Things I've Learned on Craigslist
Okay, specifically things I've learned about wedding photography from scanning ads on Craigslist. I'm trying to get a sense of how people advertise their photography services in today's market. I was lucky to come across the very helpful and funny blog being done by the brilliant Zack Arias. His website critiques are some of the most educational things I've come across (and it's all free!). So are some things I've started to see in my own research that I'm not too keen on:
1. Photojournalism. I think every other website offers a "photojournalistic" style or some synonym for it. But the word and the reality are two very different things. When was the last time you picked up a copy of the NY Times, Washington Post, or any major news magazine where the cover shot was done with a fish-eye lens? I haven't seen it either. Presumably if you state that you are shooting in the style of photojournalism that would mean you are shooting in a realistic style with mostly natural light. Using equipment that radically bends lines into near circles may be a vialbe artistic choice (if done sparingly), but photorealism it ain't. At least as far as I've seen from many of the people offering this style, it's just a multisyllabic word they are tossing out there to make people think they actually have an intended style.
2. Selective Colour. This goes in the same catagory as the fish-eye lens, but even more egregious in my opinion. It's just not my astethic, but it's only because of the aforementioned Zack Arias that I can now figure out why. If you think about the most important thing you want to remember from your wedding day, your red cumberbund probably doesn't top the list. It's fascinating to see what unimmportant elements of a black and white photo that people will colourize just for the sake of a special effect. Photoshop should come with a built in pop-up warning message whenever it senses that someone is about to apply a colour to selected region of a photojournalistic image.
3. Brevity. I remember being surprised that the photographer H and I chose for our wedding didn't have what I considered her best work on her website. This is purely her choice of course, but at least she knows not to put up every wedding photo she's ever taken. Why does anyone think that every potential client will want to sift through all 800 images you shot at every wedding you've done in order to get a sense of your capabilities? Pick your ten best and show those off. Hook them with those and if they want to see more, then bully for you! The minute I start to see the end result of 4+ frames per second in a portfolio, I get bored and move on.
4. Artistic. Nothing says how unique you and your wedding are than poses and setups that are exact replicas from one wedding to the next. Art is not about finding a pattern and then repeating that pattern over and over and over again. Basically, this just means your photographer is ignoring you by not telling your story or not finding out anything visually unique about you as a person.
5. Gear. Owning gear does not make you a photographer. This is much the same as the multisyllabic word thing. Explaining everything you know about photo gear and showing pictures of your studio has nothing to do with the quality of your work. It's the photos that matter most.
6. Self-Promotion. It always makes me wonder when someone feels the need to say things like "international photographer" or they point out how they have a such an eye for colour or detail. Come on. It's a bunch of crap. As soon as you start telling me now great and successful you are I stop believing you are either great or successful. And so help me if you quote yourself on your own website as if someone were interviewing you.
So, this is as far as I've gotten. As usual, I can criticize what other people are doing, but when I look at my own portfolio and website...well, I'm lacking in both. At least they are putting themselves out there. But I do draw some kind of weird inspiration from looking at the worst things and knowing I can and will do better.
1. Photojournalism. I think every other website offers a "photojournalistic" style or some synonym for it. But the word and the reality are two very different things. When was the last time you picked up a copy of the NY Times, Washington Post, or any major news magazine where the cover shot was done with a fish-eye lens? I haven't seen it either. Presumably if you state that you are shooting in the style of photojournalism that would mean you are shooting in a realistic style with mostly natural light. Using equipment that radically bends lines into near circles may be a vialbe artistic choice (if done sparingly), but photorealism it ain't. At least as far as I've seen from many of the people offering this style, it's just a multisyllabic word they are tossing out there to make people think they actually have an intended style.
2. Selective Colour. This goes in the same catagory as the fish-eye lens, but even more egregious in my opinion. It's just not my astethic, but it's only because of the aforementioned Zack Arias that I can now figure out why. If you think about the most important thing you want to remember from your wedding day, your red cumberbund probably doesn't top the list. It's fascinating to see what unimmportant elements of a black and white photo that people will colourize just for the sake of a special effect. Photoshop should come with a built in pop-up warning message whenever it senses that someone is about to apply a colour to selected region of a photojournalistic image.
3. Brevity. I remember being surprised that the photographer H and I chose for our wedding didn't have what I considered her best work on her website. This is purely her choice of course, but at least she knows not to put up every wedding photo she's ever taken. Why does anyone think that every potential client will want to sift through all 800 images you shot at every wedding you've done in order to get a sense of your capabilities? Pick your ten best and show those off. Hook them with those and if they want to see more, then bully for you! The minute I start to see the end result of 4+ frames per second in a portfolio, I get bored and move on.
4. Artistic. Nothing says how unique you and your wedding are than poses and setups that are exact replicas from one wedding to the next. Art is not about finding a pattern and then repeating that pattern over and over and over again. Basically, this just means your photographer is ignoring you by not telling your story or not finding out anything visually unique about you as a person.
5. Gear. Owning gear does not make you a photographer. This is much the same as the multisyllabic word thing. Explaining everything you know about photo gear and showing pictures of your studio has nothing to do with the quality of your work. It's the photos that matter most.
6. Self-Promotion. It always makes me wonder when someone feels the need to say things like "international photographer" or they point out how they have a such an eye for colour or detail. Come on. It's a bunch of crap. As soon as you start telling me now great and successful you are I stop believing you are either great or successful. And so help me if you quote yourself on your own website as if someone were interviewing you.
So, this is as far as I've gotten. As usual, I can criticize what other people are doing, but when I look at my own portfolio and website...well, I'm lacking in both. At least they are putting themselves out there. But I do draw some kind of weird inspiration from looking at the worst things and knowing I can and will do better.
Jason and I have been recording storytimes to show on public access, and the process as a whole has made me kind of regret all the filmmakers I've ever made fun of.
Reply to this
I'd really like to see one of your story times. In addition to being an expert on most things, I know a whole lot about story times as of the last year or so. There's such a wide variation in styles and successful techniques. The most important of which, I think, is to know your audience. If you are expecting the under 2 crowd to respond to commands like "sit still" or "listen quietly" and become visibly despondent when they do neither, then you have probably made the wrong career choice.
Reply to this
So true about the baby/toddler storytimes. I find that I have to spend a little time at the beginning and usually somewhere in the middle of any storytime for kids that small reassuring parents that it's normal for their kids to be moving around quite a bit and exploring. Every once in a while, you get these moments with kids that age where you realize that every single child has their attention on you and is, in fact, quietly listening, but it's rare and never lasts long and feels kind of like a solar eclipse. Then usually someone throws up or something, and everything's all crazy like it should be again.
Reply to this