One photographer and eleven other important people ! ? !

[jsch]

I'm regularly reading this website, http://www.aphotoeditor.com, and find it interesting. But the credits for the images I didn't get most of the time. Consequently I posted this case where I think the pictures are not very elaborated and the amount of credited people was very high.

The images look like the images you can see in the magazines they give away for free in the skate board shops. Perhaps I'm too old, but to my eye they look uninspired (can you say so in english?).

Since 35 years I go every week to the international newspaper stand and a very big bookstore were the have only photography books. Additionally I own far to many magazines and books. I have the feeling that all these credited art directors have those old magazines and books too, they flip trough and tell the photographer reshoot this or that (or they didn't tell and sell the idea as their own). In addition they plan things like we photograph him in NY but in the skyline of Manhattan I want two buildings from Chicago and behind that the Mont Everest.

I remember art directors being people to discuss your work with and gave directions not orders. AD: "I like that, but have you tired ...?". Photographer: "Yes, but it looks bad." AD: "Have you tried ...?" Photographer: "Hey thank you, this is a great idea." AD: "You are welcome."

Today ADs are people who put handcuffs on photographers and force them to shoot into a very restricted layout. And in my opinion it started with this crediting business. Everyone wants to earn the reward but nobody wants to be responsible. If it is shit, it was the photographer and not the idiot who came up with the stupid idea.

Actually I see only very few photographers who can act relatively free, if they shoot big budget or celebrities. Perhaps Platon and Martin Schoeller, but I'm not sure.

Best,
Johannes
p.s.: It is not easy for me to explain this in english. I hope I didn't fuck it up too much.

[TMARK]

P.S.  In all fairness, shooting the photograph is not hard.  Being the guy/girl that gets that gig . . . that's hard.

You got it.  Sucking up to Kathy at Clamp Ching and at some PowerHouse Books Dumbo Party Craptacular, while biting your tounge about someone's hyped show is how you get these gigs.  Not a knock on Ryan at all.  I didn't bite my tongue about one of Kathy's favorite pet shooters, who I loath, personally and profesisonaly, and I never did anything else for the NYT again.  I wasn't frothy, I just dismissed said shooter as a fraud/opportunist without any original ideas.  Ha!

[TMARK]

I'm regularly reading this website, http://www.aphotoeditor.com, and find it interesting. But the credits for the images I didn't get most of the time. Consequently I posted this case where I think the pictures are not very elaborated and the amount of credited people was very high.

The images look like the images you can see in the magazines they give away for free in the skate board shops. Perhaps I'm too old, but to my eye they look uninspired (can you say so in english?).

Since 35 years I go every week to the international newspaper stand and a very big bookstore were the have only photography books. Additionally I own far to many magazines and books. I have the feeling that all these credited art directors have those old magazines and books too, they flip trough and tell the photographer reshoot this or that (or they didn't tell and sell the idea as their own). In addition they plan things like we photograph him in NY but in the skyline of Manhattan I want two buildings from Chicago and behind that the Mont Everest.

I remember art directors being people to discuss your work with and gave directions not orders. AD: "I like that, but have you tired ...?". Photographer: "Yes, but it looks bad." AD: "Have you tried ...?" Photographer: "Hey thank you, this is a great idea." AD: "You are welcome."

Today ADs are people who put handcuffs on photographers and force them to shoot into a very restricted layout. And in my opinion it started with this crediting business. Everyone wants to earn the reward but nobody wants to be responsible. If it is shit, it was the photographer and not the idiot who came up with the stupid idea.

Actually I see only very few photographers who can act relatively free, if they shoot big budget or celebrities. Perhaps Platon and Martin Schoeller, but I'm not sure.

Best,
Johannes
p.s.: It is not easy for me to explain this in english. I hope I didn't fuck it up too much.

It really depends on the magazine and the AD.  Shooting editorial is supposed to be your execution of a broad brief, such as "Studio Portraits of Junkies".  You can then come up with the particulars and talk it out with the AD and get some agreement to get certain shots in a certain style and there you go.  Some editorial work is the handcuffed BS, where the shoot is treated like a commercial shoot where you are shooting their comp.  And it doesn't pay much.  This is why I shoot occassionaly as part of my job at an agency and do the odd editorial for a magazine I respect.  I am very at peace with the way I shoot now, although when I'm on a set i get a little misty eyed.

[ndevlin]

All I know is... those are f*cking terrible photographs.

Weakest visuals in the magazine in a while.....

The real talent is actually at the Times Fashion Magazine, which is consistently superb.

imho.

- N.

[paulmoorestudio]

see that is why he does't get it..  not hip to the shots.. it is about FASHION, and the fashion folks that get it are working on the fashion mag...
if you are over 40 and not a fashionista then you will not get it either..as a still life photographer I remember the day when nyc fashion "discovered"cross processing
then it sweep the country and it's demand seeped down to the lowly still-lifers (or the even more social inept architechual guys) with ad's and editors saying can you do something like that?   Lets face it.. the craft of making an beautiful photograph is not as important as we photographers think it is..and when asked by x,y or z to do something in a commercal setting I for one do it. Editorially it is the responsibility of the photographer to me more proactive in putting out there your shot.. after all your name is on it and you are not being paid ad rates.