I like a lot of contrast and color. Maybe I was over doing it but yea I like that. HOWEVER, I do have another side to my style, I also like very vintagey soft hazy looks with a lot of light too.
This image is BEAUTIFUL! I love it!! I would hang this in a heart beat!! Thanks so much for sharing!I think there is room for more than what you've described as a true, pure, or successful photographer, ie, not a fauxtographer. Any photographer's sense of style or trademark way of photographing and editing is acceptable and "right" if it meets the goals of their clients or customers.
This photograph is by Irene Suchocki from Montreal, who is arguably very successful. She sells on the handmade site, Etsy: Dreamy photographs of Paris Venice NYC by EyePoetryPhotography In fact, she's THE highest selling photographer on that site. She averages about 8 to 10 sales per day with her average item price being somewhere around $30.00. Etsy is an online venue and shops are open 365 days a year so by estimation she makes somewhere between AT LEAST $88,000 and $110,000 per anum on this venue alone. These photos have nothing to do with most of the "rules" or "advice" that are commonly given out on this forum but she appeals to a wide audience and is selling.
I agree, wholeheartedly, with any photographer having a solid foundation in theory of composition, and lighting, etc. etc... but there is still so much room for creative expression that I think can get stifled sometimes around here. Irene isn't someone I'd put on my wall, but she does amazingly well. If she posted for a C&C here, I wonder if she wouldn't be torn apart in minutes.
In the end, the clients/customers are what decide whether or not a photo "works." If this OP likes super-saturated, over contrasty images and that's her style... then... that's her style. If her clients value her work... they value it.
If it's a question of whether or not the market doesn't understand what "good" photography is, that is a question I'm not sure needs to be answered. If the goal is to have a photography business, it matters little whether or not the buyers are refined enough to care for the rule of thirds.
Having said that, Elizabeth, you should strive to know all you can know. However, in the end, allow for your personal style as well.
Some term them fauxtographers. Quit looking at Facebook.
Just what you need. A f/1.2 lens. :thumbdown:
You don't understand, because you have no clue. The typical today photographer is a "natural light, don't/don't know how to pose, don't/don't know how to light, don't have a studio" photographer. That pretty much defines the vast majority of today's one-on-every-street-corner, entry-level, retail photographer that essentially has an illegal business, no technical or artistic skills and little if any desire to ever do the work needed to acquire those skills.
But the churn at the entry level is massive, because only 1 out of every 40,000 of those "natural light only, candid, natural, every day moments, don't/don't know how to pose, don't/don't know how to light, don't have a studio" photographer's actually make any money. Most of those types of retail photography businesses are supported by other income. For a short time anyway.
Today, the 'uses strobed lighting, knows how to pose, has a studio' photographer is in the decided minority, and are about the only photographers around that have a viable, ongoing, actually makes a profit business.
Here is some reality for you. For a full time retail photographer, that has a legal business, to make minimum wage after all the business expenses and personal helth insurance, retirement monies have been paid, needs gross total revenues of between $100,000 and $120,000 a year. That's about $8250 to $10,000 average per month - month, after month, after month.
Well more than 1/2 of a retail photographers time is spent doing business tasks like accounting, developing marketing and promotional plans, networking, drumming up new business, maintaining a web site/blog/social networking, etc.
punch said:
I think there is room for more than what you've described as a true, pure, or successful photographer, ie, not a fauxtographer. Any photographer's sense of style or trademark way of photographing and editing is acceptable and "right" if it meets the goals of their clients or customers.
This photograph is by Irene Suchocki from Montreal, who is arguably very successful. She sells on the handmade site, Etsy: Dreamy photographs of Paris Venice NYC by EyePoetryPhotography In fact, she's THE highest selling photographer on that site. She averages about 8 to 10 sales per day with her average item price being somewhere around $30.00. Etsy is an online venue and shops are open 365 days a year so by estimation she makes somewhere between AT LEAST $88,000 and $110,000 per anum on this venue alone. These photos have nothing to do with most of the "rules" or "advice" that are commonly given out on this forum but she appeals to a wide audience and is selling.
I agree, wholeheartedly, with any photographer having a solid foundation in theory of composition, and lighting, etc. etc... but there is still so much room for creative expression that I think can get stifled sometimes around here. Irene isn't someone I'd put on my wall, but she does amazingly well. If she posted for a C&C here, I wonder if she wouldn't be torn apart in minutes.
In the end, the clients/customers are what decide whether or not a photo "works." If this OP likes super-saturated, over contrasty images and that's her style... then... that's her style. If her clients value her work... they value it.
If it's a question of whether or not the market doesn't understand what "good" photography is, that is a question I'm not sure needs to be answered. If the goal is to have a photography business, it matters little whether or not the buyers are refined enough to care for the rule of thirds.
Having said that, Elizabeth, you should strive to know all you can know. However, in the end, allow for your personal style as well.
I think there is room for more than what you've described as a true, pure, or successful photographer, ie, not a fauxtographer. Any photographer's sense of style or trademark way of photographing and editing is acceptable and "right" if it meets the goals of their clients or customers.
This photograph is by Irene Suchocki from Montreal, who is arguably very successful. She sells on the handmade site, Etsy: Dreamy photographs of Paris Venice NYC by EyePoetryPhotography In fact, she's THE highest selling photographer on that site. She averages about 8 to 10 sales per day with her average item price being somewhere around $30.00. Etsy is an online venue and shops are open 365 days a year so by estimation she makes somewhere between AT LEAST $88,000 and $110,000 per anum on this venue alone. These photos have nothing to do with most of the "rules" or "advice" that are commonly given out on this forum but she appeals to a wide audience and is selling.
I agree, wholeheartedly, with any photographer having a solid foundation in theory of composition, and lighting, etc. etc... but there is still so much room for creative expression that I think can get stifled sometimes around here. Irene isn't someone I'd put on my wall, but she does amazingly well. If she posted for a C&C here, I wonder if she wouldn't be torn apart in minutes.
In the end, the clients/customers are what decide whether or not a photo "works." If this OP likes super-saturated, over contrasty images and that's her style... then... that's her style. If her clients value her work... they value it.
If it's a question of whether or not the market doesn't understand what "good" photography is, that is a question I'm not sure needs to be answered. If the goal is to have a photography business, it matters little whether or not the buyers are refined enough to care for the rule of thirds.
Having said that, Elizabeth, you should strive to know all you can know. However, in the end, allow for your personal style as well.
That $88 to $110K per year sounds good... Until you find out what her COG and CODB is. At $110K per year she's probably netting about $26,00 IF she is meeting the IDEALS for a home based photographer. Over 90% of home studios are not meeting the ideals by a significant amount.
I agree with you, it's just an every day shot but that's what I was doing.... just practicing with settings. My goal was to try and get the exposure better and to see if I could adjust my shutter speeds to catch the snow flakes in air. I understand what you are saying and don't get me wrong love, I'm not blowing off anyone's advice. Actually, I have had more great advice in the last 24 hours than I have ever had! I'm very greatful for that so thank you. It is nice to hear others complimenting on my photos though because everyone wants to hear that they have something great. But I still feel that there is a line between talent and learned. You can only teach so much but talent is what makes the best photographers AWESOME!! I still have tons to learn though so please keep all advice flowing!!! I NEED it!! So on my uninteresting photo, how do you feel about the exposure and the way the snow flakes look in terms of shutter speed?
yes.. but it is totally uninteresting. Maybe if the shot was vertical, and you hadn't cut off the tips of her fingers... it might be ok. So where is that TALENT you talking about a few posts ago? It doesn't show here! Although basic compositional skills and knowledge would have at least made it more palatable!
And please keep in mind, that most of those who are encouraging you... know less than you do! Do you really think that is best audience to listen too? You can get adulation on Facebook.. but it won't help you get better!
punch said:
Elizabeth30 said:
![[No title]](/data/xfmg/thumbnail/42/42455-61fb2cf2ac4f6de557a508b2195fc822.jpg?1734176994)
![[No title]](/data/xfmg/thumbnail/42/42459-a7a996b715ff4999d07738140fdd0fe3.jpg?1734176996)