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


GlennH 9 1.9k 1 France
29 Jul 2013 11:32AM
In a similar vein:


Quote:If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

lobsterboy e2
11 14.3k 13 United Kingdom
29 Jul 2013 11:57AM

Quote: The only reply is - 'well go right ahead then, no-one is stopping you'.

Yes they are - the bloke in the loo was quite upset when I tried to recreate that shot.
keith selmes
11 7.1k 1 United Kingdom
29 Jul 2013 12:08PM
I've been very impressed by the work of Endre Friedmann, which is widely published, although not many have heard of him.

When I read his book, I was surprised that I recognised many of the illustrations. I'd been seeing them for years, and they were a background in my knowledge and understanding of the world in which I grew up, but I never knew who took them, nor realised how many were taken by that one person.

Reading the introduction to the book I wonder if I ever would have seen them, if he hadn't changed his name and become Robert Capa.

It says in the spring of 1936, faced with a dire scarcity of sales, he and his girlfriend "decided to invent a glamorous and successful American photographer named Robert Capa", and she then sold his work on the strength of doing editors a favour by getting them Capa's work. And it worked, and Endre Friedmann became Robert Capa and became famous.
The girl changed her own name too, from the mouthful of Gerda Pohorylle to the more catchy Gerda Taro, and became a successful photographer in her own right, until her early death in the Spanish civil war.

None of which should downgrade their work, and it's possibly more to do with marketing than fame, but it struck me as relevant to the thread.

P.S. probably not quite what SteveCharles meant by "you could make a name for yourself", but that is just what they did.
SteveCharles
12 2.3k 18 England
29 Jul 2013 12:33PM
I did exactly the same. Charles is my middle name, my surname is actually Smith, and look at all the success it's brought me Wink
keithh e2
11 23.4k 33 Wallis And Futuna
29 Jul 2013 8:24PM
It must have worked.....I've never heard of Steve Smith.
Nick_w e2
7 4.1k 99 England
29 Jul 2013 8:35PM

Quote:It must have worked.....I've never heard of Steve Smith.


..bats #6 for Australia Wink
keithh e2
11 23.4k 33 Wallis And Futuna
29 Jul 2013 8:50PM
I would have said the fictional son of Stan in American Dad. Wink

Both however are apparently crap with a camera....as opposed to Steve Charles who is not bad with a camera. Wink
Nick_w e2
7 4.1k 99 England
29 Jul 2013 9:01PM

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.


As a kid I hated history with a passion, I couldn't understand the fervour around the comings and goings of one (admittedly important) family. To me it is the general population that's Important, it was only when I started to learn about WW1 that the average working class family was portrayed in the history books. What's this to do with photography? Well without the likes or Cartier Bresson we wouldn't see anything about the average person. True photojournalism is a forgotten art lost in technology.

The first image I remember was a pretty graphic one by Eddie Adams, an image that set him up for life, one he regretted taking - one that created a good friend (the "executioner"). Trouble is seeing it with 21st centuary technology we forget such images were taken with film cameras in hostile circumstances, no 10 fps, no auto everything, no meter (or very primitive) - how many now would criticise him for blown highlights etc, To me it's still one of the best photos ever taken.
Paul Morgan e2
13 16.1k 6 England
29 Jul 2013 9:29PM
I wonder how many of these photographers were remembered.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/gallery/2013/may/06/met-museum-new-york-american-civil-war-photography#/?picture=407049496&index=0

http://www.civil-war.net/cw_images/
JackAllTog e2
5 4.0k 58 United Kingdom
30 Jul 2013 12:51PM
I know as I learn more about photography that I also learn to appreciate things I never used to notice in a photo before - so sometime a photo is truly better than another but it takes a trained eye to see it.

Also many famous photographer may have binned thousands of other images to quality control the ones released - so the remaining ones are often the best examples of their work.

But yes some waxing lyrical does sometimes just seem pompous from time to time.
GlennH 9 1.9k 1 France
30 Jul 2013 1:22PM

Quote:Also many famous photographer may have binned thousands of other images to quality control the ones released - so the remaining ones are often the best examples of their work.


Well yes, that's what makes it so absurd for casual snappers such as most of us to pitch stones at their work. I'd suggest most 'famous' photographers got where they are through hard graft and a brutal objectivity that doesn't really exist amongst hobbyists. I recall David Bailey saying at one point that he reckoned on 6 decent pictures a year, whereas other camera-wielding mortals seem to believe every other picture they take is a deserved competition winner.
ade_mcfade e2
10 15.1k 216 England
30 Jul 2013 1:37PM
ask any designer and they'll tell you photographers are the WORST judges of their own images Wink
GlennH 9 1.9k 1 France
30 Jul 2013 1:42PM

Quote:Ask any designer and they'll tell you photographers are the WORST judges of their own images Wink


I'd suggest that's a generalisation - the best photographers are more likely to be decent editors. Tons of photographers have a glass half full approach - they don't cast a particularly critical eye.
thewilliam e2
6 4.9k
30 Jul 2013 1:46PM
Eamonn McCabe is a brilliant photographer and just as good when he was Picture Editor at the Grauniad!

Quote:Also many famous photographer may have binned thousands of other images to quality control the ones released - so the remaining ones are often the best examples of their work.

Well yes, that's what makes it so absurd for casual snappers such as most of us to pitch stones at their work. I'd suggest most 'famous' photographers got where they are through hard graft and a brutal objectivity that doesn't really exist amongst hobbyists. I recall David Bailey saying at one point that he reckoned on 6 decent pictures a year, whereas other camera-wielding mortals seem to believe every other picture they take is a deserved competition winner.




Im lucky If I get maybe a dozen images a year that I am happy withGrin

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.