Unlike my last post, I'm going to (try to) resist heading off in the direction of photographic, metaphysical, esoterica this morning. I'm well caffeinated so that shouldn't be too much of a problem.
People like to classify things. Photographers, being people, aren't an exception to this. It's amazing how many different genres, categories, and classifications there are in the world of shooting pictures. It's enough to make your head spin! There's fashion photography over here, glamour photography over there, and beauty photography somewhere else. You have portraits in one hand and environmental portraiture in the other. Lifestyle photographs fill one cubby-space while editorial is tossed in a different one. There are various pigeonholes for nudes, art nudes, glamour nudes, porn nudes, and more. The list goes on and on. I've barely scratched the surface with the few genres I've listed and that surface -- the one I've barely scratched -- merely includes a few of the many classifications of people-photography. The list gets really long when you add landscape, architectural, nature, and more!
Now here's the interesting part, leastwise, it's interesting to me: Sometimes, when a photographer bridges multiple classifications, i.e., he or she tears down the walls between two or more photographic pigeonholes--in a way where they suddenly become a larger pigeonhole--that photographer is, occasionally, praised for their creativity and photographic achievement. Other times, however, the shooter is smacked down for failing to adhere to the "rules" that govern a specific pigeonhole. I'm not bitching or complaining about any of this. I'm just saying. And I'm just saying because this whole process of "just saying" helps me continue to figure all this stuff out. At least, I think it does.
Some photographers firmly believe the rules are made to be broken. Others believe the rules are there for good reasons and should be conformed to. I don't know who is more right? I guess it's all about how rules are broken when they're broken and/or how they are adhered to when they are obeyed.
I guess the trick is to know when to break the rules and when to obey them. But regardless of whether rules are broken or pigeonholes are breached, a great image is a great image and that greatness always trumps the rules or makes the walls of a pigeonhole meaningless.
Shit. I think this post ventured more into the realms of Photographic Esotericism than I hoped it would.
Oh well.
The pretty girl at the top is Hannah from yesterday's shoot at a location house in Venice, Ca. I lit Hannah with two light sources: A 500ws monolight modified with a 32" Larson Hex umbrella for my mainlight, and a 300ws monolight, boomed above and behind her, modified with a small, rectangular, Photoflex softbox. Canon 5D, 28-135 IS USM, ISO 100, f/5.6 @ 160th. MUA was Melissa. And, yes, those chest puppies were naturally grown.
2 comments:
lovely work as always.
i know i say it alot, but i tend to get more of your blog than almost all of the photo forums i read.
thanks again.
Well, it all depends on who you listen to, what their agenda really is, what their fears are, and whether you care about any of it.
Usually, photographers who don't like other photographers "breaking the rules" are worried that the rule breakers will screw up the non-rule-breakers' bottom line and "specialness" standing.
Old-school wedding photographers in a given region went ape shit when the new breed broke the rules and started giving clients their images on disc. It's pretty obvious why.
But, where money's not the real issue, it's just plain old fear of being one-upped by someone with a better idea.
Me? I do what I want.
Post a Comment