[J.Scott]

I've got more respect for a single lowly shooter reporting for the Sodomy Times than a gross of the world's best fashion, studio, and landscape photographers combined (and the legions of back-room photoshop heroes and lighting technicians who do 90% of their work.)

Maybe my post didn't express my inner feelings.
I think she is the right person for the job.
Her photography is perfect for the application.

Likewise, I'm not the best Cable Repair Technician in the world, but good enough to put in 30 years doing my best and making a decent working wage too.

Thanks for getting involved in this discussion guys.

First, to those of you who only mentioned the Pop Photo aspect - I think you might have missed my point. Pop Photo merely led me to her website.
To me, regardless of whether the pictures on her site are assignments or not, they are there to not just show what work she has done but her skill as a photographer.
Like I said in the thread starter, some of them are good but I found a lot of them to be mediocre. There's poor composition, under exposure, pictures that don't convey any meaning.
Her site makes me wonder does she have any pride in her work or is she just not that talented and it is about "who you know, not what you know"

Maybe it feels closer to home for me because I'm starting school soon and stuff like that makes me wonder "Is it worth spending three years of my life and fifty thousand dollars because I don't know someone who could give me a job".

I know going to school is a risk, you need a perfect storm. You need the talent, the exposure, the right person(s) seeing your work and some luck for garnish on top. Somedays though, it feels like they took away the carrot and all that's left is the stick.

[Sailor]

Thanks for getting involved in this discussion guys.

First, to those of you who only mentioned the Pop Photo aspect - I think you might have missed my point. Pop Photo merely led me to her website.
To me, regardless of whether the pictures on her site are assignments or not, they are there to not just show what work she has done but her skill as a photographer.
Like I said in the thread starter, some of them are good but I found a lot of them to be mediocre. There's poor composition, under exposure, pictures that don't convey any meaning.
Her site makes me wonder does she have any pride in her work or is she just not that talented and it is about "who you know, not what you know"

Maybe it feels closer to home for me because I'm starting school soon and stuff like that makes me wonder "Is it worth spending three years of my life and fifty thousand dollars because I don't know someone who could give me a job".

I know going to school is a risk, you need a perfect storm. You need the talent, the exposure, the right person(s) seeing your work and some luck for garnish on top. Somedays though, it feels like they took away the carrot and all that's left is the stick.

I guess I have a more charitable view of her photos. Her pictures made me think of a studio musician tasked with working on a pop recording aimed at a particular market. Nothing new, nothing special - but reliably delivering the goods.

I know how you feel about starting school, the time and the money. I spent 4 years as an undergrad and 4 years as a grad student, and during that time I wondered about the challenges facing me when I had to make a living. However, I did get a job and have lived well - and so will you.

Jer

[Ratmagiclady]

Hrm, checking out her little opening slideshow, I think I 'get' a lot of it: she does things with motion and implied motion that I can really relate to, ...I think she's trying to show her individual thing about a lot of it, rather than the technical 'standards,' though there's some shots there I would have omitted, especially the long-exposures-of-pretty-lights stuff, much of which fails to impress. Some of them, you could spend some time with, though.

[lithos]

Maybe my post didn't express my inner feelings.
I think she is the right person for the job.
Her photography is perfect for the application.

Likewise, I'm not the best Cable Repair Technician in the world, but good enough to put in 30 years doing my best and making a decent working wage too.

Cable repair? That's just plugging stuff in, isn't it? Turning stuff off, then on again, maybe unplugging it from the wall?*

That's a gross oversimplification of your job, as is regarding photojournalism as just rocking up and hitting the shutter.

*Unless you're a cable repair guy in one of those eighties pornos...in which case, I salute, good sir!

[Wheatfield]

She certainly runs the gamut from dross to excellence. Some of her images are very, very good indeed. The abstract stuff didn't do anything for me, but I feel the same way about most of Picasso's work too.
Her Miscellaneous and National Geo galleries are all very good to very powerful images. Even the weakest pictures are pretty darned good.
The New York Times stuff is, I think, very good, but must be taken in the context of news photography, which isn't necessarily going to be high art all the time. Sometimes it's just there to illustrate a caption, and the photographer has to do the best he/she can with the sometimes fleeting subject matter.

[J.Scott]

Cable repair? That's just plugging stuff in, isn't it? Turning stuff off, then on again, maybe unplugging it from the wall?*

That's a gross oversimplification of your job, as is regarding photojournalism as just rocking up and hitting the shutter.

*Unless you're a cable repair guy in one of those eighties pornos...in which case, I salute, good sir!

Plugging stuff...... Yeah - whatever. :ugh:

Sounds like an over simplification but I am required to trouble shoot problems in copper telephone cable and then fix said troubles in a timely, cost efficient manner. We often deal with hundreds of cable pairs in a single cable that can be in the ground, air or under water. The only porno I've experienced is customers coming naked to the door. It’s far from exciting, trust me.

The point I failed to make was that once you are in the groove it all just flows. I am admittedly not the best ever at what I do, but good enough, as is she.

[Cosmo]

She certainly runs the gamut from dross to excellence. Some of her images are very, very good indeed. The abstract stuff didn't do anything for me, but I feel the same way about most of Picasso's work too.
Her Miscellaneous and National Geo galleries are all very good to very powerful images. Even the weakest pictures are pretty darned good.
The New York Times stuff is, I think, very good, but must be taken in the context of news photography, which isn't necessarily going to be high art all the time. Sometimes it's just there to illustrate a caption, and the photographer has to do the best he/she can with the sometimes fleeting subject matter.

This is exactly what I thought, I really liked her Nat Geo and Misc stuff, I thought it was of good quality.

Like I said in the thread starter, some of them are good but I found a lot of them to be mediocre. There's poor composition, under exposure, pictures that don't convey any meaning.
Her site makes me wonder does she have any pride in her work or is she just not that talented and it is about "who you know, not what you know"

She's a photojournalist, not a fine art photographer, she photographs to tell a story, not worry about getting perfect composition and exposure, if there's such thing as perfect exposure.

And what do you mean by, "pictures that don't convey any meaning", have you read the captions? Have you actually looked at the photos, and put some thought into what the photos portray? Could you elaborate on that?

This is exactly what I thought, I really liked her Nat Geo and Misc stuff, I thought it was of good quality.





She's a photojournalist, not a fine art photographer, she photographs to tell a story, not worry about getting perfect composition and exposure, if there's such thing as perfect exposure.

And what do you mean by, "pictures that don't convey any meaning", have you read the captions? Have you actually looked at the photos, and put some thought into what the photos portray? Could you elaborate on that?

Yes I did actually look at them and put thought into what they portrayed. I didn't start this thread just to run someone down. I just think some of them (mainly in the abstract section) didn't convey any meaning even with a caption.
Perhaps I would think differently if some of less strong pictures hadn't been included, they do tend to drag down the quality ones.
And yes, I know she's a photojournalist and she's been doing it for some time, so there's really no excuse for her not to have filled her website with her best stuff.

[pursang]

OK once again maybe its me but the pictures on her website all appear to me to be pictures that were assignments. I dont think that they are really meant to be fine art photography. I could be wrong but I think most members here are not "professional" photographers i.e. someone that works for a company and is told go take a picture of this author for a story we are writing or go take a picture of a migrant worker for an article we are writing. To me those are the images that she has on her site, we dont know what her personal pictures are like so I dont think we should say she is a horrible photographer based on what we see here.
I think its easy for us to sit here and pick apart other peoples pictures but as one person has already said art is subjective to the viewer. Most members here will freely pick apart a picture posted on the web but they will not post there own. I rarely comment on pictures because I look at pictures and if i emotionally connect I will comment but I will not sit there and say the composition is wrong, the lighting it wrong, you didnt follow the rule of thirds. I am a snapshot shooter I shot a picture as a memory thing not as fine art which is what most commentors here think are the only justifiable pictures to post.
sorry for the rambling post but just wanted to get my thoughts out

gokenin,
Yours is perhaps the most poignant response I've read here. And for anyone who doesn't believe 'who you know' is part of advancing yourself in any profession you may be in denial. Part of being a pro is putting oneself out there, networking with others who can offer opportunities for work. I'm often shocked at how naive we all can be when it comes to our work and how one person's work may advance over another's. And yes I seldom see people putting their work out there. It's too much of a risk. Look through any forum about any subject and you'll see a huge percentage of people who can go back an forth over facts and figures. But showing one's work, having anyone sharp shoot what you've created? Heaven forbid. I seldom give a second thought to any poster whose opinion is not backed up by a body of work. Sure they may very well be technically brilliant with empirical facts, but it doesn't mean a thing if what someone knows can't be put into practice for a REAL SHOT, not those test shots which seem to overflow all forums. So many of us avoid forums, but a few of us have decided to give them a try again, to HELP people. But it's certainly not a pro's job to 'teach' it's something we do as a courtesy to others. But when it becomes more about cutting down someone or showing how much you KNOW well then it's just so easy to NOT offer help and go back to creating art/concepts. Rant over.

[Dlanor Sekao]

Why do we judge anyone as a professional in the first place ? What criteria do they have to meet to get such a title ? Is someone that makes a living from Photography a Pro ? Or do their images have to meet the majority of peoples opinions as such ?
I ask these questions as I have started to make a very nice income from photography in the last 18 months.......doing freelance work for a couple Insurance Fraud investigators.
Am I becoming a Pro ? Well....in one sense yes......and in one sense NO.......not by far according to the expectations of the definition above.
I cant make images even close to what I would like to do , or even what many amateurs on this forum are capable of and probably never will be able to. But I can get the evidence in images and get some scumbag busted and have his ass on a hook and get paid for doing it even if it takes me a month or longer.
So either way there must be varying degrees of what is meant by the definition of the word "Professional" Photographer ??
A "Professional" is taking his tools (which in this case is cameras and gear) and making a living out of it , and paying his bills , and a roof over his head , and food to eat....he has made a "Profession" out of it.
The imaginative , creatively applied , visually appealing , "Pro" that gets ooh's and ahh's with a streak of talent and knowledge to get majority status........and the driven knucklehead that wont give up and gets the Photographic dirt on someone and then is handed a check ........BOTH...... are "Professional" in what they do and each fills a niche.
However I think the word in itself is always associated with awe inspiring artistic talent and it shouldn't be.
A Professional photographer applies himself in some way to appeal to a market and get compensated for his work.....its his "Profession"....plain and simple.
Professional is not in any way associated with...talented , artistic , or awe inspiring.....The definition of that is what I would call that an Artist ??


BTW....I was not at all impressed with her work and the mention of the New York Times and National Geographic in the same sentence in reference to her past achievements was not very impressive to me at all. Both are the top two I wouldn't want associated with my name in any way , and if that is considered the ultimate end goal ?? Someones expectations aren't high enough.
Its all just a bunch of "Puffing" and patting on the back in those circles and Im sure its more about "Who" you know , rather than "what" you know.
Yes.....she is very much a "Professional" Photographer .......And a quite successful one at that !

[Parallax]

This thread is 6 years old, and most of the participants are no longer on the forum.