> I ran across this exchange recently and it caused me to do some > thinking: > http://photo.net/wedding-photography-forum/00SlvT > > I have many of the same feelings as this guy presented. When I look > at much of the current work being shown, especially on photo.net > galleries, I see heavy handed manipulation being the norm and also > being judged very positively. > > Anyway, some interesting fodder for discussion for those who care to > take a read. The thread discussion improves further down than near > the top -but you do have to read the initial post. > > -- > Best regards, > Bruce
As far as commercial photography is concerned you either have to lead the market or follow it. If the customers are going after the gimmicky stuff and you don't want to shoot gimmicky stuff you have to resign yourself to eating boiled potatoes until the market comes back round; if you want to eat nice food you might have to swallow your pride first. It's a day job, that's all. The number of photographers who can shoot what they want and still earn a decent living is miniscule. Even HCB had to compromise and call himself a photojournalist. I hate gimmicky photography, but wedding photography has always been cheesy, and it always will be. Even the so-called reportage style of wedding photography is a cliche-ridden bowl of saccharine and maple syrup. What else can you expect? Bob -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
