Thinking about some pictures I saw

[Blasted]

I would just say to you. There is only one way to find out! I think you should get a girl that is as close to looking like a fashion model as possible and see what you can do. Then you will know the answer and it is the only way to know for sure.

I agree. It could be fun and exciting to get a model and actually have a go, maybe spend a bit of time planning a specific shot or style.

 

[mart77]

I agree. It could be fun and exciting to get a model and actually have a go, maybe spend a bit of time planning a specific shot or style.

Yes, everything else is just speculation and opinion.

 

[Pookeyhead]

Very interesting reading, some points that I agree with some that I really don't agree with...but fascinating to read all the same...I don't really get the concept of creativity, I do what I do because I enjoy it, I like to make images that are interesting and to my mind pretty, some I create with a specific goal of telling a story, some I do just for the shear fun of the challenge doing it e.g. My space race fun earlier in the year, that for me was more about the challenge of getting images of something I'd never gone out to try before...was it artistic no, it was far more a technical exercise than anything else, it was however a lot of fun

Of course you do. We all do. At least you're honest about this Mathew. Many aren't. Many deny that creativity is important, or if particularly obstinate, that it even exists. You do what you do, and readily admit that you don't get what makes something creative. You just want to make pretty pictures. That's fine. Sometimes, so do I. What annoys me is when peopel who clearly don't get what makes something creative, starts slagging off work of those that do from a position of ignorance.... like in the recent Taylor Wessing Portrait Prize thread. You just get on with what you do and make what you make. Nothing wrong with that.

I also understand the fact that a lot of people will not like the type of thing that I like

It's not a matter of liking. For instance.. I love any image that includes stars... something about them touches me on a personal level. You do a great deal of that... I know. It's a technical endeavour though. Anyone who learns what shutter speeds, apertures, and what software to stack the images with can produce work as good as yours. You know this is true... because you run workshops on it. Where creativity would come in is what you then DO with that technique... many are content to stop with the technique itself... just shoot stars trails... maybe have a building there for scale... that's pretty much it.

I dislike many artists work, but I have to acknowledge it's brilliance sometimes. Which is another amateur trait: Like = Good. Hate = Crap. Scarily close to the old saying "I don't know much about art, but I know what I like". I love Brunelli's work, but I think it's horrible!... but that's why I like it.. even though I don't like it... LOL It disturbs me.. makes me very uneasy. It's clearly brilliant work though.

Re: The whole Steve McCurry.. shooting in deprived areas discussion.. it's a long, and tired debate that has been running since before you were born. people have always questioned the National Geographic type photography that creates beautiful imagery of places and peoples that are essentially living hard lives. This debate has even been named - The Pornography of the Poor - However.... It's clear that McCurry's famous shot "Afghan Girl" does not fit into this category. That gaze says something else entirely.

but does a shot have to be amazingly well shot and artistic to do this on high end equipment with use of studio style lighting to achieve that perfect shot.

I'm not really aware of anyone who flies into war torn, deprived and desperate areas of the world with studio lighting though Mathew. Who are you referring to? Flying in there with a D4... well that's just because you need a camera that can cope with a harsh environment, and has the features a photo-journalist needs... fast frame rates, geo tagging, yadda yadda.... that's always been the case though. I bet Don McCullin was glad he has his Nikon F when it stopped a .303 round entering his chest .... If he'd taken the day's equivalent of a D80... he'd be dead now.

 

[PMN]

I bet Don McCullin was glad he has his Nikon F when it stopped a .303 round entering his chest .... If he'd taken the day's equivalent of a D80... he'd be dead now.

Didn't it stop the bullet entering his head? I'm sure I read somewhere he had the camera up to his eye at that point! Either way, pretty damned lucky...