Photographers of Pinkbike-READ THE OP

PB Forum :: Pinkbike Groups
Photographers of Pinkbike-READ THE OP
Author Message
Posted: Feb 2, 2014 at 13:02 Quote
I rarely colour correct the colour of an image while scanning, I do everything in lightroom cause I'm lazy and hate scanning.

Posted: Feb 2, 2014 at 13:50 Quote
I'm a huge fan of Bryant's work. All natural light, coloring on point. (Note: semi-nsfw)

Also, Nicholas Maggio. These two are probably my biggest influence as far as styling goes currently.

Posted: Feb 2, 2014 at 14:04 Quote
Maggio has his ducks in a row. That's some cracking good work.

Posted: Feb 2, 2014 at 18:48 Quote
I've uploaded a bunch of downhill photos on my tumblr in case anyone wants to see them.
http://seven-clicks.tumblr.com

Posted: Feb 3, 2014 at 0:23 Quote
Say what you want but I would call that look "The lazy hipster look". Everyone is doing it. As far as I'm concerned blasting your subject with on axis flash needs no skill whatsoever.

Posted: Feb 3, 2014 at 1:10 Quote
Stoked-Commencal wrote:
Say what you want but I would call that look "The lazy hipster look". Everyone is doing it. As far as I'm concerned blasting your subject with on axis flash needs no skill whatsoever.

I strongly disagree with that. I don't think that falls into a "lazy hipster look" (there is no way to define such a thing anyways, cause what is a "hipster" look?). Also I don't think many people are doing it, and who cares if they are? A lot of people are taking boring photos anyways, but a documentary style of point and shoot photography is making the comeback now and I like it. And I think it does need skill, not so much technical skill, but these people have a good eye for what makes a good photograph, including in a fine art context (it should be noted that Berman did go to art school too). The content of a photo is more important then the technical stuff of a photo imo (aka how well it's lit, etc, etc). Photos that are so technically well done get kinda boring to look at, imo. A lot of the time, the photographer overlooks a bit of the content of the photograph for the perfectly lit and composed photo.

Posted: Feb 3, 2014 at 2:46 Quote
While I agree with you to an extent on the point that the content of the photo is important if the technical side was to fall by the wayside then what need is there for us as photographers? If someone can just snap a picture without thought why should we carry these cameras and make an effort to learn and grow? Anyone can shoot these photo's if they're in the right time and place but to orchestrate a complex shoot is a whole different beast where the content is just as important alongside the technical aspect.

Posted: Feb 3, 2014 at 3:15 Quote
I think as a photographer it's sort of a universal duty to try and combine an interesting subject with a pleasing image, at least as is practical and befitting of the subject. You might as well try, unless another look makes more sense artistically. But then it should be by design, and not just a result of laziness.

I don't mind the flash look in some instances. It works nicely for stuff like the punk rock venues. It does add a feeling of rawness, and it's not like you really have much choice shooting a P&S film camera under (if my experience with small music shows is accurate) generally atrocious ambient lighting.

Posted: Feb 3, 2014 at 9:46 Quote
Stoked-Commencal wrote:
While I agree with you to an extent on the point that the content of the photo is important if the technical side was to fall by the wayside then what need is there for us as photographers? If someone can just snap a picture without thought why should we carry these cameras and make an effort to learn and grow? Anyone can shoot these photo's if they're in the right time and place but to orchestrate a complex shoot is a whole different beast where the content is just as important alongside the technical aspect.

I don't think anyone can just take a photo though. Technical stuff is important, to a degree.

Nan Goldin talks more about what I mean in regards to content of a photo in this.


Posted: Feb 3, 2014 at 10:34 Quote
The way I see it, anyone and their grandmother can learn the technical side of photography. All it takes is time, patience, and maybe some money to buy a real nice DSLR - hence the rapid influx of photographers in our day and age. However there is another side - which is dictated by how the photographer sees the world, what they choose to photograph, and their execution. This is not a skill that you can learn. You are simply born with it, or you are not. Now this is not to say there is anything wrong with being a photographer that relies solely on technical stuff - There are plenty of weddings/school photos/pet photos/ETC to be shot - you can make a living off of that... But some photographers have a completely different approach to photography, wherein they would rather learn about there own identity as a photographer/artist and learn about how to separate themselves from the crowd, rather than trying to do what everyone else is doing. The reality is; these days, there will always be a surplus of photographers. And whether focused on the technical side or the artistic side, there will always be masters, and there will always be followers.

Posted: Feb 3, 2014 at 12:25 Quote
Just to jump in a bit. I wouldnt even call myself a photographer, but personally i know i dont have a good eye. What im good at (i feel) is the technical stuff. manipulating light, and building the picture i have in my head, rather than trying to capture the beauty i see in front of me, as i just dont seem to be able to see it. If i had the money i would just have a tonne of lighting gear, and build what i imagined in my head. I cant afford that so i shoot basic photos of bikes and cars, but that was basically my take on how you can be a technical photographer with no context, but build amazing images out of technical stuff. Although that is a whole other level to just setting up exposure in camera.

Posted: Feb 3, 2014 at 13:10 Quote
This is a pretty interesting discussion.

It's more about the discovery and experience of an image for me personally. I don't necessarily go out with a specific image in mind that I try to execute. I try to forget my conscious thoughts and simply rely on the different elements of a scene to suggest something to me. I like to go through a sort of collaborative conversation with the scene rather than try to execute a preconceived vision.

Here's a picture.


Posted: Feb 3, 2014 at 21:04 Quote
NSFW


I was shooting last night and took this while the model was getting ready, and it ended up being in my top faves. so I am sharing. hope it is not to much for pinkbike.

Posted: Feb 4, 2014 at 1:32 Quote
James-Carey wrote:
Just to jump in a bit. I wouldnt even call myself a photographer, but personally i know i dont have a good eye. What im good at (i feel) is the technical stuff. manipulating light, and building the picture i have in my head, rather than trying to capture the beauty i see in front of me, as i just dont seem to be able to see it. If i had the money i would just have a tonne of lighting gear, and build what i imagined in my head. I cant afford that so i shoot basic photos of bikes and cars, but that was basically my take on how you can be a technical photographer with no context, but build amazing images out of technical stuff. Although that is a whole other level to just setting up exposure in camera.

But there would still be context in there cause you're building what is in your head... This is much like what Jeff Wall does for his tableaux images. All of his images are from scenes he has seen on the street/from memory (mainly his earlier work) or from stories/paintings, and he spends a shit ton of time just building the set and lighting it perfectly and months in photoshop manipulating the many many photographs he took of that one set he built to get the image he had in his head...

Posted: Feb 4, 2014 at 5:47 Quote
Photography is inherently technical, but it does not take a technically savvy person to take compelling imagery. For me I think both sides of your photography need to be in balance, both the technical and the creative vision. Both are limiting factors onto them selfs. If you have a vision, a photograph rattling around in your head but don't have the chops to get that idea down in a print then you are shit out of luck. and the inverse is true too.

I think there is an ever increasing amount of photographers who have amazing creativity that pours out day and night but don't have the technical background to make it happen. I attribute this to digital cameras, and I don't know that its a bad thing. Plenty of non technical people make it big in both the commercial and fine art worlds. In the commercial world they just surround them selfs with crew that are brilliantly technical and can give them what ever they want.

For me personally, I am most impressed with the people that preform on a high level on both sides of the equation.


 
Copyright © 2000 - 2017. Pinkbike.com. All rights reserved.
dv56 0.026618
Mobile Version of Website