Famous Photographers

I'm also finding inspiration in movies but if you think about it, it makes perfect sense. What is a movie (or a motion picture)? Nothing more than a series of stills moving at a certain speed to create the illusion of motion.
Agreed, which is why I find this comment pretty funny:

For the most part, people should not look at other photographers' work. Speaking for myself, I learned from watching old B&W movies from the 30s, not from looking at any still photographers' work.

I said 'still' photographers specifically and meant it. Cinematography is different in that you have big budgets, a story, costumes, lighting crews and everything else...you can learn a lot from looking at films of this era.

Yes, cinema films are a succession of stills, but that's beside the point. Still photographers do different sorts of work, generally.
 
Last edited:
Yes, cinema films are a succession of stills, but that's beside the point.
No I'm pretty sure that was the entire point. :lmao:

Anyway, I was just poking fun at your comment that people should generally not look at other photographer's work. I find that viewpoint interesting. Stupid, but also interesting.

What good reason is there to be blind to history? Artists will produce derivative works of art whether they realize it or not. So isn't it better to be informed and use what others have done in the past as a leaping off point?
 
I can see both sides of the argument. Not having much knowledge of other people's work or the common rules of composition could lead to either highly inventive shots or really crappy shots. Studying the masters could lead to a solid foundation in principals that allows one to exceed the works of the past or it could have a limiting, boxed in type of mentality that limits imagination and goes no where new. I don't see either as wrong or right. Everyone is different in what works for them.
 
Yes, cinema films are a succession of stills, but that's beside the point.
No I'm pretty sure that was the entire point. :lmao:

Anyway, I was just poking fun at your comment that people should generally not look at other photographer's work. I find that viewpoint interesting. Stupid, but also interesting.

What good reason is there to be blind to history? Artists will produce derivative works of art whether they realize it or not. So isn't it better to be informed and use what others have done in the past as a leaping off point?

The reason is that they end up just copying one another. I learned more about composition, use of angles, influence of light, etc., from watching old B&W movies than from any "great" still photographer.

When I was a kid B&W movies were the norm, and I have seen many projected in theatres. Watch Rebecca. It's stunning.

Another one of interest photographically is Blonde Venus.

1_Blonde_Venus_photo-prv.jpg


Dietrich,_Dick_Blonde_Venus.jpg


blonde-venus-02-g.jpg


viewdocument.aspx
 
Last edited:
Sorry, irony overload. I can't think straight. Give me a minute.

:meh:
 
Yes, cinema films are a succession of stills, but that's beside the point.
No I'm pretty sure that was the entire point. :lmao:

Not to mention that without photography there would have been no movies. What where the first moving pictures but a series of prints in a machine that allowed the user to view them successively ...

And the comment about big budgets, etc is also kind of ridiculous. Even if overall true, there are still movies that are done on the cheap. Mine for example. I shot a couple of documentaries with much smaller budgets then some of my photo shoots. Also had a lighting crew (they're called assistants) and sometimes had a hair person, a make up person, a set decorator, a costume designer/wardrobe person, and a producer (although we usually call them editors.)

Of course, those shoots are usually handled by the dreaded pros. Then again I doubt that the amateur film makers get the big budgets either.
 
Yes, cinema films are a succession of stills, but that's beside the point.
No I'm pretty sure that was the entire point. :lmao:

Not to mention that without photography there would have been no movies. What where the first moving pictures but a series of prints in a machine that allowed the user to view them successively ...

And the comment about big budgets, etc is also kind of ridiculous. Even if overall true, there are still movies that are done on the cheap. Mine for example. I shot a couple of documentaries with much smaller budgets then some of my photo shoots. Also had a lighting crew (they're called assistants) and sometimes had a hair person, a make up person, a set decorator, a costume designer/wardrobe person, and a producer (although we usually call them editors.)

Of course, those shoots are usually handled by the dreaded pros. Then again I doubt that the amateur film makers get the big budgets either.

I said "cinema of the 30s and 40s", and mentioned Hitchcock, and singled out Blonde Venus as well. What part of that was unclear? These were more influential on me than "great" still photographers were, by far. I was talking about me....and I explained why.

If you want an entire course on composition and lighting, watch Blonde Venus. You won't have anything more to learn, I assure you. Why mention cheap films? Utterly irrelevant.

I would go so far as to say if you want to know everything about photography, watch Blonde Venus...

Those old German directors knew more about composition and lighting than a hundred "great" still photographers you can name.

Blonde2.jpg


0.jpg


Ever see Greed?

greed-gowland-hersholt.jpg


greed-zasu-pitts.jpg


Greed,_1924,_16_trina.jpg
 
Last edited:
I get it. Cheap = bad. Must be why you shoot Leica :lmao:

Wait, now I'm confused because movies in the 30s 40s were made for a lot less money (ie cheap) than today's, yet there were better?
 
I get it. Cheap = bad. Must be why you shoot Leica :lmao:

Wait, now I'm confused because movies in the 30s 40s were made for a lot less money (ie cheap) than today's, yet there were better?

You're being silly. They had big budgets and could afford to do what they needed photographically. I'm not making comparisons between older films and today's (though I could). I was saying, if you want to learn composition, dramatic angles, lighting, etc., watch Blonde Venus, Greed, and Rebecca. Films like these have had more influence on me than any "great" still photographers have. If you'll note, I use extreme close up far more than most 'photographers' do.
 
Last edited:
You're being silly.

Wow, you're sharp.

Of course I'm being silly. Is there any other way to respond to your mostly inane posts?

Actually, you may well get the honor of being the first person I officially complain about if you don't stop 1/ hijacking other members' threads for your own perverse pleasure as pointed out by someone recently (and I'll be happy to give the mods a sample of your driving away a new member), and 2/ keep posting images you have not right to which is breaking the rules of this place.

Any questions, refer to the FAQ.
 
I'll take the blame for stirring the pot. Sometimes I just can't resist. :p
 
I'll take the blame for stirring the pot. Sometimes I just can't resist. :p

Why the hell would you take the blame? You may have responded in a stupid (silly) manner but that is exactly what this guy is after and it is hard not too. Stirring the pot is what PP is here for. I imagine he is very bored with his life but I really couldn't care less. Not since, anyway, he ran off a new member, I believe, with a thread that was/could have been interesting to many more members.

Next time I see him do the same crap, I complain. Period.

And I sure wish others will too.

If he wants to shower us with his godlike knowledge and philosophy (would that be a golden shower considering he's always pissing on everybody here?), he can start his own thread...
 
I'll take the blame for stirring the pot. Sometimes I just can't resist. :p

Why the hell would you take the blame? You may have responded in a stupid (silly) manner but that is exactly what this guy is after and it is hard not too. Stirring the pot is what PP is here for. I imagine he is very bored with his life but I really couldn't care less. Not since, anyway, he ran off a new member, I believe, with a thread that was/could have been interesting to many more members.

Next time I see him do the same crap, I complain. Period.

And I sure wish others will too.

If he wants to shower us with his godlike knowledge and philosophy (would that be a golden shower considering he's always pissing on everybody here?), he can start his own thread...

My point:

You can learn more from these sorts of films than from "famous photographers".

That was all.
 
Last edited:
The reason is that they end up just copying one another. I learned more about composition, use of angles, influence of light, etc., from watching old B&W movies than from any "great" still photographer.

Well then.. now you are just copying the cinematographers. Its no different.... your logic doesn't follow no matter how much you wrapped it around a fake shroud of intelligence.

The whole point is to learn for whatever or whoever and add your own "twist"... make it yours.

"Nothing is original. Steal from anywhere that resonates with inspiration or fuels your imagination. Devour old films, new films, music, books, paintings, photographs, poems, dreams, random conversations, architecture, bridges, street signs, trees, clouds, bodies of water, light and shadows. Select only things to steal from that speak directly to your soul. If you do this, your work (and theft) will be authentic. Authenticity is invaluable; originality is non-existent. And don't bother concealing your thievery - celebrate it if you feel like it. In any case, always remember what Jean-Luc Godard said: "It's not where you take things from - it's where you take them to." - Jim Jarmusch



oh btw.. I think c.cloudwalker's point was that cinema and photography borrowed and copied each other... photography existed prior to movie.
 
And time to put things back on the sane (well mostly sane) track!
My computer is dead so my nice links are all missing at present; but One photographer is missing of my list that I posted earlier (ok that I linked to)

Juza Nature Photography
Well worth looking into for any nature/wildlife/landscape photographers!
 

Most reactions

Back
Top