Photographers Notebook, Page 1

Well, here goes........

At the outset I think I would like to clear up some things, and give you a preview of specific assignments I will talk to you about, and give you a blow-by-blow description of how the assignment went, and then include a scan of the finished ad or print, which was the end result. Any opinions on the final result is your option, because the final word is the nice check I deposited at my bank....and for me that is a goal achieved.

One thing that bothers me is the descriptive terms commonly used to described those who make photographs for a hobby, and those who do it for a living. Amateur or professional. Amateur's are defined to be hobbyists or those who do not derive their life income as a photographer. Professional is said to mean those who make their entire income as a photograph producer. I
DON'T LIKE those descriptions, especially for the amateur. Frankly, I have seen amateurs who are more highly qualified than some pro's I know. I think we should throw this discussion open to ideas for a new word to describe highly qualified amateurs...and there are a ton of them. Calling myself a 'pro' is technically correct, but references to others as 'just amateurs' feels like a put down, and I DON'T LIKE THAT. I am not interested in a class warfare fight...and I am interested to pay honor and tribute to those who love to sweat, strain, and learn to master the technical craft of photography, and who have also sweated and learned the 'art' end of visual communications...and there are a ton of those people. Honor to you.

Let's try to find some way of leveling the playing field, i.e. defining our terms to find some way to make 'amateurs' of equal worth and value...to 'professionals....in terms of artistic achievement.
If we can do this there will no reason to feel that any comments of mine could be seen as a 'put down' for those to are not employed, full time, to make photographs. Remember...for every guy like me, ....we were once weekend snap shooters. It's part of the development process. I honor the hallowed memory of my first attempts at making good pictures. Ahhhhhhhh....wonderful years.

O.K. Hopefully we can use this as a stepping stone to more effective communications.

Back to the present, and to bring in to focus one of my most important philosophies about finished images. IMPACT! Kodak did an excellent hard cover book called, "Impact, Photography for Advertising". I own a copy and some of my best friends are published in this book. This book is also a lesson for others...in LANDSCAPE photography in particular...and many others too. The title...Photography for Advertising may turn some of you off. I caution you not to do so, for there is a message here for you too. To you who show in galleries, you have the same challenge.

Almost everything I have shot in my many decades of photography, has been in the venue of publication. That means, almost everything I was hired to shoot ended up being published in a national magazine or a corporate annual report. Although my major at Art Center was photojournalism, I switched to advertising photography because THAT IS WHERE THE MONEY WAS and new trends in ad photography used editorial photography not the studio, even though I did both! In advertising illustration competition is the name of the game. This involves photography that is designed for impact...or grabbing viewer attention. In a magazine, my ad will compete for audience attention and recognition, against 200 to 400 other ads in this magazine, with a similar goal....that is: To grab attention of the viewer, and create retention over the others who are competing for the same thing. This high competition, one ad against the other created a highly competitive market, and raised prices for the producers of these ads. Don't think so? My double-truck (two page spread) in Time, Newsweek, and others cost so much for the space the ad reserved, that my fee of a few thousand bucks was ' pennies'! A couple of hundred thousand dollars for just the space make my fee look like peanuts.

Back to my original point of impact. That is one of my key points in mentoring my people who yearn to be better, and more. Give me impact....which can also be Quiet impact. Just give me a theme to tell me why you chose to make this picture.

My criteria in teaching and critiquing is what I call the 'SENSE' test...as in touching, smelling, hearing, etc.

Students will call me, and come over to view their latest work on the light table or in print.

One of my most common comments is....it doesn't pass the SENSE test. How do I define this?

Let your work excite and communicate to my senses....what you chose to shoot.

If my student shows me a shot of a forest....I want to imagine that I can smell the pines.
If my student shows me a shot of surf breaking on the beach, I want to imagine I can smell the sea and hear the thunder of the water breaking on the beach.
If my student shows me a shot of an aspen grove, I want to be able to touch the aspen tree and feel the texture of the white, curling pieces of bark on the tree.
If my student shows me a shot of a water fall, I want to imagine that I can hear the roar of the water....and pretend I can feel the spray of water on my face!

These are part of the viewer experience that comes with tone control, but more of composition and use of the 'fore-ground' which, in my view is the most neglected area in all of contemporary landscape photography. (more on this later).

If you are a landscape shooter, let me imagine I can hear the sound of the wind, blowing in the field of new winter wheat.
If you shoot a mountain scape, let me imagine I can feel the texture of the decomposed granite.
If you are a photojournalist shooting the tail end of the elephant parade through city streets, I want to smell the elephant poo*......err....strike that, PLEASE!

"Fresh Eye's" , RB

My Words in This First Piece of Writing are Dedicated to the Memory of my Friend, John Cook.

Richard,

Thanks for the thoughtful post, I enjoyed reading it and am happy you decided to write these.

The idea of the "sense test" is a nice way to think about it, I will try it next time I am out photographing or in the darkrooom. Good thing to keep in mind as I compose or print.

I see nothing wrong with the word "amateur" , remember Bobby Jones was an amateur golfer and he kicked the heck out of the pros! :-)

Thanks again,
Eric

I think that this is going to be an interesting and useful project, if you don't lose interest and let it die on the vine. I'll look forward to reading more. I'm sure that you'll have your detractors but I hope that it doesn't let you become discouraged.

Do you know the basics of HTML, the text markup language used on the web? It might offer you additional options for formatting your text -- you aren't limited to just upper and lower case, if you chose not to be. It isn't complicated and you don't need an encyclopedic knowledge of arcane subjects to use it. A couple of simple tags might give you useful options, should you chose to use them; italics, bold, and underscore, for example. The "Formatting quick reference" link at the bottom of the message composition pages gives a useful summary, if you don't already know it.

Good luck, and thanks for taking the trouble to start this project!

You're right on the money with the foreground's role in a landscape picture. It's the foreground that places the spectator into a personal relation with the landscape far away. Boring foreground can kill the most beautiful Mt. Fuji far way - such is its powerful effect.

Mr. Boulware,
Thanks for this post, I found it to be an enjoyable read. I also look forward to seeing more of your work in the future...Which brings up my question. Would it be possible to place these writings on a separate page (eg. the large format homepage) ? That way, one can go back and reference past posts easily.

Regards

I will be providing whatever technical assistance to Richard I can as computers are a thing of necessity for him to conduct basis communications. He just replaced the computer he owned since 1998 and will (hopefully) become comfortable with utilizing all of the marvelous text and graphical options in the near future to illustrate his points as effectively as possible.

Onward!

Mr. Boulware,

Thanks for taking the time to write the first page. I look forward to reading more in the future. Please continue.

Good one Richard carry on!

Richard,

Enjoyed the first installment. Keep them coming.

Thank you, Richard; I too enjoyed your words. While I come from the "other camp", interested in photographs as metaphors for something beyond what they are, (if I could only have my images of forest trails recall the aromas of Proust's tea-cakes, and bring back lost recollections of... ) But I also recognize there are things I can steal from you, just as there were things I'm sure you found in the works of artistic or amateur photographers in your working days. We are all influenced by many people and many things, for better and for worse. I suspect yours will be for the better.

Let me add my thanks as well. The SENSE test is great! When I look at my own landscapes I get so wrapped up in trivial self criticism that I often overlook the obvious sensual qualities that are either "there" or aren't. I can see how being aware of the smells, sounds and textures that abound while photographing can bring something 'extra' to the party, imparting an essence that would make one photograph stand out among others.

Did any of your students ever try to cheat by spritzing a little pine sol on forest shots? ;-)

Excellent beginning and can't wait for more. Very thought provoking.





Scott Fleming

Dedicated Amateur

Mr. Boulware,
Thank you. This is what I was hoping to see. I've enjoyed photography as an obsession for over 35 years. On purpose, I never went pro as I only wanted to have it as my stress reducer. (sometimes that didn't work) It's only in the last few years that I have been working with the foreground, with purpose. I hope to learn a lot from reading about your ventures. As for detractors, I just assume they haven't figured out why you are given two eyes, two ears, but only one mouth.

I think amateur is a fantastic word. it is very inspiring to constantly remember its origin - "lover" in French. It's all about passion and doing things with love, whether you are a pro or a hobbyist. Thing is, most pros usually don't have the same level of love for their work that a hobbyist can have.

Richard,

thank you very much. Your experience is about as far removed from my own as I can imagine, and seeing our medium from a distant perspective can be inspirational. From my perspective, the connotations of the terms "pro" and "amateur" are exactly the opposite of the ones you describe. In my admittedly limited and local experience, I tend to relate the term, "Pros" to primarily mercinary photographers, lacking any real creativity or passion for the medium, and "amateurs" as artists of varying degrees. I realize what a broad generalization that is, but that is my point. To further generalize, it sometimes seems that amateurs discuss equipment, materials and techniques, while Pros discuss marketing, promotion and sales. The work itself gets little time from either camp. I consider myself an amateur, and don't exclude or excuse myself from the generalizations I've made. Thanks again for posting, and I look forward to future installments.

Jay

Thanks Richard for that keep it coming.

Jay, those are some of the most ridiculous generalizations I've read in awhile.

"Professional photographer" unfortunately encompasses everyone from W. Eugene Smith to the pervert with a cell-phone camera and a photo studio in the back of his van who hangs out on street corners saying "hey, little girl, wanna be a star on my internet site?" And the latter probably will achieve greater financial success.

Kirk,

ridicule at will.

Jay

Jay --

Think again please, and as you do so, substitute the word "hack" where you used "pro" -- that'll read a lot better to some folks. Otherwise you just insulted everyone here who earns a living with a camera. At which point Kirk's critique would be spot on (and maybe too polite!). Just a friendly suggestion that your slip is showing.

Richard --

Good start, keep it up. I see no reason to bother with new terms for amateur and professional, lets just agree to drop the negative thoughts about both. I can think of a dozen stereotypes for each category that we should eliminate for the purpose of this discussion.

Mark --

Your second example would be called a "pornographer" not necessarily a "photographer" the spellings are close but very have different meanings.

Cartier-Bresson once said, "I am an amateur but no longer a dilettante."

To all....thanks for your warm response to my first post. I am encouraged to do much more. Right now my problem is to structure what I have to say to you, because there is so very much...it challenges me to organize my thinking.

On another subject, I have noticed that many send good wishes with the phrase "Good Light". I really like that myself, but want to change my tag line to "Fresh Eyes"...meaning, 'may you have the wisdom and awareness of the light around you and may you use it to your artistic advantage and thereby see the world anew with a new spirit of awareness and adventure'!

For me....any light is good light. Knowing how to see it and use it is another thing. We will work on that in my future posts.

Blessings...and thanks.

Fresh Eye's, Richard.

Fresh Eyes looks good if you lose the apostrophe.

Henry,

it would do no good to discuss what the term "pro" connotes to me personally, if I changed the term to "hack". I'm sure the term has different connotations to different people, which was my point. If some people are offended by that, I think their skin is a little thin.

Jay

Richard - thanks for sharing your thoughts. I'm confident that opinions on the issues you discuss here and in future "Notebook" posts will vary. But, the real value, I believe, is in the sharing of different perspectives, and the potential for mutual inspiration that results from the discussions.

As to the terms "pro" and "amateur", I'm not sure that they have great relevance within the context of this forum. While numerous participants here make all or a portion of their living through their photography, most seem far less insistent on wearing the "pro" mantel than I've noted on other photo forums. Perhaps it's the shared joy of large format that superceeds the need for classification.

"Your second example would be called a "pornographer" not necessarily a "photographer" the spellings are close but very have different meanings." --Henry Ambrose

I agree, Henry, but the "not necessarily" is a big qualifier, and I'd bet in polite company, the pornographer always calls himself a photographer. Actually, as it slides down the "decency scale", it's hard to tell where to draw the line. Weston, Witkin, the Playboy photographer, the Hustler photographer, the hardcore internet pervert... And there are amateur counterparts to each.

Just semantics, but semantics that I hope would give us some separation.

(I don't photograph nude women. I don't know any...)

"it would do no good to discuss what the term "pro" connotes to me personally"

Just curious....If that is the case then why post your definition of pro and amatuer, as you did to contrast someone else's definition, in a discusion forum?

Well, I tend to agree with his statement as it stands, "amateur"ish attempts to do something imparts the idea of lack of knowledge or skill so the perception has (in coomon use) that implication or context.

Carry on by all means, we are all waiting to see what appears next.

I think the terms "amateur" and "pro" today are virtually meaningless in any sense but one that says "pros" do it as a "business" and "amateurs" do not. Truth be told, I suspect many "amateurs" would describe themselves as such because they haven't been able to make enough money at it ...:).

This issue is perhaps not the word "professional", but the word "amateur". "Professional" has within its basic definition the implied ability to do whatever at a level of quality (or quantity or whatever commercial attribute is the business essence) necessary to be successful at it as a vocation. The word "amateur" however is mostly used as a counterpoint or the antithesis of "professional", which therefore has the underlying implication of not having the implied ability to do whatever at a "professional" level. The only significant arena that comes to mind where "amateur" seems to effectively connote capability are the Olympics, where there is explicit recognition that the "amateur" athelete is dedicated to purity of purpose [insert gagging noises here...].

There doesn't seem to be a good generic word for someone who pursues something for its own intrinsic merits: hobbyist, enthusiast, amateur, fan, fanatic - they all imply something weak or abnormal about the pursuit... Aficionado, connoiseur are better, but have a class association which may not be comfortable for some.

I considered trying to coin "avocateur" - but realized that resembles "provocateur" which brings us back to narrowing the vision to a particular bias, of a type that encourages lawmakers to make bans, and would seem therefore to be counterproductive.

The better answer, is to drop the use of the word "amateur" altogether. We are all photographers and some of us are "professional" photographers, meaning we are in the "profession" of making photographs. Not all photographers are professionals, but all photographers are "amateurs" in some definition and context of the word.

Photographers, whether professional or not, demean themselves by referring to themselves as "amateur photographers" because, like it or not, the word has multiple connotations. The problem is, is that people too frequently use the term to denigrate their ability relative to a perceived peer standard. Self-deprecation may be a mark of humility, but it shouldn't be mistaken for lack of self-esteem. Peer standards are illusory - many of the photographs of the body of work of those currently held in high regard are not necessarily good photographs technically, nor even within a particular context. Its the association that makes them worth something presently, not their intrinsic qualities.

(I think the terms "amateur" and "pro" today are virtually meaningless in any sense but one that says "pros" do it as a "business" and "amateurs" do not. Truth be told, I suspect many "amateurs" would describe themselves as such because they haven't been able to make enough money at it ...:). which is precisely the point . . . the terms "amateur & pro are used to define the ability to make money at photography" as well as "the ability to produce good photgraphs".
Few of those known as great artist were particularly wealthy by it, in some art forms, their work never reached that status till after they were gone.

Interesting; let me turn your attention to a debate that's forming up in the NPS (National Park Service) world: in it, the term "Commercial" (much like "Professional") relates to whether the Photographer brings "disruption" to the Park, with "prop, model or set". Further, in NPS Reference Manual 53, permit requirements for a 'commercial' photographer are stipulated as:

A commercial photographer who is not using a prop, model or set, is staying within normal visitation areas and hours, and is not significantly interfering with normal park visitation, is generally exempt from film permit requirements.

So, perhaps the definition of "Professional" revolves around how much disruption is caused, or, in another sense, how much 'excess-baggage' (toys) are brought to bear.

Well, who counts as a model? How does a rule-enforcer decide?

Do they mean professional model? Is a wife exempt? Does the percentage of the picture occupied by the person matter? Would the use of a small diffusion panel prove that the person you were photographing is a model for the purpose of the law?

Does it strike anyone else that the word "model" in the law is way too vague here for even-handed enforcement? Do I ask too many questions?

Hi Jerry,

So many questions, so little time - - - the purpose is to 'allow Park management to issue permit(s) and collect fee(s) for film-productions that disrupt the park routine, i.e, "lights; camera; action": one differentiator might be 'passive use of park resource' vs 'active manipulation of the environment'. The wife might not be exempt, depending on the degree to which park routine is impacted! Even-handed enforcement is probably to much to hope for; lets try for 'benign' enforcement. The gray-area appears to be 'documentarys'; low-budget not-for-profit; etc.

Tim,

Thanks so much for responding!

I was attempting to focus particularly on the model clause. Obviously, if there is a disruption of park routine, whether there is a model there or not, the law calls for permits and fees. I was thinking of photographing a model when there is no disruption of park routine.

Maybe I should be more precise. Here is the passage I am referring to:

<ul><li>A permit is required if the filming, video taping, sound recording or still photography involves the use of a model (or any on-camera talent), set, or prop, or when the filming, video taping, sound recording, or still photography could result in damage to park resources or significant disruption of normal visitor use.

<li>A permit is also required if the photographer wants to go into areas not open to the public or before or after normal visitation hours.

<li>A commercial photographer who is not using a prop, model or set, is staying within normal visitation areas and hours, and is not significantly interfering with normal park visitation, is generally exempt from film permit requirements.

</ul>

I understand all of this, except why is there any reference to a model? This is really a logic or language question, I guess. Why include the word "model" in the regulations---and what does "model" mean here? If there is no payment, is she not a model? Does each ranger have his own definition of model?

In particular, and I apologize for not making this clear enough the first time, the case that interests me is when I am doing everything right and innocuous except that I am also using a "model." To be precise, imagine I am doing still photography in a national park with no set, no props, no possible damage to park resources, and no significant disruption of normal visitor use. I am in an area open to the public during normal visitation hours. There is no "lights, camera, action" in the case that interests me---there are no lights and no director's chair. I am not impacting park routine at all. I am not filming anything. Heck, I would even sometimes sternly tell people not to feed or harass the animals in violation of park rules. Clear?

But now add to this otherwise perfect innocuosness just one thing: My wife or friend is in the picture. Under what circumstances does that, by itself, count as photographing a "model" under the regulation and mean that I should have gotten a permit and paid a fee? I hope my question is now clear enough!

Or, to put it more dramatically, does this regulation give national park authorities carte blanche to harass and fine anyone who takes a picture of his Aunt Lena standing in front of a random tree? If not, why not? Maybe there are some written guidelines for how to interpret the rules I quoted.

I believe that "model" is in use because of California State Parks, not that that justifies it's inclusion, but 'we are where we are' - - - . Several places are using "Professional" model in the definition.

I suspect that somewhere in the NPS there is someone who could take Aunt Lena's posing as a violation: however, given 106-206's text, and guidance in Directors Order 53 & Reference Manual 53; etc I doubt it would be sustainable.

Somewhere in LF photography I found the suggestion to "carry a copy of PL 106-206, and be ready to defend it - - - ".

A good summary is at http://www.largeformatphotography.info/photo-permits/

Richard, I want to thank you for the insight and awareness shown in your post. I won't classify other photographers by any terms. I do, however classify myself as a hobbyist. It also means I am a student, a teacher when appropriate, an avid fan and most of all, I have an insatiable curiosity. I will never stop learning and I think that's the most important thing in the craft. I am a photographer.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Richard Boulware

One of my most common comments is....it doesn't pass the SENSE test.

---

I've recently been brushing up (pun unintended but left) on my drawing. When you're trying to learn how to draw, what you're really doing is learning to see in a different way. Specifically, your sense of sight has to get connected with your other senses. A lively drawing has life in it because it's informed by more than vision. As the pencil moves across the paper, you get the sense that it's moving across your subjects, as well. You have a kinetic sensation of the inherent movement, of the mass of objects, their texture. Drawing a leaf, you might choose colors not only based on looks, but on the smell of greenery.

I hadn't thought of applying this approach to photography, but it makes sense (or senses). And now I'm wondering that if a composition is particularly apt, is someone doing this unconsciously? Maybe the difference between good and great is the degree to which the photographer can make these connections when he or she needs to.

I know that this is a side issue, but I thought I would chip in.

A few years ago I was living in Virginia, just outside of Washington DC. To sharpen up my skills I belonged to 4 photography clubs. There are numerous sites in the area, particularly on the Mall, that are under the purview of the National Park Service and I would like to share some of my experiences.

Prior to my first encounter with a Park Service Ranger (PSR), colleagues and I had photographed these areas many times without contact with a PSR. Then, one weekend, a colleage and I were doing some early morning shots (35mm) at the FDR Memorial using tripods.

There were only a couple of tourists in the area at the time when the PSR came up to my colleague. His opening statement was, "Nice camera you have there", referring to my colleague's Nikon F5 and wanted to know what we were shooting for. [It was my impression that because we had top of the line equipment and were using tripods, he was assuming that we were professional photographers.] We explained that we were not professional photographers, but hobbyists who were looking for good images for photo club competitions. He then explained how some of the rangers did not like photographers to be using tripods and we should consider this as a warning. However, he did not forbid us to carry on.

On another night I went down to the Tidal Basin, in an area adjacent to the FDR, to shoot a moon rise over the Jefferson Memorial. Very few people around, I might add. A different PSR came up to me and told me that I was not allowed to use a tripod for my extended exposures. So I placed my camera on my camera case and made my extended exposures that way.

After these two experiences I researched the internet under nps.gov and located the following page: http://www.nps.gov/refdesk/Dorders/a20x1.html. This page contains the NPS policy for Still Photography. Since then, I carry copies of this policy in my camera bags.

I led a field trip a year later to photograph the moonrise over the Jefferson Memorial. I had 40 plus participants from clubs around the beltway. No one was accosted by a PSR and told that they could not use their tripod. Could be that there was no PSR on duty. Could be that the task of accosting 40 plus people was too daunting. Could be that they thought that no professional would be photographing in that large a group. Could be that the PSR on duty was familiar with the policy.

I should also mention that during the Cherry Blossom Festival I have counted, on several occasions, over 70 to 100 tripods on the walkway around the Tidal Basin. Again it might be because it is too convenient to hassle that many people. But I am sure that there will be other occasions where an uninformed PSR will interpret the policy as they see fit.

It pays to stay informed.

al olson

Professionals earn, amateurs spend.

Thanks for the post Richard. As for the sense test perhaps it would be even better if you would not predefine your expected feelings. Sense nothing is the worst case, everything else should be open.

Thanks for the link! I wonder how this plays out in San Francisco where the Golden Gate National Recreation Area is both patrolled by the NPS and the SF police since the city has some absolutely wierd laws regarding photography which none of the city CVB or film board employees I've talked with are willing to come up with straight answers when asked.

I suppose if I'm quizzed by rangers its OK if I have my print-out to show them, but the cops can write me a ticket if they're having a bad doughnut day?

Richard,

Excellent read! :)

Thanks for sharing...

Cheers

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Richard Boulware

Kodak did an excellent hard cover book called, "Impact, Photography for Advertising". I own a copy and some of my best friends are published in this book. This book is also a lesson for others...in LANDSCAPE photography in particular...and many others too. The title...Photography for Advertising may turn some of you off. I caution you not to do so, for there is a message here for you too. To you who show in galleries, you have the same challenge.

---

I just bought a copy of this at Amazon.com ($7.99 shipped). While no longer available new, there were thirty used copies available so relatively easy to come by.

Thanks Richard for starting this notebook project off. I look forward to showing you some images and getting some feedback.

Stew Squires

I just came accross this post this morning so please excuse my late response.

I find it interesting how so many people have tried to define "pro" and "amateur". It seems that many people decide to use a derogatory definition for activities other than their own. To the poster who decided that "pro" and "hack" were interchangable terms, I wonder how many people who agree with you are making their living at photography? Is this jealousy or simpy ignorance? I mean no offense, I am just wondering why the not-so-subtle undercurrent of anger.

I am a professional photographer and I submit that I am as passionate about my commercial work as my personal work. To me there really is no difference. One gets me paid and the other makes me pay. My love is making images. Yes, I am incredibly lucky to do what I love for a living. I am also very passionate about what I do. My passion knows no difference between getting paid or not.

To Richard, who started this wonderful thread, I agree it is my duty and honor to create images that allow my viewers to "smell the trees" just as much as to "smell the soap" or "see the beauty of the product". To me, there is simply no difference.

Merry Christmas to all,
Randy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Photojeep

I am a professional photographer and I submit that I am as passionate about my commercial work as my personal work. To me there really is no difference. One gets me paid and the other makes me pay. My love is making images. Yes, I am incredibly lucky to do what I love for a living. I am also very passionate about what I do. My passion knows no difference between getting paid or not.

---

I applaud you!! Not everyone can find so much enjoyment in their jobs.

Good read! Thanks for posting and looking forward to seeing more in the future.

thanks, Jim

thanks.