I think the word 'Inspiration' is a little over-used.
For me, something is Inspirational if it moves you to act, or at least seriously consider acting. I often search through various platforms and media for Inspiration, I think it's an important part of being involved in photography. but I must make it clear, that Im not talking about just looking through scores of pretty pictures, or images that are just visually or technically interesting. I look at a great deal of 'interesting' images on an almost daily basis, but they're rarely 'Inspirational'.
Having said that, there are a few websites that I do find truly Inspirational. One of them is www.LooksLikeGoodDesign.com, which hosts a vast array of particularly high quality articles covering many different, yet related, areas of artistry, including Illustration, Graphic Design, Architecture, Typography, and even Package Design. Fortunately for us, they also have a Photography category too.
Now, yes, there are a lot of straight-forward 'pretty' or 'interesting' images on here, but occasionally (quite often actually), you'll come across something particularly interesting, or particularly pretty that makes you stop, and think, and maybe even makes you act upon those thoughts within your own photography. You Sir, have just come across something Inspirational. There are images on there from photographers that I've never even heard of that make me think differently about what I do, the way I do it, and the way I will do it in the future. I think it's fair to say that's pretty Inspirational.
It probably sounds like I'm exagerrating, but I see things on there that I had never even imagined possible (how about some moody, almost grungy wildlife photography shot in a fashion-photography-style anyone?), and then I realise that they are techniques that I can use myself to push my own photography. I'm not saying it hasn't ever been done before, but I haven't seen it, and it's a fantastic resource to have so many interesting artists' work in one place.
On a side-note - I absolutely LOVE the way that each article links to other similar/related articles - but beware, you may lose a couple of hours gawping in awe...
So, go enjoy www.LooksLikeGoodDesign.com, and I'll see you back here soon!
Cheers,
Matt
Tuesday, 21 February 2012
Sunday, 15 January 2012
A quick update
I recently became a fully-fledged member of the rat-race - I got a 9-5 job.
I used to work nights, which I thought was great as it left me with all day free to do whatever I wanted, and it made me really flexible for shoots. However, it didn't pay well and the job itself was fairly shit, so a few months ago, in November, I got myself a 'proper' job, working 9-5 in an office.
With regards to my photography, the new job has been a bit of a double-edged sword in the sense that it's given me more money to do things (new 50mm prime, several shoots / tuition days), but at the same time, it has drastically reduced the amount of time I can physically spare to shoot, hence no blog posts for a few months!
If I'm honest, even this post isn't really a full entry, just a quick update (as the title suggests) and a link to some good photography. Hopefully, that'll keep you interested enough until I write a new post. I've actually done a few shoots, and have plenty of things to write about and images to post, but alas, at the moment, time is against me.
Sunday, 18 December 2011
Let's talk photography
I'll get straight to the point, (mainly because if I ramble too much at this point, the most readers won't make the connection with the analogy
in the title
to which I am about to reference) if we want to 'Talk' photography, first we must understand the language that is being spoken. We must understand how to 'Speak' and in-turn how to 'Write' photographically, from whacking-great novels and epic poetry, through the sentences and metaphors, right down to tiny constituents of language; the letters and phonemes. We must also understand syntax, tone, and grammar.
As with written language, there are rules, but there are also different angles or perspectives from which we can approach a photograph. We can look at aesthetics or the tone, the meanings and intentions, our emotional response, or if we want to be a little more impartial and objective, we can look at the smaller, more technical aspects that create the whole.
So here's my suggestion, next time you come across an image that really connects with you, take a few minutes to try and understandwhat effect it has one you, and why it has the effect or impact that it does. Yeah, sure, you can try and decipher how it was made (that's the technical side of things we mentioned earlier), but also take the time to consider the other aspects of the image, like the desired emotional response. A simple example of this would be the shots of starving African children used in charity campaigns. How are these images supposed to make us feel? OK, that's an obvious example, but there are, of course, more difficult versions of this game. Try also to remember to think about the tone of the image. Again, if it were being 'Spoken' would it be said quickly or slowly, softly whispered or shouted, maybe even screamed at you. Usually, we can, via context, quite easily understand how a piece of text is supposed to be read, and we need to learn to be able to do the same with photography - we just need to learn the language.
Moving-on from literature, and into the world of photography, we need to consider things ranging from the obvious, to the more subtle. Take posing for example. Posing can be as simple as making a larger person look thin, or it can offer a glimpse into the mind-set of the subject. Consider reading about the basic principles of body-language, and what these things tell us about the subject. For example, sowing the undersides of wrists suggests vulnerability. Other things to consider may include the lighting, depth-of-field, perspective, cropping, viewpoint, foreground, background, and expression - and the effect that these things have on the overall perception.
But even after we've considered all of these things, we have to conclude whether these individual elements are in harmony or discord. Do the elements of the image all fit together nicely, do they 'Rhyme', is there a discernible rhythm to the image? If not, why not? What effect does this have? Interestingly enough, I find that usually, a little conflict between elements is necessary to make the image stimulating.
Now, after all that reverse-engineering, comes the forward-engineering, or, as most humans would call it, simply 'Engineering'. This is where all the understanding, thinking, and practice comes into it's proper use. We can then use the skills we have learnt from deconstructing other people's images, to constructing our own. The important part to remember, is to actually make a conscious effort to think about all of these aspects when we engineer our own images. When shooting, we must remember to think, amongst other things, not just about the lighting and clutter in the frame, but also about the tone, speed, and intentions of our photographs - we must learn to speak the language.
As with written language, there are rules, but there are also different angles or perspectives from which we can approach a photograph. We can look at aesthetics or the tone, the meanings and intentions, our emotional response, or if we want to be a little more impartial and objective, we can look at the smaller, more technical aspects that create the whole.
So here's my suggestion, next time you come across an image that really connects with you, take a few minutes to try and understandwhat effect it has one you, and why it has the effect or impact that it does. Yeah, sure, you can try and decipher how it was made (that's the technical side of things we mentioned earlier), but also take the time to consider the other aspects of the image, like the desired emotional response. A simple example of this would be the shots of starving African children used in charity campaigns. How are these images supposed to make us feel? OK, that's an obvious example, but there are, of course, more difficult versions of this game. Try also to remember to think about the tone of the image. Again, if it were being 'Spoken' would it be said quickly or slowly, softly whispered or shouted, maybe even screamed at you. Usually, we can, via context, quite easily understand how a piece of text is supposed to be read, and we need to learn to be able to do the same with photography - we just need to learn the language.
Moving-on from literature, and into the world of photography, we need to consider things ranging from the obvious, to the more subtle. Take posing for example. Posing can be as simple as making a larger person look thin, or it can offer a glimpse into the mind-set of the subject. Consider reading about the basic principles of body-language, and what these things tell us about the subject. For example, sowing the undersides of wrists suggests vulnerability. Other things to consider may include the lighting, depth-of-field, perspective, cropping, viewpoint, foreground, background, and expression - and the effect that these things have on the overall perception.
But even after we've considered all of these things, we have to conclude whether these individual elements are in harmony or discord. Do the elements of the image all fit together nicely, do they 'Rhyme', is there a discernible rhythm to the image? If not, why not? What effect does this have? Interestingly enough, I find that usually, a little conflict between elements is necessary to make the image stimulating.
Now, after all that reverse-engineering, comes the forward-engineering, or, as most humans would call it, simply 'Engineering'. This is where all the understanding, thinking, and practice comes into it's proper use. We can then use the skills we have learnt from deconstructing other people's images, to constructing our own. The important part to remember, is to actually make a conscious effort to think about all of these aspects when we engineer our own images. When shooting, we must remember to think, amongst other things, not just about the lighting and clutter in the frame, but also about the tone, speed, and intentions of our photographs - we must learn to speak the language.
Thursday, 8 September 2011
I think we should see other people...
Right then, let's be honest: this blog is clearly the single best photography blog in the interwebverse. However, believe-it-or-not, it isn't the only one. Honestly! Not even joking. Now then, have five minutes to recover from the shock, then, once you've regained your breath, may I suggest that you go and have a look at (NSFW) Pretty Girl Shooter. It's written by a guy called Jimmy DiGiorgio, and I find it to be a constant source of intelligent posts, interesting ideas, and on-top of that, a healthy dose of photographic inspiration.
Jimmy is essentially a Glamour / Tease photographer, but one who writes posts about all sorts of topics, ranging from lighting techniques, photographic theory, equipment reviews, straight-forward practical advice, and occasionally he even sprinkles in a little Zen / philosophy. It's clear that he really thinks about what he does, and fortunately for us, he then shares these thoughts on his blog.
Personally, I really like his un-pretentious, practical, yet thought-provoking approach to photography and blogging. He's very up-front that he's only expressing his own opinion, and he's certainly not trying to convert any of his readers to any one particular way of thinking, but it is exactly that (i.e. his own opinion) that I find so interesting and informative. He usually writes one-or-two articles a week, in nice, easily-digestible sizes, which I can pretty-much guarantee will give you something to think about, and may well change the way you approach your next shoot.
Monday, 22 August 2011
Another day, another Dawn.
It's nice to be wanted. It's even nicer to be wanted for a good reason.
Well the other day, I got the opportunity to be both wanted, and pleased to be wanted, when I got a message via Facebook. It was a message from Aurora Dawn, a model that I have shot with before. She had an idea for a shoot, and she wanted me to shoot it with her. Now, this wasn't exactly a multi-million pound commission, but still, she does a variety of styles of modelling, and for this shoot, she wanted me as the photographer. So yeah, I was fairly pleased with that.
In the message, she laid-out the theme for the shoot, which centred around a black PVC fetishy nurses outfit, in a derelict location in South Wales. As soon as I read the details I understood why she had contacted me for this shoot - this kind of stuff is right up my street!
The only potential problem was getting caught at the location by police / security which obviously would put a premature end to our shoot. It's somewhere we have both (individually) shot before, and we know it can be a little risky. Fortunately, nothing like that happened, and it all went off without any problems. Shooting with Aurora was, just like last time, really great fun. To be honest, it's times like that when I remember / realise why I enjoy shooting people so much. For me, there's an energy and insight that really makes everything so much more interesting. I love photography, but I really love meeting and interacting with people. Shoots with models like Aurora are just the best of both worlds.
The shoot itself all went pretty well, we got some great images, and we both had great fun! Aurora and I are comfortable enough with each other that we're able to do a little experimenting, most of which I'm pleased to say worked-out fairly well. It's a brilliant location, with so many areas that have so many different looks. We actually only shot in 2 places - one hall and a dried-out swimming pool, But even using just these 2 locations and 2 outfit changes, when you add to that a little creativity and imagination, we came away with a nice variety of images.
Here's a few frames from the shoot. In terms of nudity etc they're a bit on the tame side, but the upside of that is that I can safely put them up on Facebook without causing any problems, which means that more people will see them. Swings and roundabouts eh?
Thanks,
Matt
Well the other day, I got the opportunity to be both wanted, and pleased to be wanted, when I got a message via Facebook. It was a message from Aurora Dawn, a model that I have shot with before. She had an idea for a shoot, and she wanted me to shoot it with her. Now, this wasn't exactly a multi-million pound commission, but still, she does a variety of styles of modelling, and for this shoot, she wanted me as the photographer. So yeah, I was fairly pleased with that.
In the message, she laid-out the theme for the shoot, which centred around a black PVC fetishy nurses outfit, in a derelict location in South Wales. As soon as I read the details I understood why she had contacted me for this shoot - this kind of stuff is right up my street!
The only potential problem was getting caught at the location by police / security which obviously would put a premature end to our shoot. It's somewhere we have both (individually) shot before, and we know it can be a little risky. Fortunately, nothing like that happened, and it all went off without any problems. Shooting with Aurora was, just like last time, really great fun. To be honest, it's times like that when I remember / realise why I enjoy shooting people so much. For me, there's an energy and insight that really makes everything so much more interesting. I love photography, but I really love meeting and interacting with people. Shoots with models like Aurora are just the best of both worlds.
The shoot itself all went pretty well, we got some great images, and we both had great fun! Aurora and I are comfortable enough with each other that we're able to do a little experimenting, most of which I'm pleased to say worked-out fairly well. It's a brilliant location, with so many areas that have so many different looks. We actually only shot in 2 places - one hall and a dried-out swimming pool, But even using just these 2 locations and 2 outfit changes, when you add to that a little creativity and imagination, we came away with a nice variety of images.
Here's a few frames from the shoot. In terms of nudity etc they're a bit on the tame side, but the upside of that is that I can safely put them up on Facebook without causing any problems, which means that more people will see them. Swings and roundabouts eh?
Thanks,
Matt
Monday, 1 August 2011
Watermarking?
Do you watermark your images? Why? Or, why not?
I'm often surprised at how much of a big deal this question is. I mean, when I first started putting my images online, it seemed 'obvious' that one should watermark images. But I kept reading articles / comments / forum threads about some people being really against watermarking, and, equally, some people are really keen on it. To be honest, I was surprised that anyone would be against it. Actually, as an aside, I once read an article where a photographer was slamming a new feature on Facebook and warning other photographers about it. He was saying how this terrible new feature allows users to download high-res versions of images you upload, and that this was really dangerous because if you didn't watermark your images, they could be re-distributed without any credit etc etc. And I just though, who the hell is uploading high-res images, without a watermark, and enabling high-res downloads?!?! Surely that's just asking for trouble!? Anyway, although I still advocate watermarking images, I do find it an interesting argument, and I think the 'non-watermarking' side have some good points, so I think it's worth mentioning some of them here.
First of all, allow me to make a small distinction. When I 'Watermark' my images, it isn't really a watermark as such. When I do it, its more like the way a painter signs a painting - its just a small, semi-transparent logo with my web address on it, placed down in the corner of the image. Some people probably wouldn't consider this a watermark, but even this small addition to an image is enough to put some people off (I'll explain that in more detail later).
So, the 'for' argument is pretty straight-forward, and for me there's really only one reason for watermarking. The kind of watermarking I do is more of a business-card, designed to work for me as a little free-advertising. At the end of the day, we live in an era where images are - rightly or wrongly - frequently, rapidly, and easily 'shared' across the Internet. I don't think there's much that photographers can do to stop this, and frankly, I think it would be futile to try, so if my images are going to get spread around the Internet (especially without a credit) I at least want people to know who shot it. Instead of trying to fight against photo-sharing, I say embrace it, knowing that anyone who sees the image can easily find my website. In this way, watermarking can help protect an image and a photographer, and is a simple and effective way of doing so.
Once an image is posted online, it takes-on a life of it's own, in what some people call a 'Second life', meaning that it could be re-blogged, emailed to friends, saved, used as a desktop wallpaper, put on Facebook, print-screened, or even printed-out. Now, obviously, if someone wants to get rid of a watermark like mine, thats going to be fairly easy to do just by cropping the image a little, or even cloning-it-out. Sure, that's certainly true, but for the casual re-blogger or Tumblr, I'd rather have a logo on there than not, you know?
Now then, the 'Against' camp tends to centre around one main reason as to why people disagree, often quite strongly, with watermarking. Essentially, the problem is one of aesthetic integrity. The fact is, when a photograph is taken, the watermark / logo is not part of the original conception - it's an afterthought, and arguably a distractingly ugly one. When posting an image online (or in print for that matter) one should want the image to look its best, and some would argue that that's simply not possible once an image has been watermarked. Watermarked images are often considered to be fundamentally less impressive. I think my own images have suffered a little from this, as on my Tumblr (http://www.latexandink.tumblr.com) I have the images watermarked, plus a little description in the caption, and to be honest, they very rarely get re-blogged. So maybe my watermarking is holding me back. Either that, or just no-one likes my shit photography. Well, latex, tattoo and fetish photography isn't for everyone!
This is a view-point held by many photography bloggers, and just in the same way that a magazine wouldn't print an image with a watermark, many professional photography blogs simply won't post an image, or a set of images, if they've been watermarked. The justification is that any reputable, legitimate blog will credit appropriately, and so there's no need for a watermark. However, I would argue that this doesn't take into account the 'Second-life' that the image make take-on once it's been blogged - regardless of how respectable the blog. Personally, it's what happens to it afterwards that concerns me.
In this way, if you choose to watermark your images, it could actually have a detrimental effect on your exposure as a photographer. Yeah, your images will work for you in terms of free-advertising, but no bugger will see them because no reputable blogger is going to blog them. So it would seem like the options are that your images may end-up safe but un-heard of, or may enjoy a degree of popularity, but potentially without anyone knowing they're yours. Bit of a tricky one really...
Personally, I believe that it's best to err on the side of caution. I just can't bear the idea of having my images flying around the Internet without any logo, and no-one knowing who shot them. I don't want to sound egotistical, but if people appreciate my work, I'd like them to be able to find me, and commission me for something. Having said that, if a blog wanted to feature me, I would quite happily submit watermark-free images. Contradictory I know, but I'd take any and all exposure I can get. Yeah, so it's a little on the whore-ish side, but love don't pay the bills, and a brutha gotta eat!
So how do you feel about watermarking? Are you particularly for or against? Let me know, and also feel free to let me know your opinions, or if you think I've left-out any points for or against.
Thanks,
Matt
I'm often surprised at how much of a big deal this question is. I mean, when I first started putting my images online, it seemed 'obvious' that one should watermark images. But I kept reading articles / comments / forum threads about some people being really against watermarking, and, equally, some people are really keen on it. To be honest, I was surprised that anyone would be against it. Actually, as an aside, I once read an article where a photographer was slamming a new feature on Facebook and warning other photographers about it. He was saying how this terrible new feature allows users to download high-res versions of images you upload, and that this was really dangerous because if you didn't watermark your images, they could be re-distributed without any credit etc etc. And I just though, who the hell is uploading high-res images, without a watermark, and enabling high-res downloads?!?! Surely that's just asking for trouble!? Anyway, although I still advocate watermarking images, I do find it an interesting argument, and I think the 'non-watermarking' side have some good points, so I think it's worth mentioning some of them here.
First of all, allow me to make a small distinction. When I 'Watermark' my images, it isn't really a watermark as such. When I do it, its more like the way a painter signs a painting - its just a small, semi-transparent logo with my web address on it, placed down in the corner of the image. Some people probably wouldn't consider this a watermark, but even this small addition to an image is enough to put some people off (I'll explain that in more detail later).
So, the 'for' argument is pretty straight-forward, and for me there's really only one reason for watermarking. The kind of watermarking I do is more of a business-card, designed to work for me as a little free-advertising. At the end of the day, we live in an era where images are - rightly or wrongly - frequently, rapidly, and easily 'shared' across the Internet. I don't think there's much that photographers can do to stop this, and frankly, I think it would be futile to try, so if my images are going to get spread around the Internet (especially without a credit) I at least want people to know who shot it. Instead of trying to fight against photo-sharing, I say embrace it, knowing that anyone who sees the image can easily find my website. In this way, watermarking can help protect an image and a photographer, and is a simple and effective way of doing so.
Once an image is posted online, it takes-on a life of it's own, in what some people call a 'Second life', meaning that it could be re-blogged, emailed to friends, saved, used as a desktop wallpaper, put on Facebook, print-screened, or even printed-out. Now, obviously, if someone wants to get rid of a watermark like mine, thats going to be fairly easy to do just by cropping the image a little, or even cloning-it-out. Sure, that's certainly true, but for the casual re-blogger or Tumblr, I'd rather have a logo on there than not, you know?
Now then, the 'Against' camp tends to centre around one main reason as to why people disagree, often quite strongly, with watermarking. Essentially, the problem is one of aesthetic integrity. The fact is, when a photograph is taken, the watermark / logo is not part of the original conception - it's an afterthought, and arguably a distractingly ugly one. When posting an image online (or in print for that matter) one should want the image to look its best, and some would argue that that's simply not possible once an image has been watermarked. Watermarked images are often considered to be fundamentally less impressive. I think my own images have suffered a little from this, as on my Tumblr (http://www.latexandink.tumblr.com) I have the images watermarked, plus a little description in the caption, and to be honest, they very rarely get re-blogged. So maybe my watermarking is holding me back. Either that, or just no-one likes my shit photography. Well, latex, tattoo and fetish photography isn't for everyone!
This is a view-point held by many photography bloggers, and just in the same way that a magazine wouldn't print an image with a watermark, many professional photography blogs simply won't post an image, or a set of images, if they've been watermarked. The justification is that any reputable, legitimate blog will credit appropriately, and so there's no need for a watermark. However, I would argue that this doesn't take into account the 'Second-life' that the image make take-on once it's been blogged - regardless of how respectable the blog. Personally, it's what happens to it afterwards that concerns me.
In this way, if you choose to watermark your images, it could actually have a detrimental effect on your exposure as a photographer. Yeah, your images will work for you in terms of free-advertising, but no bugger will see them because no reputable blogger is going to blog them. So it would seem like the options are that your images may end-up safe but un-heard of, or may enjoy a degree of popularity, but potentially without anyone knowing they're yours. Bit of a tricky one really...
Personally, I believe that it's best to err on the side of caution. I just can't bear the idea of having my images flying around the Internet without any logo, and no-one knowing who shot them. I don't want to sound egotistical, but if people appreciate my work, I'd like them to be able to find me, and commission me for something. Having said that, if a blog wanted to feature me, I would quite happily submit watermark-free images. Contradictory I know, but I'd take any and all exposure I can get. Yeah, so it's a little on the whore-ish side, but love don't pay the bills, and a brutha gotta eat!
So how do you feel about watermarking? Are you particularly for or against? Let me know, and also feel free to let me know your opinions, or if you think I've left-out any points for or against.
Thanks,
Matt
Sunday, 17 July 2011
Define: 'Professional'...
It's been a few weeks since my last post, and if anyone cared then I would probably apologise, but I don't really think that'll be necessary...
So, anyway, like I said in my last post, I recently did another shoot with a friend of mine, Luke, and this one was arguably even more of an eye-opener than the first. Now, I'm going to do things a little differently here: usually, when someone tells you a tale, at the end, you get the, "...and the moral of the story is..." kinda bit. Well I'm going to give you The Moral right out of the gate. Okay, so here it is, the moral of the story is, "Professionals get results every time." That's the 'moral' from this story, and it's now my definition of who can be deemed a 'Professional', and I think it applies to pretty-much any trade / job / profession / skill-set etc, etc, an oddly enough, it can also be applied to photography! Now there's handy....
The thing is, being a 'Professional' isn't about getting paid to do something, or about certain documents which apparent;y make it an objective fact that someone is good at something. Nope, sorry buddy, I really don't think it works like that. But similarly, there are people who may carry things out to a professional standard, but still shouldn't be considered "Professionals". Not unless they can produce results every time. Every single time.
You see, the reason you hire, employ or just generally trust someone who is a Professional, is because they can get the job done every time, without fail. A Professional takes luck out of the equation. Obviously, if a little luck comes their way, then yeah, that's great, but they don't need to depend on it, they can get results without resorting to being lucky. That's what a Professional has to do. I think a good example of this would be a surgeon. A professional surgeon has to get it right every time, you know? If circumstances beyond his control make the job more difficult, he can't just leave the body half-way through the operation and say, "Ah well, I had a little bad luck at the beginning, and to be honest it all went a bit downhill from there, so fuck it, I'm off." Sorry pal, can't really do that. Similarly, you wouldn't trust heart-surgery to a weekend-enthusiast-hobby-surgeon - even if he had all the equipment under the sun. You pick the professional because you know that even if things go wrong, he will make it work-out in the end. He will get it done, he will finish the job. A Professional, will get results.
I, however, am not a professional.
My job was simple, shoot a couple of reportage / environmental portaits for a local newspaper. My aims were clear, my day, however, was long and arduous ha-ha! Well, it wasn't actually that bad really. It's just that it was all a bit new to me, as I hadn't really done anything quite like it before, and I did find it a little difficult at times. I do mostly studio or location work with models. I use artificial lighting, take my time, and construct each frame carefully. At the other end of the scale I also enjoy street photography. This, however, was sitting uncomfortably somewhere between the two. And just to make things a little more difficult, one of my subjects hated having his picture taken, and the forced grimace that spread over his face was somewhat akin to what I imagine a rapist to look like just as he, 'Get's down to the business'. Cheers Luke.
In the end, we got the images we needed, but it had taken hours, a timescale which would not be possible for a professional photographer. Hence my realisation, that what separates the photographic men-from-the-boys was the fact that a professional can get results on-demand, and not just chance-upon what he needs after getting lucky. Overall though, it was a good day, and an interesting learning experience, I had a bit of a laugh, and got the job done. Just.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
