Famous photogs. Famous for what?

OK, there's no doubt that there are plenty of really skilled photogs out there, producing work that I can't get remotely near, but a recent photography diploma assignment involved choosing a well-know photographer and then trying to shoot in their style.

The thing is, a cursory Googling led me to (mostly) a bunch of 'photographers' who, in my opinion, are really 'just' successful photojournalists, whose work basically comprised terrifying, depressing images of war and disaster. To me, 90% of their success was derived from simply being in the right place. While their work often does convey the horror and sadness, in reality they had little control over the image, "Hmmmm, the light is behind the sniper. I'll just stand up......" Bang! He's dead

Seriously though, to my mind a photographer who first visualises a unique image, then sets about replicating his vision (which may involve studio lights, backdrops, water sprays, makeup, models and whatever else) even if this means getting up at 2am in order to catch the light, deserves a lot of credit. Those whose original vision is new and/or emotionally appealing deserve extra credit. Those who possess the technical ability to capture tricky shots, more credit still.

Why don't you join in on this discussion:

https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1195331

You can tell us why you think "simply being in the right place" is easy, and how you can talk a sniper into letting you set up a backdrop and studio lights.

Keep reporting back on that "I intend to live forever. So far, so good.", I'd like regular updates.

Steve, you are contrasting two very different types of photographers. The best photojournalists do absolutely outstanding work, sometimes while facing the real possibility of injury. I go to the international photojournalism exhibit in Toronto every year, and some of the most striking and haunting photographs I have ever seen have been there. Some of them were posed and probably used flash, like the shot of a frightened US soldier in full battle gear in Iraq looking at the camera through a safety glass window full of bullet holes. The caption said his best friend was killed the day before, and he himself was killed two days later. This photographer captured something very special about the reality and horror of war.

I also love the orchestrated photography of Yousuf Karsh, like his Winston Churchill. These are two very different approaches that appeal to different types of photographers, but they are certainly equally valid. Both convey emotion and meaning through photographic art.

Steve of Cornubia wrote in post #14566517
OK, there's no doubt that there are plenty of really skilled photogs out there, producing work that I can't get remotely near, but a recent photography diploma assignment involved choosing a well-know photographer and then trying to shoot in their style.

The thing is, a cursory Googling led me to (mostly) a bunch of 'photographers' who, in my opinion, are really 'just' successful photojournalists, whose work basically comprised terrifying, depressing images of war and disaster. To me, 90% of their success was derived from simply being in the right place. While their work often does convey the horror and sadness, in reality they had little control over the image, "Hmmmm, the light is behind the sniper. I'll just stand up......" Bang! He's dead

Seriously though, to my mind a photographer who first visualises a unique image, then sets about replicating his vision (which may involve studio lights, backdrops, water sprays, makeup, models and whatever else) even if this means getting up at 2am in order to catch the light, deserves a lot of credit. Those whose original vision is new and/or emotionally appealing deserve extra credit. Those who possess the technical ability to capture tricky shots, more credit still.

Technical ability is the easiest thing in photography to learn. Vision and a personal way of seeing is and should be the constant preoccupation and is a life long journey and by far the most difficult part to learn and or discover.

But to think that working in a controlled environment is any more difficult than trying to capture the moment is just wrong thinking.

HughR wrote in post #14568210
Steve, you are contrasting two very different types of photographers. The best photojournalists do absolutely outstanding work, sometimes while facing the real possibility of injury. I go to the international photojournalism exhibit in Toronto every year, and some of the most striking and haunting photographs I have ever seen have been there. Some of them were posed and probably used flash, like the shot of a frightened US soldier in full battle gear in Iraq looking at the camera through a safety glass window full of bullet holes. The caption said his best friend was killed the day before, and he himself was killed two days later. This photographer captured something very special about the reality and horror of war.

I also love the orchestrated photography of Yousuf Karsh, like his Winston Churchill. These are two very different approaches that appeal to different types of photographers, but they are certainly equally valid. Both convey emotion and meaning through photographic art.

But dont forget the magic happened in the unscripted moment when Karsh grabbed the cigar out of Churchill mouth. Up until that point Karsh was getting nothing.

Steve of Cornubia wrote in post #14566517
Successful

Thats the answer.
To be Succesful in Photo J is to be in demand and that can mean a number of things.
Most important today is ...
1. Connections {with those who bankroll you}
and
2. Connections {with those who give inside access}


Skill if that comes to mind ... is lower on the list and not real keystone.

"...in my opinion, are really 'just' successful photojournalists, whose work basically comprised terrifying, depressing images of war and disaster. To me, 90% of their success was derived from simply being in the right place."

Partially true, but those photographers have demonstrated the ability to be in the right place at the right time consistently over a career. They are not newcomers who volunteered for difficult assignments because they seemed glamorous. Understanding the situation, keen instincts, technical ability, and the ability to solve problems are just a few of the requirements.

A working PJ can expect logistical challenges while working in adverse conditions (often dealing with less than cordial working relationships from foreign governmental agencies) and having a boss back home who will accept no excuse for not producing the shot. All of this is done without an assistant, an air conditioned studio, controlled lighting and all the other personal conveniences that we have available at home. (not a knock on studio photographers)

Oh yeah, they have a steady job, but the pay is low.

Most shots are just lucky shots. A snap shot of Jack Ruby shooting Oswald live, which was itself preceeded by a man video taping JFK's assassination with his brand new Kodak film camera.

Some famous shots are staged; such as sailor kissing nurse in Times Square at end of WWII, and raising of the flag on Iwo Jima. Many Civil War photos were staged, but not faked as the soldiers were really dead.

Ifcourse, the recent "discovery" of a lost tribe in Brazil was indeed fake.

BTW, a Swedish crew was filming firemen for a doc, when the cameraman turned to capture the 1st plane hitting the WTC.

Steve of Cornubia wrote in post #14566517
OK, there's no doubt that there are plenty of really skilled photogs out there, producing work that I can't get remotely near, but a recent photography diploma assignment involved choosing a well-know photographer and then trying to shoot in their style.

The thing is, a cursory Googling led me to (mostly) a bunch of 'photographers' who, in my opinion, are really 'just' successful photojournalists, whose work basically comprised terrifying, depressing images of war and disaster. To me, 90% of their success was derived from simply being in the right place. While their work often does convey the horror and sadness, in reality they had little control over the image, "Hmmmm, the light is behind the sniper. I'll just stand up......" Bang! He's dead

Seriously though, to my mind a photographer who first visualises a unique image, then sets about replicating his vision (which may involve studio lights, backdrops, water sprays, makeup, models and whatever else) even if this means getting up at 2am in order to catch the light, deserves a lot of credit. Those whose original vision is new and/or emotionally appealing deserve extra credit. Those who possess the technical ability to capture tricky shots, more credit still.

Too bad you cant spend a day or two shadowing a working photojournalist, whether they are in a war zone or not. Its very easy to dismiss "just being there" when you've never been. Obviously some photos gain importance by the fact that the subject is famous, or in crisis, or has some other human drama attached. But when a photojournalist is sent out on assignment they have to come up with the goods, they cant have a day where they "werent feeling it" or the "conditions werent good." They have to make multiple images for an editor to choose from to make the story they are working on.

Steve of Cornubia wrote in post #14566517
OK, there's no doubt that there are plenty of really skilled photogs out there, producing work that I can't get remotely near, but a recent photography diploma assignment involved choosing a well-know photographer and then trying to shoot in their style.

The thing is, a cursory Googling led me to (mostly) a bunch of 'photographers' who, in my opinion, are really 'just' successful photojournalists, whose work basically comprised terrifying, depressing images of war and disaster. To me, 90% of their success was derived from simply being in the right place. While their work often does convey the horror and sadness, in reality they had little control over the image, "Hmmmm, the light is behind the sniper. I'll just stand up......" Bang! He's dead

Seriously though, to my mind a photographer who first visualises a unique image, then sets about replicating his vision (which may involve studio lights, backdrops, water sprays, makeup, models and whatever else) even if this means getting up at 2am in order to catch the light, deserves a lot of credit. Those whose original vision is new and/or emotionally appealing deserve extra credit. Those who possess the technical ability to capture tricky shots, more credit still.

So, what are you after in this post? Are you trying to start a discussion on "What constitutes 'good' photography"? Or a debate between combat photography and other types of photography?

Or are you actually wanting examples of "good" photographers that are not combat photographers? I'm a bit surprised that according to you Google searches only returned combat photographers as "successful" photographers...

Or, did you just want to vent something?

Steve of Cornubia wrote in post #14566517
The thing is, a cursory Googling led me to (mostly) a bunch of 'photographers' who, in my opinion, are really 'just' successful photojournalists, whose work basically comprised terrifying, depressing images of war and disaster. To me, 90% of their success was derived from simply being in the right place. .

might be true but a piece on 60 minutes mentioned that Cindy Sherman, a photographer sold a photograph for $4 million

$ 4,000, 000 !!!

In response to the many who accuse me of underestimating what it takes to be a war zone photojournalist, I can assure you I am not. There is absolutley no way I could do what they do. The point I am trying to make is that a search on 'famous photographers' throws up a large proportion of images that, to me, are more journalism than art. I'd go so far as to say that some of these famous photographers are 'one hit wonders' who crafted a whole career on the back of a single amazing image. Of course others manage to produce many stunning images, and all credit to them, but I still think they are more journalist than photographer.

No, I'm not downplaying what they do, just questioning whether they they should be called photographers, or journalists who are handy with a camera.

Steve of Cornubia wrote in post #14569804
In response to the many who accuse me of underestimating what it takes to be a war zone photojournalist, I can assure you I am not. There is absolutley no way I could do what they do. The point I am trying to make is that a search on 'famous photographers' throws up a large proportion of images that, to me, are more journalism than art. I'd go so far as to say that some of these famous photographers are 'one hit wonders' who crafted a whole career on the back of a single amazing image. Of course others manage to produce many stunning images, and all credit to them, but I still think they are more journalist than photographer.

No, I'm not downplaying what they do, just questioning whether they they should be called photographers, or journalists who are handy with a camera.

Seriously, calling them one hit wonders is and journalists who are handy with a camera is not downplaying what they do?

gonzogolf wrote in post #14569835
Seriously, calling them one hit wonders is and journalists who are handy with a camera is not downplaying what they do?

I didn't. I said SOME of them. I also said those who produce many good images deserve credit.