*cough* Now this is an example of what I'm talking about. (I did not shoot either of these [airport walkway] pictures) I did shoot the corn/wheat pictures.

This discussion has led to an interesting (to me) query. When one says 'snapshot' is that in reference to the process or the result? I would be tempted to use it to refer to the process (as CC has done with his spoilered corn maze pics) but then ultimately we judge photos on the result not the process. When in a gallery I do not benefit from the artist's description of the extenuating circumstances of shooting the photo. If it was taken via a snapshot method and it looks incredible to me then (1) I don't know how little effort went into it, I just see art and (2) the truth of the shot then speaks to the artist's ability to see/compose on the fly so that even a throwaway shot has intrinsic artistic merit. When critiquing photos (often just in my head) I might call it a snapshot if it lacks (all the following are of course personal taste and are very subjective) ... if it lacks good composition, interesting subject(s), interesting/pleasing color palette, etc. In this case I am calling it a snapshot based on how it appears to me. It looks like very little attention was paid when taking the shot. It looks like a snapshot. Again, this is like in a gallery. When I see a piece of art I don't have background info, I have the item itself only. I construct my own context for it, or draw whatever I can out of the thing itself. Every photo ultimately stands before me on its own. Can a snapshot be beautiful? Sure! Can it be art? Of course! Can I even identify the differences in some examples that work for me versus those that don't? Nope! (William Eggleston is a constant enigma to me, some of his work totally speaks to me, some doesn't; more recently I have a similar confused relationship with Dalton Rooney).

I use snapshot to describe the result and I always use it in a negative sense (ie there are no beautiful snapshots). It looks like very little attention was paid when taking the shot. It looks like a snapshot. This.

*cough* Now this is an example of what I'm talking about. (I did not shoot either of these [airport walkway] pictures) I did shoot the corn/wheat pictures. whatever cow... whatever ;) i still the love the wheat pictures.

I use snapshot to describe the result and I always use it in a negative sense (ie there are no beautiful snapshots). It looks like very little attention was paid when taking the shot. It looks like a snapshot. This. So what do you think about William Eggleston's work? How about Dalton Rooney's work? (Eggleston is commonly accepted as a great photographer, Rooney is contemporary and not widely recognized that I know of, but has some attention) I am bewildered by a trend I see among contemporary photographers towards kitschiness, americana, documentaries of suburbia, and other ways that the mundane and often ugly gets showcased. Eggleston may be the inspiration for this trend, but regardless of its roots I find little appeal in it. (Lauren Greenfield mostly fits in this category in my mind). But can the trend be utterly devoid of merit and still have traction? I guess so. Anyway, I would love the thoughts of other people who care to think about this stuff. Musing on this is part of my "what the fuck is art" inner-dialog. A question I don't think I'll ever be able to answer.

So what do you think about William Eggleston's work? How about Dalton Rooney's work? (Eggleston is commonly accepted as a great photographer, Rooney is contemporary and not widely recognized that I know of, but has some attention) I like maybe 1 out of every 20 or 30 photos from Eggleston and I don't like anything from Dalton. Then again I judge older photos a bit differently than I do newer photos. The same way I judge older movies slightly differently than new ones because of the differing equipment, processing, and style of the time. Some of the ones I kinda like from eggleston: Spoiler: show spoiler hide spoiler

I love the airplane cocktail shot. His ubiquitous tricycle shot always appeals to me, as well. EDIT: So if you don't like Rooney (and neither do I, frankly) do you have thoughts on why his and other similar mundane works are getting attention? Have you seen this trend that I've seen?

I love the airplane cocktail shot. His ubiquitous tricycle shot always appeals to me, as well. EDIT: So if you don't like Rooney (and neither do I, frankly) do you have thoughts on why his and other similar mundane works are getting attention? Have you seen this trend that I've seen? Yes I have seen the trend but with fashion it is Terry Richardson and Juergen Teller. I read some interviews with Terry Richardson at one point and he proclaimed that he didn't worry about technical aspects of photography he just worried about 'capturing the moment'. In all honesty it looks like he and Juergen try and fly in the face of the more popular styles of the day which involve very high-end glossy photos. I think the appeal is they are going against the grain of what is currently popular and then they themselves somehow became popular. I'm extremely ignorant of art history but I'm pretty sure similar things occurred with painting styles. IE going from realism to impressionism or vice versa.

I asked my wife the same question and her take on Rooney's work (the one example I coerced her into viewing) was that his work is extremely literal. He photos exactly what is there as opposed to people (like me) who look for the perfect subject or the perfect moment or people (like you) who create the perfect light, etc. His work is all about what is immediately there. I think she or I even used the term "unflinching eye." I think us seeing candor in his work and you seeing "bucking convention" probably are two pieces that combine in his work. I think you're right about them going against the grain. I just don't understand who the audience is. Art focused on aesthetics makes sense to me. Art focused elsewhere always eludes me (with journalism as a slight one-off. but good journalism still has an eye towards aesthetics). Anyway, thanks for your input. Someone should post a picture now! So many words....

Ok, picture: Not a very good one, but its better than turning this thread into D&D. Anyone can recommend a reasonably inexpensive monitor calibration tool? I have a nagging suspicion that my colors are always wildly off.

Hey I like D&D. Here are some oldish photos of mine. I'm sorry if I've posted them before I have a really bad memory. Taken at the 2007 burning man with a disposable camera. (2002) pentax me-super w/ kodak gold iso 200 (2006) 10d

I can't look at my 3 year old photos Good part: I've gotten much better. Bad part: I really sucked.

I can't look at my 3 year old photos Good part: I've gotten much better. Bad part: I really sucked. Yeah, you guys won't see my eaaaaarly work from when I was 15-18 because I sucked and because they are all prints which I'm far too lazy to scan because of the aforementioned sucking. Remember nO I've been doing this for about 10 years, but I've only be really serious for the past 3 or so. When I first started doing fashion photography 3-4 years ago I liked to tilt the camera a LOT. I can barely stand looking at that technique these days.

Good news everybody! I have just developed my first roll of film, and I am loving the results. The bad news is my 50 year old camera is eating 4 frames of film, somehow. I am thinking it has something to do with loading/advancing of the film. And my fingers smell like rotten eggs now. But its a small price to pay. Once I figure out how to digitize the negatives, Ill try to post some.

I can't look at my 3 year old photos Good part: I've gotten much better. Bad part: I really sucked. Yeah, you guys won't see my eaaaaarly work from when I was 15-18 because I sucked and because they are all prints which I'm far too lazy to scan because of the aforementioned sucking. Remember nO I've been doing this for about 10 years, but I've only be really serious for the past 3 or so. When I first started doing fashion photography 3-4 years ago I liked to tilt the camera a LOT. I can barely stand looking at that technique these days. Oh early stuff. Anyone want to guess how long ago I started?

I can't look at my 3 year old photos Good part: I've gotten much better. Bad part: I really sucked. Yeah, you guys won't see my eaaaaarly work from when I was 15-18 because I sucked and because they are all prints which I'm far too lazy to scan because of the aforementioned sucking. Remember nO I've been doing this for about 10 years, but I've only be really serious for the past 3 or so. When I first started doing fashion photography 3-4 years ago I liked to tilt the camera a LOT. I can barely stand looking at that technique these days. Oh early stuff. Anyone want to guess how long ago I started? Hey, that reminds me. Shorpy.com is extremely interested in acquiring hi-res versions of your experimental stegosaurus portrait series. I know it changed my perception of them. Brain the size of a walnut, indeed.

Yeah, you guys won't see my eaaaaarly work from when I was 15-18 because I sucked and because they are all prints which I'm far too lazy to scan because of the aforementioned sucking. Remember nO I've been doing this for about 10 years, but I've only be really serious for the past 3 or so. When I first started doing fashion photography 3-4 years ago I liked to tilt the camera a LOT. I can barely stand looking at that technique these days. I don't mind tilting and I think 3-4 years ago is still a long time. I'm similar in that I've been doing it for around 9 years, but the first 5 were probably more about technique (oh, look, I can blur the background! yay). Still, something from a couple of years back makes me cringe. I have a couple of favorites. EDIT: Jake - I really like the photojournalism stuff you posted. All your pictures have the same level of quality and look, which is neat.

couple of others Cheers NO

Jake!: The first one looks odd because you can't see the guitar strap very well so it looks like she is kind of holding it in an odd fashion. Also her face doesn't look like it is completely in focus. I like the second one. Do you happen to have a version with a little closer crop or would this image be used with text around it on the cd? Edit: Uncle I'm going to guess you started 20 years ago. Spoiler: show spoiler hide spoiler Watch me be horribly wrong and you started 2 years ago.

You know when something isn't obvious until someone points it out, and then you can't stop looking at it . The first image is sharp at 100%, so I guess its just a conversion thing.

I know usually baby shots are deemed the same as dog shots around here, but I'm going to post this anyway since she's the best subject I have to practice portraits on . Forgot to grab a shot of setup but it's super easy, sun behind and DIY reflector camera right.

Forgot to grab a shot of setup but it's super easy, sun behind and DIY reflector camera right. I've been meaning to grab a reflector. What's your DIY version consist of?

Forgot to grab a shot of setup but it's super easy, sun behind and DIY reflector camera right. I've been meaning to grab a reflector. What's your DIY version consist of? http://www.diyphotography.net/homest...eflector-stand This pretty much although I couldn't find that exact brand of auto windshield reflector. I think I want to paint the pipes black to make them look less ghetto though.

Blade that is a well lit photo. The reflector looks like it did a great job. Don't really like the subject matter though.

Blade that is a well lit photo. The reflector looks like it did a great job. Don't really like the subject matter though. I figured you wouldn't like the subject CC Thanks for the compliment about the lighting, I was quite surprised how well such a cheap solution worked. and as an aside I do joke with the wife that I'm going to throw the baby on the BBQ and eat her every so often…