There's a quite interesting post over on the Fluffytek Photography blog. In it, Lin, one of the blog's two authors, examines the photographer's ego and how it defines their resulting work. I'm not sure I agree with all of Lin's observations but I'll admit I found them all noteworthy.
In a nutshell, Lin contends a photographer's ego and psychological make-up (make that, psychological and emotional flaws and dysfunctions) heavily influences his or her work. Of that, I'm in agreement. Moreso, I suppose, when shooters are free to pursue their visions without the influences of third parties like clients and others.
Click HERE and take a look at what Lin has to say about the nude photogapher's ego.
The pretty girl with the vaguely Paris Hilton-like face is Candy. I shot Candy the other night for some DVD artwork. Whatever style might be evident in the images was heavily influenced by the requirements of my client. I doubt, however, the client will be converting any of the images to B&W for their uses.
2 comments:
Thanks for the link :-)
Fabulous photo too.
I strongly disagree with his bifurcation (there's a word for ya! :)) of nude photographers into GWCs or "true artists." I've taken a nude pic or two but consider myself neither. I also disagree with the notion that a photographer has to refine and stick to an identifiable style to rise above the unwashed, talentles, dSLR masses. We all develope patterns of what we know will produce wonderful results, but sometimes I catch myself grazing too much in one pasture. This is when I decide to break my self imposed rules of good photography. I'll decide "Ok, no fill" or "One lights no diffuser." There's other pasture to find, map and enjoy. Photography doesn't have to be a one trick pony you continue to beat long after it's expired. Of course that might just be my self-inflated ego speaking! ;-)
-James
Post a Comment