Interesting... but who are you making photographs for? Yourself? To make money? Focus on getting to be good before thinking about making money. Even Avedon and Penn had day jobs. And not jobs they really wanted, because what they really wanted was to photograph for themselves, e.g. ""In the American West" and "World in a Small Room".
If you develop a personal style - when you have shot for 25 years and actually may have a recognizable style - this may not be what your client is interested in. You must adapt.
And one final note. "Unique" in photography? I cannot think of a single photographer, except maybe Daguerre and Fox Talbot who were unique. Everyone stands on the shoulders of those that came before. Embrace it. Don't fight it.
"Interesting... but who are you making photographs for? Yourself? To make money?"
> My Substack is focused on photographers who are professional or emerging professionals.
"Focus on getting to be good before thinking about making money."
> Yes, I agree, and have written extensively on just that same idea. That is not the focus of my blog, though.
"Even Avedon and Penn had day jobs. And not jobs they really wanted, because what they really wanted was to photograph for themselves, e.g. ""In the American West" and "World in a Small Room"."
> If you mean shooting commercial in order to shoot for themselves, then yes, I suppose they did. Not sure where you are going with that.
"If you develop a personal style - when you have shot for 25 years and actually may have a recognizable style - this may not be what your client is interested in."
> Which clients? Clients are not a uniparty - some ADs didn't like Avedon, and some didn't like Liebovitz. "My client" should be interested in my style, or they probably are not my client. Most work that most photographers do will not require a "style"... but the style is what keeps the photographer top of mind. You can have a totally awesome, creative portfolio and get a gig to shoot product for Target... not creative, but lucrative.
"You must adapt."
"And one final note. "Unique" in photography? I cannot think of a single photographer, except maybe Daguerre and Fox Talbot who were unique. Everyone stands on the shoulders of those that came before. Embrace it. Don't fight it."
Well, you are using unique in a different way than I am. I state pretty clearly in the piece that authenticity, and a personal approach to the work is what "unique" means. I think Rodney Smith was pretty unique. Guy Bourdin, Phil Marco, Annie, LaChappele, Shore, Friedlander and a lot of other names I believe are somewhat unique. Yes they make photographs, but their approach is consistently their own.
Interesting... but who are you making photographs for? Yourself? To make money? Focus on getting to be good before thinking about making money. Even Avedon and Penn had day jobs. And not jobs they really wanted, because what they really wanted was to photograph for themselves, e.g. ""In the American West" and "World in a Small Room".
If you develop a personal style - when you have shot for 25 years and actually may have a recognizable style - this may not be what your client is interested in. You must adapt.
And one final note. "Unique" in photography? I cannot think of a single photographer, except maybe Daguerre and Fox Talbot who were unique. Everyone stands on the shoulders of those that came before. Embrace it. Don't fight it.
"Interesting... but who are you making photographs for? Yourself? To make money?"
> My Substack is focused on photographers who are professional or emerging professionals.
"Focus on getting to be good before thinking about making money."
> Yes, I agree, and have written extensively on just that same idea. That is not the focus of my blog, though.
"Even Avedon and Penn had day jobs. And not jobs they really wanted, because what they really wanted was to photograph for themselves, e.g. ""In the American West" and "World in a Small Room"."
> If you mean shooting commercial in order to shoot for themselves, then yes, I suppose they did. Not sure where you are going with that.
"If you develop a personal style - when you have shot for 25 years and actually may have a recognizable style - this may not be what your client is interested in."
> Which clients? Clients are not a uniparty - some ADs didn't like Avedon, and some didn't like Liebovitz. "My client" should be interested in my style, or they probably are not my client. Most work that most photographers do will not require a "style"... but the style is what keeps the photographer top of mind. You can have a totally awesome, creative portfolio and get a gig to shoot product for Target... not creative, but lucrative.
"You must adapt."
"And one final note. "Unique" in photography? I cannot think of a single photographer, except maybe Daguerre and Fox Talbot who were unique. Everyone stands on the shoulders of those that came before. Embrace it. Don't fight it."
Well, you are using unique in a different way than I am. I state pretty clearly in the piece that authenticity, and a personal approach to the work is what "unique" means. I think Rodney Smith was pretty unique. Guy Bourdin, Phil Marco, Annie, LaChappele, Shore, Friedlander and a lot of other names I believe are somewhat unique. Yes they make photographs, but their approach is consistently their own.
Thanks for the comment.
Comfortably shooting local events sounds like a dream. What I wouldn't give to have gotten in when that was the way it could work. Cheers, Don!