|
Forums >
General Industry >
Photographers criticizing other photographers...
I found this to be pretty good insight on the subject..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1q-GZkOwGco Jun 19 25 09:58 pm Link I didn't watch the whole clip. I stopped viewing when I realized he was criticizing other photographers expressing how they would have done things differently. That is not a photographer criticizing the original photographer's work. That is expressing how they would have done something. Good, bad, indifferent?
"I would have cropped this..." is vastly different than "This image needs to be cropped in this manner." "I would have straighten the horizon" is different than "Any decent image would have the horizon straight." If a photographer is so thin skinned they cannot tolerate a different opinion on how another artist might have approached the situation, perhaps reconsider sharing the work in the first place. Sure, we all want praise from those viewing our work. We love to hear nice comments. But do we grow with such commentary? Can we look at our work with a fresh eye to think whether we might do that in a re-edit or a re-shoot? We ought to happily accept constructive criticism, perhaps as much as praise. Then again, we should all take a lesson from Thumper's mother (in Disney's Bambi movie, circa 1942), "If you can't say something nice, don't say nothing at all." Jun 20 25 01:20 am Link "If you can't say something nice, don't say nothing at all."
It seems odd that you closed your comment with this statement since that was the whole jist of the video. If you had listened he was commenting on people that "weren't "saying what they would have done. But people who need to tell others what they have done wrong ( in their opinion) just for the sake of spouting off. I felt like he was addressing those unwanted criticizers that unfortunately the internet abounds with,I think one of the very few good things about this site is the low tolerance allowed for tearing other peoples work apart. BTW, I am an admirer of a lot of your work and have looked at your port many times. Jun 20 25 06:49 am Link @1:13 "I feel a need to say I would have done this. Well, I would have cropped it like this."
He then follows @1:24 with "You're saying I should change what I shoot to suit you." No, no, no. Stating how one might have approached the situation differently is NOT telling you that you need to change anything to suit the commenter. It is subtle, but clear. Every photographer would approach any situation differently. Expressing a different approach is not telling the original to do anything different. If I prefer level horizons, I am not saying all Dutch Angles are wrong. I'm just saying I generally do not tilt my camera. Tilt all you like. I'm fine with that. Just not my style. Is that criticism on your style? No. It is highlighting a contrast of our styles. Any reader of the comment can decide their own preferences, or better yet, the reader might consider experimenting to find their own style. In the video, he may have gotten around to saying seomthing else, but I stopped watching (again) when he misrepresented the initial comments. I took a peek through your portfolio (thanks for looking at mine). Our styles differ somewhat, as they should. No artist should be a carbon copy of another - the second one is redundant. That is not a criticism of your style. You do what you like. I can admire someone's different style without trying to duplicate it. I can also see things in a new way after viewing different works. Will I duplicate those things? I hope not. I might take elements of what i see into my work going forward. How can I not? If a tilted horizon triggers my OCD, it'll cause me to be extra careful to level my own camera. If a Dutch Angle fits the concept, well, if I'm ever in that situation, I might tilt my camera, or not. It will cause me to think about it. Jun 20 25 08:44 am Link Having followed Coulson for a while I have seen this to be a particular trigger: Criticism of a photo because it violates what he calls "camera club rules." "Rules" like, "never cut off the feet", "horizons must be level", "portraits must have catchlights". One may argue that he is overreacting to criticism of any kind, but I think his overall point for photographers - "Damn the "rules"or the opinion of others, you do you"- is excellent advice. Jun 20 25 09:42 am Link Focuspuller wrote: If there are any "rules" to "follow" with our photography, this would be it. Jun 21 25 07:58 am Link Frank Lewis Photography wrote: Very well said. I follow Peter and consider him to be one of the B&W greats. He shares his style and methods freely, not like some photgraphers here, who don't mention models names for fear of competition. Models are not pleased at no mentions, they too are artists.
Jun 21 25 09:12 am Link Frederick C wrote: I tend to keep random girls (not career models) I meet on the street, as well as locations) as close to the vest as possible. It's not competition I'm worried about. It's all the yahoos who fuck it up and scare the newbie girls away (or trash a good location). Happens every time.
Jun 21 25 03:58 pm Link I enjoyed Peter's point of view. I shoot for myself. I'm not interested in nit-picking comments. Jun 29 25 08:07 am Link Jun 29 25 11:33 am Link As a female photographer who started out as a touring model, and posed for some of the same people I see still commenting on these forums today, I will say that photography is a very "gatekeepy" culture. I've been in this nationwide arts and glamour community for close to 20 years, in various capacities, and there has always been an undercurrent of some people trying to exclude and push others out, due to assorted prejudices masquerading as snobbery. This can be represented by criticizing anyone whom they see as *too whatever.* Often, what they see as *too whatever* really boils down to: younger people who are trying to break conventions that the older photographers grew up believing were canonical. I'm neither young nor old, but I am in my prime years for creative and professional development, just old enough to have some wisdom from lived experience. I generally believe that creative industries only truly thrive when conventions are not just challenged, but completely destroyed and what was once seen as the ideal becomes pedestrian. People can try to gatekeep artistic (r)evolution if they wish; it seems to be part of the human condition, unfortunately. But, decades, centuries and millennia of creative genius have shown that to be a futile endeavor. Jul 16 25 01:47 pm Link There are all sorts of composition "rules" that can be very useful tools for teaching newbies new ways of looking at their potential images.
BUT, the biggest mistake was ever teaching them as, or calling them, "RULES"... As an example, the first composition "rule" that most photographers ever hear of, is "The Rule of Thirds". It's a great teaching tool, as many of these photographers have previously never really thought about composition. All too often, they've been sticking the subject in the center of the picture and just shooting it. Suddenly they're looking at the image in different ways, moving the subject around the "thirds" to see what looks best. I.E. They're starting to think about, and experiment with, composition. Great! At the same time as they're taught "the rule of thirds", they SHOULD be also told that it can be a great aid (like all composition "rules") to finding ways to improve how the shot looks. Preferably showing them, at the same time, examples where the "rule of thirds" clearly was NOT the best way to go. I.E. How these so-called "rules" can be useful TIPS TO TRY, when you're looking at different possibilities. But not "limiters" as to what they should try. The lesson being that if ignoring the "rules" works much better, then GREAT! They're doing their job of giving them possibilities and getting them to think about composition in various ways. WHATEVER their particular solution to that particular scene turns out to be for them as creatives. But PLEASE ban the word "RULES" when it comes to artistic compositions and endeavors. Jul 16 25 02:37 pm Link Arizona Shoots wrote: I'll watch it. It's important to note he's on YouTube and he's also an instructor so he probably sees a lot of outrageous critiques.
Jul 24 25 09:26 am Link Certain Exposures wrote: Tell us what you think of it. Jul 24 25 10:41 am Link Interesting article here;
https://uturn.org/Essays/SubjectiveFoto.pdf This makes the point that compositional rules and guidelines do not exist in isolation, that there are underlying philosophies. To summarise, the article by James R. Hugunin discusses the influence of existentialist philosophy on photography before and after the Second World War. Existentialism as a philosophy emphasises the importance the individual's perception of, and response to his or her environment. The existentialist ethic, referred to in the title is essentially the acceptance of the validity of individual experience in terms of a person's perceptions of, and reactions to the world, coupled with a willingness to express them to others, and a refusal to accept norms of thought and opinion simply because it may be convenient to do so. Applied to photography, this implies a willingness on the part of photographers to do things the way they as individuals think and feel is appropriate, so emphasising those aspects and characteristics of the subject, or the object as experienced subjectively by the individual, that seem most significant. More related articles can be viewed and downloaded free here; https://www.academia.edu/103257620/Subj … list_Ethic Jul 25 25 06:29 am Link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1q-GZkOwGco
Are Peter Coulson's comments valid? I agree with quite a lot of what he says although it seems that there is a paradox in it. People don't necessarily have to criticise other people's work, true. Equally however, people don't necessarily have to respond to criticism, particularly when to do so would dignify the ignorant or retarded as in some of the examples he discusses. If people say things like, "the horizon should be level", you can ignore them because it's clear that they know nothing about art photography and are simply making themselves look stupid. Subjectively, a few of the images he uses as examples are excellent, most are good, some are just OK. In the UK there is a generalised lack of appreciation of photography as an creative medium, and we even see attempts by local authorities to promote it as a suitable lowbrow alternative to fine art for people with below-average IQs and low educational levels, which naturally has an effect of degrading photography and photographers generally at a social level without really helping anybody, when it is in practice a demanding activity, probably the easiest medium to work in but not the easiest to get worthwhile results with. So in the first place there is no generally accepted definition of what photography is or what it should be. Peter Coulson makes some use of commercial criteria in his assessments, implying that if something sells for a lot of money it must be good. Maybe, or maybe delivering the goods to a deadline is more important. He doesn't mention heroin chic, or the fact that the person who spends serious money on haute couture is typically an 80 year old widow with no other use for it. But the more fundamental problem is that many people simply do not understand the concept of photography as a creative medium, their understanding begins and ends with the assumption that a photograph is simply a record. Many people do have an innate desire to conform socially, for which photography may seem to offer fulfilment but usually does not deliver it and can even cast the photographer as an outsider, perhaps eventually leading to their taking out their frustrations on others. This is true for models as well as photographers; there is some prejudice against nude work, which is usually expressed in an assumption that it must be sexually motivated to a greater extent than is actually the case. Photography is superficially easy. Often people are attracted to it on the basis of it's apparent ease and style. Having acquired the equipment they very often find it difficult if not impossible to get the results they want, depending on their level of ability and the ambitions they had when they started. Again, there is a tendency to try to compensate by criticising other people and their photography. Q. Does a fashion photographer really earn $80,000 per day? A. Not in terms of net income. A photographer might charge a client £80,000 for X number of images of Y number of models, requiring two days photography in a suitable location. If things went well enough on the first day, they might be able to conclude the shooting at that point, but either way the photographer would have to cover the model fees, flights, transport, accommodation and any other expenses related to the photography out of the £80,000. Q. Can a fashion photographer approach their task in any way they choose? A. In practice the photographer will usually make an effort to meet the client's specified requirements, if only to avoid a dispute over payment. This book from 1981 offers advice on dealing with clients, representatives, art directors, models, and advertising agencies; https://archive.org/details/shootingyou … r/mode/2up Jul 26 25 07:01 am Link There are always people willing to offer free advice on this site. Here we have a set of guidelines that was posted by Richard Blackstone a few months ago;
1: Strong Compositional Elements. A great photograph needs a deliberate structure that guides the viewer’s eye and enhances the visual impact. 2: Emotional Depth & Mood. A powerful photograph makes the viewer feel something that can be evoked through, Expression & Gesture, Light & Shadow, Color & Tone, Movement & Deliberate Imperfection. *An artistic photograph isn’t just about what’s shown—it’s about what’s felt. 3: Storytelling & Concept. A truly artistic photograph transcends aesthetics and suggests a deeper narrative or concept which is most commonly achieved through: - Symbolism – Using objects, poses, or settings to hint at larger ideas. **(models swinging swords in front of a motorcycle composed on top of a wrongkled bed sheet/or similar, doesn't quite hit the mark) - Implied Narrative – Inviting the viewer to create their own interpretation through ambiguity. **(A narrative that is too literal is beyond cliche, it's boring and tedious) - Juxtaposition – Contrasting elements (beauty vs. decay, movement vs. stillness) to create depth. **(Juxtaposition should only incorporate elements that compel the viewer to look beyond the obvious.) *Great art photography doesn’t just document—it asks questions, sparks thought or evokes memories 4: Light Mastery. Light is everything in photography. The ability to use it intentionally can separate a snapshot from a work of art. *In artistic photography, how light interacts with the subject often matters more than the subject itself! --(Read that again) 5. A Distinct Perspective & Voice. The best art photographers develop a recognizable style, something that makes the work distinct. Things that could make up a style include... - The way you frame subjects. - The emotions you capture. - Your use of colours, tones, or film stocks. - The way you portray movement, stillness, or tension. **(No, poor lighting and weak composition do not equate to a style) 6: Intentional Imperfection. Some of these may include; Motion blur might add energy and emotion, grain might enhance a nostalgic or cinematic feel, overexposure or underexposure might heighten mood or abstraction. *I would emphasise there must be intent behind deliberate imperfections. Art photography isn’t about perfection—it’s about resonance! 7. Timelessness & Layered Meaning: A great photograph transcends the moment. Whether it’s surreal, documentary, or conceptual, it lingers in the mind long after being viewed. Aug 02 25 03:59 am Link Staying within the context of model photography, since this is a model photography site, and referencing Peter Coulson's comments and examples in the OP video, is it a good idea to crop out the models' hands, feet, toes or fingers? I would say generally not, except in certain instances. I've done this in some pictures in my book;
https://mixam.co.uk/print-on-demand/687 … 2544e11a8b It may be more acceptable in a black and white image, particularly a dramatic high contrast picture. Cropping a figure above the knees or elbows is often stated to be better than below, but it may be even better to avoid cropping the figure at all. A full length picture is more natural. Bunny Yeager, in her book Bunny Yeager's ABC's of Figure Photography (Whitestone, 1964) advises the reader to avoid sitting poses with the model's legs extended towards the camera, which will sometimes make the feet appear large with standard or wide angle lenses but this is subjective, as are all compositional rules. I've never regarded it as a particular problem. Aug 02 25 04:02 am Link This video is so good and this Photographer is spot on Aug 04 25 09:01 pm Link In art, critique is oxygen.
Some just prefer to hold their breath. Aug 05 25 10:52 pm Link More videos from Peter Coulson here;
https://www.bing.com/videos/riverview/r … ORM=VRDGAR https://www.bing.com/videos/riverview/r … ORM=VRDGAR I can't understand what the point would be in shooting the model in flesh coloured underwear and then removing it in editing, especially when it's a couple of sizes too small and pinches the model. Presumably they were obliged to do that for legal or contractual reasons. More here; https://www.bing.com/videos/riverview/r … ORM=VRDGAR Watching this, I was constantly wondering why he was shooting with the camera horizontal at head height rather than lower, and cropping the model at the thighs or waist when he had such a good full-length subject. And why black and white rather than colour? I think he's looking for a specific kind of fashion picture here. Commercial success in photography may depend partly on a willingness to make compromises to accommodate other people's preferences, that's fairly obvious. And most people probably have some idea of how fashion photography is traditionally supposed to look. It's apparent in the videos that Coulson attaches a lot of importance to facial expressions, to a certain extent he can manipulate a model's emotions to get a particular expression through his communication. Or at least, he seems to be able to do this with the models he chooses to work with, so perhaps he selects them on that basis. This kind of amenability or lack of it may well be regarded by some people as a critical factor in determining a model's potential for different types of commercial work. Choosing a suitable model is always very important in model photography. In nude photography, whether done as "art nude" or glamour or something else, the emphasis is generally on body shapes and poses. Aug 06 25 05:05 am Link If we accept that things like composition, colour balance, focus and motion blur in a photograph are dependant on the photographer's intentions and can only be considered good or bad in relation to those intentions, which the photographer may or may not be willing or able to explain in words when images are their own language, what is good or bad technique? Perhaps technique is the wrong word, because it refers specifically to use of equipment.
Generally speaking, good is when you approach the task in the way you think is appropriate, based on your own knowledge and experience. Aug 22 25 02:59 am Link Richard Blackstone wrote: This is truth!
Aug 22 25 06:53 am Link Chris Macan wrote: An aqualung or oxygen rebreather may also be useful at times. Most people who criticise tend to do so from their own perspective only, which is obviously useless, because they're assuming that other people look at things the same way, when the real world is more complicated. It probably stems from insecurity; they're basically trying to promote the idea that theirs is the one true way, because they're not sure that it is. Aug 22 25 09:14 am Link JSouthworth wrote: My dude,
Aug 22 25 10:39 am Link Chris Macan wrote: Critique is of course a word from French, it translates as critic. In English use it can mean a review, particularly one with intellectual or academic emphasis.
Aug 23 25 02:02 am Link JSouthworth wrote: You really don't know what the fuck you are talking about. Nor do you have any clue how campaign level photoshoots are billed. Yes, a photographer can make $80,000 per day on a single day shoot. There are likely only a few at that level, but it has absolutely NOTHING to do with flights, model fees (who, btw, can also make $80k/day in some cases), locations or expenses. Those are invoiced separately. A photographer at that level, bills not only for their time, but also for the usage an image or series of images created on a project. This usage fee can vary greatly according to the duration and scope of media it will be exposed on. In some cases, though still very few, all the rights or unlimited usage is negotiated for a project which has a number followed by a series of zeros attached to it.
Aug 23 25 03:31 am Link Dan Howell wrote: Meaning that you don't know. I would be quite surprised if anyone was consistently able to clear $80,000 for a single day's work with a camera in a commercial context.
Aug 23 25 03:39 am Link JSouthworth wrote: Another thing that's annoying is when people criticise with reference to a set of standards that they imagine for some reason to be universally accepted. There is no such thing; different people have different ideas and this has always been the case. Creative photography only stays that way for as long as it can continue to re-invent itself. Aug 23 25 07:59 am Link JSouthworth wrote: Information on the internet suggests that photographers are sometimes paid at several times the usual rate, up to $100,000 per day in high-end fashion campaigns for major labels. These unusually high payments can be regarded as bonuses, they serve a definite purpose in encouraging high standards from photographers and models.
Aug 24 25 12:58 am Link
Post hidden on Aug 25, 2025 05:12 am
Reason: violates rules Aug 24 25 01:15 pm Link The average salary for a fashion photographer in the UK is apparently just over £23,000 according to information on websites. In the US it's about $40,000 to $50,000 depending on location. That's per year, so why, we might ask would any employer in the fashion industry pay a photographer $80,000 for a single day's work? One reason would obviously be to inspire their other photographers and models to greater efforts, in the hope that they might one day pick up such a lucrative and sought-after contract. Competition serves to encourage high standards.
Another reason would be that it provides a major fashion house or an agency with an opportunity to get one up on the competition simply by making it known that they're paying photographers $80,000 or $100,000 for a day's work, causing everybody to go, wow. Publicity. It should not be imagined that a linear relationship exists between the amount of money paid for a photograph (in any context) and it's technical quality or artistic merit. Aug 25 25 03:50 am Link It's hard to make sense of it all from the outside looking in, but nothing is ever simple and the landscape changes but I worked in a couple fashion houses and have some info.
- Day rates, creative fees and other line items make up some of the photographer fees outside crew and production. The gig is not the fulltime staff for the photographer they still need to pay for; that rate goes to personal assistants, drivers, housekeepers, etc. Net to the 'tog, much lower. - Clients do not crow about what they paid, just who they got and how they spend it doesn't have to make sense to us, the public. - Payola is real, sometimes you hire someone to get access to the doors closed to you otherwise. I know this for a fact. Ever tip a doorman for a good table? Now imagine you hire an ad agency, that is run by a guy that happens to be the creative director for a huge fashion magazine that would not take your calls otherwise, and suddenly your clothes are now in big editorials and you can buy ad space. In some cases to get to models, you went through photographers. Wetried to get Natalie Portman through hiring Patrick Demarchalier, but it didn't work, she signed to Dior iirc. Aug 25 25 11:36 pm Link JSouthworth wrote: At that rate, I don't think you'd need to be consistently booked. I'd only need to book 1 a year to have all of my living expenses and play money covered and with some left over for savings. I have very low personal overhead. Aug 25 25 11:42 pm Link Arizona Shoots wrote: In theory, you could make a living doing one or two photoshoots a year at $80,000 each time. But in practice the person getting the $80,000 a day contract would probably be someone who'd already done a lot of work for the same client over the preceding months or years. That way it provides an incentive for their other photographers and models.
Aug 26 25 02:40 am Link JSouthworth wrote: Citing a 1981 book, once again proves you have no practical experience on a subject but vomit your theories without restraint. You really don't know the first fuck about this subject and try to contradict the few people here who actually do.
Aug 26 25 03:43 am Link Dan Howell wrote: That's interesting, but facts rather than rumours are what we're looking for here, insofar as it's possible to differentiate between those things. There is after all, quite a large difference between $250k and a rumour of $250K..
Aug 26 25 05:54 am Link Nothing makes JSouthworth happier than when he can completely hijack the actual topic of any given thread, try and convince others that knowledgeable industry professionals have no idea what they're talking about, and that everyone should ignore long published facts and figures in favor of his claims about areas that he has absolutely no experience with.
He loves it. He's demonstrated over and over again that hijacking threads is his specialty. And, as other have pointed out, he's been permanently banned elsewhere for his actions. But he still continues to do so on MM. Just ignore him. Aug 26 25 07:51 am Link JSouthworth wrote: You clearly didn't read the case examples of actual paid/completed projects. Those had rate/usage fees of more than $10k. They were from mid-level working photographers. The first was a 2-day shoot $69k total invoice, net $22k. Again, not a superstar. Here is a real-world example of a mid-level professional apparel project estimate with the creative fee of $26,950 for a single-day shoot. It just is what it is, not that you would know anything about good, professional photography
Aug 26 25 08:16 am Link JSouthworth wrote: Do you realize how obtuse your question is? That is the page rate for a fashion company to buy an advertising pate in the September issue of Vogue. Some brands, like Louis Vuitton would be several pages in not only Vogue, but also Papers Bazaar in the US and other countries. NONE of that goes to the advertising agency. That is the cost for the fucking page. A campaign can end up costing $2-5 million for an international brand just in the media buy for pages. That is completely separate from the fees that were paid to both photographers and models for the shooting. What don't you get? It is not unreasonable for the photography and modeling fees to be 10% of the overall budget. Can you actually do math or do you need someone to do that for you?
Aug 26 25 08:25 am Link |
