Shitty picture of Lindsay Lohan
I was thumbing through the new Men of the Year issue of GQ and I notice that most of the photos were really shitty. They all look like they were shot on 800 speed 35mm film with a just a small camera-mounted flash. They looked like grainy, washed-out snap shots. The people damn near had red-eye. There were shitty pictures of Lindsay Lohan, Lupe Fiasco, Jay-Z, Ben Affleck… even Al Gore. I kept looking for a photo credit and when I couldn’t find one, I jokingly said, “What is this, the all Terry Richardson issue?” Then I turned the page and saw “for more photos by Terry Richardson, visit GQ.com”
Terry Richardson is the featured photographer in this issue. He has adopted shitty photography as an aesthetic choice. It’s his signature style. You can spot it a mile away. Helmut Newton had the cold blue cast in his color work, Martin Schoeller has his slightly distorted, extreme close-up head shots, and Terry Richardson has his bad, grainy, washed-out, snap shots. They tend to be flat and two dimensional, lacking all depth except when there’s a really hard shadow form his on camera flash.
Anyone could take photos like Terry Richardson, but he thought to market it first, so he’s a star. Personally, I think bad photography is bad photography regardless to the artistic pretensions behind it. I never understood the appeal of Ellen Von Unwerth or Stephan Sednaoui and I don’t get the appeal of Terry Richardson.
Terry Richardson wants to be Araki but doesn’t have the talent.
Hmm… Maybe I should start like putting a finger in front of my lens or something and marketing it as my “style”. Or even leaving the lens cap on.
“This is just a black rectangle.”
“Yes. He’s a visionary!“
It’s very voyuristic. Like someone sleezy photographs traded over the internet. It hints of photographs that should be considered tabooo or even illegial. Its tantalizing to the minds of this society’s male. To think they are getting her into some alone room, bedroom, motel, what have you…
The voyeuristic style was really done well in the 70 by this crazy hreadhead woman who’s name i cna’t remember for the life of me. She tok lots of photos of the artist’s party scene and also of her friends who more often then not died of AIDS. At least she didn’t make it look like kiddie porn.
You have an eye, and you are talented, and I have met you and you are hella funny. (No, I am not buttering you up for the next paragraph, these pictures look like amateur hour)
I want to start up in the field of photography and I would love to eventually work in this field exclusively. I have just about no networks in this field and I am looking for someone who will let me pick their brain. I am learning my camera and am relatively new, but not utterly talentless like this guy.
If Terry Richardson can make a living off these shitty photos, I can do something in this field that’s worth while.
If I may, have permission to pick your brain? Not really pick it, I just am looking for someone who would be willing to lend some guidance and tips.
If not, I understand. Lot’s of people have been slamming the door in my face.
I’d be happy to let you pick my brain, but I’m by no means an expert on the subject of photography or how one gets started as a professional. Evidenced by the fact that I’m shutting down my studio.
I see what you’re saying. It’s just so many other photographers have approached the same ideal without sacrificing the quality of the photograph.
Yeah, There’s somehting about Araki, or Nan Goldin or Larry Clark that separates them. They really seem to be capturing a moment, where this guy’s stuff just seems lazy.
Wolfgang Tillmans is in this camp too, although I’m not wild aout his work. He intrigues me.
Thank you, for humoring me and I’m sorry to hear that you are closing your studio. Is it your production company too, or is it just your studio? Or are they one in the same?
Why I am seeking you out is that you know camera settings and lenses and which ISO f-stop and shutter speed makes for great pictures in certain conditions, right? You have experience, REAL experience and you somewhat know what can work and what won’t won’t. You are active in the community and you know a lot of people and have networking. Right now, these are my goals. I would like to get into contact, even if only via email, professionals that are willing to lend a constructive eye and tell me what I need to work on and what I should be looking for.
What I am interested in is what makes a picture stand out above all the rest of the mediocre, the amateur, and the okay? Which I know is hard question to answer because everything is subjective and it is all a matter of taste, but as someone who knows the shit from the gold, what would make you stop, stand back, and say..damn! ? I know it is different for everyone, but that is eventually what I am shooting for. I want my photographs to make people step back and say, “Yeah, I want that.” (and then of course buy them. Which brings me to my next question)
What would make you buy a print? Is it in the detail, the color, the settings, would it be the uniqueness or the rareness of a photo or something that struck you personally?
What do you think makes a photographer successful?
What groups or clubs would you recommend for networking?
Do you think that taking photography classes is a good idea, or should one find there own way to professionalism.
For someone who hasn’t decided on a sole subject matter yet, what lenses would you recommend? Should I invest in a fisheye? What is shit and sold just for extra profits and what is a good purchase?
I probably have a billion more questions that are asinine and n00bish, but I have to find answer somehow. I guess that I should include that I have a Canon XTi with a 18-55mm lens. I have only had it for a short period of time, so I have yet to expand my arsenal of lenses, if in fact, that is what I should have. I have no other flashes besides the built in one, and I do not have a tripod. You know what I do have? And, this will probably make you laugh…
I have my camera, Photoshop CS2, Photoshop CS2 for Dummies, and Digital Art Photography for Dummies. Not as my go to reference, but just for learning and memorization of basic principles and settings.
The production company is still alive. It’s the only thing other than the day job that’s pulling in any money. The studio wasn’t paying for it’s self and they raised my rent, so it had to go.
What would make me buy a print? Uniqueness and beauty. Something that I don’t see all the time the moves me emotionally. I’m in love with Sam Tayor Wood. Her work is just transcendent.
I think taking a class would be good. Forest Park has a really good dark room and a decent studio. And they’re cheap.
Fisheye? I’d say no. They’re very expensive.
I use an 80-200mm lens, but I mostly shoot portraits and longer lenses flatter poeple’s faces.
Recommendations from another non-professional photographer:
1. If that 18-55’s the 18-55 kit lens, go get a good lens. The kit lens is pretty crappy. I’m going to get a better zoom once I’m out of debt for my initial XTi purchase, but I generally use Canon’s f/1.8 50mm. It only has one focal length, but it does that focal length quite well, and it does it really fast, and it does it for only about $80 through Amazon. I don’t have a flash suggestion since I’ve only got the built-in flash as well, and I try to avoid using flash whenever possible anyway.
2. Use the lowest ISO you can get away with and still get a not-blurry shot (unless blurry’s what you’re going for. Or unless grainy’s what you’re going for, in which case use a higher ISO). Choose the aperture that’ll give you the depth of field you want. Lower numbers = wider aperture = smaller depth of field = blurrier outside of the thing you’re primarily focused on. Past that, I’d just say trust your camera’s automatic metering. I keep my camera in Aperture Priority mode 90% of the time–set the aperture I want, set the ISO I can get away with, and let the camera handle the shutter speed.
3. Get some photography books that aren’t digital-focused. I know, it’ll be weird for a Digital Rebel owner to pick up a book like “How to get great pictures with your 35mm SLR”, but my experience (after buying a shit-ton of books on photography–the Buffalo/Erie County Public Library System has an obscene amount of book sales throughout the year) is that the books that concentrate on digital photography focus more on crap like “Here’s how you photoshop out your mistakes” and “Here’s what a memory card is”, whereas the older photography books focus more on “Here’s how to make a good picture”.
4. ISO/Aperture/Shutter settings are trivial. Your camera will tell you what they are. The tricky bit is composition and finding something that will make a good picture.
5. Take a *lot* of pictures. You’ve got a Digital Rebel XTi. It’s got a 3 frame per second maximum rate of fire. Make use of that. Most of your shots will be crap. Accept that. Be glad you’re not paying for film. If you find something that you think would make a good picture, shoot it from all sorts of angles. Shoot both landscape and portrait. Shoot with a wide aperture and a small aperture. Just keep shooting.
All these points are great. I haven’t had any problems with the lens that came with the kit. I have gotten some really nice shots with it, but I know that I need a much better lens to get shots that I want.
Thank you. The photography books are a great idea. And you are right, the digital books rely heavy on the photoshop. The one I have right now, said that while photoshop can do so much, it will save you so much time if you have a great shot to begin with. But, I will definitely take you up on that advice.
My issues with the kit lens:
(a) Maximum aperture of f/3.5 at the wide end, and f/4.5 when you get to the “normal” range for APS-C-format cameras. I shoot primarily indoors, where I need every photon I can get, and f/3.5 makes me a sad panda.
(b) the focus element linked to the filter thread. Which means that you can’t use a polarizing filter without a lot of hassle.
(c) Apparently its image quality is pretty crappy unless you stop it down to f/8, according to reviews I’ve read. I’m not that much of a snob when it comes to image quality that that makes that much of a difference to me, but I’m willing to trust the judgement of the sorts of people who buy L-lenses on that one.
You know, the max and min aperture never really occured to me. It makes so much sense, now that you say it.
I did try to take pictures indoors with out the flash at night( I was shooting my dog leaping off the ground so I wanted to the continous shooting) but the pictures were so dark I had to use the flash which had to recharge every couple of pictures. My living room has horrible lighting.
In case I’m not online tomorrow…
I just wanted to wish you Happy Birthday, David. I hope you’re well.
((HUGS))
Bonnie 8^)
Re: In case I’m not online tomorrow…
Why, thank you