On Nov 24, 2010, at 7:29 PM, Moose wrote:
> On 11/24/2010 10:22 AM, Jan Steinman wrote:
>>> From: Bob Whitmire<bwhitmire@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>
>>> Typically, I avoid people.
>> I hear you. I'm a bit of a hermit, myself. :-)
>
> LOL
> I was wondering if that wording would be misinterpreted. I think what Bob
> meant to say was "Typically, I avoid people in
> my photos."
>
> At least my own experience is that Bob is at least fairly gregarious, not
> just with us, but with staff at stores and
> restaurants.
True. But I'm much more reticent when it comes to actually stalking people to
photograph them. Or standing in one place and shooting at passers by.
>
> Bob, I wonder how much is shyness and/or reticence to intrude and how much
> may be a sense that images without people are
> selling and it's safer or easier to stick with what works?
Combination. My customers seem to like shots with fishermen in them, doing
fishing stuff. But not necessarily close-up. Once I put up for sale an image I
took during a lobstering day. I thought it was a pretty good portrait of the
sternman. No nibbles. No interest. There's also the release thing. Even though
exhibition images destined for galleries and such typically don't require
releases, it's just good PR to get them, and I'm fairly lazy when it comes to
trying to talk someone into signing something. Sense of guilt from childhood, I
suppose, back when I was accused of doing everything wrong. Makes me think my
subjects will suspect me of something and be disinclined to sign. I suppose I
need to get over this. Maybe I'll work on it this summer.
>
> I do know that on this list, Nathan and others have made me aware of the
> potential value of people even in subjects that
> are apparently only about the scenery. I am by no means convinced that it is
> useful even a majority of the time, at
> least in nature, but recognize that it often does improve an image.
I have a couple of images that are improved by people in them. Most are fishing
boat pictures. Men Working and Men at Work come specifically to mind. And
there's Pemaquid Sunrise, with a whopping big breaker lit by a sun just peeking
over the horizon. There's a man in a checkered jacket center frame, not very
big, but providing a scale that otherwise wouldn't be there. As a rule, the
lighthouse stuff is better without people unless they're really cute kids or
romantic couples. Otherwise, they're just clutter. <g> Though I do have one
with a photographer getting serious that I'll probably put out next year. The
light's so right, and him working his camera on the tripod just seems to add to
the image. Because it shows him from the back, no release worries.
>
> I must give credit to my list experience for learning to shoot people. Before
> I joined, I shot either nature/art shots
> without people or shots of people at family gatherings, etc., hardly every
> anything else. I think digital has made the
> broadening easier, with the much lower marginal cost of taking (perceived)
> risks with shots. Now my only book is half
> images with people in them.
You've got a lot of street photography in your book. People are mandatory. <g>
Might be interesting to spend time in New York and not have any people in your
shots. Nah. Just wouldn't work. Most of the London stuff I shot on vacation a
couple of years ago has people in it, including my personal favorite, but they
aren't shots of commercial interest.
> For example, I've shot the grotto at the top of the reflecting pool at Blake
> House both ways. I generally prefer the
> images I recently posted of the teenager and her younger charge sitting on
> the edge of the grotto pool to the ones
> without people.
Sometimes people just add something.
--Bob Whitmire
www.bobwhitmire.com
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|