coming back is kinda hard to do
You often hear people say "he who feels it knows it" and we usually agree. It is not that we have ever been in that person's shoes, nor even anywhere near to them kind of shoes. We all have our own shoes to wear and "cross to bear" as we sojourn on planet earth, accompanied by the complains we have to make about life, irrespective of how good it is to us. I think that life is more than fair to the most of us, but when we seek to extract over and above what we have put in, and it is not readily forthcoming, we like to bawl foul. It is a people thing, one of the many things that we come and meet and will go and leave behind.
In life there comes a time when one may has to unlearn and relearn, and many of us don't take to kindly to that, especially when we are in and above the "mid-life" zone. Mid-life I put at 35, half-way to the three-score and ten promised in the "Bible" [KJV]. I was around when computers were introduced into the workplace and witnessed, up close, the action and reactions of the human resource associated with the changes. I noticed that older folks seem to transition better than the younger ones, and I put that down to their 'personal development', and then some. That was a straight case of learning something new while relearning and adopting a new methodology ... or go home.
Now I am home, retired and decides to make a come back into photography. I am starting at the bottom again because photography today seems to have changed a whole lot over the last 40 years. Maybe it not quite 40 years, but since the introduction of the digital camera. I should not generalize and say photography, but say certain aspects of the photography seems to have significantly changed. I believe that the basic principles of photography have not changed, they cannot be changed, but when it comes to the interpretative aspects of the photography, that is another matter. I must also say that I have not sought to check any photo school's curriculum to determine if what is put on the streets these days by photographers is a product of their instruction or these are just "rogue photographers" who seek to unknowingly and unintentionally bring disrepute to the art of photography.
So this brings me to consider whether or not todays photographers are trained or untrained. Trained as having followed a course of photographic instruction from a duly licensed institute, college or university and been awarded a certificate or diploma or degree... this qualifies a professional Photographer. But on the other hand a Professional Photographer is one who sells photographic services for [money] and/or for a living, having nothing at all to do with ones qualification as a duly "certified" photographer. In some countries you can't sell photo services unless you are duly licensed as a certificated photographer, but in some of those same countries there may exist more fly by night photography operations, making bigger bucks. This is just how photography appear to be in our world today, and now back to my own case.
So I decide to make a come back in photography, prompted by some new Facebook friends. The new Facebook photo community is great. The exposure to some talented work and people, both male and female is fantastic. The affordable digital camera has put photography within the gasp of ordinary people who now shoot inside their environment and share with us on the outside, thus making the world an even smaller place. Ordinary people who did not have to spend $8K to learn photography at some prestigious photo school can now produce a masterpiece or two, by breaking all the rules of composition ... and this opens many cans. I am of the view that creative photographic expression can be "stifled, suffocated and killed" by structured photographic instruction. If you think about this long enough ....
Photo training helps you to comply with the print media perspective and 'John public' is locked into that ... and also TV, with its horizontal portrait .... Photography now seems to takes its cue from TV, but some die hards are not letting go .... they rather die than submit. With the continued proliferation of digital cameras, photography for print media will buckle under as the print media demise continues. It is an online world and if the print media format does not upgrade, it will make history quicker.
I think that I jumped ahead of myself and forgot to say that digital photography today is not specifically for print media like once ago as the TV format may be the most widely viewed and accepted on the planet. I started shooting horizontal portraits over 20-years ago, and that integrated well with the mini-lab products, greeting cards, etc. To me "horizontal portraits", even cropped to vertical, look far different to an original vertical snap, but maybe it has to do with my shooting style, or whatever.
So I am making this comeback and it is old school learning against the modern approach ... and it is pretty hard to unlearn some things after 40 years. Let me hasten to add that this unlearning difficulty only exist when it comes to posing and taking pictures of people, more specifically models. These days they have a never-ending-catalog of creative poses, which never made it into the official figure manual of the last decade. Since the poses are acceptable to the end viewers at 'John public' it may be okay to 'standardize', but when the time comes for the 'print media' submission can it meet the standards they have set? Shooting for fun, pleasure and profit are not one and the same thing. Do I shoot your picture just like everyone else, or do I shoot your picture to meet the print media specification? One is for fun the other is for money. So who makes the decision?
In life there comes a time when one may has to unlearn and relearn, and many of us don't take to kindly to that, especially when we are in and above the "mid-life" zone. Mid-life I put at 35, half-way to the three-score and ten promised in the "Bible" [KJV]. I was around when computers were introduced into the workplace and witnessed, up close, the action and reactions of the human resource associated with the changes. I noticed that older folks seem to transition better than the younger ones, and I put that down to their 'personal development', and then some. That was a straight case of learning something new while relearning and adopting a new methodology ... or go home.
Now I am home, retired and decides to make a come back into photography. I am starting at the bottom again because photography today seems to have changed a whole lot over the last 40 years. Maybe it not quite 40 years, but since the introduction of the digital camera. I should not generalize and say photography, but say certain aspects of the photography seems to have significantly changed. I believe that the basic principles of photography have not changed, they cannot be changed, but when it comes to the interpretative aspects of the photography, that is another matter. I must also say that I have not sought to check any photo school's curriculum to determine if what is put on the streets these days by photographers is a product of their instruction or these are just "rogue photographers" who seek to unknowingly and unintentionally bring disrepute to the art of photography.
So this brings me to consider whether or not todays photographers are trained or untrained. Trained as having followed a course of photographic instruction from a duly licensed institute, college or university and been awarded a certificate or diploma or degree... this qualifies a professional Photographer. But on the other hand a Professional Photographer is one who sells photographic services for [money] and/or for a living, having nothing at all to do with ones qualification as a duly "certified" photographer. In some countries you can't sell photo services unless you are duly licensed as a certificated photographer, but in some of those same countries there may exist more fly by night photography operations, making bigger bucks. This is just how photography appear to be in our world today, and now back to my own case.
So I decide to make a come back in photography, prompted by some new Facebook friends. The new Facebook photo community is great. The exposure to some talented work and people, both male and female is fantastic. The affordable digital camera has put photography within the gasp of ordinary people who now shoot inside their environment and share with us on the outside, thus making the world an even smaller place. Ordinary people who did not have to spend $8K to learn photography at some prestigious photo school can now produce a masterpiece or two, by breaking all the rules of composition ... and this opens many cans. I am of the view that creative photographic expression can be "stifled, suffocated and killed" by structured photographic instruction. If you think about this long enough ....
Photo training helps you to comply with the print media perspective and 'John public' is locked into that ... and also TV, with its horizontal portrait .... Photography now seems to takes its cue from TV, but some die hards are not letting go .... they rather die than submit. With the continued proliferation of digital cameras, photography for print media will buckle under as the print media demise continues. It is an online world and if the print media format does not upgrade, it will make history quicker.
I think that I jumped ahead of myself and forgot to say that digital photography today is not specifically for print media like once ago as the TV format may be the most widely viewed and accepted on the planet. I started shooting horizontal portraits over 20-years ago, and that integrated well with the mini-lab products, greeting cards, etc. To me "horizontal portraits", even cropped to vertical, look far different to an original vertical snap, but maybe it has to do with my shooting style, or whatever.
So I am making this comeback and it is old school learning against the modern approach ... and it is pretty hard to unlearn some things after 40 years. Let me hasten to add that this unlearning difficulty only exist when it comes to posing and taking pictures of people, more specifically models. These days they have a never-ending-catalog of creative poses, which never made it into the official figure manual of the last decade. Since the poses are acceptable to the end viewers at 'John public' it may be okay to 'standardize', but when the time comes for the 'print media' submission can it meet the standards they have set? Shooting for fun, pleasure and profit are not one and the same thing. Do I shoot your picture just like everyone else, or do I shoot your picture to meet the print media specification? One is for fun the other is for money. So who makes the decision?
Comments