Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: What happened to my photography in 2013?  (Read 2620 times)
Christoph C. Feldhaim
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2509


There is no rule! No - wait ...


« Reply #20 on: March 10, 2014, 05:30:26 PM »
ReplyReply

How can I possibly answer for the OP? It's his question and problem, not mine!

Rob C

Allright - my fault - I'll try to do it more simple:

What happened to YOUR (Mr. Rob Campbells) photography in 2013?

Wink

Cheers
~Chris
Logged

WalterEG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1155


« Reply #21 on: March 10, 2014, 06:05:55 PM »
ReplyReply

I can attest that in 2013 Mr Rob Campbell latched onto a simple motif which in turn allowed him to find his mojo once more.  It has been a sensationally rewarding pleasure to have seen this saga unfold.

And that, whilst languishing here in a swamp of visual detritus, stagnation and self-delusion.

The OP was yet another typical exercise in self-centred navel gazing of little benefit or relevance.

W
Logged
Justinr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1004


WWW
« Reply #22 on: March 10, 2014, 06:09:17 PM »
ReplyReply

And for some of us, there's the problem: why would we want to be in either in those kinds of circumstances?

There you go, all these shamateurs were doing the work that many pro's didn't want to.  Wink
« Last Edit: March 10, 2014, 06:17:08 PM by Justinr » Logged

Christoph C. Feldhaim
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2509


There is no rule! No - wait ...


« Reply #23 on: March 10, 2014, 06:27:24 PM »
ReplyReply

I can attest that in 2013 Mr Rob Campbell latched onto a simple motif which in turn allowed him to find his mojo once more.  It has been a sensationally rewarding pleasure to have seen this saga unfold.

And that, whilst languishing here in a swamp of visual detritus, stagnation and self-delusion.

The OP was yet another typical exercise in self-centred navel gazing of little benefit or relevance.

W
Wow! That was relevant and very beneficial...
And totally necessary too ... hmmm?
« Last Edit: March 11, 2014, 06:51:18 AM by Christoph C. Feldhaim » Logged

Manoli
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 547


« Reply #24 on: March 10, 2014, 06:53:56 PM »
ReplyReply

I remember Sintra; fairy-tale castle, raining like hell and a British Vogue shoot to pull off... there was a knight in armour standing somewhere on a hill in the rain, too. Poor sod, I know just how he felt, and in the end, I guess we both went rusty.


Small world! What year were you there, Rob ?

M
Logged
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #25 on: March 11, 2014, 04:34:08 AM »
ReplyReply


Small world! What year were you there, Rob ?

M



I haven't got any of my fashion negatives or prints left, and my Rowi negative wallets would have been numbered and dated, but trying to place it in relation to other work, it must have been some time in the winter of '75. I do remember it was damned cold, and that the first half of the shoot was based in Lisbon, after which we transferred down to the Algarve, where it was also damned cold.

I have often regretted doing that destruction number - but on the other hand, 'yesterday is dead and gone and tomorrow's out of sight...'

Rob C

Logged

Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #26 on: March 11, 2014, 04:35:45 AM »
ReplyReply

And for some of us, there's the problem: why would we want to be in either in those kinds of circumstances?

There you go, all these shamateurs were doing the work that many pro's didn't want to.  Wink


That would have been okay, except that for many poor pros it was all the work that existed.

Rob C
Logged

Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #27 on: March 11, 2014, 04:38:25 AM »
ReplyReply

I can attest that in 2013 Mr Rob Campbell latched onto a simple motif which in turn allowed him to find his mojo once more.  It has been a sensationally rewarding pleasure to have seen this saga unfold.

And that, whilst languishing here in a swamp of visual detritus, stagnation and self-delusion.

The OP was yet another typical exercise in self-centred navel gazing of little benefit or relevance.

W



That kinda say it all; thanks!

;-)

Rob C
Logged

Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #28 on: March 11, 2014, 11:07:35 AM »
ReplyReply

Allright - my fault - I'll try to do it more simple:

What happened to YOUR (Mr. Rob Campbells) photography in 2013?

Wink

Cheers
~Chris



To give a straight answer: I've been taking photographs, one way or another, since around 1946. From that perspective, 2013 is no different other than a lot of experience has come along and a lot of different genres too. Some working years were very good and some rotten; the post-work era has been boring, on the whole, not because of photography per se but because of the lack of commissioned work, without which photography has had little relevance to living. At least, during the retired years whilst I still had a wife.

Since she died, photography has battled to be a filler of voids. It does that to an extent, probably saved my sanity, but as for being a driving force, them days is gone, man, gone. What I'd like to shoot, never wanted to top shooting, is now well out of my reality; what I face is the inevitable truth of the Donovan Syndrome.

So what about 2013? Not much; just another dull year like so many.

Finding a substitute photographic theme helps focus direction, but it doesn't prevent the realization of the pointlessness of it all coming to mind. I don't suppose I ever felt I'd lost my ability to make an exposure, but I do know that when there's no commercial imperative...

There isn't much pleasure in just pointing and going click. Any fool can, and does do that. Once you know how to do it, make a photograph as something distinct from a snap, you lose the challenge of that part of the thing and get to the stage where you need something worth the expended energy and unpleasantness of computer-gazing. At least, I do.

Rob C
Logged

Christoph C. Feldhaim
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2509


There is no rule! No - wait ...


« Reply #29 on: March 11, 2014, 01:26:20 PM »
ReplyReply

...
Once you know how to do it, make a photograph as something distinct from a snap, you lose the challenge of that part of the thing and get to the stage where you need something worth the expended energy and unpleasantness of computer-gazing. At least, I do.

Rob C


There are many situations, things and people in this world worth being photographed by such a fine and experienced photographer like you are, Rob.
Things that could actually need a good graphical representation performed by a skilled eye and visual mind.
I strongly hope Mrs.Coke will lead you to where you should go as a photographer.
Cheers
~Chris
Logged

RSL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6208



WWW
« Reply #30 on: March 11, 2014, 02:35:42 PM »
ReplyReply

I like Garry Winogrand's approach: "My only interest in photography is to see what something looks like as a photograph."
Logged

Justinr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1004


WWW
« Reply #31 on: March 11, 2014, 03:57:06 PM »
ReplyReply


That would have been okay, except that for many poor pros it was all the work that existed.

Rob C

To be brutally honest Rob then perhaps they should have got themselves a day job as well, nobody is owed a living simply because they call themselves a photographer.  Every trade likes to build itself a castle and then pull up the drawbridge (and in many that is quite necessary) but life goes on, the world changes and we are told that us wretched workers have to be flexible and there is no such thing as a job for life, as the miners found out. Shouldn't that apply across the board?

Sorry, but we've been over all the arguments in the past and if anything I'm even more inclined to consider the profession of photography as open to anyone who can prove themselves competent, and it is the market that will ultimately decide upon that.
« Last Edit: March 11, 2014, 05:11:33 PM by Justinr » Logged

NancyP
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 817


« Reply #32 on: March 11, 2014, 04:44:51 PM »
ReplyReply

Well, in 2014 this amateur is in the process of learning LF photography and relearning film (in the ancient of days, I shot and processed B+W). It is pretty amazing that you can get the basic camera and lens and a few holders for under $250.00. I will either hate it or love it? Right now I am mostly baffled by the choices of movements, exposure/developing, etc.
Logged
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #33 on: March 11, 2014, 05:10:15 PM »
ReplyReply

To be brutally honest Rob then perhaps they should have got themselves a day job as well, nobody is owed a living simply because they call themselves a photographer.  Every trade likes to build themselves a castle and then pull up the drawbridge (and in many that is quite necessary) but life goes on, the world changes and we are told that us wretched workers have to be flexible and there is no such thing as a job for life, as the miners found out. Shouldn't that apply across the board?

Sorry, but we've been over all the arguments in the past and if anything I'm even more inclined to consider the profession of photography as open to anyone who can prove themselves competent, and it is the market that will ultimately decide upon that.


And there the fatal flaw: no profession is that easy to subvert... I suppose, if anything, it really demonstrates that the vast majority of snappers calling themselves professionals never are, never were.

This has been borne out repeatedly in the past; nobody replaced the Baileys of this world, nor the industrial, architectural and advertising specialists, either.

Rob C
Logged

Justinr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1004


WWW
« Reply #34 on: March 11, 2014, 06:10:30 PM »
ReplyReply


And there the fatal flaw: no profession is that easy to subvert... I suppose, if anything, it really demonstrates that the vast majority of snappers calling themselves professionals never are, never were.

This has been borne out repeatedly in the past; nobody replaced the Baileys of this world, nor the industrial, architectural and advertising specialists, either.

Rob C

Which neatly brings us back to the definition of  'professional', and that is where we all differ, thankfully.  Wink
Logged

Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #35 on: March 12, 2014, 04:55:28 AM »
ReplyReply

Which neatly brings us back to the definition of  'professional', and that is where we all differ, thankfully.  Wink
[/quote





The definition is clear and unambiguous: a professional photographer is one who has earned his stripes holding a job working for somebody else in the professional, and/or has learned the required skills, and then maintains a job in the profession, either as a fellow photographer within a studio or in his own right as a functioning business. Being an assistant is not being a professional photographer; it's being an assistant. Being a professional requires that one is able to take responsibility, carry the required insurances, comply with the legal, employment and taxation regimes in place in one's area; in essence, it requires being fully occupied in the profession of producing photographic images as a means of survival and business growth; it isn't a weekend, paying hobby

The problems of definition are smokescreens developed by those who never were professionals but were indeed enamoured of the idea of being professionals, and consequently latched onto the most remote connections to the business and used those to declare themselves fully-fledged professionals. They are easy to spot: they talk a load of photographic crap and earn their keep, or starve, by doing something other than photography.

But I agree: this is old, fruitless territory that leads to no good place. I'm off the train.

Rob C
Logged

kencameron
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 669



WWW
« Reply #36 on: March 12, 2014, 05:35:08 AM »
ReplyReply

But I agree: this is old, fruitless territory that leads to no good place. I'm off the train.
The reason these arguments are interminable is that photography isn't a profession in the same sense as law or medicine - or even a trade in the same sense as bricklaying. There is no qualification that is required in order to lawfully sell one's services. There may be "professional" associations, but they are simply glorified clubs. Membership may be of assistance in marketing, but the lack of membership isn't an impediment to activity.  Rob has a definition about which he feels strongly, but it is simply his definition - it is a good starting point for discussions, but has no other weight out there in the world. It structures his judgements around language and behaviour, and one may respect it, but there is no binding reason why anyone should accept it or why it has more weight than anyone else's definition. Calling oneself a lawyer or doctor, or a bricklayer, is a different matter (subject to differences in jurisdictions).
Logged

Isaac
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2781


« Reply #37 on: March 12, 2014, 06:26:16 AM »
ReplyReply

In California -- "Barbers, cosmetologists, electrologists, estheticians, manicurists, barber and cosmetologists instructors, and apprentices of the aforementioned, must be licensed."

Logged
RSL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6208



WWW
« Reply #38 on: March 12, 2014, 07:40:17 AM »
ReplyReply

That's a political problem, Isaac, largely confined to the land of the fruits and the nuts.
Logged

Justinr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1004


WWW
« Reply #39 on: March 12, 2014, 07:49:04 AM »
ReplyReply

The reason these arguments are interminable is that photography isn't a profession in the same sense as law or medicine - or even a trade in the same sense as bricklaying. There is no qualification that is required in order to lawfully sell one's services. There may be "professional" associations, but they are simply glorified clubs. Membership may be of assistance in marketing, but the lack of membership isn't an impediment to activity.  Rob has a definition about which he feels strongly, but it is simply his definition - it is a good starting point for discussions, but has no other weight out there in the world. It structures his judgements around language and behaviour, and one may respect it, but there is no binding reason why anyone should accept it or why it has more weight than anyone else's definition. Calling oneself a lawyer or doctor, or a bricklayer, is a different matter (subject to differences in jurisdictions).

Indeed.
Logged

Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad