o/t classic glamour photographers
-
horace ward
Re: o/t classic glamour photographers
Jon,you are right-life moves on...
If you want QUALITY visit the mags of P.R.O.
If you want quick pictures on your digital,then visit the paysites,simple as that.
This is a whole new generation us professionals would rather keep away from,that's why we either look around for another sin or get on with doing something else in the photographic trade that needs our skills and the customer recognises the fact!
Amen..
If you want QUALITY visit the mags of P.R.O.
If you want quick pictures on your digital,then visit the paysites,simple as that.
This is a whole new generation us professionals would rather keep away from,that's why we either look around for another sin or get on with doing something else in the photographic trade that needs our skills and the customer recognises the fact!
Amen..
-
Mayfair/MensWorld Editor
Re: o/t classic glamour photographers
God bless you, Horace.
As for the old guard of snappers, well, as Dave said, Donald sadly passed away several years ago. Geoff Howes has slowed down, Ralph lives in Spain, Colby's still very busy, Nick Gurgul likewise.
Austin Legrew moved away to the Canaries a few years back, Jack Harrison lives in Hungary and Viv Thomas of course, is still very much a force in glamour.
All these guys were with us from the late 80s onwards. What we're not seeing is much in the way of young blood coming through. It costs an awful lot of money to set yourself up properly as a glamour snapper and, unless you can get a foothold in the US market, it's not an easy way of making a living anymore. And I should know, I've thought about it on and off for the last 15 years as snapper after snapper pulled into the car park in a variety of far nicer and much more expensive cars than I ever had!
As for the old guard of snappers, well, as Dave said, Donald sadly passed away several years ago. Geoff Howes has slowed down, Ralph lives in Spain, Colby's still very busy, Nick Gurgul likewise.
Austin Legrew moved away to the Canaries a few years back, Jack Harrison lives in Hungary and Viv Thomas of course, is still very much a force in glamour.
All these guys were with us from the late 80s onwards. What we're not seeing is much in the way of young blood coming through. It costs an awful lot of money to set yourself up properly as a glamour snapper and, unless you can get a foothold in the US market, it's not an easy way of making a living anymore. And I should know, I've thought about it on and off for the last 15 years as snapper after snapper pulled into the car park in a variety of far nicer and much more expensive cars than I ever had!
-
britpornlover
Re: o/t classic glamour photographers
Just to stick my twopenn'orth in... One area where I must disagree with Horace is in the area of digital - a digital camera does not necessarily make a bad photographer. On the other hand, you can give a crap photographer a full 'Blad kit and he'll still produce crap results. There are a number of good pros out there using digital and getting excellent results. I have to confess that I'm coming at the whole thing from a slightly different perspective, so a small amount of background..
First off, I am not and would never claim to be a proper photographer - I know how to get a good exposure, I've produced some pictures that I personally am really happy with, but I don't have the "eye" for it that the really good pros have. I have, though, been in the photo business in a couple of areas for quite a few years and I think I can tell a good picture from a bad one.
The reason I'm defending digital here is that in most areas these days you can get technically very high quality results (I'm talking here about resolution, colour, density, contrast, the list goes on...) using the high end cameras - Jon mentioned one in the previous posting and there are an increasing number of them out there. The problem in the particular area that sparked off this discussion (ie glamour/porn/whatever you want to call it) is very simple - while the resolution of a really good current digital camera can match that of 35mm film (approx 15 megapixel for those who are interested), no digital camera that I have yet seen can produce good skin tones. Bit of a problem when most of your subject is naked/semi-naked flesh...
For most other applications digital can now produce results that rival (although not quite yet match) 35mm film - with the proviso that we are talking about serious kit. These are not things that many local camera shops sell! In a couple more years (I know this for a fact) resolution will be equivalent to medium format or higher. The real question is whether anyone will develops chips that capture the tonal range of film.
Anyway, I've probably gone on for long enough so one last point. The real harm (IMHO) that digital has done is making it too easy to get images from a crap camera to a PC, and then onto the web, resulting in the current proliferation of crap paysites. The answer - don't subscribe if the pictures suck. There are some sites out there using reasonable quality images - use them.
Sorry. Rant over.
Britpornlover. The photographer is important, not the camera.
First off, I am not and would never claim to be a proper photographer - I know how to get a good exposure, I've produced some pictures that I personally am really happy with, but I don't have the "eye" for it that the really good pros have. I have, though, been in the photo business in a couple of areas for quite a few years and I think I can tell a good picture from a bad one.
The reason I'm defending digital here is that in most areas these days you can get technically very high quality results (I'm talking here about resolution, colour, density, contrast, the list goes on...) using the high end cameras - Jon mentioned one in the previous posting and there are an increasing number of them out there. The problem in the particular area that sparked off this discussion (ie glamour/porn/whatever you want to call it) is very simple - while the resolution of a really good current digital camera can match that of 35mm film (approx 15 megapixel for those who are interested), no digital camera that I have yet seen can produce good skin tones. Bit of a problem when most of your subject is naked/semi-naked flesh...
For most other applications digital can now produce results that rival (although not quite yet match) 35mm film - with the proviso that we are talking about serious kit. These are not things that many local camera shops sell! In a couple more years (I know this for a fact) resolution will be equivalent to medium format or higher. The real question is whether anyone will develops chips that capture the tonal range of film.
Anyway, I've probably gone on for long enough so one last point. The real harm (IMHO) that digital has done is making it too easy to get images from a crap camera to a PC, and then onto the web, resulting in the current proliferation of crap paysites. The answer - don't subscribe if the pictures suck. There are some sites out there using reasonable quality images - use them.
Sorry. Rant over.
Britpornlover. The photographer is important, not the camera.
-
britpornlover
Re: o/t classic glamour photographers
Sorry guys. Ranted and forgot to put the "i" after the "/".
-
horace ward
Re: o/t classic glamour photographers
Hello Britpornlover...I like the last piece in your post,I suppose that's what Im really getting at-the DIGITAL camera has become everyones friend and fu.....everything up.
On the otherhand,yes,as the years roll by,digital will supersede film stock...now that's fine,Im all for that,but will they be able to compose a great picture- if you take six million pictures on one little chip one might get one classic.
An expert photographer would compose a picture on a 5x4 plate camera perhaps just one shot,and it would be perfect.That's the difference.An eye for a picture!..
Digital allows you to take millions hoping to get the right shot that the PRO done in one.
Full Stop!
On the otherhand,yes,as the years roll by,digital will supersede film stock...now that's fine,Im all for that,but will they be able to compose a great picture- if you take six million pictures on one little chip one might get one classic.
An expert photographer would compose a picture on a 5x4 plate camera perhaps just one shot,and it would be perfect.That's the difference.An eye for a picture!..
Digital allows you to take millions hoping to get the right shot that the PRO done in one.
Full Stop!