Take your photography to the next level and beyond...

  • NEWS
  • REVIEWS
  • INSPIRATION
  • COMMUNITY
  • COMPETITIONS

Why not join for free today?

Join for Free

Your total photography experience starts here


Famous photographers


25 Jul 2013 3:47PM
Looking at that linkGrin.
Any ordinary photographer makes a mistake and they get crucified in a competition.
A famous person doesnt compose right and its artisticGrin
Guess you have to be famous in order tobe considered to be good and successfulWink
No wonder I dont win any competitions or prizes, I spend too much time on composition and getting subjects to look at the cameraWink.

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

25 Jul 2013 3:50PM
@keithh.....rolleyesWink
Paul Morgan e2
13 15.7k 6 England
25 Jul 2013 4:22PM

Quote:Bresson really invented modern photo-journalism as we know it. This is a man who, when he was sent to cover the coronation of George VI, took photos of the crowds and totally ignored the new king.


Very true as for modern photo journalism.

I can remember watching one of his last interviews, a very humble man.
keithh e2
10 23.2k 33 Wallis And Futuna
25 Jul 2013 4:27PM
Indeed he was and someone who would often, perhaps with tongue in cheek, put down his own photography and that particular art form in general, when compared to art created with a brush.

'Getting' Bresson, in my opinion, makes you all the more photographically richer.
GlennH 9 1.9k 1 France
25 Jul 2013 4:41PM
I don't know how it's even possible to look at a page like this and not notice the quality and energy that threads the photos together. You surely don't need to be a 'fan', or part of any exclusive club.

Anyone concealing an album full of snaps like this should whip 'em out, sharpish; you won't be the first but you'd be sure to gain some considerable respect.
Paul Morgan e2
13 15.7k 6 England
25 Jul 2013 4:52PM

Quote:'Getting' Bresson, in my opinion, makes you all the more photographically richer


Not just HCB, I`m quite a big fan of the work of Anders Petersen.

Yet another very humble man Smile

https://vimeo.com/34125446
keithh e2
10 23.2k 33 Wallis And Futuna
25 Jul 2013 5:42PM
Oh I agree, it was just the OP bringing Bresson up.

I agree about Peterson and he does show what can still be done with an eye rather than the camera as it were.

If any photographer inspired me and continues to do so, it is Ralph Eugene Meatyard........Andy would hate him. Wink
mikehit e2
5 6.8k 11 United Kingdom
26 Jul 2013 12:22AM

Quote:Looking at that linkGrin.
Any ordinary photographer makes a mistake and they get crucified in a competition.
A famous person doesnt compose right and its artisticGrin
Guess you have to be famous in order tobe considered to be good and successfulWink
No wonder I dont win any competitions or prizes, I spend too much time on composition and getting subjects to look at the cameraWink.



What do you mean by 'doesn't compose right'? It would be interesting to know what you think is wrong with the composition?
At the end of the day if the photo works, it is composed right and that is all that matters. Too many photographers are hidebound by rules (rules of thirds, rules of odd numbers etc etc) but the great ones break 'ther rules' when it suits the image. They know when to do it.

There are a gazillion members of the public who are great singers and yet it is the vapid quintet that is the Spice Girls who are making millions. You can either accept it and move on or let it eat away at you. At the end of the day, it is all about right place, right time.
779HOB 2 1.0k United Kingdom
26 Jul 2013 7:18AM

Quote: At the end of the day, it is all about right place, right time.


Or at least being in the right place and waiting for the right time. Sometimes you know the location and then its about waiting for that person to walk into frame or whatever.
joolsb 10 27.1k 38 Switzerland
26 Jul 2013 9:43AM
It's important to understand that HCB's work got the reputation it has because he was at the forefront of a looser, freer style of photojournalism which started around the time that the 35mm format first became popular. Context is hugely important when evaluating any artist's work. It's not that "he's famous therefore his work must be good" but a case of "he became famous because his work was good - and different".

Sadly, a lot of people these days are less interested in the history of photography than they are in taking pictures. Which is fine unless you want to question the reputation of one of the established 'greats'. Then you really need to understand a bit of background first in order to ask the right questions.
lemmy 7 2.0k United Kingdom
26 Jul 2013 4:13PM
When I used to do movie cartoons for the Telegraph student pages, I'd get 2 kinds of comments from people who didn't like them. One would be along the lines of 'I don't think this is funny because blah blah' and the other would be 'This is not funny because blah blah.

Everyone has their opinion on the work of others but there are no rules. The folk here who think they define what is and what is not good photography, like the ones who define whether a cartoon is funny or not, are invariably the ones who could do it better(!) but somehow don't get round to it.

The reason I was not as successful as David Bailey, for example, is very simple (and I'm not comparing myself to him!). He was more imaginative than I was and he had an originality which I did not. He saw that fashion photography had become stagnant and he thought he could revitalize it. He did. Does anyone imagine that the average photographer like me could get offered a contract with Vogue and be given the creative freedom Bailey was? Was it all a trick, wool pulled over everyone's eyes? Cartier-Bresson a flash in the pan?

The one good thing about the folk who think that fame and attainment as a photographer comes easy is that they will never be competition for anyone because they do not understand how much work people have to put in to their attainment. It reminds me of a story of an electrician talking to Paul McCartney on a video shoot I was covering for him. Sparks asked McCartney how much money he would make if his 'Wings' song was a hit. McCartney said (this was back in 80s). "about 250,000". Sparks asks, "how long does it take to write a song like that"? McCartney "this one came easy, about 20 minutes". "Blimey", says Sparks, "money for old rope" and laughs.
"It is", said McCartney, "you ought to do it yourself".
comma 6 101 6 United Kingdom
26 Jul 2013 11:13PM

Quote:The one good thing about the folk who think that fame and attainment as a photographer comes easy is that they will never be competition for anyone because they do not understand how much work people have to put in to their attainment. It reminds me of a story of an electrician talking to Paul McCartney on a video shoot I was covering for him. Sparks asked McCartney how much money he would make if his 'Wings' song was a hit. McCartney said (this was back in 80s). "about 250,000". Sparks asks, "how long does it take to write a song like that"? McCartney "this one came easy, about 20 minutes". "Blimey", says Sparks, "money for old rope" and laughs.
"It is", said McCartney, "you ought to do it yourself".




Just about sums it up for me.



stuart
monstersnowman 9 1.7k 1 England
27 Jul 2013 4:34AM

Quote:The one good thing about the folk who think that fame and attainment as a photographer comes easy is that they will never be competition for anyone because they do not understand how much work people have to put in to their attainment.


Not sure the gyst of some people's point, including the OP was that fame and attainment was in any way easy to achieve. I think the point of several was that if you have achieved that fame and attainment people will readily accept almost anything you produce as being important, highly artistic, etc, purely because they produced it. What may be written off as bad composition in a normal person's image would perhaps be described, generously, as 'an abstract demonstration of the understanding of space and objects' in a more successful photographers work.
monstersnowman 9 1.7k 1 England
27 Jul 2013 5:54AM
image.jpg



Image attributed to Edward Weston.

Genius ...
thewilliam 6 4.7k
27 Jul 2013 10:24AM

Quote:
The reason I was not as successful as David Bailey, for example, is very simple (and I'm not comparing myself to him!). He was more imaginative than I was and he had an originality which I did not. He saw that fashion photography had become stagnant and he thought he could revitalize it. He did. Does anyone imagine that the average photographer like me could get offered a contract with Vogue and be given the creative freedom Bailey was? Was it all a trick, wool pulled over everyone's eyes? Cartier-Bresson a flash in the pan?



I'd suggest that the true test of greatness in any field is longevity. Bailey has been taking "good to great" pictures for something over 50 years so success is hardly likely to be a matter of good luck. During that time there have been countless "shooting stars" famous for little longer than the 15 minutes of their entitlement. A lot of great artists are also superlative craftsmen (craftspeople?) and creativity needs a solid foundation.

For every great photographer, there's an army of solid artisans who produce good, merchantable work and a much larger army of wannabees who will never amount to anything. Something like 97% of UK photographic graduates will never have a long-term place in the industry

Sign In

You must be a member to leave a comment.

ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.

Join For Free

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.