YOU TELL ME
PHOTOSHOP DISASTERS, INDEED
Okay, okay…..I love looking at Photoshop Disasters as much
as the next geek.
But lately I’ve been getting a bit bent out of shape, getting my
knickers in a knot, about one aspect of that site. Namely, the
comments.
(As an aside, I must tell you that I never get angry on the job,
I find it so counter-productive. As well, since my near-death
about 3 years ago now, I’m much more likely, when confronted
with plain stupidity, to just shrug my shoulders, giggle a little
and wonder at how funny people are. Having said all that, I must
also tell you that getting righteously pissed off from time to time
can be great fun…….just so long as you realize being pissed off
pretty much turns you into an arsehole.)
Anyway……far be it from me to tell you what to be interested in,
what to get excited about, what to spend your time on. But……
Okay, here’s the genesis of my feeling:
This image has elicited 87 comments. Yes! 87. And it’s not just
this particular post that gets the punters riled, it’s pretty consistent.
It would seem that there are all kinds of folks out there who have very
weird ideas about what’s interesting in photography.
Some of the comments are funny, in a snide way, some attempt to
bring humor but (for me) fail, and many, many of the comments
are arguments about whether or not this is, in fact, a Photoshop
disaster. Some have gone so far as to draw in where the models
thumb and fingers would be.
Then people started arguing about that. Boy-o-boy.
Come on, this isn’t what photography is about. Is it? Stupid
arguments about stupid pictures. Geeks versus geeks.
Now, I’m totally aware that by getting sore about such an
inconsequential thing as these comments puts me in the
same category as those who I’m dissing here. So be it.
drool has always said that it embraces it’s contradictions.
But let me tell you, those of you who spend your time picking
apart little bits of crappy mass media fotos, get a fucking life.
Try looking at life and fotos, not for the small errors you can
find, but for the larger beauty of endeavor and struggle that
can be found in the world and in the impulse to understand it.
Photography is not about Photoshop Disasters. I hope you
know that.
CAPITAL CAPERS
A couple of things to bring to your attention if you’re going
to be in Ottawa next week:
SPAO OPEN HOUSE
This coming Friday, from 3:00 p,m, onwards, SPAO opens
it’s doors to the public. Always seems to be a good cross
section of students, alumni, parents and foto-industry folks
on hand to support their work and community. Drop by and
see for yourself.
NAKED IN THE CAPITAL
Based on the Dan Couto thing, that happens in Toronto. This
year Ottawa climbs on the bandwagon. At Arts + Architecture,
this Thursday. (If they do it again next year, I hope they get a
better poster.)
WEB SITE UPDATE + QUESTION
Been working on a web site update. A new gallery called “RECENT”.
Should be up in a week or so. 30 new(ish) pix on 16 pages for your
perusal. Here’s what they look like really, really small.
There’s one page, though, that I can’t decide about. I can’t figure
out whether to add it, or not. Some tell me that putting stuff like
this on your web site will alienate clients. After all…..they look at
the site at work and these aren’t really safe for work.
On the other hand, I think that they’re kind on interesting shots
and, for me at least, beautiful, not offensive.
So let me ask you, you droolers, for your opinion. Especially if
you’re a client of mine or an AD or a PE. Should I or shouldn’t I?
Everyone who responds will get a chance at winning a print of
one of these shots. Random draw, you’re choice. So, let me
know, will ya?
CALIFORNIA DREAMING
Man, late October and November have to be the most brutal months
in Ottawa. Overcast, drizzly, colorless. These days there’s (almost)
nothing I like more than building a fire in our back room, watching
the rain and leaves fall, watching the color drain, feeling just toasty,
thank you very much.
Back room with fire, dog and view
Desert Hot Springs, Cali, top down
On November 1, 2009 @ 7:13 am,
Lucy said:
Hi, re: April+Erik… What you really need are client opinions but, for what it’s worth, as a photog I can’t see any problem with publishing them online as part of your book. The images are all more or less highly suggestive, but tastefully so. Anyone following your blog and interested in your work will likely find the images anyway through the link you’ve provided to the set of 12 separately. I’d love a print! Could I choose which one? Cheers, Lucy
On November 1, 2009 @ 7:42 am,
kate said:
OMG I would LOVE a print — I’d love the one of April puffing smoke while Erik leans his head on her chest. I’ve been thinking about buying one, actually.
I wish I had an educated position from which to answer your question, but I don’t. I still want a print though. :)
I think maybe you could show a selection from the series, maybe some of the less risque ones?, and link to the rest. The other option is to add it as a portfolio, and provide enough info in the title to let people know it’s not safe for work? When you first posted the series on tumblr, I did wonder why you didn’t put it on your site, if that said something about how you saw the series or where it belonged.
At a workshop I went to, Don Weber, a documentary photographer, said that he only posts his personal work on his site, never his commissioned work, because clients choose him for HIS vision.
So after all that musing, I guess I think you should at least put some of them up.
I hope you get some clients or ADs or PEs responding…
On November 1, 2009 @ 9:47 am,
Brett Gundlock said:
Hey Tony, I think you should leave it up.
It shows your approach to the subject and as long as it is in personal work people can’t squawk to much about it.
On November 1, 2009 @ 10:35 am,
Tom Megginson said:
Speaking as someone who hires your work for a somewhat conservative agency on behalf of some extremely conservative clients, I vote you leave it all up there.
Even though client organizations may not be able to express naked sexuality and blunt humanity the way you do, as individuals they will admire you for it.
I have always told my colleagues that part of our job is to be cooler than the clients. We are in an aspirational position, and so little things like the way we dress and the way our office looks to outsiders should inspire constructive envy. They hire us to be more creative, and bolder, than them. Otherwise, why bother ever leaving the comfort zone of your own board(”bored”)room?
You, as an artist, should be one step further out from us. We need to be just a little uncomfortable with it, as long as we trust that you understand our clients’ tolerances on set when working with them.
Your new work may have a sexuality to it that isn’t considered “work safe”. But there’s nothing offensive about it, in that it doesn’t put anyone down.
I’d be more worried about my clients seeing something awkwardly sentimental or sleazy on a recommended freelancer’s site. Because that would make my taste look bad.
- T
On November 1, 2009 @ 12:11 pm,
Andras said:
Hi Tony, I’m no AD or PE, just a simple photographer, but i think you should definately put the April + Erik images up. The images might be little more upfront than what some people are used to, but there’s nothing wrong with that; infact thats where they draw some of their strength. Like others have said above, these images are not ‘offensive’, so i think they’re fine, especially if they’re included amonsgt other personal work.
As to the question of whether they might alienate some AD’s/PE’s/clients? I really don’t know, maybe they will maybe they won’t (on a huntch i’d say probably not). But we can turn this question around the other way and say that maybe a PE will see these images, fall in love with their vibe and their projection of intimacy, and commision you some work!
i think the images are great, and you should keep them in
On November 1, 2009 @ 2:43 pm,
Angela said:
Hi,
I would leave them on your site. Your work is diverse and that is a good thing. By not including it, I think you may be sending out a conflicted message…because someone is bound to say to a client eventually, “But, hey, isn’t that the guy who took the nudie shots of that couple? Yeah, the ones having sex?”.
You run the risk of alienating people just as much with the USER series. Are you including any of those on the new site?
I am not a work client, but I just bought two USER prints from La Petite Mort gallery. If I was a client, I would want to see your full range of “products”;). I agree with Andras above, I think it could work to your advantage.
And, if you choose me to win the print, I want it to be the print of your choice…artist’s pick:). I am curious which one is your favourite of the series ( which was terrific - I saw it at the gallery ).
On November 1, 2009 @ 3:53 pm,
Pete Brook said:
Tony,
There are many reasons for you to include the images, and very few not to.
It would be a shame to exclude them out of fear. Don’t self-censor because then you’re making decisions based on presumptions of circumstance that may or may not be accurate.
Whereas, you can be 100% accurate on your own opinion and high regard for those “beautiful pictures”.
On November 1, 2009 @ 8:27 pm,
Nat said:
Well, the way I see it, User to me is much more controversial. It’s all this to-do about sex… it’s just sex you know?
As someone who hires photogs occasionally, I’d have much more respect for the folks I’m hiring if they are artists and have vision more than what the designers envisions… a style of their own. These projects are who you are, and if folks can’t handle that .. fuck ‘em.
On November 7, 2009 @ 6:01 pm,
Vera said:
It’s up there now….has it impacted your business? It’s your work. Leave it up….you have to be true to who you are and what you do. If you end up eating more Kraft dinner…so be it.