NEW YORK BEAUTY PHOTOGRAPHER JAMIYA WILSON

I found this comment over at APhotoEditor. It was in response to photography contests (again), but was focused on how images of celebrities tend to win no matter how mediocre the work is. Check it out:

“I also share the opinion that any photographer ( good, bad, mediocre) who photographs celebrities will be considered good no matter what they create, simply because they’re photographing a celebrity. Especially, when it comes to documentary work involving celebrities. That is, if it’s even done today.

For instance (and this is just one example), Tony Voccaro’s newly discovered images of Jackson Pollock are not superb or memorable, and there are certainly far better images of Pollock that exist already.
However, since they’re pictures of Pollock that have never been seen by anyone (and there is a reason why they haven’t been seen by anyone or were never printed in Look magazine) someone, or as Daniel said, the oligarchic business system automatically thinks they’re worthy of praise and an exhibition. So let’s pump them up so everybody else thinks they’re great.

I went to an exhibit at Shepard Fairey’s gallery in Los Angeles one time to see the work of an extremely famous celebrity photographer. There must of been at least a hundred images hanging in this exhibit and out of all of these celebrity images I looked at, there was only one that I had wished I had taken. I usually measure the greatness of a photography by how jealous I get of their work. I was not jealous this day and just asked, “Why?”

Celebrity photographers do take bad pictures and not every photo of a celebrity is worthy of being shared, printed, exhibited, or receiving first place in a contest. And it would be nice if some people realized this.”

I agree wholeheartedly. I’ve noticed the same thing for years. It’s almost as if people have no mind of their own when it comes to judging pictures of famous people. You can shoot a picture of Brad Pitt that’s horribly composed, badly lit, and people would still praise it as amazing work. Crazy huh?

Don’t get me wrong, some celebrity photographs are REALLY good. Patrick Hoelck, Lionel Deluy, and John Russo are some of the photographers creating incredible celebrity work. If any of them won a contest, I’d understand!

You can read the rest of the post here.

Post a comment and join the discussion.

A “Be Stupid” contest? SMH. What is this world coming to?
I’ve gotten about ten emails in the past two months in regards to contests. I guess magazines are trying to make as much money as possible to combat the decline in circulation.

As a followup to my original post on photography contests, I’d like to post this quote from APhotoEditor:

“I’m pretty sure it’s not just my in-box that’s crammed with photography contest notices these days. Mine are of the “will you share this incredible opportunity with your community” ilk and I’ve stopped even checking to see if it really is “an incredible opportunity” or actually a way to either a.) Make some money off contest fees or b.) Get some usage rights and/or collect images that they’re too lazy to go find themselves.”

My sentiments exactly. Read the rest of the post here.

Post a comment and join the discussion.

Does winning awards have any bearing on getting assignments? Nope.

Over at “The F Stop” website, there’s an interesting interview series about self-promotion. Interviewees were asked (more/less), “Does winning the major awards have an impact on if you’re considering a photographer for a job?”

Here are responses from all three people:

1. “I wouldn’t say it helps get you hired. I don’t think it makes a difference. Getting hired is based on your qualifications. If there’s a producer who’s worked with you before, and that producer has also worked with other photographers, for example, but said something good about you, then that has impact.”

2. “No, honestly it doesn’t. I think it’s a really great nod from the industry, to get an award and to be in that company. But if I’m looking at somebody’s work, and they don’t have any awards, but their work is amazing, it doesn’t matter to me that they haven’t won an award yet. Because I just figure that hopefully when we collaborate it might lead to something great.”

3. “I would say no. If anything I like the PDN 30. Of the magazines that’s one I look at. And I use that magazine when I’m trying to read about new technology and photographers and what the trends are, and I think that’s a good source.

I think, if anything, because they’ll do promotions for who won I’ll see it. It’s good in that sense, that if you’ve won, I’ll probably get an e-mail, and your name will be on it, and there’ll be a photo. And then I might go look at it, whereas before I might not have been drawn to you. But in terms of if I’m hiring for a job it’s still more about does it fit the concept? Is it in my budget? Does the art director feel like this photographer’s going to bring the right sensibility to the ad? Yeah, I don’t think the award trumps any of that. More, it might just be a way for them to get in front of me.”

So photographers, don’t worry if you don’t win that award. It’s great to have, but really doesn’t matter all that much.

Post a comment and join the discussion.

Recently model Rie Rasmussen called out photographer Terry Richardson and got the ball rolling on the “Terry Richardson is a perve” campaign. Here’s what she had to say:

“He takes girls who are young, manipulates them to take their clothes off and takes pictures of them they will be ashamed of. They are too afraid to say no because their agency booked them on the job and are too young to stand up for themselves.”

“His ‘look’ is girls who appear underage, abused, look like heroin addicts . . . I don’t understand how anyone works with him.”

“I told him what you do is completely degrading to women. I hope you know you only [bleep] girls because you have a camera, lots of fashion contacts and get your pictures in Vogue.”

“Instead of arguing with me, Terry ran out of the bar. Then the next day, he called my agency and complained I called him names in front of clients in Paris. It was the most cowardly thing I have ever seen.”

Wow.

Personally I’m not a big fan of Terry’s work, but I admire some of his accomplishments. His stark visual style is very popular amongst photographers, which I think is pretty cool.

Regarding his scandal, I don’t have a strict moral code when it comes to nudity and sexual content. However, if anything he’s doing is criminal, it should be taken seriously and frowned upon(like the underage girl part). Until he’s proven to be the monster they’re making him out to be, I say leave him alone.

Innocent until proven guilty.

Post a comment and join the discussion.

This comment comes from Canonrumors.com:

I just love how nobody is pleased with what they have when there is the possibility of something new. At one point people were stoked for the 5DMK2, but then almost immediately decided that it wasn’t good enough b/c of the 7D. Hilarious.

If people spent more than 3 months “testing” the High ISO and frame rate on b/s subjects, they might actually learn to use their camera.

I could go on flickr right now and click on the 1DMK4 photos link and see a bunch of garbage, then click on a 20D link and see beautiful work. I just think its funny that even when someone has an $8K setup in a 1DsMK3, they still have out of focus shots, and crap images in poor lighting… but at least they have award winning AF, low High ISO noise, the ability to shoot at 6400 ISO, dual CF slots, and dual DIGIC processors. Oh, and don’t forget their 2 billion megapixel plat of real estate for their garbage shots at 10fps..

I currently use the 5D Mark II and until something mind-blowing appears, I’ll be using it for a long time. There will always be something new coming and most likely it will be better than what you already have, but do you need it?

What do you think?

Post a comment and join the discussion.