"I ONLY shoot...."

[JustJazzie]

I signed up for amazon kindle unlimited today and snagged a few books to read. One of them, was supposed to be on boudoir photography posing. Im a little taken aback by the authors stance on her shots. Which, from what I see are pretty solid. Supposedly shes been in busniess for 10+years and runs workshops and whatnot.

Anyway, 2 chapters into the book she constantly says things like " I ONLY shoot continuos lighting, light meters, grey cards etc are just a waste of time." I ONLY shoot prime, zooms make you less creative" "I ONLY ever shoot at 1.2 or 1.4, thats my sweet spot, I love me some bokeh!" " I ALWAYS place one softbox 45º above the clients head" "I NEVER drop my SS below 1/640"

wait a minuet.... I feel like I am reading things on an internet forum filled with ammeters?! (and I'm not talking about you lovely TPF'ers, by the way)

On the one hand, I suppose at least you know EXACTLY what you are in for when you see her portfolio, but on the other, I just don't understand how someone could make an entire career out of limiting themselves to so many "ONLY's." I don't see how you can get creative when you ALWAYS use the SAME lighting setup, same aperture etc.

So school me please. Once you become a Professional, does your "brand" really place so many limitations on how you set up your shoot? (If so, I suppose it makes me happy that I will forever be a hobbiest- free to change my aperture, lighting, white balance and lighting setup at my leisure.)


Or should I just put this free (you get what you pay for) book down and run far far away...?

 

[limr]

I imagine consistency is important when trying to make money from photography. Just think: you're a customer, you look at some portfolios, and you see on photographer whose style you like, so you hire that person. You expect to get that same style, right? Because that's what you chose? What if you got pictures that were very different from what you expected? Would you be mad that you didn't get what you expected, or would you be glad the photographer was expressing his or her creative license?

Maybe some photographers can vary their style depending on the type of shoot, for example, or can have discussions with their clients to show them different possibilities, but mostly, I think an important aspect of commercial photography is being able to reliably and consistently get a picture/style that has proved successful and lucrative. Clients don't want surprises.

I think like many other professions, photographers end up specializing - boudoir, sports, weddings, pet portraiture, events... what works for portraits won't work for events, for example. This means that while shooting the thing you specialize in, yes, you're going to stick to the settings and lighting arrangements that work for that genre. Does it get boring? Probably. But not every picture a commercial photographer takes has to be for a client. Perhaps they go shooting on their own for fun, for variety.

Or, you stay an amateur and avoid the pressure

 

[JustJazzie]

I imagine consistency is important when trying to make money from photography. Just think: you're a customer, you look at some portfolios, and you see on photographer whose style you like, so you hire that person. You expect to get that same style, right? Because that's what you chose? What if you got pictures that were very different from what you expected? Would you be mad that you didn't get what you expected, or would you be glad the photographer was expressing his or her creative license? Maybe some photographers can vary their style depending on the type of shoot, for example, or can have discussions with their clients to show them different possibilities, but mostly, I think an important aspect of commercial portraiture (boudoir or otherwise) is being able to reliably and consistently get a picture/style that has proved successful and lucrative. I think like many other professions, photographers end up specializing - boudoir, sports, weddings, pet portraiture, events... what works for portraits won't work for events, for example. This means that while shooting the thing you specialize in, yes, you're going to stick to the settings and lighting arrangements that work for that genre. Does it get boring? Probably. But not every picture a commercial photographer takes has to be for a client. Perhaps they go shooting on their own for fun, for variety. Or, you stay an amateur and avoid the pressure

I get consistency, but simply taking DOF into account, I don't see how anyone can always shoot at f 1.2 no matter if it's a full body shot, or a head shot. Kwim?

 

[limr]

But neither of us are boudoir photographers. If it works for her, why should she mess with it?

Some photographers I'm sure can manage more variety in their styles, but perhaps she's simply not that creative? So there's nothing to stifle

 

[JustJazzie]

But neither of us are boudoir photographers. If it works for her, why should she mess with it? Some photographers I'm sure can manage more variety in their styles, but perhaps she's simply not that creative? So there's nothing to stifle

Yes. It DOES work for her. Her images are great.
I suppose what I am REALLY asking, is if this is actually good, legitimate advice for the masses.

 

[407370]

The pleasure of being an amateur is that I only shoot whats in front of the camera any way I please.

 

[limr]

But neither of us are boudoir photographers. If it works for her, why should she mess with it? Some photographers I'm sure can manage more variety in their styles, but perhaps she's simply not that creative? So there's nothing to stifle

Yes. It DOES work for her. Her images are great.
I suppose what I am REALLY asking, is if this is actually good, legitimate advice for the masses.

Oh, well I think it's crappy advice if she's presenting it in a way that suggests that everyone should shoot like her. If she's offering it as an example of "You should maintain consistency, and this is how I do it, but you all should find your own formula that works..." then it's slightly better, I suppose. I would hope she would explain WHY she has stuck with these settings and discuss the effect of other ways of doing things.

But not everyone who writes a book should write a book

 

[JustJazzie]

Oh, well I think it's crappy advice if she's presenting it in a way that suggests that everyone should shoot like her. If she's offering it as an example of "You should maintain consistency, and this is how I do it, but you all should find your own formula that works..." then it's slightly better, I suppose. I would hope she would explain WHY she has stuck with these settings and discuss the effect of other ways of doing things. But not everyone who writes a book should write a book

She explains the effects. Like shooting 1.2 because "I love me some bokeh" but that's about it. The book DOES get 5 stars, but I don't think I'm going to finish it...

 

[AlanKlein]

Take what you need from the book and leave the rest.

 

[Overread]

Generally speaking many "how to" books often aim at the creating a situation of constants for the beginner. That is to say fixing situations so that the beginner hasn't got to think but simply copy the pre-designed idea and repeat it. This works well in early on education as it gives a situation where the author has the ability to present a somewhat controlled condition for the student who can then copy - repeat and practice the method to get a similar style as the author has displayed.

It's generally easier to say "I only ever use f1.4" than "I only ever use an aperture that gives me the thin depth of field I want" when dealing with beginners.


Some photographers are also very robotic with how they approach photography; they find settings that work for them and stick to them to the point that its all they really use for that theme of photography that they do. Simplified into a book this can present the idea that the photographer has little variety in their settings; and that very well might be true. They've found a formula that works for them and they stick to it.

 

[Derrel]

I can imagine how stunted her visual vocabulary is if everything is shot at f/1.2 or f/1.4, and the only light sources she knows how to use are continuous. And she's enamored of bokeh. Ohhhh boy......

 

[pgriz]

She seems to be expressing what works for HER. She may have lots of very solid experience behind her that brought her to that end-point, or she could have lucked onto a set of settings/conditions that work for her and she hasn't tried anything else... My take-away from this, is to understand what she does, how it contributes to the end result she gets, and then decide if that set of conditions is consistent with YOUR situation, YOUR equipment and YOUR subjects. As Derrel points out, there may be a whole lot of other ways of doing this that she's not touching or exploring.

 

[limr]

Oh, well I think it's crappy advice if she's presenting it in a way that suggests that everyone should shoot like her. If she's offering it as an example of "You should maintain consistency, and this is how I do it, but you all should find your own formula that works..." then it's slightly better, I suppose. I would hope she would explain WHY she has stuck with these settings and discuss the effect of other ways of doing things. But not everyone who writes a book should write a book

She explains the effects. Like shooting 1.2 because "I love me some bokeh" but that's about it. The book DOES get 5 stars, but I don't think I'm going to finish it...

Yeah well, 5 stars doesn't mean what it used to I've read some craptacular books that were rated very highly by readers, but all this tells me is that the people who are reading these books have poor judgment skills.

She actually wrote, "I love me some bokeh"? That's just poor writing. For an informal conversation or forum thread or something, fine, but for a published book? Poor form.

 

[pixmedic]

I always find it interesting when "professional" photographers talk down about tools THEY don't use or like.
Let's break down those statements a bit...

"I only shoot 1.2 or 1.4, love me some bokeh"... OR "I don't know how bokeh actually relates to the lens and not just the aperture, nor how DOF is properly managed.

I only shoot continuous light, meters and gray cards are a waste of time"....OR I have no idea how flashes/strobes work and won't bother to learn how accessory equipment works...

I suppose you COULD say that she never makes any adjustments to her lighting or shooting style because she found "what works for her"...OR, you might say that she found one method out of hundreds that gets a certain result and never bothered to learn anything past that and grow as a photographer.

Whatever you prefer.
Personally, I would feel pretty stagnant as a photographer if I shot the exact same thing the exact same way every time.
All it says to ME is.....lazy.

 

[Overread]

Sometimes technical matters are left out of discussion and "its all about my artistic raw talent" because;

1) The person really doesn't have a technical clue what they are doing - they just sorta do it and it works

2) They don't really want to tell you all of how they shoot cause you might copy that and beat them at their own game.