|
Forums >
Photography Talk >
Oh my goodness.
A man on a nonphotography related site just informed me that him and I have something in common. We're both photographers. Except for he uses a camcorder and then takes the stills and uses them as photographs. I'm floored. Stunned. Jan 05 06 03:18 pm Link - confused look- Jan 05 06 03:19 pm Link How does that confuse you? Jan 05 06 03:21 pm Link MEWanoDesigns wrote: Why does that stun you? Are his stills good? Jan 05 06 03:22 pm Link I have heard of this being done a lot, low res. and I am thinking about trying it on my nest shoot as back up. I am trying to figure out lighting or do I have to shoot outside. Jan 05 06 03:25 pm Link If he shoots stills, then he can call himself a photographer all he wants, wether he is pro or amateur and regardless of what camera he uses. Jan 05 06 03:25 pm Link mmm VGA resolution digital photos. I don't know about you but that is a big turn on for me. I hope I can find a girl who shoots with a camcorder. (although I've shot street with a VGA resolution credit card digital. It's just really how you treat and control any the medium) Jan 05 06 03:38 pm Link I've seen some *very* nice stills shot with Hi-8 in the past. It's about using the tools at your disposal... Jan 05 06 03:46 pm Link A television camera operatorâs job description is a photographer. So technically, he is correct. Jan 05 06 05:45 pm Link Thats probally like a GWC telling me they can shoot fine art photography Just like me, then I watch him turn on the B&W mode on the camera. (Dont take the "just like me" part to heart, just giving an example) Jan 05 06 06:00 pm Link Dan Gallegos wrote: True like in the cinema credits "Director of Photography" may have nothing to do with still shots. Jan 05 06 06:01 pm Link Yes and the average arrogance of photographers get horribly offended when someone is doing something that is non traditional and pulling it off. I could care less if some one calls themselves a photographer and their work is better than mine or worse. I've dealt with photographers at multiple levels through out the years and when they are good they are ARROGANT. My experience. I know its not the rule but if the lens fits. Right? Now that I'm on the other end of the glass I do what I can to maintain a certainlevel of humility (knowing ones place) because I am always a student and always teachable. This business is an over critical business with QUEENS abroad. My greatest photographic mentors are ones with good constructive measure of me and my work. Jan 05 06 10:58 pm Link It sounds like he's cheating, I know if I went frame by frame of a whole shoot I could possibly pull out better shots than a few that I have as my best images. Not to mention you could possibly develop a festish for girls who blink a lot! hahah Anyways, aren't the general techniques and theorys very similar when it comes to lighting and such? I would like to see some of these "stills" he pulls from the video to see the resolution.... Jan 05 06 11:42 pm Link Travis Poole wrote: This is true. And good advice. As a photographer myself I believe humility is a virtue that can often be left behind for arrogance once you think you're "good." I know I can take the occasional good photo, and every now and then I take a photo that even amazes myself, but there's always a photographer who I discover that just blows me away. I look at their work, and my first thought is "Damn! I suck!" And it happens fairly frequently. I believe that as an artist there's always something to learn and a new platue (sp?) to reach. Arragance is simply a cover for low self esteem and only provides a person with inertia. And arrogant person I believe has a much more difficult time improving and growing their work. And what's really tragic is when a so-so artist becomes arrogant because they *think* they're awesome. Jan 05 06 11:49 pm Link Scott wrote: Cheating? The client contracts him to do the work based on his portfolio. He does the work. The client loves it. They pay him and everyone is happy. How is that cheating? We all have to face the facts. The Digital Revolution brought a lot of Amatuers into the game and what really freaks us out is that they are pulling money out of our pockets. The best of the best still earn what the earn BUT they are nervous. Why do you think the guy that started this thread is SOOO insulted by some one that isn't using a SLR? Why would you care if you did't feel your lively hood threatened? Self worth????? Jan 06 06 12:05 am Link I wouldn't have such a hard time understanding it, except for he spoke of aspirations to sell these grainy, underexposed, illconceived, 'GWC'-like shots, and called them good. I'm not opposed to new technology. Hell, if I was, I certainly wouldn't be looking at a very long career. I AM, however, allowed the priveledge of disdain at a person who takes no thought into his 'shoots', produces poor quality images, and then declares himself "probably one of the best photographers in his area" (his words, not mine). It's absolutely no different than any one of you griping about blown out images, color photos converted to B&W by decreasing saturation, or any other number of things I read about here every day. Jan 06 06 12:10 am Link OK. That makes some sort of sense while the previous points are truer and stronger. Sadly enough "In The Name of Art" This guy will probably selll some of these prints AND make some money. Still he wins. He's earning. There are plenty of people out there with money burning a hole in their pockets to buy art. While it may be shitty and not to YOUR taste theres always a buyer. There were people that bought Warhol right? Jan 06 06 12:14 am Link Travis Poole wrote: You're right, there are just about as many different tastes in art as there are people...lol. Jan 06 06 12:18 am Link MEWanoDesigns wrote: You both take pictures with a photographic recording device. He is correct. Jan 06 06 12:26 am Link Uhm - I might be misunderstanding some things here, so probably someone here fill me in... A guy is using his videos for taken stills from his camcorder an calls/compares himself (with) a photographer. The OP somewhat "complains" about it and is coming over as arrogant...? I mean I have never in my life seen a good still taken from a camcorder. It's just not made for it - and that has nothing to do with the person behind the lens... It's a technical issue. So I guess I would have laughed in the camera guys face too... Jan 06 06 12:27 am Link The arrogance was implied. If you felt it, then take a look at that. If you need an apology you won't get one from me because my comment wasn't directed at you.  I'm not much of a Warhol fan either. Don't get me wrong. I love constructive criticism. Especially when its delivered with some tact. Thats how I get better and grow. Jan 06 06 12:31 am Link Travis Poole wrote: Hun, your first paragraph is a contradicorty statement. Either you think I was arrogant, or you didn't, but please make up your mind before you form a vendetta against someone for voicing their own opinion. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on the fact that I feel like you went overboard in your assumptions. Jan 06 06 12:42 am Link No insult intended. I'm sure the guy with the video camera felt the same way towards your views. Jan 06 06 12:58 am Link |
