The benefits of shooting Raw over Jpegs

[Player]

Darn you Guy, you got me thinking about this stuff now.

Let's say you're a tennis player. You started playing the game very young. You loved the game but you just didn't have much athletic ability, plus your hand-to-eye coordination wasn't the greatest, but you decided to take lessons with a fantastic teaching pro. After a couple years your game had markedly improved, and you've even entered tournaments and did okay, maybe actually making a semi-final once, in your age class. If you stuck with the game and dedicated your entire life to it, you might even become a decent journeyman pro on the Satellite Tour, the minor leagues of pro tennis.

Now let's say your name is John McEnroe. You took up the game at the same age. You took lessons with the same pro and were entered into tournaments after a year. You found yourself absolutely dominating tournaments against your peers. So the tennis pro puts you against kids 3 or 4 years older than you, and you're still winning everything you enter, but the kicker is that you never really enjoyed practicing, just playing matches. You play on your high school team as #1 singles and dominate, winning the state championship without even losing a set. Stanford offers you a scholarship and you win the NCAA chanpionship as a Freshman, so you decide to turn pro. You enter Wimbledon as a 17 year old and make it all the way to the semifinals before losing to the number one player in the world, Jimmy Connors, plus you were unseeded. And the kicker is that you never really put much work into the game, it just came to you. You played doubles instead of practicing. Next year you become number four in the world, and the year after win your first Wimbledon beating the legendary Bjorn Borg, who was considered unbeatable.

Now remember, both players had the same teacher. And did the pro teach McEnroe something that he didn't teach the other player. No, not at all, McEnroe just had a gift for tennis that was natural, it was destiny, and couldn't be taught. No one could have taught McEnroe to become the player he became. He just had it.

I think it's exactly the same in the arts, photography, music, writing, painting, whatever. Actually tennis is an art, as well as a sport.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Well let's take this a step further and actually put it into photography. There are many great shooters out there that have the talent and the tech ability to be considered a elite shooter. Than there is the guy that is very good but not nearly as talented as the guy I just described but he is considered a elite shooter because of his marketing skills to attract the best clients and made a name for himself but he really has no eye but just fell in shit and makes a lot of money. Now the first guy is a true artist which produces some of the best images we have seen but no one knows him and he is just getting by in life. The second guy is the marketing genius and is making all the money. Question is who is really better at this. That is the Pro life unfortunately. But the first guy really is the winner just no one knows it. Sad but very true

It kind of follows what you said only a different ending and actually more realistic because we have more talent out there that makes a lot less money than the guy that just has better marketing skills.

 

[smokysun]

a dose of reality sure doesn't hurt. a lot of my experience has been in theater and especially with university theater students. the dreams they have! the unrealistic expectations! until they graduate, even if they take an audition class as i did and learn about the truth of type-casting, etc.

yes, absolutely, it takes a hard-nose to succeed, no matter how talented you are. for example, one girl i knew not a very good actress but very outgoing and good-looking. she did her master's thesis on 'safety in the stunt profession.' a girl from the same university already working as a stunt woman in hollywood helped her meet the right people. after graduation she went to hollywood and began the process. last time i saw her she'd married one of the top stunt men, had a new car and a horse. she's the best smoozer i've ever met. (think 'hepburn'). by the end of the day on a job everybody on the set knew her name.

you have to have the looks and smoozer ambility to make it. and very few do.

this is not to say a theater education not extremely valuable. i've seen ugly ducklings turn into swans. and even if they don't continue in theater, the skills applicable to any group work, design work, presentations, etc. and they value live theater and often support it for the rest of their lives.

the same goes for photography. i love looking through this book:

http://www.amazon.com/fotolog-book-...bs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1214703046&sr=8-1

it's really fun seeing people's imagination at work all over the world. not many photos knock you over, but they can make you smile or laugh or feel sad. there is this revolution of the intimate going on. whether it's vulgar or artful, it can be very liberating. photography has always acted as a diary for most people. and it gives me kicks to see others going about their lives.

the best always ride on a wave. once took a class in shakespeare's contemporaries. he had lots of people to stimulate him and from whom he could steal ideas and make them better. that's really the case in photography today, especially photography.

the past was full of kitsch too. it turned to dust and the paint faded on the greek statues to reveal their true beauty. (sorry, i have a way of making it sound like the last word on the subject and i know it's not. love this discussion.)

 

[Joan]

"Smoozer ability" ... that's a great term, Wayne! Sad how many really talented people remain in obscurity because they just don't have that gene for shameless self-promotion. I've seen some "artists" who get by for years re-hashing the same damned paintings over and over without a care in the world because they're so good at selling themselves. It's rare when exceptional ability and self-confidence reside in the same person. That's why it's so important to have teachers and mentors who can recognize and guide people so as not to let talent go to waste. I think all of us have something special to offer, a unique feeling or vision to express. It's just finding the key to unlock that "spark" and free it by finding the right medium and a supportive teacher/audience to say "atta boy" and "now how about trying this?" to move it along.

After all, what is life for if we don't keep trying to create something, to leave a little part of ourselves behind once we're gone, even if it's only a few friends and family members who see it? I know I'd go bonkers if I didn't at least TRY to make something unique that has a little bit of "me" in it.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Well said Joan , nice to leave your mark somewhere and not a pee stain either. LOL

 

[Player]

Absolutely Guy, this is where photography is interesting. You have artists like HCB who expressed themselves through photography, and created art that will survive long after they're gone. Then you have the pro/ commercial photographers who are business people/ salesmen first, with maybe a hint of artistic ability. Someone of HCB's ilk might make peanuts over his lifetime yet he profoundly touched the lives of anyone who viewed his work. He was an artist, a genius really. The businessman photographer might have made millions selling his images to companies which in turn used them to market their products, but these images are disposable and forgotten after they've run their course in the marketing campaign. Which photographer is more important?

This is related to the natural talent thing: I've seen interviews with HCB where the interviewer would praise the heck out of Henri, and Henri would get very embarrassed and give this incredulous look (I'm thinking of a Charlie Rose interview). I believe that this is because, to Henri, it's nothing extraordinary, it's just what he does effortlessly, and it's no big deal. He says, "I just point the camera and click the shutter, that's all." And Charlie Rose is looking for detailed explanations on how Henri is able to do what he does, but to Henri it's like asking a bird how he is able to fly. Silly when you think about it. HCB just had it, and don't expect Henri to explain it, it's just what he does.

You could teach a photographer to produce marketable images, and maybe even get very rich if he also had marketing skills, but you could never teach someone to be Henri-Cartier Bresson.

 

[Player]

Joan, you have a great attitude about the whole creative/ art thing. If you're not expressing yourself, or leaving a bit of yourself behind, then you're probably just looking at the bottom line, money.

 

[jonoslack]

I've seen some "artists" who get by for years re-hashing the same damned paintings over and over without a care in the world because they're so good at selling themselves..

Hi Joan
This is an interesting point, but in this case it isn't JUST about being good at selling yourself

I reckon that lots of these 'artists' you've seen are getting by BECAUSE they re-hash old work.

The public really needs to be able to get a handle on a photographer/painter to remember their name, which will in turn make them more famous.

Think of all the famous photographers (in particular), they all seem to have a particular (and often limited) milieu in which they work, I can't think of many who do diverse work and are also famous, and the one or two I CAN think of are consummate performers (David Bailey springs to mind).

The 'public' is a simple beast, and if you do a gritty black and white urban scene one day and a landscape the next, nobody is going to remember you, however good you are! Bang on with the same old same old, and in the end you're going to get noticed.

 

[Player]

I can't help thinking that striving for fame is exactly the same as striving for money. I think an honest artist just has to make his/ her art and not worry about the public at all, let the chips fall where they may. Once you start trying to tailor your work to fit with an audience, you've sold out, and you've become untrue to yourself. That's what's happening on top 40 radio.

 

[Player]

If an artist is worried about the whims of the public, he becomes no different than the pro shooting for money. It becomes marketing.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Well let's face it as a commercial shooter you sold out to make money to eat. But there still is the artist side also but depends on what you do with it. Honestly there is stuff I shoot that if I had enough money and did not need the work . I would not even bother shooting it and I think many commercial shooters would agree. But how far you take the other side of your art maybe defines you better.
Shooters like myself run two sides of the coin one as a artist and one as a business. Sometimes they merge and sometimes there worlds apart

 

[jonoslack]

I can't help thinking that striving for fame is exactly the same as striving for money. I think an honest artist just has to make his/ her art and not worry about the public at all, let the chips fall where they may. Once you start trying to tailor your work to fit with an audience, you've sold out, and you've become untrue to yourself. That's what's happening on top 40 radio.

HI There

If you change your art to find a public, then I'd agree that you've 'sold out' . . . . . but if nobody sees it, there's no point in doing it, and so you need to be able to persuade the public to look at it one way or another.

In principle you may be right, but, having grown up in StIves, where there is a big arts community, and having seen the way it goes, the real truth is that if you wait for the chips to fall, then they won't, you will neither be seen nor sold. Perhaps this is more honest, but it seems to me that if you are trying to communicate your art, then it MUST be seen (no good sitting against the wall in the studio).

Possibly you will become known after your death . . . . but if so, it'll be because somebody else does your sales work for you.

 

[jonoslack]

Well let's face it as a commercial shooter you sold out to make money to eat. But there still is the artist side also but depends on what you do with it. Honestly there is stuff I shoot that if I had enough money and did not need the work . I would not even bother shooting it and I think many commercial shooters would agree. But how far you take the other side of your art maybe defines you better.
Shooters like myself run two sides of the coin one as a artist and one as a business. Sometimes they merge and sometimes there worlds apart

Surely we need to make a distinction between 'commision' and 'speculative' work.
As a professional photographer, most of the work you do is because someone asked you to do it, and told you they'd pay for it. Plenty of commercial painters who do the same thing as well.

Making images and then trying to find a seller is quite a different game (the only similarity is that you've got to be a businessman (or have a good agent) if they're going to sell).

 

[Joan]

Hi Joan
This is an interesting point, but in this case it isn't JUST about being good at selling yourself

I reckon that lots of these 'artists' you've seen are getting by BECAUSE they re-hash old work.

The public really needs to be able to get a handle on a photographer/painter to remember their name, which will in turn make them more famous.

Think of all the famous photographers (in particular), they all seem to have a particular (and often limited) milieu in which they work, I can't think of many who do diverse work and are also famous, and the one or two I CAN think of are consummate performers (David Bailey springs to mind).

The 'public' is a simple beast, and if you do a gritty black and white urban scene one day and a landscape the next, nobody is going to remember you, however good you are! Bang on with the same old same old, and in the end you're going to get noticed.

Ah, Jono ... you are right. Financial success does seem to come to those who limit themselves to a particular genre and then PUSH, PUSH, PUSH to get their names out there. However, there IS a difference between someone who has focus and dedication to a particular area of interest and those who just find a formula and never again try to challenge themselves to go any further.

The best advice from teachers I've had is to work in a series at least until you have resolved whatever it is you're trying to say, or whatever technical skill you're trying to acquire. Repetition can be a good thing, but once you just hang there and never venture past that point, you might as well go sell cars for a living because you are no longer an artist IMHO.

EDIT: Oops, looks like we were typing all at the same time here. I think we all have to eat, and ther's no shame in doing what it takes to put food on the table, just as Guy said ... there's his pro paid work and there's his own artistic work. Nothing wrong with that at ALL!

 

[Player]

Hello Jono, I don't think we disagree on the most part, except I don't think that there are any guarantees when you try to create honest art. Yes, art is communication, but you can't force people or slant your work towards the fads or whims of the day just to communicate with an audience. Maybe the public isn't ready for your art, similar to what happened with Van Gogh. If Van Gogh tried to pander to the public of his time would we have the great art that exists today, from Van Gogh, to be enjoyed for eternity? And was there a better salesman of art than Theo Van Gogh?

If you're trying to make a living at art, or communicate for the sake of communicating, that's a different thing altogether, that's more akin to business, putting a product out there that the public will consume.

And I don't entirely agree that if "nobody sees it, there's no point in doing it." For most artists, the joy of creating has its inner spiritual rewards before anyone sees it. Also, if that was the case, should Vincent Van Gogh have never created his art considering the total public disregard while he was alive?

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Well I am still a firm believer in pushing yourself no matter if the public wants it or not. One must feed the soul come hell or high water. If they happen to like it great but keep doing it even if they don't. Got to satisfy your heart, otherwise myself i would just be a production shooter and not be here. LOL

This forum and the workshops help feed my soul a lot.

Guess we are a little OT . But please continue this is GREAT stuff and never want to see us stop great stuff EVER

 

[jonoslack]

If you're trying to make a living at art, or communicate for the sake of communicating, that's a different thing altogether, that's more akin to business, putting a product out there that the public will consume.

Well, I don't really agree with this - if you're art is so important to you, you'll want to spend all your time doing it, and the best way to do this is to get someone to pay you for doing it.

And I don't entirely agree that if "nobody sees it, there's no point in doing it." For most artists, the joy of creating has its inner spiritual rewards before anyone sees it.

Yes, well, I don't entirely agree either - truth be told it's what I do myself, the vast majority of the work I do remains unseen. I made a strategic decision not to become a professional photographer because it would force me to direct my efforts towards what others wanted. I do some commercial work, partly for tax reasons, but mainly because it continues to reinforce the idea that it isn't what I want to do!

Also, if that was the case, should Vincent Van Gogh have never created his art considering the total public disregard while he was alive?

No - it's just that it would have been better for Vincent Van Gogh had be been a bit more accomplished as a salesman. There are plenty of examples of fine artists who don't have to starve in a garrett . . . . Picasso springs to mind, but there are many many more.

Van Gogh came to public attention because OTHERS were businessmen - and there's nothing 'dirty' in that.

 

[Joan]

Guy, the fact that you love to teach others is in itself a GREAT thing! It speaks volumes that you are willing to share your gift and are happy when others "get it" a little bit. Too often those with talent and ability are unwilling to let their "secrets" out for fear that someone else might surpass them. You have a great big heart and that is undoubtedly why you are also very good at what you do!

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Guy, the fact that you love to teach others is in itself a GREAT thing! It speaks volumes that you are willing to share your gift and are happy when others "get it" a little bit. Too often those with talent and ability are unwilling to let their "secrets" out for fear that someone else might surpass them. You have a great big heart and that is undoubtedly why you are also very good at what you do!

Thank You Joan that meant a lot to me. Honestly I get more out of teaching this stuff than shooting it sometimes. I really am a wanna be teacher from when I was a kid. That never happened but I am so glad i have something to share and give back so that old dream is realized. You MADE my day.

What I do enjoy most though is having Jack as my workshop partner, forum owner and best friend.

 

[Joan]

Thank You Joan that meant a lot to me. Honestly I get more out of teaching this stuff than shooting it sometimes. I really am a wanna be teacher from when I was a kid. That never happened but I am so glad i have something to share and give back so that old dream is realized. You MADE my day.

Only speakin' the truth Guy. And I am with you in spirit. I've wanted to teach since I was a child, too. I never got the degree and credentials to do it, but still hope that someday I can find a venue where I can show people the joy of splashing around with watercolors on a big piece of white paper!