I had a feeling I might provoke a Strobist with my post, Reflectors: The Other Way to Light. (Oh well. At least it gives me something to write about-- "something to write about" being one of the hardest things about maintaining a blog... for over three years now.)Anyway...
As a result of the aforementioned update, someone named "Anonymous" commented: "I would agree that some of the Strobist lighting "look" is repetitive, but you have to remember, yours is already SO much so. To me, it's boring."
Although I went out of my way to praise David Hobby and his Strobist site--his site is, after all, one of my faves and I admire David greatly--I still made a comment that was slightly critical of, what seems like, an oft-seen, generic, Strobist lighting style.
Sacrilege? Hell, I don't know. Dishing a dis? Certainly not intended.
You see, it seems that more than a few Strobist readers follow the lighting doctrines and gospels of David Hobby with near religious fervor. Nothing wrong with that. As a result, many formerly average and pedestrian snapshot takers are now producing images of exceptional quality. Personally, I think the world is a better place with less "photographers" who suck at photography. Go team!
But we all know what happens when you question, even question in such a minor way, a religion's beliefs... even a religion whose precepts are all about photographic lighting-- Often, it ain't pretty.
Perhaps some of you might be thinking I'm overreacting to the comment made by the anonymous reader? Well, perhaps I am. Or, perhaps I'm just in a pissy mood today. (It happens.) But I think I've
The difference between so many Strobists and yours truly is that my livelihood depends on me shooting much of this stuff in that same boring and repetitive manner the anonymous commenter mentions. My clients don't pay me to try out new approaches to pretty girl shooting. They have specific uses for the images I capture and they want them captured in a specific way. My clients continue to hire me for the CONSISTENCY of my work. They're not interested in gambling or risking their money when they hire me. They know they're going to get what they're paying for, namely, competent, glamour and tease images of pretty girls in sexy poses with and without wardrobe and shot in a dependably CONSISTENT style... boring as that style might be to some.
You think shooting in a consistent style isn't a paramount reason so many working fashion and commercial shooters are hired, over and over, by the same clients? Photographers, please. As a rule, clients want to know what they're going to get before they hire a specific photographer. Clients don't like surprises unless those surprises are exceptional and exceed their expectations and, frankly, most photographers aren't willing to risk an ongoing client relationship to experiment on someone else's dime. You want to try out something new? Try it out on your own dime. And then, take the results to your clients and see if they like it. If they do, great. If not, they still know you can shoot in that old, dependable style that they're counting on you to deliver... plus sometimes , as a bonus, with a few of those tricky secrets of the pros [sic] tossed in.
BTW, if a client were to suddenly materialize and hire me to shoot some B&W art nudes--however unlikely that might be--you watch how freaking fast my shit looks different, way different from what you see here. And guess what else? My B&W art nudes won't look like experiments. They'll look like I've been shooting that stuff for years. How so? Because I'm confident I could take all the crap I know about lighting and composition and exposure and adapt it to other genres. That's called experience.
If I were a hobbyist and/or new to photography (like so many Strobists are) I would be trying out all kinds of different approaches to my work. I would develop different styles. My work wouldn't look consistently familiar and, once I knew I could competently shoot using newly learned techniques, I'd be moving on to other new techniques. But I'm not a hobbyist. And I'm not new to photography. I make my entire living with cameras in my hands. And I'd like to keep doing so.
Let's say I were a guy working on the auto assembly line in Detroit. (Perhaps there are a few Strobists who make their livings that way?) I don't think it would go over real well if I walked into work one day and decided to make a different car than the one my employer was paying me to make. If I did so, I probably wouldn't last long on that job. Besides its obvious statement, does this analogy also hint at me saying I'm more a mechanic than anything else? I suppose it does. My clients don't pay me to create art or to deliver images that don't look like the images they expect. They pay me to create a specific make and model of pretty girl, if that makes sense.
Does all this mean I'm content making repetitive and boring pictures of pretty naked women? Nope. And I'm fairly sure I've written about that as well. I will mention that I'm always looking to expand my photographic horizons. I'm always looking for new and different opportunities. And I'm convinced I'll reach some of those other goals. But, in the meantime, I need to keep food on the table and a roof over my head so, as banal as it all might be, I'll continue making repetitive, boring pictures of sexy women until I can earn my keep making some other sorts of pictures, hopefully, of the non-boring variety.
The boring and repetitive pretty girl image at the top is Kat from a year or so ago.
*UPDATE* Wow! A few hours after blogging this post and, suddenly, I have a Google Content Warning on the site! Over three years of posting my babble along with my pics and now Google has a warning posted which, BTW, takes someone filing a complaint for that to happen. Religious and other moral zealots, a.k.a. asswipes! Just what the world needs LESS of.
15 comments:
I am a strobist and one of the amateurs whose work has benefitted from reading David's site. I have been visiting your blog and while it may be workmanlike at times it sure isn't boring. What is particularly interesting is that you get a good look without being in a studio setting most of the time and by using a number of techniques. I'm trying to develop the same skill myself... BTW, what was the lighting on Kat?
BTW, what was the lighting on Kat?
As I recall, I used a 5' Ocotodome for my main, positioned camera-right. (That's what's giving her a the classical Rembrandt patch on the right side of her face and providing some of the chiaroscuro shading on her body.) I hit her hard with a Chimera medium strip, camera-left, kept low and slightly behind her for highlights as well as chiaroscuro. I believe there's also a small umbrella, possibly a shoot-thru, camera-right and behind her, boomed up higher than the strip giving those highlights on her hair on the left-side of her head.
I like the Strobist blog, and I like your blog, Jimmy. But people get so hung up on things sometimes, don't they?
Strobist, provides among other things, some advice and technique on how to light. Well written, insightful, certainly. And it's great that a sort of camaraderie and culture has developed around the strobist blog. Gosh, even anonymous starts off by declaring, "I am a strobist..."
But, I think even Mr. Hobby would agree that light is light. Use it to your advantage to get the look you want. Simple.
When people so precisely try to recreate a technique there is going to be a certain amount of sameness to the looks of the images. Sometimes, that's the point.
But, come on, "strobists," there's a whole world out of lighting out there. It's all good. Venture out.
After awhile, you might find that there's a reason the classic techniques are classic. Some lighting styles really work because we're wired to see the world lit a certain way.
And some techniques are gimmicky.
Jimmy, I'd say you nicely fall into the classic category. I dig your pictures.
I think someone is going through all the nude blogs at the moment, and having content warnings put on them. It's happening to practically all nude photographers. Not nice.
As for being "repetitive and boring," Rich was accused of that last week too. Viva la bloggie trolls! Take no notice. Just keep doing what you do - if folks didn't think your photos were fabulous they wouldn't keep coming back.
Well, you did it, you mentioned "keeping food on the table." Economics. When I was working full-time, I was saving a rather large percentage of my income as well as buying photography doodads. Hopefully it's possible for you to do the same, so you can afford one day to up and change your photography when you wish, whatever its impact on your client list!
Jimmy,
Keep doin' what you're doin'. Your loyal readers enjoy learning from you and your blog.
It's a big world out there, room for lots of different styles.
While I know I certainly have benefited from The Strobist, I also know that there is lots to learn from others--such as yourself.
Switching topics, it's too bad about the warning message upon entry to your blog. Some narrow minded moron is depriving other people of gaining knowledge and enjoying photography because your posts are likely behind the Google search firewall? You'd think people could channel their energies in more productive ways.
ks
Jimmy; the Google warning is obviously a result of your choice of white type on a black background. I this is just so-o-o wrong on so many levels.
WMS
And at this point I need to remove my tongue from my cheek, anyone have a crowbar I can use?
Its not like G-D isn't fond of nudity or anything. After all we are created in his image, and we were created nude weren't we?
Annoy A Moose
Its not like G-D isn't fond of nudity or anything. After all we are created in his image, and we were created nude weren't we?
Yes she did, Moose. Created the fig leaf too. Then, some asswipes came along, plucked some fig leaves and, in the name of fashion or what-ev-ver, covered up... well, you know where it all went from there.
I would say that I'll let you know when I'm tired of seeing well lit beautiful nude women. Except that I think they will be shoveling dirt on me when that happens.
I'm also a fan of the Strobist blog. There is always something that can be gleaned from other peoples work. When I stop learning, well... see the first paragraph.
When I first started work as a professional I worked for a studio that cranked out senior pictures by the thousands. At the time I thought it was lame that it was all pretty lame. After a time I realized that the studio did so many of them because people liked what they did and knew exactly what they were getting before hand. Most folks don't like surprises. It is ok to try something new, but only after completing what the client expects.
While David is doing what makes him money, many of us that have been around a while know that strobist brings nothing new to photography other than delivering that information on the internet.
I started using light stand mounted Vivitar 285s around 20 years ago when I was forced to pay $150 to have a union electrician plug in and unplug my monolights at a civic center hallway when shooting an athlete's portrait.
I still use the hotshoe adaptor, peanut slaves, etc from back then. However, since I am paid to make great images under almost any situation, I also have all of the equipment I need to get the job done. If a job calls for 3 SB800s, we've got them. If a job call for a total of 6000 WS of strobe we've got them. Strobist is empowering to the masses just as digital cameras are over film.
David has tapped a market just as Apple did... Just as photo workshops have. There is still relatively the same number of great professional shooters out there.
You're 100% correct, David! Just like there are no "secrets of the pros," none of this stuff is new. The only difference is, as you pointed out, the masses have been empowered by digital and they're hungry to learn, more so if they don't have to leave the comfort of chairs set in front of their computers. Add digital post-processing tools (also accessed via a chair and a computer) and, often, snapshots suddenly appear quite professional looking. In so many ways, these are the most exciting times ever, in the history of photography, for hobbyists.
Jimmy:
The strobist community have been plaguing with this kind of idiots who think what David writes is some kind of dogmatic religion even when David has said his approach of lighting can be used with any lighting gear people has available, in fact he has received flack from hardcore looneys for having a D3...
I do recommend not wasting your time with them, most of this looneys who write the kind of reply you received, they are your typical tech geek who thinks he is absolutely right about everything, such a shame because it gives a bad name to the great people who really want to contribute with good stuff in the strobist forum.
The kind of flack you received also
is visible at model mayhem and other photography forums where you see this dogmatic cult lunatics insulting or making offensive remarks to people who have studio lighting gear just because they think they are better because they use hot shoe strobes... :/
Most of them don't have tested the water of being a photographer with clients, where you go with what the art director or the client asks you to do, they think that the photographer is the leading voice and they do as they please...
As you say light is light, be it the sun, be kino or hot lights, be it studio lighting or anything that emits light and a photographer use any means he has to achieve the look of the photo he wants.
Your work is amazing and you have a great approach not only to lighting in general but as a pro photographer with lots of years and gigs under your arm, the experiences you share with us are of a lot of use, don't take what that crazy dude tell you in the end almost 100% of those comments are driven mostly by jealousy.
As said before, don't waste your time with this lunatics, they give a bad name to all the people who really are very nice at the strobist forum.
Off topic, how is your brother doing?? I really hope he is doing ok!!
My best wishes to you! keep up the great work!
Eduardo
Firstly:
"I think the world is a better place with less "photographers" who suck at photography. "
It's "fewer" dude, fewer, not less.
Secondly:
I think Anonymous hit a nerve, since you overreacted so much in posting. Yes, the same techniques over and over again will be repetitive, but David's techniques teach lighting, while yours do not.
It's "fewer" dude, fewer, not less.
Fewer or less, it's still a better world without them.
Yes, the same techniques over and over again will be repetitive, but David's techniques teach lighting, while yours do not.
Hmmm... where does it say this site is about teaching lighting techniques?
Post a Comment