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

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.

Spring show II

When I went to pick up my Spring Show pieces that weren't accepted there were tons of still unclaimed photos in the room that I had to sift through to find my work, which hammered home two things.

I'm right, group shows are a crap shoot, as there were plenty of rejected images that were amazing.

Presentation matters. Photographers are taught to look at every detail of their photo. Are the highlights right? Do the shadows have details? Are the blacks black? angles just right? A stray hair in that perfect fashion photo? Is the image tack sharp? We spend time and money on techniques, researching the best, sometimes expensive, lenses and learn how to use them at their sharpest. Yet it seems like people forget the presentation.

Flipping through the images I was amazed at how many were matted with a step up from white construction paper and taped with blue painters tape on the back. Others were sleeved with sheet protectors and they didn't even go through the trouble to cut the brand and binder holes off. Not only does it shout unprofessional it also says that they don't care enough about their work to present it in a nice or proper way, and yet I know many photographers in school that practically fall in love with every shot they take.

Treat your work like you are proud of it, otherwise how can you expect cynical judges to care.

Thoughts on Photography

I'm almost finished with my AA degree in photography. The entire point of the degree is so I can say I have a college level education, no photography job will ever ask for it. Although I fear it may be a Masters or higher to work at McDonald if this taking pictures thing doesn't work out.

I've spent the last couple of years immersed in photography. I've noticed there are plenty of cynical and jaded people and then there are the successful photographers. Ok there is some overlap but it seems like those who are making an impact in the world today are those that find fascination and wonder in most things they look at or do instead of constant complaining and sticking to old traditions.

Recently one of my photos was selected for the Academy of Art Spring Show (Image and Spring Show 09 Photo Dept), an annual show the school holds to show off the best of each department, as well as advertise themselves. While I'm proud of this, the reality is that getting into group shows or winning contests is a crap shoot because, ignoring your competition, you are really up against the judge's personal opinions and sometimes cynicism. You may have an awesome photo of a bunny, but if the judge has decided that cute animals are right out, it doesn't matter. You may have a really creative idea but that often means someone will dislike it and thus the winner is something safe that all the judges can agree on.

That's not to say there aren't some really good images in the Spring Show but it doesn't mean anything rejected was bad, on the contrary I constantly saw work in all of my classes I feel are better than many of those in the Spring Show, including my own piece.

When people don't get picked and see 'lesser' works chosen, it breads more cynicism and one day those cynics are going to grow up to be judges who can then eliminate all smiling babies and call themselves edgy. The trick to photography seems to be letting go, of your work, ideas, gadgets, cynicism, etc. Photography is a subtractive art both physically and mentally.