George Byrne shoots with 120 film

I discovered a new photographer that may interest you. He shoots with film in this project.

Just using film as a hook to get attention. Nothing more. What he's doing wouldn't look any different whether it was shot on film or digi. Loved the BS shot of him walking towards the subject and shooting like he has an AF Pentax 6x7. Pure marketing.

Besides that I liked his shots.

I like his premise of looking at things more as a collection of flat shapes than as 3D objects, and I quite like some of his images in that clip, particularly the one at 1:07 of the 99 cent store.

While I like that he's using film, I think it's really awkward how he points out that it's on film. "When it comes to film photography, if you choose to stop thinking about depth..." doesn't mean anything different if you take out "film".

At my age I think I will remain true to film photography for the rest of my days but frankly the reasons he appeared to give why film gave him benefits that were unique to film sounded like a load of rubbish. It was like the opening lines used to sell "snake oil" or a seminar called "how I became a millionaire overnight and you can do the same"

pentaxuser

I'm always willing to cut some slack if someone has trouble explaining why using film appeals to them, and therefor resorts to inanities.
For me, I just tell people that I've been using it for 50+ years, it works well for me, I'm fairly good at using it, and I like it. It is also wonderful compared to the film I used back when I started.

I really wish we had a General Forum to discuss things, and not all these pigeon holes that do not get much traffic.
Anyway....... George Byrne -
First let me say.....i Like MANY of his pictures. I could "Never" do what he does, because i only shoot Black & White. Again, i like A LOT of his frames.

1. If i look at photos on Flickr, or My Space, or This Forum, Etc etc etc.....i see Thousands and Thousands of photos that i like just as much.
2. Does this guy make a living doing this.?
3. Why do we Hear/Read/See about this guy and not somebody else.? What makes him more "relevant" than any other photographers that i see on Youtube, My Space, Flickr, Photo Forum, Etc etc.?
If you know what i mean... why does photographer XYZ get discussed as if they are a "Somebody".....but photographer ABC is relegated to relative obscurity and seen as "only" a "Hobbyist or Amateur" .?
I am not picking on this guy, just that his name was mentioned. It could be ANY photographer of note.

What happens that makes Cindy Sherman (is she the one that does all those self portraits) "Famous or Popular" .?

I saw a guy named David Brookover. I guess he is a "popular" photographer.?
He does a lot of Landscape stuff. Beautiful prints. I think he does (or his printer does) a lot of Palladium prints. I like A LOT of his photos..... probably ALL of them that we see on-line or on his website. But again, you could shoot 10 gorgeous landscape shots 200 days a year for your entire life. There is nothing unique about it. So how does HE, become successful, and other people fade into obscurity.?
Again, i am not picking on Mr Brookover, it could be Any Landscape Photographer.
Do they get lucky, are they trust fund babies, do they have rich friends, does their wife have an Uncle that owns a fancy NYC art gallery, do they persevere and work hard, are they more talented than Thousands of other photographers.?

CMoore said:

What happens that makes Cindy Sherman (is she the one that does all those self portraits) "Famous or Popular" .?

Click to expand...

Cindy Sherman is more of an artist who works with photographic tools than a photographer whose photographs are shown in galleries. It is more conceptual than representative.
It is hard to describe what that difference means. Predominantly though, the reason her work is collected is more related to how her photographs are constructed, the messages that she may (or may not) be trying to convey in those photographs, and how those photographs relate to each other than how each photograph stands on its own. It is the art world, academic and professional criticism, collectors and galleries all working together that has resulted in her photographs commanding the prices they do.
If she had done what she has done using a medium other than photography, she might have been similarly successful - it is hard to say.
Her work is strangely compelling though.

CMoore said:

Why do we Hear/Read/See about this guy and not somebody else.? What makes him more "relevant" than any other photographers that i see on Youtube, My Space, Flickr, Photo Forum, Etc etc.?
If you know what i mean... why does photographer XYZ get discussed as if they are a "Somebody".....but photographer ABC is relegated to relative obscurity and seen as "only" a "Hobbyist or Amateur" .?
I am not picking on this guy, just that his name was mentioned. It could be ANY photographer of note.

Click to expand...

Self promotion and luck. Taking good photos isn't enough if you want to be recognised in the bigger world, you need to also be able to promote your work and yourself as a 'brand'.

Don't think this has changed much since the early days of photography, just requires more work with the advent of social media and millions of photographers putting their work on the internets.

..... certainly rings true
No doubt that is a Big Part of the equation.
Luck Of The Draw = Talent .....every time.
I suppose all of "The Arts" are that way.
LOTS of guys are Excellent guitar players. Just because your name is not recognized as Wes Montgomery, Chet Atkins, Jimi Hendrix, Stevie Ray Vaughn.......does not mean you are not as "good" as they are.