This morning I saw a tweet from a woman who runs, and I'm quoting from her twitter profile here, "an online platform supporting European women photographers".
Sorry a what now? The European bit I can kinda get behind... but only allowing women only photographers? Surely that's a tad sexist, and therefore kinda maybe against the law?
Surely photography is one of the few things where men and women can compete on a level playing field? Of course when we move into the world of business, nothing is really level. Is all about who you know, and what doors they can help you open.
However when it comes to actually picking up a camera and taking photos, then the level field is indeed level. Some will excel, some will be a bit average, and others should probably sell their kit and get an office job. I personally know of some excellent women photographers, and equally I know a few male photographers who fall into the latter category.
Maybe I should start up a support group where only photographers with silly beards who like cake would be allowed. Of course if I did this in a serious way I'd be laughed at by everyone. But ultimately is it much of a difference to saying "men not allowed"?
In conclusion I call women only photography groups and positive discrimination to be bullshit.
Showing posts with label Rants of a Grumpy Photographer. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Rants of a Grumpy Photographer. Show all posts
04 April 2011
26 March 2011
Paparazzi Photographers...
Arguably paparazzi are the lowest form of life in the photography food chain.
I've been asked before if I do, or ever would do paparazzi photography, and my always has always been a very blunt no. When celebrities are "on the job", on stage, at an event (awards ceremony, film première etc) they're fair game to be photographed.
Stalking them, for that's what paps essentially do for me is wrong on every level. Sure most of the time paps are legally doing nothing wrong, photographing someone in a public place, from a public place, but morally its highly questionable.
A low lifes as paps are, is it their fault? Of course just like me they have a choice about what they photograph, but it's a case of supply and demand. The media outlets, newspapers, magazines, but ultimately the general public are to blame. They buy the papers and mags and therefore pay for the paps.
What got me thinking about paparazzi photography was after the Peter Gabriel concert I went to on Thursday. After the gig I went to the pub around the corner with friends. I'd parked my car just opposite the venue, so sometime after midnight we walked by the venue. There were still people waiting at the stage door, so obviously Gabriel had not yet left the building.
Ten minutes later he drove himself out, stopped, politely signed a few autographs and then continued on his way. I could have gone over, aimed my camera at his windscreen and snapped a few... but to what end? He'd left the stage, this was Gabriel in his private life which neither I or anyone else has no reason to be a part of.
What happened next was quite disturbing. Several so called fans jumped into a car waiting across the road and attempted to follow him. Apparently Gabriel lives in London, so chances are he was going home. Wrong, so wrong people.
Sadly it seems paparazzi are here to stay, with our celebrity obsessed culture. I don't get it, but it's only going to get worse.
I've been asked before if I do, or ever would do paparazzi photography, and my always has always been a very blunt no. When celebrities are "on the job", on stage, at an event (awards ceremony, film première etc) they're fair game to be photographed.
Stalking them, for that's what paps essentially do for me is wrong on every level. Sure most of the time paps are legally doing nothing wrong, photographing someone in a public place, from a public place, but morally its highly questionable.
A low lifes as paps are, is it their fault? Of course just like me they have a choice about what they photograph, but it's a case of supply and demand. The media outlets, newspapers, magazines, but ultimately the general public are to blame. They buy the papers and mags and therefore pay for the paps.
What got me thinking about paparazzi photography was after the Peter Gabriel concert I went to on Thursday. After the gig I went to the pub around the corner with friends. I'd parked my car just opposite the venue, so sometime after midnight we walked by the venue. There were still people waiting at the stage door, so obviously Gabriel had not yet left the building.
Ten minutes later he drove himself out, stopped, politely signed a few autographs and then continued on his way. I could have gone over, aimed my camera at his windscreen and snapped a few... but to what end? He'd left the stage, this was Gabriel in his private life which neither I or anyone else has no reason to be a part of.
What happened next was quite disturbing. Several so called fans jumped into a car waiting across the road and attempted to follow him. Apparently Gabriel lives in London, so chances are he was going home. Wrong, so wrong people.
Sadly it seems paparazzi are here to stay, with our celebrity obsessed culture. I don't get it, but it's only going to get worse.
24 March 2011
23 March 2011
Rephotography?
Just the very word "rephotography" or "rephotographer" makes me feel a little nauseous.
What it appears to mean is that you steal someone else's work, change it, even just a little, and then put it back out as your own work. Of course this is just bullshit that a talentless thief will say in his defence.
What bought this to my attention is the case of Richard Prince.
Just because he's taken digital images, bastardised and then resold them, he seemed to think it was "okay". Sorry Richard, it's bullshit. What you're doing is no real difference from stealing the Mona Lisa, drawing a moustache on her with a big thick marker pen, and then selling it on as your own work.
Here's one example of what Richard does. Original image copyright belongs to photographer Patrick Cariou.
As you can see, it's bullshit.
Apparently Richard stole 41 photographs from a Patrick Cariou book called "Yes, Rasta", modified them in various ways, and then displayed them in a gallery of his "own" work. The exhibition went on to generate over $10 million.
I'm not quite sure which is worse. Richard for producing crap, or the suckers that buy his "art".
Sadly though, having no morals or talent seems to be rather profitable.
What it appears to mean is that you steal someone else's work, change it, even just a little, and then put it back out as your own work. Of course this is just bullshit that a talentless thief will say in his defence.
What bought this to my attention is the case of Richard Prince.
Just because he's taken digital images, bastardised and then resold them, he seemed to think it was "okay". Sorry Richard, it's bullshit. What you're doing is no real difference from stealing the Mona Lisa, drawing a moustache on her with a big thick marker pen, and then selling it on as your own work.
Here's one example of what Richard does. Original image copyright belongs to photographer Patrick Cariou.
As you can see, it's bullshit.
Apparently Richard stole 41 photographs from a Patrick Cariou book called "Yes, Rasta", modified them in various ways, and then displayed them in a gallery of his "own" work. The exhibition went on to generate over $10 million.
I'm not quite sure which is worse. Richard for producing crap, or the suckers that buy his "art".
Sadly though, having no morals or talent seems to be rather profitable.
Photographing a farm is a misdemeanor?
I've been following a story over the last week or so whereby photographing a farm in Florida where law makers were trying to make it a felony of the first degree. This was the original text...
Thankfully some common sense has prevailed and the "crime" of taking a photograph of a Florida farm is now only a misdemeanor and you also have to actually be on farm property (ie trespassing).
However to get permission to take a photo on a Florida farm you'll permission in writing from the property owner. Now I've done a few shoots on farms in England. I always ask for permission before starting to shoot. Permission in my case means knocking on the front door or asking someone walking around. Normally when you ask a question to a farmer "can I bring a pretty girl onto your farm and take some photos of her" you're going to get a yes answer. Now would that same farmer have agreed to my shooting there if they'd have had to put it in writing? I'm going to take a guess here of almost certainly not.
I don't really care much about farms in Florida, but is this just the start of it?
Sorry Florida, this is just bullshit.
A person who photographs, video records or otherwise produces images or pictorial records, digital or otherwise, at or of a farm or other property where legitimate agriculture operations are being conducted without the written consent of the owner, or an authorized representative of the owner, commits a felony of the first degree.
Thankfully some common sense has prevailed and the "crime" of taking a photograph of a Florida farm is now only a misdemeanor and you also have to actually be on farm property (ie trespassing).
However to get permission to take a photo on a Florida farm you'll permission in writing from the property owner. Now I've done a few shoots on farms in England. I always ask for permission before starting to shoot. Permission in my case means knocking on the front door or asking someone walking around. Normally when you ask a question to a farmer "can I bring a pretty girl onto your farm and take some photos of her" you're going to get a yes answer. Now would that same farmer have agreed to my shooting there if they'd have had to put it in writing? I'm going to take a guess here of almost certainly not.
I don't really care much about farms in Florida, but is this just the start of it?
Sorry Florida, this is just bullshit.
22 March 2011
Paying in a foreign cheque
So I had to pay this US dollar cheque into my "Spanish" bank (the one that uses that boring Lewis Hamilton in their adverts) this morning. After queuing for 10 minutes in their chav infested Shirley, Southampton branch it was my turn.
Whenever I present a foreign cheque to the ladies serving me, I can literally see the life force start to ebb away from their bodies. It's a long process. I have a sign a 3 page "agreement" and also take a copy for myself, which I told the lady I was only going to throw away, but I still had to take it. It's their policy damnit.
The girl has to then read and check about 15 questions, before photocopying stuff, and then finally, some 15 minutes later my cheque is paid in.
Of course during the this, the only other open desk can't cope with the influx of chavs, so the queue builds up.
It's an awful system they have. Every time I visit it seems to get worse. I was lucky this time because the lady serving had done them before. If you get a cashier who hasn't had the training and you're screwed!
Grumpy Photographer signing out...
Whenever I present a foreign cheque to the ladies serving me, I can literally see the life force start to ebb away from their bodies. It's a long process. I have a sign a 3 page "agreement" and also take a copy for myself, which I told the lady I was only going to throw away, but I still had to take it. It's their policy damnit.
The girl has to then read and check about 15 questions, before photocopying stuff, and then finally, some 15 minutes later my cheque is paid in.
Of course during the this, the only other open desk can't cope with the influx of chavs, so the queue builds up.
It's an awful system they have. Every time I visit it seems to get worse. I was lucky this time because the lady serving had done them before. If you get a cashier who hasn't had the training and you're screwed!
Grumpy Photographer signing out...
I am a grumpy photographer
Rumour has it that I can be a bit of a grump at times.
This is my happy face.
This is my happy face.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)