Photographers with Bad Attitudes

[Ed Sukach]

Yes Ed the emphasis was on "knowledgeable" because getting opinions and advice from people who don't have a clue is pretty much a waste of time isn't it? Well maybe you don't think so as you stated that," I really do not consider knowledge to be a significant factor." I have a very hard time understanding your POV there as it seems ridiculous to me.Whatever success I have had I can directly attribute to having learned from very knowledgeable people, extrapolating on what they taught me and by doing a huge amount of experimentation. I follow my heart with my work, but much of my foundation as a photographer was based on the lessons of others.

I do not think or beleive your course of action is anything remotely approaching "ridiculous". It is your choice, and I will defend that choice as vigorously as if it were mine.

I've "gone that route", and in reflection (and after acquiring much scar tissue), have decided that inviduality and originality are far more important than the effect of any instruction from others, no matter how high their standing in the photographic world.
There are works that fascinate me; there are photographers I admire beyond words; there are philosophies far different from mine that I have studied meticulously - in the end, I have been following the advice given me by a Roman Catholic Nun (and beautiflly accomplished artist), after she had reviewed and critiqued (sharply) my portfolio:

She looked at me, and said:

RCN: "You're not going to do anything I've suggested, are you?"

Me: (As quietly as possible): "No, I'm not."

RCN: "GOOD!!! It is essential that you do your own photography! Good, bad or indifferent in the eyes of others, It will be your BEST work. If you try to do anything else, from any source, including critique, it can ONLY be a poor imitation of someone else's work."


"Self dscovery through a camera? I am scared to look for fear of discovering how shallow my Self is! I will persist however... because the camera has its eye on the exterior world. Camera will lead my introspection back into the world."

- Minor White, from Rites and Passages


Introspection, as frightening as it is, and requiring as much courage as it does, is, IMHO, the key to self improvement - and it cannot be done by others.

 

[Katharine Thayer]

I've found that people like that don't have much to offer. When I was an apprentice cat mechanic, the only ones who wouldn't help were ones who didn't know much and didn't want you to know more than them making you more valuable at layoff time when things got slow. I reserve my best snide replys for that type.

I couldn't agree more. I've been watching this thread with some bemusement, thinking of some photographers with bad attitudes that I've encountered, and it seems to me that almost without exception, they are people who out of insecurity or personality defect or a chip on their shoulder or whatever, have a need to tear other people down to make themselves feel more important.

Or they are just too young to understand how little they know. Some of the most arrogantly ignorant things that have been said to me about gum printing (which I know something about) have come from people who just recently got their BA (or MFA) in photography, and think the degree confers on them instant authority. One such person argued with me about one of my gum prints, telling me he was sure I must be mistaken about it being a gum print, since he'd just got his degree in photography and he certainly knew a cyanotype when he saw one, and that print was a cyanotype. Gum simply can't look like that, he explained in a kind but definitive tone.

Another approached me at an opening of one of my shows to tell me I shouldn't mat over the brushmarks in the borders of my gum prints; she'd just graduated with a degree in photography (interesting, that these people always mention their degree in almost the first sentence they utter when you first meet them) and she'd been taught that if you're making handcoated prints you should leave the borders exposed so that people can see the brushmarks and know that it's an original handcoated print. If you don't do that, no one will take your work seriously, she said, as the gallery attendant began going around the room putting red dots on the tags (the series had been sold to a collector from New York). So it's not just experienced or famous photographers who can be arrogant and full of themselves and think they have all the answers, by any means.
Katharine

 

[David H. Bebbington]

For what it's worth, and as somebody who has worked professionally in photography for a long time and also in the last 10 to 12 years has done a lot of workshops with well-known photographers, I would say that you have to go a LONG way to get any kind of critique which is worth having. Many working pros have no understanding of any work outside of their chosen genre (which is particularly noticeable if, say, you show a news photographer some contemporary art photography), many others are primarily visual people (which is why they're successful pros) with limited powers of verbal self-expression, and these are the guys with the (relatively) good attitudes!

The last (and worst) workshop I did was with a former president of Magnum (initials CH) whose credo seemed to be that photography reached its peak in Life Magazine in the mid-1960s and that nothing else had come remotely close in the intervening time. He seemed further to have attempted abstract landscape and felt that he had failed, ergo no one else could possibly succeed. He spent most of the time he was looking at my portfolio deliberately holding work upside down, despite having his attention drawn to this, and most of the remarks he made were muttered to people at either side and were inaudible to me. I walked out of a 5-day workshop after 2 days and after having a thunderous row with the so-called workshop organiser (intials PG), for whom the said guru was a demi-god who could do no wrong. But for the fact that I could see the guy's behavior was due to the fact that he was washed up and had obviously not had a fresh idea in 30 years, I could cheerfully have punched him out! And as for camere club experts ... suffice it to say that these guys know a vast amount about how to be THEM. Otherwise ... ZILCH, and you can quote me!

Regards,

David

 

[Early Riser]

I do not think or beleive your course of action is anything remotely approaching "ridiculous". It is your choice, and I will defend that choice as vigorously as if it were mine.

Ed, I'm all for doing your own thing, that's exactly what I do and exactly how i make my living, however there are people out there with a depth and breadth of knowledge that far exceeds the typical person. I have made it a point in my life to find those people and ask their advice. Has it changed the way i shoot? Probably. Has it changed what I shoot? Not at all. Art going back to it's very beginnings relied on those with greater knowledge of the subject sharing their knowledge. I find it hard to undertand how you can espouse a method that goes against all logic, (knowledge is bad) and i find it hard to see how you feel so fervently justified in your beliefs. But Ed, you're entitled to your opinion, whether it is baseless or factual. People are free to evaluate you and your opinion and see if it has merit.

What does seem strange is that on one hand you talk about not wanting to take anyone's advice or have their opinions alter you or what you do, but on the other hand you are doing exactly what this Nun told you to do.

Good criticism from a knowledgeable and competent critic, may not have the slightest affect on what you choose to shoot, that afterall is a deep rooted vision, however they can teach you how to better communicate what you are seeing or feeling, and how to make your chosen subject matter more interesting. They can even bring out your creativity and originality.

And I believe that Ed has in some small way has illustrated my original point on this thread.

 

[gr82bart]

Some people who are very good at what they do, sometimes aren't great at delivering critiques, 'mentoring' or teaching. Expecting a 'genius' to be a good teacher, is, I have found, an unrealistic expectation. I work with many, many genius types and people who are commercially really good at what they do - both left brain and right. Let's just say their social skills aren't up there with the rest of their skills.

Regards, Art.

 

[jstraw]

Another approached me at an opening of one of my shows to tell me I shouldn't mat over the brushmarks in the borders of my gum prints; she'd just graduated with a degree in photography (interesting, that these people always mention their degree in almost the first sentence they utter when you first meet them) and she'd been taught that if you're making handcoated prints you should leave the borders exposed so that people can see the brushmarks and know that it's an original handcoated print. If you don't do that, no one will take your work seriously...

I find this interesting.

If I were armed with the same information this recent graduate was and wanted to talk to you about it I'd probably say something like:

I've been taught that I shouldn't mat over the brushmarks in the borders of my gum prints...that if I'm making handcoated prints I should leave the borders exposed so that people can see the brushmarks and know that it's an original handcoated print...and if I don't do that, no one will take my work seriously...I can see that not everyone agrees with that aproach and I'm curious about your thinking about presentation...​

The challenge to your method would be respectful...and I might learn something.

What's interesting is that while I know that's how I'd express it now. I can't say with any certainty that I would have when I was 22...but I think I would have. I think I've always understood that minimizing the degree to which someone thinks of me as a jerk, maximizes what I stand to gain from the interaction. I'm mercenary like that.

 

[Ed Sukach]

... however there are people out there with a depth and breadth of knowledge that far exceeds the typical person.

Given that here IS a "typical person", true. I don't think I've ever met one.

I find it hard to undertand how you can espouse a method that goes against all logic, (knowledge is bad) and i find it hard to see how you feel so fervently justified in your beliefs.

I've either been misunderstood, or the old "focus on one assumption and magnify it all out of proportion to win an argument" tactic is in play here. I'll clarify; knowledge and/ or logic are not "bad things" in themselves ... however they are NOT major concerns in what I do.

people are free to evaluate you and your opinion and see if it has merit.

Go right ahead and "evaluate", if you wish. Don't be too concerned if I don't show a great deal of interest in the results.

What does seem strange is that on one hand you talk about not wanting to take anyone's advice or have their opinions alter you or what you do, but on the other hand you are doing exactly what this Nun told you to do.

It is not as "cut and dried" as all that. I LISTEN but, frankly, have not found much use for the opinions of others.

As far as the Nun's advice... I did not "follow" it. I had been doing that for quite some time before I met her. She expressed part of my philosophy eloquenty, and I've chosen to quote her, to try to be concise.

And I believe that Ed has in some small way has illustrated my original point on this thread.

I did? How did I do that?

 

[eddym]

My favorite critique starts out, "What the HELL were you thinking??"

 

[Katharine Thayer]

I find this interesting.

If I were armed with the same information this recent graduate was and wanted to talk to you about it I'd probably say something like:

I've been taught that I shouldn't mat over the brushmarks in the borders of my gum prints...that if I'm making handcoated prints I should leave the borders exposed so that people can see the brushmarks and know that it's an original handcoated print...and if I don't do that, no one will take my work seriously...I can see that not everyone agrees with that aproach and I'm curious about your thinking about presentation...​

The challenge to your method would be respectful...and I might learn something.

I'm sure that might be a somewhat more interesting and pleasant encounter on both sides, except that I can't imagine what kind of chutzpah would be required to approach someone at an opening and challenge their methods, even respectfully.

I always figure people have a good reason for doing what they do. Gum printers often send me jpegs of their gum prints and ask me to critique them, something I won't do. First of all, as we all know, a jpeg isn't the real thing, and what one chooses to comment on about the jpeg might not even be there in the real print. But besides, that kind of general critique makes no sense to me. When I get this kind of request, I write back and say "Do you feel you achieved what you wanted to achieve with these prints? If so, you shouldn't care what I think about them. If not, tell me what you were trying to achieve that you don't feel you achieved, and I can probably tell you a way to change your printing method to get there." I've never had anyone take me up on that yet.

About showing the brushmarks in the borders, I've gone through phases. When I first started printing gum, I liked showing off the brushmarks. But soon, I came to feel that the brushmarks were distracting, especially the bright primary borders on a tricolor gum, and for years I've matted them out. In the last year or two, I've started including the brushmarks when showing prints online, because the online reproductions are for educational purposes only and I've realized that I really appreciate it when I see the borders on someone else's gum print, because the borders tell so much about how the print was made. So I've started leaving them on jpegs on my site for the additional information they provide the inquiring gum printer, but I still prefer to mat off the borders for exhibition. And as far as that goes, there are many gum printers who mask off the borders before printing so they are left white. In other words, there are many perfectly legitimate ways to approach borders, and good reasons for any of them, and it's a disservice (besides revealing a rather narrow mind) for a teacher to teach students that there's just one way it should be done.

kt

 

[jovo]

..... I can't imagine what kind of chutzpah would be required to approach someone at an opening and challenge their methods, even respectfully....

At an 'open' (which means guests were allowed to attend) rehearsal of a concert program that included a piano concerto, a guest of one of the orchestra members exercised the unprecedented degree of chutzpah necessary to challenge the pianist (who was an extraordinary artist) at intermission about her interpretation. She (the pianist) was spared even having to respond to the bottomless temerity of the listener by his being forcefully removed from the concert hall by orchestra personnel. The orchestra member who invited this idiot was so humiliated and chagrined that he didn't finish the rehearsal. There is apparently no limit to the lack of fetchin' up that some people experience, and the rest of us have to endure.

 

[Ed Sukach]

She (the pianist) was spared even having to respond to the bottomless temerity of the listener by his being forcefully removed from the concert hall by orchestra personnel.

"Bottomless temerity"? Sounds like he "mooned" the pianist.

A word of advice: NEVER moon a Rhinoceros.

 

[jstraw]

I'm sure that might be a somewhat more interesting and pleasant encounter on both sides, except that I can't imagine what kind of chutzpah would be required to approach someone at an opening and challenge their methods, even respectfully.

Perhaps "challenge their methods" was a poor choice of words. If you were present in a gallery with your work, presumably there for the meet and greet...and a young artist came to you and said 'I was taught differently and clearly I wasn't taught everything...please tell me about what you do since it contradicts what I was told and I'm curious about other approaches I'm unfamiliar with' this would be offputting to you?

 

[joel dallenbach]

how about in school? I remember a comment by a photo instructor, who says no one will take you seriously until you have a masters degree etc,... and what are you trying to say with your images,.... the only reason I went to school was to use the darkroom, post moderns schtick was in full blossom, imagine being confronted by the dogma of everything has been done before, and better than you could possible do it, so appropriate someone elses work and blah blah blah, so I did. I appropriated a myriad of influences, the only common denominator is gear. In any case, bad scene in school. There's way better teachings etc,...

 

[Early Riser]

I'm sure that might be a somewhat more interesting and pleasant encounter on both sides, except that I can't imagine what kind of chutzpah would be required to approach someone at an opening and challenge their methods, even respectfully.

Katherine little surprises me anymore when it comes to photographers or would be photographers. One thing I have learned is that a little knowledge is dangerous unless you realize that you don't have all the answers. It's not surprising that anyone recently graduated from college, be it art school or some other field thinks they have all the answers, it's more a symptom of being that age. Often those same people end up as adults who never progressed any further in their abilities than the skills they left school with because they never felt the need to learn more.

I do find that all too often people with little or no photographic training or experience feel that their photographic opinions are every bit as valid as people with decades of substantial experience. I've been playing piano for 36 years and I'm not about to argue music with a professional musician however photography is unique in that at this point in time almost anyone can produce an image, and photographic qualities are not quantifiable they are for the most part subjective. Whereas poorly played music is both obvious and even painful to it's listeners, poorly captured scenes are less obvious to the average person.

Even the most trite, poorly done, uninspired work can be justified by the photographer claiming that it's their vision or personal expression. After all who can argue with someone's right to express themselves? Even if it's bad lighting, poorly composed, badly exposed, blurry, and completely cliche. And when the vast number of people doing photography are not trained or even skilled in it, then the general consenus of what is acceptable work goes down.

Where a good critique comes in, is not in having the photographer change what they are trying to express, but explaining to that photographer alternatives that might better express what they want. Some people have the knowledge, language skills and sensitivity to do this well, many do not.

 

[IloveTLRs]

When I was in art school as an illustration major I had to take intro to photography. Since my grandfather was a camera nut and I had been playing with cameras since I was 10 or so, I really looked forward to it.
Remembering which chemicals to put photos in and for how long and in which order always confused me. Sometimes I'd have tong imprints on my photos, which meant I hadn't rinsed them long enough (I guess?)
Anyway the photo professor I had, instead of being an adult and taking me aside, instead yelled at me in front of the whole photo department saying "DON'T YOU KNOW HOW TO DO THIS PROPERLY? YOU'RE THE ONE THAT'S BEEN SCREWING THINGS UP. YOU'RE THE ONE THAT EVERYONE'S BEEN COMPLAINING ABOUT."
I didn't let that F-ing "#$% dampen my spirit however- I'm still out there shooting. More now than ever before, actually.

 

[patrickjames]

I would have to give what Brian said above a hallelujah!

My experience with photographers over the years is that young ones want to be good fast and don't want to spend the time to learn. This is getting worse and worse since digital allows any schmuck to be able to make a reasonably exposed picture then chuck it into Photoshop to do some phantasmigorically wonderful voodoo on it. There is no account for taste.

If an established photographer is rude to you it is usually because they feel threatened or insecure. There are so many rip-off "artists" out there that will steal your mojo in place of coming up with their own. This is more clearly evident in the commercial world, but you can see this with many aesthetics in the art world as well. How many people copy Michael Kenna or god forbid, the thousands of Ansel Adams clowns? If you do something aesthetically out of the ordinary with your photographs, every wanna be photographer will ask you "how do you get that effect?"

My take on people that have just graduated from "art" school is that they probably will know very little about photography in the real world. Heavy on theories, short on experience.

My 2¢, probably only worth a penny though.

Patrick

 

[copake_ham]

Just because you can shoot ten gazillion shots perfectly exposed doesn't mean you can CAPTURE what a pro can. As evidence I present any wedding shot by the uncle.

Now this is odd. Here we are talking about "arrogant pros" and we get this kind of put down.

I am an Uncle by marriage to my nephew Nicholas. Nick just got married to Amy on June 16th.

Now, since I'm not the "hired pro" I cannot "command" the situation. Remember, wedding pros get to pose their shots. Uncles do not.

But although I was just the uncle - I took my cameras to the wedding anyway.

These are not the best of the litter by any means - but they are "uncle at wedding" shots.

The first is in the chapel where you can see I am shooting obliquely as they wedding party, fully posed, looks to the professional's camera.

The second is a "grab shot" of the bride, Amy, at the wedding reception.

Remember, the "uncle" serves a purpose: he takes the candid shots!

 

[Katharine Thayer]

Perhaps "challenge their methods" was a poor choice of words. If you were present in a gallery with your work, presumably there for the meet and greet...and a young artist came to you and said 'I was taught differently and clearly I wasn't taught everything...please tell me about what you do since it contradicts what I was told and I'm curious about other approaches I'm unfamiliar with' this would be offputting to you?

Thanks for inviting me to clarify. No, that wouldn't be offputting to me. You're right, it was the sentence "the challenge to your method would be respectful" that I objected to, because I don't see any reasonable justification for challenging how someone chooses to mat their pictures. But of course I don't mind answering questions about how and why I do what I do; that's part of the job description of being a gallery artist. I just thought it was rather amazing (and amusing; it's a story I've told any number of times, because I think it's very funny) that she took it upon herself to instruct me as to how it should be done. And to be clear, I wasn't rude to her; I smiled and thanked her for the advice, and then moved on to the next person. But if she'd asked me rather than telling me, I might have been more interested in spending some time talking with her, and she might have learned something.
Katharine

 

[MattKing]

I was at a wedding a couple of weeks ago, and although not an uncle (actually a second cousin, through marriage ??), I did take a MF camera.

The bride and groom had hired a wedding photographer "team" - two young photographers, shooting gobs and gobs of digital images. In my mind, they were very obtrusive, but that is another subject...

I made a point of staying out of their way, and making it clear that if I inadvertently did get in their way, they shouldn't hesitate to ask me to move (they seemed surprised, but maybe they were intimidated by my advanced age, and the inordinately old fashioned look of my photographic equipment ).

I too made a point of shooting casuals, or slightly offbeat outlooks.

The most entertaining moment, however, was the one and only time I set up a photograph. The bride and her matron of honour are sisters, and are strikingly attractive sisters indeed. They were both wearing their hair up, and their dresses were off their shoulders., revealing bare backs and slight (but elegant) décolletage. I had them stand back to back, in profile to me, then turn their heads to look at me. The bride was radiant, and her sister was overjoyed.

What was funny, was that the hired photographers almost leaped to get behind me and "capture" a shot similar to that which I had set up.

I don't know whether they had even noticed the similarity between the sisters, much less thought of ways to make use of it, photographically.

I expect that if I was a photographer with a "Bad Attitude", I would have been upset. Instead, I was entertained, especially when the bride later mentioned that she too had found the hired photographer's behaviour to be funny (she had a better view of them then I did).

Matt

 

[vet173]

Now this is odd. Here we are talking about "arrogant pros" and we get this kind of put down.

The context of my comment was the non-pro ( would consider the recent art school grad a god ) uncle with little experience as the main image taker. Sometimes shooting through a red eye filter. Most uncles get the job so money won't have to spent on a pro. Most uncles don't shoot at the level of this forums members. Was it a put down of someone who will most likly provide properly exposed bland baby food? yup. I've seen you work and don't consider you in that catagory. I've been the side shooter myself. I introduce myself to the imagetaker of the day and let them know that my stuff will not be seen till his sale is delivered. In this day and age from what I see in the trade " in general " I'm proud to say I'm not a pro.

 

[copake_ham]

The context of my comment was the non-pro ( would consider the recent art school grad a god ) uncle with little experience as the main image taker. Sometimes shooting through a red eye filter. Most uncles get the job so money won't have to spent on a pro. Most uncles don't shoot at the level of this forums members. Was it a put down of someone who will most likly provide properly exposed bland baby food? yup. I've seen you work and don't consider you in that catagory. I've been the side shooter myself. I introduce myself to the imagetaker of the day and let them know that my stuff will not be seen till his sale is delivered. In this day and age from what I see in the trade " in general " I'm proud to say I'm not a pro.

Well, in this, we are in agreement.

I only shoot at weddings where I am a member of the family and thus an invited guest. I always "stay out of the way" of the "pro" and respect them. After all, they have been hired to do the "real" shots.

Oh, and by the way, only the Uncle, when he's a close relative and has a "favored pew" can get this shot - one the "pro" can never get:

 

[Ed Sukach]

In this day and age from what I see in the trade " in general " I'm proud to say I'm not a pro.

I agree - unfortunately.

I can only notice an apparent "dumbing down" of the Professional. Once upon a time, an intelligent conversation regarding the "nuances" of photography was possible with the great majority of professionals - now I can only, and in all honesty - say that most professional are, at best, mediocre - to middling business people. On the whole, the Quality of the work has taken a massive hit.
"Quality costs too much", and "besides, our work is (somewhere equal to) what is available in this area." - and what is available is generally #$@!#$ poor.

I've noticed that, on the "high end", many wedding photographers have been using - gasp - FILM... and that choice is appreciated by many of the "high end" customers. I don't mean to rant against "d*****l" ... but if the shoe fits, etc.

I've been, more or less, out of the professional market for a few years. Now, I can only hope that the ethical standards have improved from a few years ago. There were more scams, swindles, rip-offs and "five o'clock surprises" in professional photography than in the average unscrupulous used car lots and backyard (and Dealer) auto repair shops.

 

[Early Riser]

It's not a "dumbing down" of the professional photographer, it's the misappropriation of the title "professional photographer" by incompetent and unprofessional amateurs who have a far higher opinion of their own abilities than anyone else in the world does. Some people think that all it takes to be a pro is buying a "pro" camera, or by getting a hundred bucks to shoot a friend of a friend's wedding. They have no concept of what a real professional can do. The problem is also that most people in the general public have no knowledge of what makes a true professional and think that anyone with a camera is good enough to be a pro.

 

[copake_ham]

It's not a "dumbing down" of the professional photographer, it's the misappropriation of the title "professional photographer" by incompetent and unprofessional amateurs who have a far higher opinion of their own abilities than anyone else in the world does. Some people think that all it takes to be a pro is buying a "pro" camera, or by getting a hundred bucks to shoot a friend of a friend's wedding. They have no concept of what a real professional can do. The problem is also that most people in the general public have no knowledge of what makes a true professional and think that anyone with a camera is good enough to be a pro.

Even more insidious, it's a dumbing down of the very word "Professional".

The word once connotated someone who had obtained a high degree of formal knowledge (e.g. a university degree or more) as well as expertise in certain rather exclusive fields such as medicine, law or education.

This was a distinction from other occupations such as the clergy, business, skilled artisans (tradesmen) and unskilled workers (laborers).

The classifications became more and more irrelevant and mingled (is a software engineer a "tradesman" despite her likely higher education?) such that we could all be either "professionals" or "laborers"

Which would you choose?

So, yes, the word "professional" no longer has the meaning it once had. That is true across the board, no matter what one does for a living.

After all, nowadays we have "Professional Canine Groomers". These are people who cut a dog's hair and shampoo that of it which remains!

Everyone who works for a living is a "Professional" in America!

 

[patrickjames]

I shoot weddings occasionally because they pay really well (especially here in So.Cal) and they can be kind of fun if the bride and groom are cool. I wish people that attended weddings would leave me alone though. If I had a dime for everyone that gave me their opinion (since I have a camera, I am a photographer too!). I get hired because I make beautiful images, and that takes skill, not an expensive camera, etc. It is not about taking one good picture, it is about making every picture good. That is a professional. The camera doesn't matter. I could shoot a wedding with a point and shoot. That would actually be fun. Could you imagine the looks on the faces of the other "photographers" there!


It is interesting what Ed said above about wedding photographers shooting film because I have been thinking more and more about it lately. Digital and film are so different that you can't compare them, but to shoot film you absolutely have to know what you are doing. There are very few photographers out there now that do. Watch them work. Click, chimp, click, chimp, click, chimp.... You get the idea.


It is the adage that someone referred to earlier in this thread I think, although it goes more like-

Why is it when you buy a camera you are a photographer, but when you buy a piano you own a piano?

Patrick