Zack Arias nails it again!
Cheap Photographers Only Kill Themselves, Not The Industry.
As usual a down to earth post by Zack about the industry and his experiences. Which is sometimes rare compared to pretending how the industry should be or complaining about every tiny thing.
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
Friday, July 2, 2010
SF Pride 2010
Another SF pride has come and gone leaving rainbow glitter ground into the pavement. This year I didn't walk in pride. Instead I went with my friends (both up from Santa Cruz) to watch the parade. I watched Dykes on Bikes go by, as well as the Trans group that was next, which was pretty cool. After that it was a standard float line up, such as Kaiser Permanente, bud light, and other corporate sponsors, with the only Bi contingent way in the back. It's great that places like Kaiser support gay rights but it would be nice if more of the actual L, G, B, and T folks were given priority.
I didn't stay for much past Kaiser and went to the civic center celebration before it got crowded. The Tantra music stage played mostly electro, I spent most of the day there dancing and photographing. It's nice when people pose but I'm looking for that crazy enjoyment of dancing at pride not a rehearsed smile.
On my way through leather alley I noticed a person dressed Lady Gagaish posing for photos up against the fence. A bunch of people were having a mini photo gang bang with her (you can thank Photographer Zack Arais for that term), which always creates this empty bubble between the photographers and their 'subject.' I decided I would do a nice quick portrait of her and got up close. The women with her commented that it was nice I was taking a picture of her face and not chopping her head off like everyone else, but she felt that her ass was her best feature. The girl of course turns around so I can get a photo of her ass. Reminding me once again that treating people like real people can often lead to new, interesting or fun things. At the very least a quick smile hasn't made their life any worse.
One of those things I love about my little 35mm lens is it requires me to get up close to whoever I'm shooting forcing me to interact with them in some way.
Monday, May 3, 2010
Please turn down your High Pass, it's disturbing the neighbors.
In photoshop there are a hundred and one different ways to do something. Sharpening is one of them, with multiple filters and tricks. High Pass is an old but still good sharpening tool. Apparent sharpness is created by increasing contrast around edges. If you have an edge of a dark object against a light background, by brightening the light area next to the edge, and darkening the dark area, it raises the contrast and thus the apparent sharpness.
Example, from left to right, 0 Radius, 1 radius, 10 radius, 100 radius. (Applied to the original image file)
A copy of the layer to be sharpened is made, and is set to either overlay or soft light. High pass is applied to taste and then can be toned back by adjusting the opacity of the layer. It also allows for selective sharpening as parts of the layer can be masked out, deleted or smoothed.
A trend over the last few years has been to crank the radius of the effect so the shading of the image is adjusted instead. This seems to have really taken off thanks to Dragan and you can find tons of actions that attempt to repeat this effect. And people do, on everything, for no reason. Dragan had a point, he used the technique to bring out and hyperrealize facial lines. However it gives a pop to the image so people use it on everything. In some cases it's because your eyes and brain adjust to the image and an over the top effect looks just right when you have been staring at the image for awhile. This is why when using new processes I normally adjust it to where my brain says "Perfect" and then tone it back a notch or two, and/or I save the file and come back the next day to double check the intensity of it.
Trends appear and get beaten to death in photography. Often because they are technical in nature and thus anyone with enough knowledge or the ability to download an action can do them. Unfortunately people just do them because they are cool or a trend and don't think of the bigger picture. So a great idea gets washed out and over used. It's very important not to follow trends in photography. While people who do may get praise or even a few jobs, as soon as the trend is over all their work becomes dated and needs to be scrapped if they want to keep getting work. By finding your own style you can break out of the mold.
Here at school there is a teacher that is known for a style of food and still life photography. His look and style has gotten him a lot of work and many students come out of his class shooting in a similar way. Which is great, it's a very pretty look, but few people expand on it. This teacher has a large chunk of the market, why would a food company go to you for that look when they could go to the known professional and high quality photographer.
Online photography forums (which I rarely visit) often develop a backlash to any abused look. However if there is a purpose, a reason, for using that look, tell the jaded naysayers to fuck off. After all this is about your vision and sometimes the hardest part is keeping it that way.
Over done shot from Folsom Fair as example,
Example, from left to right, 0 Radius, 1 radius, 10 radius, 100 radius. (Applied to the original image file)
A copy of the layer to be sharpened is made, and is set to either overlay or soft light. High pass is applied to taste and then can be toned back by adjusting the opacity of the layer. It also allows for selective sharpening as parts of the layer can be masked out, deleted or smoothed.
A trend over the last few years has been to crank the radius of the effect so the shading of the image is adjusted instead. This seems to have really taken off thanks to Dragan and you can find tons of actions that attempt to repeat this effect. And people do, on everything, for no reason. Dragan had a point, he used the technique to bring out and hyperrealize facial lines. However it gives a pop to the image so people use it on everything. In some cases it's because your eyes and brain adjust to the image and an over the top effect looks just right when you have been staring at the image for awhile. This is why when using new processes I normally adjust it to where my brain says "Perfect" and then tone it back a notch or two, and/or I save the file and come back the next day to double check the intensity of it.
Trends appear and get beaten to death in photography. Often because they are technical in nature and thus anyone with enough knowledge or the ability to download an action can do them. Unfortunately people just do them because they are cool or a trend and don't think of the bigger picture. So a great idea gets washed out and over used. It's very important not to follow trends in photography. While people who do may get praise or even a few jobs, as soon as the trend is over all their work becomes dated and needs to be scrapped if they want to keep getting work. By finding your own style you can break out of the mold.
Here at school there is a teacher that is known for a style of food and still life photography. His look and style has gotten him a lot of work and many students come out of his class shooting in a similar way. Which is great, it's a very pretty look, but few people expand on it. This teacher has a large chunk of the market, why would a food company go to you for that look when they could go to the known professional and high quality photographer.
Online photography forums (which I rarely visit) often develop a backlash to any abused look. However if there is a purpose, a reason, for using that look, tell the jaded naysayers to fuck off. After all this is about your vision and sometimes the hardest part is keeping it that way.
Over done shot from Folsom Fair as example,
Kitchen Nightmares
I have taken to watching Kitchen Nightmares on Hulu on my second screen while doing work (the laptop means I always have a blank screen doing nothing.) While it's a great look into nasty restaurants it's also great in understanding just how businesses fail.
the premise of the show is pretty simple. Chef Gordon Ramsay a successful swearing chef goes to failing restaurants and helps them, with the usual Fox reality show subtlety of heavy handed music, playing the most dramatic moment before every commercial brake, and lots of "reaction" cuts.
If you can get past that it is a great learning tool that drills the same basic messages into your head. First and foremost it is Always your fault. That's not to say you are actually to blame, but no matter what your position is, your responsibility to to the customer (because they are the ones you make your money on) is vital, so if there are any problems you treat them as your own and do your best to fix them. Almost every manager, owner or chef of a failing restaurant has a common mantra, Blame somebody else. "It's not my fault, I'm doing everything right." All while the business is run into the ground, often costing people their jobs, houses, and marriages.
The second most common mistake seems to be not caring about quality. Many of the restaurants send out microwaved dinners and are happy to do so. The excuse is often that they don't have enough money for real food.
The great thing about these shows is they are about a year old, which means you can look up the restaurants and see how they did. The reality (that fox doesn't ever mention) is that most of these places don't make it. There is no "reality show magic bullet." It takes hard work and dedication, something that many of the owners never have and don't learn in the week that Ramsay is there.
There are a lot of similarities with this and photography. Almost anyone can microwave a dinner, almost anyone can take a photo. That's the beauty of photography. Unfortunately the downfall of many photographers and restaurants is the belief that by just providing the service you are doing something special. You aren't. The real service is by providing a new approach that combines your own style with a good attitude and business sense. There are many people that make a living by being a competent photographer and an excellent business person. Taking photos is the easy part.
Kitchen Nightmares
Editors note: I have since watched the UK version and highly recommend it as it cuts out a lot of the fox faux drama.
the premise of the show is pretty simple. Chef Gordon Ramsay a successful swearing chef goes to failing restaurants and helps them, with the usual Fox reality show subtlety of heavy handed music, playing the most dramatic moment before every commercial brake, and lots of "reaction" cuts.
If you can get past that it is a great learning tool that drills the same basic messages into your head. First and foremost it is Always your fault. That's not to say you are actually to blame, but no matter what your position is, your responsibility to to the customer (because they are the ones you make your money on) is vital, so if there are any problems you treat them as your own and do your best to fix them. Almost every manager, owner or chef of a failing restaurant has a common mantra, Blame somebody else. "It's not my fault, I'm doing everything right." All while the business is run into the ground, often costing people their jobs, houses, and marriages.
The second most common mistake seems to be not caring about quality. Many of the restaurants send out microwaved dinners and are happy to do so. The excuse is often that they don't have enough money for real food.
The great thing about these shows is they are about a year old, which means you can look up the restaurants and see how they did. The reality (that fox doesn't ever mention) is that most of these places don't make it. There is no "reality show magic bullet." It takes hard work and dedication, something that many of the owners never have and don't learn in the week that Ramsay is there.
There are a lot of similarities with this and photography. Almost anyone can microwave a dinner, almost anyone can take a photo. That's the beauty of photography. Unfortunately the downfall of many photographers and restaurants is the belief that by just providing the service you are doing something special. You aren't. The real service is by providing a new approach that combines your own style with a good attitude and business sense. There are many people that make a living by being a competent photographer and an excellent business person. Taking photos is the easy part.
Kitchen Nightmares
Editors note: I have since watched the UK version and highly recommend it as it cuts out a lot of the fox faux drama.
Lenses
Prime Lens
A prime lens is one with a fixed focal length (thus doesn't zoom), I've written about this before and will again. Zoom lenses come standard with most cameras these days and while they are nice they make for cement shoe photographers. Zooming is not the same as getting closer and a lens that forces the photographer to move around can really change their perspective.
These can also be cheap for the quality. Canon produces a lens nicknamed "the nifty 50", a 50mm F1.8 prime with excellent quality for under $100. I also love my 35mm F2 lens, especially for my cropped sensor. These produce excellent quality while still being nice on the pocketbook.
At least one of the beginning photography classes at any school should require the students to shoot with only the nifty 50 or equivalent. The first time I shot with my 35mm prime it changed my view of photography.
Lensbaby
The controversial equipment of the day. People seem to either love it or hate it. There are thousands of photos on flickr taken using this lens, and just mention it to any "serious" photographer and good chances you will hear moans, ironically from both the analogy and digital camps. Most of it stems from a view that the lens does all the work, just throw it on and make a "better image." But really that's never the truth. A lensbaby look can enhance an image if that's what it needs, but there needs to be a point. Bad photos of your dog will not get any better just because they are shot with a lensbaby. As with all photography the end result is a combination of choices and when they all work together you get a better image.
I've had this experience as people who have loved a piece changed their mind as soon as I mentioned I used a lensbaby. I was rather tempted to give them the location of the photo and suggest they make a duplicate of it if they thought it was "so easy."
There is often a lot of negativity in the online world of photography, which might be why I don't often participate in online photography forums. Go ahead and take that bad photo of your dog with a lensbaby, maybe don't show it as your best work but don't let people scare you into not taking it. The single most important thing to being a photographer is to not be afraid of failure, or creating a "bad image."
I own the Composer, it acts similar to a standard lens and can be used for long exposures. It makes for a good mount for experimentation as well. The apertures is set by inserting magnetic discs which means you can create your own apertures that distort light in different ways as well as control the 'lensbaby effect'. Material can easily be put in front of this to provide plastic lens looks. The glass is easily removable and can be replaced with home made pin hole elements. It really provides a lot of diversity while still allowing the use of a digital camera.
Cellphone camera
The best camera is the one you have on you.
They are often a pain in the ass to use, they rarely have reasonable exposure, focus or zoom control, they compress the image and are noisy and yet all of this can be freeing. Just push a button, take a photo, nothing more nothing less.
Chase Jarvis, an avid iPhone camera shooter (he also shoots with the latest medium format digital back) not only posts the best of his iPhone photos but has had a gallery exhibit based on them.
Everything
As you may have noticed all of these things work slightly different than a standard SLR setup. In the end a camera is just a box that collects and saves light. While many might worry about not having the proper L lens or the right kind of camera, the photographer works with what they have to create something unique. In the world of photography a stagnant photographer is a dead photographer, anything that changes ones perspective or habits should be tinkered with.
I see this all the time in large event photography. Hundreds of photographers wandering around with telephoto L lenses and large high megapixel DSLRs. They take nice photos of smiling and posed people, I'm sure these people will be quite pleased with their images on the photographers website, but it all looks the same. I can't tell one photographer apart from the other. The real challenge is to either shoot with subpar equipment and get good results or to separate yourself from the crowd.
A prime lens is one with a fixed focal length (thus doesn't zoom), I've written about this before and will again. Zoom lenses come standard with most cameras these days and while they are nice they make for cement shoe photographers. Zooming is not the same as getting closer and a lens that forces the photographer to move around can really change their perspective.
These can also be cheap for the quality. Canon produces a lens nicknamed "the nifty 50", a 50mm F1.8 prime with excellent quality for under $100. I also love my 35mm F2 lens, especially for my cropped sensor. These produce excellent quality while still being nice on the pocketbook.
At least one of the beginning photography classes at any school should require the students to shoot with only the nifty 50 or equivalent. The first time I shot with my 35mm prime it changed my view of photography.
Lensbaby
The controversial equipment of the day. People seem to either love it or hate it. There are thousands of photos on flickr taken using this lens, and just mention it to any "serious" photographer and good chances you will hear moans, ironically from both the analogy and digital camps. Most of it stems from a view that the lens does all the work, just throw it on and make a "better image." But really that's never the truth. A lensbaby look can enhance an image if that's what it needs, but there needs to be a point. Bad photos of your dog will not get any better just because they are shot with a lensbaby. As with all photography the end result is a combination of choices and when they all work together you get a better image.
I've had this experience as people who have loved a piece changed their mind as soon as I mentioned I used a lensbaby. I was rather tempted to give them the location of the photo and suggest they make a duplicate of it if they thought it was "so easy."
There is often a lot of negativity in the online world of photography, which might be why I don't often participate in online photography forums. Go ahead and take that bad photo of your dog with a lensbaby, maybe don't show it as your best work but don't let people scare you into not taking it. The single most important thing to being a photographer is to not be afraid of failure, or creating a "bad image."
I own the Composer, it acts similar to a standard lens and can be used for long exposures. It makes for a good mount for experimentation as well. The apertures is set by inserting magnetic discs which means you can create your own apertures that distort light in different ways as well as control the 'lensbaby effect'. Material can easily be put in front of this to provide plastic lens looks. The glass is easily removable and can be replaced with home made pin hole elements. It really provides a lot of diversity while still allowing the use of a digital camera.
Cellphone camera
The best camera is the one you have on you.
They are often a pain in the ass to use, they rarely have reasonable exposure, focus or zoom control, they compress the image and are noisy and yet all of this can be freeing. Just push a button, take a photo, nothing more nothing less.
Chase Jarvis, an avid iPhone camera shooter (he also shoots with the latest medium format digital back) not only posts the best of his iPhone photos but has had a gallery exhibit based on them.
Everything
As you may have noticed all of these things work slightly different than a standard SLR setup. In the end a camera is just a box that collects and saves light. While many might worry about not having the proper L lens or the right kind of camera, the photographer works with what they have to create something unique. In the world of photography a stagnant photographer is a dead photographer, anything that changes ones perspective or habits should be tinkered with.
I see this all the time in large event photography. Hundreds of photographers wandering around with telephoto L lenses and large high megapixel DSLRs. They take nice photos of smiling and posed people, I'm sure these people will be quite pleased with their images on the photographers website, but it all looks the same. I can't tell one photographer apart from the other. The real challenge is to either shoot with subpar equipment and get good results or to separate yourself from the crowd.
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Architectural Landscape
Last semester I took an Architectural Landscape class, really for no other reason than I liked the prof. It was a good choice and now I recommend the class to everyone, especially those who hate or rarely do landscape photography.
The prof was very loose with the definition of architectural landscape,
•The viewer has to have a place to stand.
•It must be autobiographical, thus it must say something about the photographer.
•It needs to have architecture in it (this can take up a corner or the entire frame).
•It must be about the landscape.
Landscape photography differs drastically from other photography. There are no makeup artists, fashion designers, set decorators, strobes, hot lights, etc. Just you, your camera and the effort you put into it. At first it seems like there is very little that can be done with that. I mean how can I shoot without a profoto pack and makeup artist? Many people get too attached to the the tools and techniques, shaking things up once in awhile is good.
Back to the class, our second assignment was the break through for many students. A class field trip to the Embarcadero in San Francisco. We were allowed to shoot anywhere from the ballpark to pier 39. We all went on the same day, at the same time and yet many brought back completely different photos, sometimes of the same thing almost standing in the same spot. The class was amazed and so was I. My first instinct is to assume that most of the photos would turn out the same, after all you can't move a building or the sun. Most of what we have been taught revolves around changing our environment, which the camera captures. Often glossed over is the capture itself, well beyond getting a 'good' exposure. In this class everything was reversed, it's you and the camera that matters, everything else you just need to accept. This was freeing.
Embarcadero
What the class did expanded after that. It is a mid level class and many had lived and fretted under too many details and constraints for too long. The photo process was also left up to the photographer. Some people experimented with polaroids, others with photoshop. I experimented with modified plastic lenses.
The class was only 6 assignments plus 1 extra credit assignment long, but by the end it was possible to pick out one person's work over the other, even if they shot the same thing. This class really drove home the amount of personality people do and should bring to their work. I learned a lot about my work and others.
Something should be said about having your shit together as a prof in any school, even an art school that runs things a bit looser. Assignments were given out well ahead of time, the grading scale, late work scale, and redo policy all spelt out. critiques took up most of class time and offered different views based on where each student was coming from. This sits in contrast to another prof who couldn't give use accurate due dates or assignment details for important things like the mid term project, and had rambling critiques that called one person's work crap and another's excellent, for the exact same reasons.
A book presentation I created using work from this class,
erode gallery
The prof was very loose with the definition of architectural landscape,
•The viewer has to have a place to stand.
•It must be autobiographical, thus it must say something about the photographer.
•It needs to have architecture in it (this can take up a corner or the entire frame).
•It must be about the landscape.
Landscape photography differs drastically from other photography. There are no makeup artists, fashion designers, set decorators, strobes, hot lights, etc. Just you, your camera and the effort you put into it. At first it seems like there is very little that can be done with that. I mean how can I shoot without a profoto pack and makeup artist? Many people get too attached to the the tools and techniques, shaking things up once in awhile is good.
Back to the class, our second assignment was the break through for many students. A class field trip to the Embarcadero in San Francisco. We were allowed to shoot anywhere from the ballpark to pier 39. We all went on the same day, at the same time and yet many brought back completely different photos, sometimes of the same thing almost standing in the same spot. The class was amazed and so was I. My first instinct is to assume that most of the photos would turn out the same, after all you can't move a building or the sun. Most of what we have been taught revolves around changing our environment, which the camera captures. Often glossed over is the capture itself, well beyond getting a 'good' exposure. In this class everything was reversed, it's you and the camera that matters, everything else you just need to accept. This was freeing.
Embarcadero
What the class did expanded after that. It is a mid level class and many had lived and fretted under too many details and constraints for too long. The photo process was also left up to the photographer. Some people experimented with polaroids, others with photoshop. I experimented with modified plastic lenses.
The class was only 6 assignments plus 1 extra credit assignment long, but by the end it was possible to pick out one person's work over the other, even if they shot the same thing. This class really drove home the amount of personality people do and should bring to their work. I learned a lot about my work and others.
Something should be said about having your shit together as a prof in any school, even an art school that runs things a bit looser. Assignments were given out well ahead of time, the grading scale, late work scale, and redo policy all spelt out. critiques took up most of class time and offered different views based on where each student was coming from. This sits in contrast to another prof who couldn't give use accurate due dates or assignment details for important things like the mid term project, and had rambling critiques that called one person's work crap and another's excellent, for the exact same reasons.
A book presentation I created using work from this class,
erode gallery
Sunday, July 19, 2009
Sleevless or death
Speaking of presentation, if you want to cause an argument among a group of professional photographers or art buyers, just go up and ask them if plastic sleeves (higher quality 'photo grade' plastic protectors, often designed for use in portfolio books) are acceptable in a portfolio, then enjoy the show.
Everyone seems to have an opinion on them. An art buyer on an ASMP video blog hates them, however my portfolio teacher, an art buyer, doesn't mind them.
So, are they for you?
Sleeves
Pros
•Photo condom. Protecting your photos from finger prints and smudges.
•Allows photos to be switched out to update your portfolio.
•Cheaper and easier (if you can get the sheets on sale).
Cons
•Shiney surface can make it more difficult to view.
No-Sleeves
Pros
•Buyers enjoy more sensation by bareback touching your photos.
•no sheet to look through.
Cons
•Barebacking is messy and paper can get smudged or torn.
•Double sided paper is more expensive and harder to print on than standard sheets.
The truth
It doesn't matter. If someone turns you down for a job it's because your pictures weren't right, if they select you it's because they liked your style. You won't win a job over another photographer just because you didn't use sleeves and they did.
As a smart and upcoming photographer really you shouldn't worry about it and instead be arguing Flash vs HTML because today people only call in hard portfolios if you are on a very short list for the job. Your site is your new face to the world.
Everyone seems to have an opinion on them. An art buyer on an ASMP video blog hates them, however my portfolio teacher, an art buyer, doesn't mind them.
So, are they for you?
Sleeves
Pros
•Photo condom. Protecting your photos from finger prints and smudges.
•Allows photos to be switched out to update your portfolio.
•Cheaper and easier (if you can get the sheets on sale).
Cons
•Shiney surface can make it more difficult to view.
No-Sleeves
Pros
•Buyers enjoy more sensation by bareback touching your photos.
•no sheet to look through.
Cons
•Barebacking is messy and paper can get smudged or torn.
•Double sided paper is more expensive and harder to print on than standard sheets.
The truth
It doesn't matter. If someone turns you down for a job it's because your pictures weren't right, if they select you it's because they liked your style. You won't win a job over another photographer just because you didn't use sleeves and they did.
As a smart and upcoming photographer really you shouldn't worry about it and instead be arguing Flash vs HTML because today people only call in hard portfolios if you are on a very short list for the job. Your site is your new face to the world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)