Johns Photoart wrote:
Bottom line- who gives a fuck??? You don't like how someone else promotes their work? La-De-Da -Look the other way! People need to lighten up and discus issues worth the time- this isn't one of them!

guy has 30 posts..

Newzpix wrote:
What's up with certain photographer's using an image of themselves holding a camera as their avatar????

Well... people keep asking, "What do you look like?"
As if the photographer's looks have anything to do with the final images!

Rich

RED Photographic wrote:

Aside from the odd one or two ( example above)...

If you walked past your local clothes store and you saw only the staff dressed in their uniforms standing in the shop window display would it encourage you to go in and buy clothes?  Of course not, that why they have mannequins dressed in the stuff the store is trying to sell.

If you are vain enough to need to put a picture of yourself up somewhere, put it in your profile, and leave your portfolio, and your avatar, to showcase your work.

Mannequins are easier to display and post and you don't have to pay them, not to mention you can have just a torso... to do that to an employee is inhuman! 

Employees wander around selling ya stuff.  get it right    lol

SculptedLife wrote:
Now, I think for my next avitar, I will need a photographer to shoot me while someone pours a bucket of mold making gunk over my head.  That would be a cool shot and would definitely be something memorable for my avitar.  Any volunteers?

i'll totally help you out when i'm there

Newzpix wrote:
What's up with certain photographer's using an image of themselves holding a camera as their avatar????

I could put a pic of my butt... is that OK.

UnoMundo Photography wrote:

I could put a pic of my butt... is that OK.

i did that, people thought i looked better

3rd Floor Photography wrote:
On my main page, I have a photo of me and the crew basically making fun of ourselves (if you guys are interested in checking that out, than click on avatar lol)

Prior to those poses, however, I had a different one planned for me that actually involved a modern (I say modern because the one I eventually opted for is old-school) camera with a loooong lens and in my shot I was suposed to be infatuated with it.

Well...turns out pictures of me kissing my camera with the loooong lens became waaay too suggestive for me to post once I realized what it was I looked like lol.

fit_50 wrote:

I check out the photo, and it effectively portrays the TEAM as a team.

XtremeArtists wrote:
I don't know if you guys noticed, but the chick who asked the question hasn't come back to the thread in a long time.

it's a man baby..



Newzpix
Male
Location:
Posts: 31


which is a good reason to use your own picture as an avatar..

Toria wrote:
LOL...I'll tell ya...you guys will argue about ANYTHING!!!!

We complain about everything too.   My ice cream was cold today. Dangit!

KathyJean wrote:
Partial qutoe from brian Diaz:  Avatars aren't necessarily used to represent ones work.  On MM and many other sites, avatars are used to represent the person behind the profile.


Absolutely!  Thanks for making this point.  It's nice to have a business website and maintain listings at portfolio websites like MM and others.

DITTO!

Newzpix wrote:
What's up with certain photographer's using an image of themselves holding a camera as their avatar????

Isn`t this like wondering why a model would have a photograph of herself modeling as her avatar?

Newzpix wrote:
Not really a cliche Kasmia. A model's work is a photo of herself. The shooter's work is NOT a photo of himself.

I've been a working photojournalist for 26 years and taught at the Corcoran College of Art. Not once have I seen a photojournalist/fine art photographer use a photo of themselves to promote their work.

I think a couple of people are missing the point here.  Although the user ultimately has the choice about HOW to use it, I believe the avatar is supposed to be strong enough to draw attention to the port (an advantage)

Well the avatars might not be a promotional item. Perhaps they do that just to get a face behind the name/alias?

Although I can see how that's not really beneficial with regards to getting work..

little apple blossom wrote:
I have wondered the same thing, do they have a secret model wannabe bone somewhere in their body?

Why shouldn't they?  Since internet modeling site are so popular it seems that just about anyone can be a model.

McKenzie Bros Photo wrote:
Is this what your talking about?Its my GWC.  It was a joke and it sticks around just for any time GWC needs to show up...

AAAAGH!!!!

GIve me a heart attack why don't you

Newzpix wrote:
What's up with certain photographer's using an image of themselves holding a camera as their avatar????

For the visual aspect of open communication with other people.  Our ports are here for showing off our work.  An avatar is a visual representation of the person, typically used for posting in forums and networking.  In a networking setting, that visual aspect often is the key to establishing a new personal relationship, hence you post a photo of yourself so prospective networkers can make the visual association.

Surreal Eye Studio wrote:

For the visual aspect of open communication with other people.  Our ports are here for showing off our work.  An avatar is a visual representation of the person, typically used for posting in forums and networking.  In a networking setting, that visual aspect often is the key to establishing a new personal relationship, hence you post a photo of yourself so prospective networkers can make the visual association.

This makes good sense. I posed a question but those of you with thin skin took it as a negative statement. Perhaps it was. Yeah, it was. But there have been some good arguments made for their use.

Newzpix wrote:

Not really a cliche Kasmia. A model's work is a photo of herself. The shooter's work is NOT a photo of himself.

I've been a working photojournalist for 26 years and taught at the Corcoran College of Art. Not once have I seen a photojournalist/fine art photographer use a photo of themselves to promote their work.

CINDY SHERMAN, SAMUEL FOSSO, DAVID HOCKNEY AND LUCAS SAMARAS JUST TO NAME A FEW?????????

Newzpix wrote:

Brian Diaz wrote:
Avatars aren't necessarily used to represent ones work.  On MM and many other sites, avatars are used to represent the person behind the profile.

Newzpix wrote:
You make a solid point here Brian.

That was my reasoning too: the avatar represents me, the portfolio shows my work.

Doug Vosler wrote:

Why shouldn't they?  Since internet modeling site are so popular it seems that just about anyone can be a model.

I didn't say they shouldn't. Just a question.

Newzpix wrote:
This makes good sense.

Kind of like how one person here assumed you were female based solely on your avatar (who is absolutely lovely by the way).

Newzpix wrote:
Hi Mike, we've talking quite a bit in the past about divorce, working thru the pain, etc.

It appears I've made an ass of myself here tonight. I just get tired of seeing avatars with shooters holding their camera as if it's some macho, cool, look at me, 1955 ad for their studio.

As for photos of oneself, I covered the White House for ten years and covered news in 29 countries...it would be too easy to show a photo of myself with someone or some event that is pretty cool.

I thought we were here to showcase OUR WORK.

Anyhow, sorry I started this.

In art i see ALL my images as somewhat self portrait oriented. It's a reflection of how I feel about or what i think about the person I'm shooting. Actual self portraits are used (by me anyway) as a check on where I am and what I'm doing..especially seen in sequence over years. But a plus here is showing the model what we look like. Could instill confidence or add an air of familiarity. Could cause them to run for the hills to I guess.
PPS No you haven't made and ass of yourself either!

Newzpix wrote:
What's up with certain photographer's using an image of themselves holding a camera as their avatar????

I used to have a pic of me up on my OMP page, and models enthusiastically told me they appreciated being able to get an advance look at who they would be shooting with.  As for holding the camera, why not?  If you took a picture of a fireman, you wouldn't show him fishing, would you?

Vivus Denuo wrote:
As for holding the camera, why not?  If you took a picture of a fireman, you wouldn't show him fishing, would you?

Yup, I would expect a picture of him--right out there lighting fires....