Do photos need to "represent" something or have deeper meaning?

[zombiesniper]

To the original question.

A photo means something different to each person that see's it. For example some people see wildlife photo's as boring and a waste of money. Other's see all the InstFaceChat photo's as a teeny/hipster space.

Does the photo change based on who views it? Of course not.

Can the photographer dictate what others think about it. No

Take the photos you want and stop looking for validation. I take a bunch of photos that I'm sure people hate. The difference. I don't care what other people want until they pony up some cash.

But that brings me back to the point of this post to begin with. Why does a photo have to be some original thing nobody ever though of before?

This was not the original point but since you brought it up. A photo doesn't have to be original in order to be interesting or good. The reactions you've been getting is because you implied you were doing something different.

I was shooting caterpillars and cars and flowers and all that other boring **** everybody else photographs.

Does your photography have an audience and market. Sure.

Should you worry about what other people say about the merits of your photography? I shouldn't have to answer that but I will. There are many people in this world that will disagree with you and your photography. There is a great two step approach to this.

1. Realize that they are entitled to their opinion as much as you are yours.

2. Carry on with your life.

It really is just that easy.

 

[Ysarex]

I get that our styles look the same because of the normal factors - lighting style, post processing, narrow aperture, high sync-speed - but the whole point of using that style is that it's a lack of a style.

Your lack of style screams "slavishly copying stylized fashion" so deafeningly that, well, fortunately I still had my eclipse glasses on my desk.

Joe

P.S. I thought the on-camera flash thing was over already -- guess not.

 

[Bill The Lurker]

tpf is the wrong place to ask for feedback on these pictures

tpf is about technical details, about managing your equipment, lighting, post-processing and so on. if you were still w orking on focus and exposure, tpf would be great.

your work is about styling and direction, about collaborating with models to make images technical details be darned. with all respect to the regulars of tpf, almost nobody showing work here has a clue about styling or directing.

anyone who thinks your work looks like terry richardson isn't paying attention, although obviously your work as some aspects of it. a bit like ren hang, a bit like terry rishardson, a bit like probably half a dozen others i don't know. a bit more punkrock than either other those two.

you're right it's a remix. to my eye its a moderately distinctive remix, it's quite sexy (both the +ve and -ve connotations of the term)

looks like you're on control of your work making the results you want.

a bit surprised there's not more gushing about your work because after all nearly naked hotties. if you hadn't put the stars on i assume you'd have gotten more positive responses but im a cynic

my only feedback is the bare butts look fake. you've got a semi-gritty aesthetic but you're smoothing the butt cheeks into globes of plastic perfection i think. it jars.

 

[jcdeboever]

I'm what some call a lifestyle photographer, meaning my images collectively portray and promote a certain way of being. A lot of my shots are candid, raw, unedited, and unapologetically in-the-moment which I believe adds to the believability and impact of the images.

My number one critique from other photographers, on the other hand, is that my don't appear to be planned out - that they lack meaning or depth or theme. That I'm not hiding something clever in the layers. My position on that critique is that photos don't have to mean anything deeper than just being a photo of some stuff I like to be worthy of appreciation.

Here's my portfolio - check it out before replying so you have some context. The best examples I can think of are the "upside down legs" photos and the cat photo (you'll know it when you see it - it's on the stickers page).

www.davidbeckphoto.com

What is your opinion on this?

Who cares... If you like them, great.

 

[zombiesniper]

with all respect to the regulars of tpf, almost nobody showing work here has a clue about styling or directing.

Just because someone doesn't show it doesn't mean they don't understand it.
I don't shoot a lot of different styles. Doesn't mean I don't understand them.
I don't paint but it doesn't mean I didn't paint....for years.
I don't play drums but it doesn't mean I didn't.
It's a pretty shallow slice of someone that is represented on a single platform.

 

[Bill The Lurker]

fair enough what i see on tpf of model/fashion/sexy material looks to me to be largely undirected and unstyled while the attention to lighting and post processing is substantial

 

[pixmedic]

fair enough what i see on tpf of model/fashion/sexy material looks to me to be largely undirected and unstyled while the attention to lighting and post processing is substantial

ironic that you mention that in this thread considering the OPs first post was about how his photography is "lifestyle", "candid", and "unedited".

 

[Bill The Lurker]

davids pix are unedited and candid the same way a d&g ad is

 

[Overread]

MOD notice - please be aware that this is a family friendly site - because of the general nature of the content of your link its been removed from view. If you wish to post such content or discuss it in this way you will have to pm our admin for permission to access the NSFW section of the site. IT also should go without saying that such links should have a NSFW warning in the thread title as well.

Admin profile terri

 

[DanOstergren]

Big fan of your work. I wouldn't change a thing.

As a lover of the craft of photography, I would be critical of your work if your lighting was poor, or the exposures were off-the-charts bad, etc etc, but your lighting isn't poorly done, your exposures are rendered well, you clearly have composition, color, content, and story in mind. Honestly I don't think your photos look like they are unplanned at all, in fact they look like a lot of talented people collaborated to make them, and I see plenty of depth as well as relevance. This is based on viewing the images on your instagram.

Also, to me your photos DEFINITELY don't look like you're copying Terry Richardson. Some of the members here can just be very salty. Please stick around, I promise we're not all that unfriendly.

 

[Braineack]

It must had been another photographer that takes pictures of barely-clad celebrities against a white wall doing handstands with a flash on lens-axis....

the salt tastes good on my popcorn!

 

[Designer]

the salt tastes good on my popcorn!

It might not taste as good after having been rubbed into a wound, however.

 

[waday]

As for a photo having a meaning? Dude, whatever. Do what you want.

The photo of my fougasse had a meaning. It was meant to tempt y'all, and it worked.

 

[runnah]

Simplicity is often discarded in the search for deeper meaning. Sometimes a pretty sunset is just that, something to be enjoyed for a fleeting moment.

 

[Bill The Lurker]

if you think david's images look like terry's it's because you're only looking at technique. lots of people use on-axis light and pretty girls these days it shifts a billion dollars worth of couture every year. it's a look with very specific properties that appeals to a specific demo with a lot of success. technique is a tool for expression, at best, not a list of right and wrong choices.

its depressing to see this thread. guy comes in, basically a pretty successful photographer with real publications relevant tohis niche, he's got a real honest question and he's basically chased away first by the locals and then the mods decide that his work is too racy even to be linked to from here an astonishing change in policy.

nobody's even taken a stab at his question me included whoops.

david, assuming that you're still around, no pictures don't have to mean anything unless you want them to or if you insist on showing them in a context where we assume there's some sort of meaning (like an art gallery showing, or whatev)