Black Ricco wrote:
When a big name client hires a photographer, a model, a team of stylists, assistants, etc... costing thousands and thousands of dollars an hour. They generally have no idea what they want.

You just described a David LaChappelle shoot.  He hires all the team, including the models, and I can guaran-damn-tee you if he has to deliver one image for the ad, he doesn't shoot six pictures and call it a wrap.

Why do you think pros at that level have an assistant whose job it is (or was, in film days) to do nothing but change film and have the next camera ready for the photographer?

Black Ricco wrote:
Who are the 1%er's? A new breed of digital photographer who lacks the skill, experience,  and knowledge to actually have a preconception of what they want to do, or how they want to approach a project. They come armed with the belief that if you throw enough shit against the wall some of it is bound to stick. They shoot 100 images in the hopes of getting one "keeper" hence the term, 1%er's.

I'm not talking about "event" shooters who are in environments in which they have no control, and shoot thousands of images simply to make sure they covered the event as thoroughly as they could. No, I'm talking about the "machine gunners" who shoot 300 images for each wardrobe change.

Some of these 1%er's even come on internet forums to ask how they can ease their workflows while freely admitting up front that they're going to toss 40 to 50 percent of their images right from the get-go.

The worst thing about a 1%er, other than the fact their work tends to be sub-par,  is they tend to give their work away which is a detriment to all working photographers. The GWC is simply trying to get a quick flash which, although doesn't help our profession, is, I think, less of a danger than the 1%er's who are actually trying to be taken seriously.

gosh...now everyone is going to figure out why i use a 1 mgpxl camera!

James Jackson wrote:
http://www.modelmayhem.com/posts.php?thread_id=65414

Bluster, blather and babble, but you post objective proof.

Bravo, sir, bravo!

Black Ricco wrote:
I could shoot this in 15 minutes with one light.

Edit... I don't mean to disparage your work, it's a beautiful shot, but I could do it in the time stated with the one light.

Whadda ya think, FKV PhotoGraphics?

Is he talkin' outta of his ass or what?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Sounds like someone is getting called out.

Christopher Ambler wrote:

Bluster, blather and babble, but you post objective proof.

Bravo, sir, bravo!

*deep bow*

Thank you sir, thank you.

James Jackson wrote:
NOW

Be quiet James, you have no clue what you're talking about.

DigitalCMH wrote:

Be quiet James, you have no clue what you're talking about.

Like I ever do?

*eyeroll*

oldguysrule wrote:
hey i'm gonna start doing nothing but TFP so i can be cool like you guys

You’ll also have to send irrational hate filled private messages, to those who disagree with you like the OP seems to enjoy!

Bearz Images wrote:

You’ll also have to send irrational hate filled private messages, to those who disagree with you like the OP seems to enjoy!

*wink... trust me, i know better than to take anything here seriously.

Black Ricco wrote:
When a big name client hires a photographer, a model, a team of stylists, assistants, etc... costing thousands and thousands of dollars an hour. They generally have no idea what they want. Even though they've paid ad agencies hundreds of thousands of dollars, they, nor the agencies have no pre-conceived ideas of the look or theme they want to carry. They leave it up to Brandi to walk onto the white seamless and go through her series of moves, while Fernando machine guns 1000 exposures in the hopes he comes up with something they can use. They have no idea going in where the logo will appear, or what the copy will read or will it will appear. They have no idea whether  the model will face the gutter or away. They have no idea where her chin will appear, or what her arms are doing, or how it will be lit. No, they will simply rely on Fernando to give them something great, and then they will build the ad "around" the shot.

That's how it really happens... uh huh.

Are you serious? Really, please tell me you're not.

Aaron S wrote:
Are you serious? Really, please tell me you're not.

He was kidding Aaron...it was a tongue-in-cheek comment.

Carpe Imago Photography wrote:

He was kidding Aaron...it was a tongue-in-cheek comment.

I really can't tell with him. Most of his posts just hurt my head.

Black Ricco wrote:
They shoot 100 images in the hopes of getting one "keeper" hence the term, 1%er's

So am I like a "1%"er AND GWC!?! I have like a 300kilopixel (that's 300 THOUSAND pixels -- SERIOUS resolttion!) camera and I "tether" to my laptop and can use the hard disk in the laptop for storage so I shoot like as fast as I can push the button. I am gentle so it'll take a while for the button to wear out, though. But I get lots of good shots and I can always photoshop them until they look good afterward!

GWC!

Benedict wrote:
Who gives a fuck as long as the 1% that's left looks good?

I say we truly rebel and lower the standards even further. 0.025% rules!

Black Ricco wrote:
You just described a David LaChappelle shoot.

David LaChappelle is a no-talent, Photoshop junkie, hack fad punk who's already over...

thank God.

Paris Hilton in a luxury suite giving the finger lit by ambient light. Wow... ooh... genius.

He got 30 minutes of fame instead of the usual 15.

I happened to glance at this thread and couldn't help but make the following screen capture. Read the live ads just above the post.

M

oldguysrule wrote:
not sure what you're trying to say with that smashing coincidence... not sure i'm overly impressed by google ads hawking prints. was i supposed to be?

At your age isn't it difficult to do anything? Including being impressed.

oldguysrule wrote:
not sure what you're trying to say with that smashing coincidence... not sure i'm overly impressed by google ads hawking prints. was i supposed to be?

No. I just found it Amusing that there were two ads for LaChapelle prints right above the message referring to him as a no-talent hack. I suppose if you must have some deeper meaning, it's ironic that while the poster - himself a photographer of reasonable skill, more than good enough to justify an informed opinion - considers LaChapelle inferior, I haven't seen a lot of ads for his signed and numbered prints and such ads for LaChapelle's work are so ubiquitous as to appear right above his message.

I don't know that I'd consider him a no-talent hack, but I'm not really all that impressed with him either, personally. He's almost certainly much better than me - although I've never seen what he could do with the limitations of my equipment - but he's no towering giant of the Arts, in my opinion.

M

oldguysrule wrote:
not sure what you're trying to say with that smashing coincidence... not sure i'm overly impressed by google ads hawking prints. was i supposed to be?

He's talking about David LaChapelle on the post and LOOK AT THE GOOGLE ADs!

They're for David LaChapelle. Geez! you're a photographer (visual, you know) and are supposed to notice these things.

The thing is, I can relax now knowing I'm only half way to 1%ers. Not having achived that status yet.

Black Ricco wrote:
Who are the 1%er's? A new breed of digital photographer who lacks the skill, experience,  and knowledge to actually have a preconception of what they want to do, or how they want to approach a project. They come armed with the belief that if you throw enough shit against the wall some of it is bound to stick. They shoot 100 images in the hopes of getting one "keeper" hence the term, 1%er's.

I'm not talking about "event" shooters who are in environments in which they have no control, and shoot thousands of images simply to make sure they covered the event as thoroughly as they could. No, I'm talking about the "machine gunners" who shoot 300 images for each wardrobe change.

Some of these 1%er's even come on internet forums to ask how they can ease their workflows while freely admitting up front that they're going to toss 40 to 50 percent of their images right from the get-go.

The worst thing about a 1%er, other than the fact their work tends to be sub-par,  is they tend to give their work away which is a detriment to all working photographers. The GWC is simply trying to get a quick flash which, although doesn't help our profession, is, I think, less of a danger than the 1%er's who are actually trying to be taken seriously.

Well, you have set yourself up here, haven't you?

I do, though, agree with the OP.  Yes, of course there are good professional photographers who have a 1% shooting average, but they know what they're doing, and the 1% that is just right won't differ that much from the 99% that aren't quite right.

For too many photographers the 1% is sheer luck, and the 99% is rubbish.  I would like to think I'm in the first group, but I suspect I'm in the second.  I do work on the theory that if you tell someone loudly enough and often enough that your work is brilliant then they'll believe you.  And I also work on the theory that if you take a mediocre print, mount it and frame it correctly, and give it a pretentious title, people will think it's art.

Michael Bell wrote:
You dont see many REAL photoshoots do you? You know how many thousands of pics Playboy and other magazines shoot in a session with a model just to find 5-6 pics for a layout? A couple hundred is nothing...

Exactly.

Black Ricco wrote:
The point is no one could afford to shoot 300 looks per view on film. The polaroids, the film, the processing, it would be totally cost prohibitive. You'd have to charge your client $400.00 an hour to make a living.

The discipline is fast disappearing. The preconception, the planning, all going south. That's my point.

There used to be a time the AD would come to you with a detailed layout of what he had in mind. You sat down, held a pre-production meeting, and you both, sometimes along with a set designer and stylist, decided the best way to approach the project. You knew going in what the goal was, and you all worked together in the most efficient way possible to achieve that goal.

Now it seems to be all run & gun, work on spec, and hope for the best.

I like this point.

Digital has usherd in an age where shooting tons of pics is the norm for the Novice shoter. And even some of the major mags do it.

I like to set up and prepare. I like to mold the odels, adjust the lights and keep moving. I think I am down to about 60 shots per look on TFP's, and for client shoots I will bump that to about 100. For products I only shoot about 30 images per.

I really dont want to sift thorugh a ton of images I know I cant use. Happy accidents happen, but I'd rather catch my images purposfully.

In the end for a business you must have a great work flow and deliver on time and on budget. 3000 images will not always get you there, and sometimes it just may.

I like to keep my numbers low as a rule.

oldguysrule wrote:
if i EVER shoot more than 1/2 dozen images to get a keeper, shoot ME. 15 page editorial... perhaps 120 images.

not sure which REAL photoshoots you have been privvy to.

I think we have a similar ratio.

I usually get 16/17 distinct images (pose, expression etc.) per about 20 frames that could be used and are part of the later selection process. Closed eyes, strobe didn't fire etc. are deleted immediately.

What I have to critizise with some photographers, even commercial ones, who proudly announce the gargantuan amount of frames they were shooting and using the highest number as a measurement how "hard" they were working.

Shooting in burst and hoping to get a lucky shot is not how I measure work, but the quality, meaning how many useable images are being produced.

I think that in my case, it's the result of shooting film from childhood on, and the development of photos was always expensive... and I never had much money, so I trained myself not to hit the shutter until I "felt" the image.