I made this post over there, and it received a number of negative responses. I was surprised by this, as I often don't post for a flame effect. Can anyone tell me where I went wrong on this particular post? I think it may have a lot to do with insecurity and truth meeting in a tiny space, but I hadn't considered that when I wrote the post.

"This hasn't been a debate, at least not for me, it has been a quest for understanding and knowledge. So far I've received two really important bits of information. One, from Marko, came via a PM, and outlined a thought process I could understand. It prompted a change in the way I hope to make pictures from now on. The other, which was absolutely brilliant, came from Laura. At first she PM'ed me with it, and then I convinced her to post it in a thread at another site where a more fruitful discussion is taking place.

I have many friends here at MM, some I talk with and meet, others I correspond with via PM's, and still others I cross paths with in threads. For the most part, these people are interested in becoming better at their hobby, craft, career path, love, etc. But as far as I know, with one or two notable exceptions, none of them are working fashion photographers. Hell, even the most vocal fashionistas this place has to offer, have portfolios that suggest they have never been in anything more upscale that a Goodwill resale store. And because of that, I almost didn't allow Laura to respond when she asked me if she could. In the other forum, there is allowance for that kind of exception. I'm so glad I did, because what she said was an eye opener I had never considered.

So, I will continue to listen to what everyone has to say, and I might run into another observation such as the one Laura made. But to this point, no one else has made very much sense. I keep hearing platitudes, and that most irritating of statements about never being able to understand if I have to ask. That latter one coming from people so far on the fringe of actual fashion that I question whether or not they are getting their information from a source three pages underneath Jennifer lamenting Brad while shilling for her new found dieting guru.

As much as everyone would wish to be something they aren't, its my responsibility to myself to segregate the respondents into categories, and go from there. I do this because it will help me become something I am not. While your opinion is valid to you, I have to ask if it comes from a lifetime spent in pursuit of fashion photography on at least some commercial level, or does it come from observing what CK has done inside the pages of W. I simply don't know, which makes me question your opinion a bit.

The quality issue, relative to a monkeys choice of dessert, while funny, doesn't seem applicable.

If I've found two bits of information powerful enough to create a mood of change in myself, I'm hopeful to find more, so keep it coming."

If I had to venture a guess, I'd say that you were right when you said that it was probably a good mixture of insecurity and truth meeting.

Hell, if I didn't know my spot on the totem pole, the bold sentence above may have upset me a little.  Mind you, my anger wouldn't have been misplaced like what's been witnessed in that thread, but it would make me reflect on my work in a way that caused a lot of self doubt.  For the most part, I know my place in the grand scheme of things so those comments no longer incite in me the feelings that they once did....they merely push me to work harder.  But for other people who maybe haven't yet realized where they stand, those comments make people doubtful of their work, and well, they attack when they feel provoked.

Whether you meant that comment to be a jab at people or not, I can see why people would read it as one.  And they got defensive, misplaced their anger, and decided to use you as their target instead of admitting their short comings.

Kevlar Vest Girl wrote:

Ed Stringbourne wrote:

You have to consider the zeitgeist as well. Someone at DKNY has picked up Schuman because that AD thinks that that is what is going to sell their merchandise. Mags are very conservative, but somewhat like sheep - one will blaze a trail with a photographic style and then others, to a degree, suddenly follow because they believe that that is what is 'down with the kids on the street'. If Gucci did a huge campaign that was all cross-processed, for example, you wouldn't see la Chapelle or Schuman anywhere.

It's much more to do with the ADs and Pic Eds than the actual photographers. They choose the photographers, not  the photographers choose the campaigns. And if it's out of synch with your line of thinking it means a) you're right and the AD is wrong or b) the AD is right and you're wrong. At least when it comes to dictating current style. The success of the campaign is, to a degree, the indicator of that and can only really be investigated ex post facto.

I get that part, and I also get the part where the ultimate viewer isn't as well trained visually as I might be. The latter part is a big surprise to me, because of all the visual impact on our daily lives, I have always thought the average consumer was more sophisticated visually than I'm being told they really are.

People don't 'see' the way that photographs do, and you're talking about people who don't necessarily have any formal training so they go purely on the visceral level. I stuck some event pix up on a roller derby website - some others put up some tawdry guff and the girls lapped it up because the selective desat and filters 'made it look professional' in that it can't be done with in cam with a compact camera. Most peopole aren't bothered about lighting ratios, zones, convergence, areas of conflict, bokeh, grain etc they just care about liking the picture or not, irrespective of whether they even know why. I can't say why I like songs as I know nothing about music, I can just say from a visceral level that something is good (and by good I mean that I like it). Erin can fill in the flip side of that debate.

I, for the life of me, still can't understand why Leibowitz and Teller are so successful, but I love Bailey and Sieff.

I suck at threads today...disregard this.

Laura Ann Photography wrote:

Aren't you a portrait photographer? I know thats all I am. I guess when I see my contemporaries hogging press all over the place and being lauded over with 6 and 7 figure jobs, I could easily sit back and say it was luck or insider trading. The fact is, at this point in time, I'm not as good as they are. Some day I hopefully will be. And I truly don't want to hear any smoke going up my ass over this. You simply don't see my work in the same places, and I do use that as a barometer of my success. That, and the number of times I get rejected on the jobs I quote.

You don't see me attacking anyone for knocking me down to size, mostly because I never claimed to be anything more than what I am, which is competent.

I'm going to preface my response to this by saying that I've been up since 4, and my reading comprehension today is lacking.  That being said, I'm going to attempt to reply with something that at least appears to be well thought out.

I personally classify myself as a portrait photographer, I occasionally deviate from that to shoot a concept or idea that appeals to me, but if I had to choose something to call myself, it would be that.

This is where my brain starts to get jumbled, and my reply may not make sense.  My intial response to your post about people getting mad at your MM post was meant to say that people don't like feeling (or realizing) that their work isn't at the level that they think it is (or should be).  They attack because rather than humble themselves, they'd rather keep convincing themselves of their supposed "superiority".

What I read out of what you said is that you don't claim to be anything more than you are, and that you realize that there is still room for improvement somewhere along the line.  Correct me if I'm wrong, because like I said, my brain is beginning to give up on me today.  And if I am right about what I read into your post, then we're on the same page.

I think MM, and other online forums make it extremely easy to give oneself too much credit.  Some level of MM fame, well, it starts to give people the impression that they've gotten somewhere, that they've achieved some level of notoriety, and most likely that isn't the case.  How many people decide to take up photography as a "career" because all of their friends told them their pictures were perfect and showed a ton of promise.  Tell these people that perhaps their friends were wrong...well, you must be jealous or have no idea about anything.

If only the world were self-actualized.  Everything would be so much easier.

I am a good retoucher if what you are looking for is no evidence of my presence in your image. That is why fine art photographers sought me out. I also know print inside out, so my clients like what I do for them on the computer. I can do illustration and conceptual, but I'm not as good as Fat Cat Digital or Scott Gianini. So I give myself a B rating in the grand scheme of things.

I hate table top product photography, so I suck at it compared to those that revel in it. I give my self a solid C at it.

I love to shoot people of all kinds, my specialty being non pro real people. I have a rapport with them and it shows in my work. I give myself an A at that discipline.

The money is in conceptual photo illustration like Fiscus and Truglia do. I'm a solid B at that, and that is what I am working to improve upon.

The only people that regularly buy portraiture are B to B clients and the occasional magazine. Neither pay all that well. I can make enough money on one consumer ad to avoid having to work for almost three months. B to B I have to do a job a week. thankfully i do just a pinch more than that, which allows me the luxury of testing all the fucking time. I have had three vacation days in the last 5 years, and my heart is beginning to fuck up. Its a hard business, and its made harder for me when I post asking for answers that aren't forthcoming. I'm speaking of over there, not here. Here has been a God send.

So yes Laura, you interpreted correctly. I need to improve... a great deal.

Laura Ann Photography wrote:

I have a feeling that I'm not expressing myself as well as I'd like to (and the number of times I've had to read messages to fully understand them)...well, something tells me it's time to sign off for a while. 

I'm going to take a nap, and hopefully come back to this thread a little later with a refreshed mind.

Weird... I just told you that you understood me perfectly. Nap time for sure.

Kevlar Vest Girl wrote:

Laura Ann Photography wrote:

I have a feeling that I'm not expressing myself as well as I'd like to (and the number of times I've had to read messages to fully understand them)...well, something tells me it's time to sign off for a while. 

I'm going to take a nap, and hopefully come back to this thread a little later with a refreshed mind.

Weird... I just told you that you understood me perfectly. Nap time for sure.

See...I'm pathetic when I'm tired.  I doubt everything I think and say, thinking that I'm missing something.

But I crashed for 4 hours...I'm better now.

You are probably overthinking it Bob. This it what I think these photographers say behind closed doors... "Watch the crap I will produce and laugh while they still buy it".

Seems that they need to break as many rules and be as odd as possible to get noticed. All in the name of Fashion.

TXPhotog wrote:

A related note:  In addition to the copyright stuff in this video, the director of an art museum on "what is art?".

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colber … ed-colbert

And it came down to if an artist says it is art then it is art, which has become a inherent problem in the art world.

Van Gogh painted roughly 2-3 paintings a day, everyday, for ten years. His paintings are in probably every museum in the world. But are are all of his paintings great, did the guy every have a bad day (don't count the ear incidence), of course he did. Some of his paintings aren't very good but his best are off the charts. Since it's a Van Gogh people will eww and ahh and say it's all great, when in fact it cannot be, just based on the fact that a human being painted them.

As for advertising, is it an art form? My question being, if a photographer, who is considered an artist is hired then is the advertisement they create then art? or is the advertisement just an ad created by an artist?

Calvin Klein, as with the video linked earlier in the thread, has a history of WTF moments in their advertising. They seem to be of the belief that bad press is still press and if people are talking about them (like here) then it is all good. Gucci had an ad recently where a female model had her pubic hair shaved into a G--some thought it crossed the line others thought it was great advertising (making Gucci a little more personal) while others could have considered it the ultimate GWC move.

Back to Van Gogh, he never sold one painting while alive yet he painted endlessly, why? Because he was an artist and that is what he had to do. Can the same be said of the artists today? or is the need for recognition more important such that a point and shoot camera will be used for an ad in a major publication but will the point and shoot image be used in their catalogue or will the line be drawn there.