WebModels Forum is a message board for models, photographers, agents, managers, and others associated with the modeling industry.

Posted by: Doug Lester (66.245.9.98) on June 29, 2003 at 23:55:58

Location: Atlanta

In Reply to: Re: posted by Owen Phairis on June 29, 2003 at 22:30:35:

This is long but please read it, I'm never going to do this again!

: It is my belief, that what photography needs now more than ever is controversy!

I totally disagree with that. There is, always has been and probably always be plenty of "controversy" in photography.
Instead of controversy, what is needed is education as to what causes an image to be acceptable, not to mention 'good'. Over the past generation there has been a continuing 'dumbing down' of photography; a dumbing down which I think correlates quite well with the overall dumbing down of society, but that's a topic for a very different thread. Since the advent of auto everything cameras, quality photography has suffered. Then came the internet and suddenly anyone who bought a K-Mart auto camera last week could be a "pro". (Sure he's a pro, he has a website on the internet!)

I developed my first 35mm film a bit over 50 years ago, Royal Pan if I recall correctly, shot in a 35 mm Bolsey with a fixed lens and of course no light meter. The results sucked swamp gas, but if the internet forums had been around, I've no doubt I would have been told how "great" they were. Over the years I learned a bit more; I found myself supervising a large scale photo operation for one of those federal alphabet soup agencies. At the same time, I found myself teaching crash courses in photography at a university level. These were total submersion, hands on courses. Beginning at 8 AM Monday the first day of class, with my comments, "this is called film and this is called a camera. By Wednesday the class was developing their own film and on Thursday, making 8x10s. I also found myself testifying in court concerning photos, maybe a few hundred times, including a couple of times in Federal court as an "expert witness". Later I found myself running my own commercial studio and getting published in a variety of local and national organs. To my surprise, I found my work being exhibited in art galleries and juried salon in 15 states, plus a couple of other countries. Some people actually liked what I did!

Had the internet been around, with it's attaboy, great shot mentality, I would probably not have progressed. Why change what I'm doing or work harder if what I'm doing is "great"? I know it's "great", they told me so on the internet!

No, there is plenty of controversy, what is needed is education!

:Adams when he was alive was our spokesperson, for better or worse.

Again I disagree. Adams was a superb crafstman, but by no means "the" spokesman for photography. While Adams was shooting his mountain and desert vistas, people like Wynn Bullock were shooting the nude in the environment and helping to make photography an art form. Bulloch's original prints are now going at auction for about the same price as Adam's work. There were many others who were contemporaries and helped move photography to public acceptance as a form of art. Dare I mention "Weegee"? Or what about Harry Callahan or Lucien Clergue? Maybe Mapplethorpe or Demarchelier?

:We currently have no leader.

Do we need a leader? What for? Do you want to be led? What we need is for the public, photographers, clients and forum participants to be educated in print quality! The mom and pop portrait studios which produced such outstanding quality a generation ago, are gone forever. Photography has been dumbed down to such an extent that Sears or Walmart portraiture now seems to be the standard.

Muddy B&W images are sometimes even considered to be 'good'. Certainly High key and low key images don't show a full range of tones, but what they do is use light and shadow to draw the viewers attention to the center of interest; through the use of negative space, high and low can focus attention on what the photographer chooses to be the center of attention.

What do mid tone grays do to focus attention? When tones range from Adams' zone 3 to zone 7, where does the eye go? The eye tends to scan around and not finding anything, tends to move on; mid tone grays lack what some have described as "the demand to look". Mid tones just don't 'demand' the viewers attention; high and low key can, mid key just doesn't. Several highly experienced pro and seriously competent amateur shooters have pointed out a problem with your images as they are posted. Maybe the original prints are different, I have no way of knowing. But you can either pay attention to what has been said or not.

But I've shot my wad with this thread and will not address it again.

• Distinctive Images

Follow Ups:

• Re: this is long, but please read, ... - Owen Phairis 00:58:23 06/30/03 (1)
  • There's the frigging problem!!!!!! - Doug L. 01:22:56 06/30/03 (0)

Do Not Reply to Archived Messages

Name    : 
E-Mail  : 
Password:  A password is required to post messages. If you do not have one, pleaseregister now!
Subject : 

Location: 

Comments:
: This is long but please read it, I'm never going to do this again!

: : It is my belief, that what photography needs now more than ever is controversy!  

: I totally disagree with that. There is, always has been and probably always be plenty of "controversy" in photography. 
: Instead of controversy, what is needed is education as to what causes an image to be acceptable, not to mention 'good'. Over the past generation there has been a continuing 'dumbing down' of photography; a dumbing down which I think correlates quite well with the overall dumbing down of society, but that's a topic for a very different thread. Since the advent of auto everything cameras, quality photography  has suffered. Then came the internet and suddenly anyone who bought a K-Mart auto camera last week could be a "pro". (Sure he's a pro, he has a website on the internet!)

: I developed my first 35mm film a bit over 50 years ago, Royal Pan if I recall correctly, shot in a 35 mm Bolsey with a fixed lens and of course no light meter. The results sucked swamp gas, but if the internet forums had been around, I've no doubt I would have been told how "great" they were. Over the years I learned a bit more; I found myself supervising a large scale photo operation for one of those federal alphabet soup agencies. At the same time, I found myself teaching crash courses in photography at a university level. These were total submersion, hands on courses. Beginning at 8 AM Monday the first day of class, with my comments, "this is called film and this is called a camera.  By Wednesday the class was developing their own film and on Thursday, making 8x10s. I also found myself testifying in court concerning photos, maybe a few hundred times, including a couple of times in Federal court as an "expert witness". Later I found myself running my own commercial studio and getting published in a variety of local and national organs. To my surprise, I found my work being exhibited in art galleries and juried salon in 15 states, plus a couple of other countries. Some people actually liked what I did!

: Had the internet been around, with it's attaboy, great shot mentality, I would probably not have progressed. Why change what I'm doing or work harder if what I'm doing is "great"? I know it's "great", they told me so on the internet!

: No, there is plenty of controversy, what is needed is education!

: :Adams when he was alive was our spokesperson, for better or worse. 

: Again I disagree. Adams was a superb crafstman, but by no means "the" spokesman for photography. While Adams was shooting his mountain and desert vistas, people like Wynn Bullock were shooting the nude in the environment and helping to make photography an art form. Bulloch's original prints are now going at auction for about the same price as Adam's work. There were many others who were contemporaries and helped move photography to public acceptance as a form of art. Dare I mention "Weegee"? Or what about Harry Callahan or Lucien Clergue? Maybe Mapplethorpe or Demarchelier? 

: :We currently have no leader. 

: Do we need a leader? What for? Do you want to be led?  What we need is for the public, photographers, clients and forum participants  to be educated in print quality!  The mom and pop portrait studios which produced such outstanding quality a generation ago, are gone forever. Photography has been dumbed down to such an extent that Sears or Walmart portraiture now seems to be the standard. 

: Muddy B&W images are sometimes even considered to be 'good'. Certainly High key and low key images don't show a full range of tones, but what they do is use light and shadow to draw the viewers attention to the center of interest; through the use of negative space, high and low can focus attention on what the photographer chooses to be the center of attention. 

: What do mid tone grays do to focus attention? When tones range from Adams' zone 3 to zone 7, where does the eye go? The eye tends to scan around and not finding anything, tends to move on; mid tone grays lack what some have described as "the demand to look". Mid tones just don't 'demand' the viewers attention; high and low key can, mid key just doesn't. Several highly experienced pro and seriously competent amateur shooters have pointed out a problem with your images as they are posted. Maybe the original prints are different, I have no way of knowing. But you can either pay attention to what has been said or not. 

: But I've shot my wad with this thread and will not address it again.


Optional Link URL:  
Example: http://www.webmodels.com
Link Title:         
Example: WebModels - Information and Resources
Optional Image URL: 
Example: http://www.webmodels.com/images/webmodels.jpg

Do Not Reply to Archived Messages