, as well as every other one...the blog's author may be joking, but it is full of truths.
I agree with both sides of the discussion. I think many of the famous photographers get praise for average work...but only after they "arrive". Photos...art...everything is so subjective, that people make whatever they want out of something, whether it's there or not. A crappy photo by a "great" person becomes great by proxy. An awesome photo by a new poster online that just picked up their first dSLR with one post to their name gets a few comments and never heard from again.
Also, one thing that may set apart the pros is consistency...providing quality work long enough to prove themselves.
From reading forums for so long, there are a few classifications of posters, IMHO:
1. The Techies. Every pic must be perfect, pixel peeped, and technically correct in all aspects or it fails, regardless of subject.
2. The Artsies. Opposite of #1. The subject(s) are amazing, but general attributes such as "tack sharp" focus, framing, ISO noise, etc are off.
3. The Tools. The make/model of equipment and how much you spent on your gear is all that matters and everyone must be told about it. If you're a landscape photographer with a camera that only does 3fps or isn't full frame, then you fail.
Obviously it's not quite as clear cut as those examples...but it happens enough to be noticed.
Thanks for linking this thread again, it does really deserve to be seen more than one time.
This is at least my third or fourth, and I have loved it each time.
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
It had nothing to do with subject, that was the same, budget (he was paid I had none), resources (his camera was a much more expensive DSLR compared to my P&S) so which image is being used? The better image. However when the viewer was prejudiced by knowing the shooter the results changed.
Pictures | Website | Blog | Twitter | Contact
Nikon D200, SB-600, 105mm Micro VR, 50mm 1.8, 18-70mm
14-24 24-70 70-200mm (vr2)
85 and 50 1.4
45 PC and sb910 x2
http://www.danielkimphotography.com
Another example are shows like The Shot. They are proof that you can take a group of people qualified enough to pass a screening process to get that far, put them in a room with some world class makeup artists, costumers, and lighting, and no, they don't all produce amazing work, and the judges tell them why they failed.
The point of having a huge budget is not to give a normal photographer super powers. It's to provide the proper enabling environment for a photographer who's good enough that the incredible resources won't all be wasted.
my 2 centimes...
Maybe I'm over generalising, but the thing that makes the big shots so big is that they were among the first. Look at the Beatles with their 3 chords, stereo, 8 track studio production they were so massive because they were 'new'.
Any one with a bit of skill can copy the masters - but - as Bob Marley said... 'It's not the 'copy' [that really counts] its 'the feel'. These photographers were pioneers and they had a vision (like we all do) but their vision was in the right place at the right time. Their new stuff struck a chord that influenced generations
I think this is a problem all creative people come against, (writers, painters, musicians etc.) apparently one reason a lot of famous actors end up doing drugs because they know that that the unknown actor stuggling for years working as a waiter is actually a better talent than they are.
Things have become even more complex with photogs now there's digital, which can be soooo forgiving, and there is the net to show the awesome talent which is more widespread.
This should be the subject of a book not just thru posts on a forum!!! Does Susan Sontag deal with this in her book?
If a work of “art”, say a painting, has been around for many years and been bought and sold for thousands then millions because of its "artisticness", "beauty", “creativity”, whatever ... all of a sudden is found to be NOT by the specific named painter (say Picasso), and its value plummets to comparatively next to nothing — was it truly valuable "art" in the first place or was it simply the artist’s name that made the difference?
If it were the "art" that had the intrinsic worth, its monetary value would not have changed.
And we all have heard the above scenario several times in recent months with different artistic "fakes".
Photographs are the same, IMHO. Their value is often due to WHO took the photo. The pseudointellectualism of raving about a work, which suddenly becomes valueless and junk simply because it is found to NOT be by the presumed artist, photographer, etc., abounds all around us.
Moreover, when I went to college in the 60s, photography was NOT considered a valued art venue at my school. Oils and watercolors made for "art", and the then-new water-based artist-quality acrylics were only reluctantly being accepted by the pseudointellectuals who taught the "art" courses there. Pseudointellectualism and snobbery at work!
So, in many ways I feel the OP sees it correctly, but in the long run like Colourbox pointed out, there IS talent and skill and creativity, and many of those who possess it tend to be economical with their resources while others prefer to remain in the background pursuing their art for themselves.
Nonetheless, to become "famous" requires a great deal of chutzpah, schmoozing with the right in-groups and, ultimately, peer recognition ... or at least recognition by those willing to part with LOTS of money just for a name hanging on their wall!
Anyway, that's my two paisa (from the days of my youth) worth!
Nam et ipsa scientia potestas est.
That was purely hypothetical, but from what I've seen it is pretty much true. I tend to believe that many famous photographers do no better work than most photographers, but they are famous because they are really good at selling their art. People recognize the name and automatically love the photograph.
In terms of money, I know first hand how it can be a limiting factor. For years I have wanted to be a wildlife photographer, but I will never be able to afford a real wildlife lens. Neither would I be able to afford any of the top quality lenses or bodies, for any purpose. I watched a video of a well-known photographer shooting pictures of birds and wasn't very impressed. He just walked around and when he saw a bird, for example a duck, coming in for a landing, he would just aim and hold down the shutter button. Autofocus and high FPS took care of the rest. I am almost 100% certain I could take the same pictures if I had $10,000 dollars of high-end equipment.
1) You could put me in a room with a top model, makeup artist, studio gear, etc and while I might get some fabulous shots, I couldn't *consistently* turn out top work. I have far too much to learn about lighting, posing, post production, etc.
2) You can take the work of a top photographer and put it on here anonymously and it will likely get ripped to shreds.
Nikon D300, 18-135/3.5-5.6, 70-300/4.5-5.6, SB800
It reminds me of Penn Jillette talking about magic, how most of the standard tricks really aren't that hard. But the magician will spend weeks, months, maybe a year or more practicing over and over and over again some card trick or some coin trick until it is so second nature, so relaxed to perform, so fluid that it becomes "magic" to watch. And that, he said, was the difference between the professional magician and everyone else -- they were willing to do simple boring stupid stuff over and over and over again, where most people would have given up.
As to the fashion model examples, I do not believe that I could produce cover-quality shots given the same budgets, the same make-up crews, etc. Its much harder than it looks.
As I am rebuilding my motorsports photography biz I'm learning all this sort of stuff all over again. I remember how when shooting MX I would learn to wait for the rider to grab the front brake with two fingers, or wait until the inside leg was extended in a turn, or wait for the top of the jump and ignore the trip down. Or shooting karts to wait for the guy to hit the shifter knob, or to catch a steering correction. With the cars I'm learning to get angles that let the face show, or catch the suspension compressed, etc. Can anybody go to the track and occassionaly get shots as good? Yes. Can they routinely get those same good shots, of every entrant, from multiple angles? No. Just like I would sometimes get a great shot of a runway model, but that I would be unable to always deliver great shots.
A former sports shooter
Follow me at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bjurasz/
My Etsy store: https://www.etsy.com/shop/mercphoto?ref=hdr_shop_menu
I do think that photography straddles more cultural areas than most 'artistic' mediums. It is a tool for documentation, creative expression, persuasion, education, science... etc Sometimes people use the phrase 'the genius of photography' as a deliberate alternative to something stressing the skill of the photographer.
So, regarding Ansel Adams being a good marketer, it's well known that much of this drive for publicity was in the name of conservationism. He wanted his photos to serve an educational, even scientific purpose in drawing attention to the beauty of the natural world, which needs looking after.
But equally, were they rubbish pictures this more functional, pragmatic purpose would not have been served. They had to be art to have impact.
Adams once remarked: 'There is nothing worse than a brilliant image of a fuzzy concept.' (some more cool quotes here! - http://www.photography-art-cafe.com/famous-photography-quotes.html)
I actually agree, and it's the originality of famous photographers' observation that makes people take notice. I agree with Adams' sentiment that striving after technical brilliance with no creative motive is just like banging your head against the wall! Why do that?!!
In terms of having contacts and general self-promotion, yeah I suppose life is a bitch in that regard. There'll always be great photographers who fall through the net and the odd case of the Emperor's new clothes! But by and large I think people gain a reputation through creative originality and vision.
My favourite photographer, Steve McCurry (quick bio here: http://www.photography-art-cafe.com/steve-mccurry.html), started his career by bumming around India for 2 years on a shoestring and taking some incredibly memorable shots. He had nothing to lose and just went for it, which I think is inspirational and his photos show how interested and passionate about things he is.
I would say, though, the absurdity of artistic charlatanism is never more so than when it involves a photographer! So I agree with the original post that there's a danger of over emphasising the technical skill and craft of photographers.
I did a piece on what I think fine art photography is here: http://www.photography-art-cafe.com/definition-of-fine-art-photography.html
I hope this thread continues because it's really interesting!
http://www.photography-art-cafe.com/index.html
You can't just not take these things into account.
But speaking about contemporary photographers, I agree there are a lot of photos shot by "name" photographers that would not be nearly as well accepted if they had been shot by photographers of less perceived stature.
Typically however these "name" photographers have paid their dues and kudos to them for doing what it took to get to where they are today.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/21695902@N06/
http://500px.com/Shockey
alloutdoor.smugmug.com
http://aoboudoirboise.smugmug.com/
Any decent pool player could have made any of the shots. Not everyone could have gotten themselves in the place to make the shots on world-wide TV. Not everyone could have assured that each shot appeared as easy as the last, time after time.
Now on the net, in the light of hindsight, you can discount effort, diligence, discipline, talent, courage and risk. And if you don't want to take any pictures, it can be because the lens is too expensive.
Dale B. Dalrymple
...with apology to Archimedies
I can, with a little assistance, provide this answer.
All I need is for each of you reading this to send me a million or so dollars. I will take this project money and work my little butt of for the next year. At the end of this year we will see if I am famous or not.
Done..............Answer provided!
Sam
Who is wise? He who learns from everyone.
My SmugMug Site
So, does the seasoned professional photographer make the job appear easy, as well, because all their experience means they know how to make the job look easy? Quite possibly.
A former sports shooter
Follow me at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bjurasz/
My Etsy store: https://www.etsy.com/shop/mercphoto?ref=hdr_shop_menu
This sounds like the old adage "Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." If you are a real pro, you are prepared (which comes from years of experience and training), you also know how to create opportunities in advance as in the billiards analogy. The amateur either gets lucky once and/or doesn't know enough to set up the next few opportunities.
So yes, a proper "pro vs amateur" discussion shouldn't discuss whether an amateur can make an image just as good, but whether they can make 10 images in a row just as good, in 10 different situations. The pro will be able to do it.
I think some people miss what (I believe) the OP is trying to say. I know I believe, the great photogs are great for a number of reasons, however, each and every one of us is capable of learning how to properly expose a shot, etc. Many of us struggle with the artistic aspect of photography--but I've seen many, "great," photos which weren't artful so much as right place at the right time I've also seen MANY artful photos which I don't think I'd have come up with.
What my belief is, for the most part, if you train someone properly in the technical aspects of photography and put them in the right places, they are quite capable of making great photography. However, there are (for sure) some photogs who really are great with the artistic-type photography which most of us will never be able to copy.
In support of what I'm saying, you can read any number of tutorials which say to look at what the famous photogs are shooting, how they compose the shots and (essentially) copy that.
There have been valid points made about fashion photography, however, most (if not all) of the points brought up about it are more about experience and not about being a great photog. If I'm shooting that type of photography, I'll learn all of those things.
It does depend on the type of photography you're talking about but, for the most part, I think you could put any capable photog in those situations and get similar photos. Keep in mind, I say capable, not a newbie with no knowledge of the technical aspects of photography. However, most photogs I know are just not very good at marketing themselves which is why so many never make a name (or money) for themselves. It's not usually the skills which holds us back.
Facebook Fan Page
Blog
Which is why someone on SportsShooter.com recently quipped that the recent (and huge) financial problems of Annie L. should be a lesson to all photographers to learn more about business and not just load up on photography classes (very wise). It also reminds me of what a camera salesman at my favorite camera store told me several years ago before he struck it out on his own that he wish he had taken more business courses while studying photography in school. And this applies to nearly any trade or skill: if you want to run a business, you better know and understand business concepts.
A former sports shooter
Follow me at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bjurasz/
My Etsy store: https://www.etsy.com/shop/mercphoto?ref=hdr_shop_menu
Very good points... funny, we were business owners long before we were photographers - and the resounding success and huge profitability of our company is the direct result!
Canon 7d
2 Canon 40d
70-200 f2.8L IS, 50mm f1.4, 50mm f1.8, 28mm f1.8, Tamron 17-55 f2.8, ProOptic 8mm Fisheye
And a bunch of other stuff
Take a famous photographer and put them in my town. Give us the same body, lenses and software. Then have me and that famous photographer spend a week doing nothing but shooting.
I'll bet at the end of that time, the famous photographer will have better images than me. Why? Because they're more experienced and have a better eye. They'll see pictures that I walk right past. They'll expose or process shots in a different way. That's what separates a good photographer from a great one.
And sure, there may be some rank amateurs that naturally have the "eye" and can match the famous photographer picture-for-picture, but that would be the exception.
Nikon D300, 18-135/3.5-5.6, 70-300/4.5-5.6, SB800
Facebook Fan Page
Blog