This is pro work? I ask merely for information.

[ennuipoet]

There was a Fark thread this morning about Mischa Barton posing with some meat…whatever. I clicked over to see the photographer and am a little shocked by what I see.

http://www.tylershields.com/

Not the content the actual photography. Tyler Shields is the photogs name, I’ve heard of him but not really paid attention to his work. What I am trying to puzzle out is the bad light and poor focus an intentional “artistic” choice or is this a case of “Heh, I photograph celebrities, I don’t even need to try!”

I went through his site and much of what I see there is done in this style. I guess my question is: “Is there really a difference between bad photos for effect and genuinely bad photos?”

It makes me wonder why I am trying to learn to balance my flash photography and create pleasing lighting when a pro can just stick a bare flash up and shoot for a ton of money.

[staplermofo]

I guess my question is: “Is there really a difference between bad photos for effect and genuinely bad photos?”

Yes, see every complaint about modern painting and sculpture since 1920.

There isn’t much headway to be made in classically good photography. Every newspaper in the country has at least one photograph so beautifully done you could frame it, every week.

If you want to innovate that means doing something other than capturing a moment or experience beautifully, so the attention goes elsewhere, commenting on that experience while it happens, setting a way for people to look at that experience different from how it would appear if shot beautifully, forcing your audience to process it differently than they’re used to, anything like that.

We’re used to glamorous, black tie celebrity events to have glamorous, beautiful photography. If you shoot that like a jackass in a bar with a pocket camera, you make people look at it from that perspective. These guys aren’t any different than your average drunk jackasses at a party. It does feel more personal, you do feel “hey, why am I looking at pictures of a party where I don’t know anyone?” just like you would if I posted pictures of my cousin’s last birthday party. All that thought and emotion or whatever is the art.

[orionid]

Somewhat related: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYxHfD77kTs&feature=related I picture pretty much all celebrity photographers as Steve Buscemi’s character from this flick at least once in their carreer.

[staplermofo]

Completely unrelated: Girl impersonating the Shinkansen

Stylistically, their use of a single, super wide angle prime lens is interesting… I guess, you know, to make it somewhat relevant to anything.

[nobigdeal]

Ugh…even his website is garbage. Yea dude…I want to scroll horizontally through all your shitty photos.

[Yugoboy]

I see the “art” in his shots. I also see what you’re trying to say enuipoet.

I think part of the difference is the market you’re selling to. If you want to shoot ironic hipster photos of celebrities for upscale hipster bars, you do what he’s doing. If you want to reach a larger audience of more middle class people who need either wall decor or events (weddings) you concentrate more on the quality lighting, crisp focus and excellence in composition.

You’re not him, you don’t have his friends, and your target audience isn’t the same. Keep doing what you’re doing. You may want to play around with stylized stuff to have that quality/option available to your clients.

When I go to arts festivals around here the photography for sale tends more towards what you’re trying to do – quality shots of nature, or heavily post-processed. But… I hang with a more pedestrian middle-class crowd.

Audience is everything. Jeep doesn’t make sports cars, and Bugatti isn’t interested in heavy duty off-road vehicles.

[ennuipoet]

I’m trying really hard not to make an aesthetic judgement, because, hey, different strokes move the world. It’s just as staplermofo says, the shots look like snapshot at last call. It just seems incongruous that most people who take up photography in a serious manner spend their lives working to reach past that while this fellow revels in it.

Part of the art is make staged look spontaneous, making the artificially created look totally natural. I don’t necessarily think every shot should look as crisp and clear as if it came off the studio, but when pros make this kind of work, particularly this kind of work of a subject that reaches a particular audience it implies to a certain subset of people that bad is the standard. Why try to learn anything when this guy is making money and meeting famous people and his shots could pass for something rolled out of a cardboard Kodak.

I know from both writing and photography that to successfully break the rules you need to master the rules. When a photographer steps out of convention after learning those conventions is shows in their work, there are elements of style and composition that says this person UNDERSTANDS the fundamentals. I didn’t see that in Shields work.

I know that Tyler Shields could gives nay damn about what I think, so I am not going to worry about this overly much. My personal opinion is, however, these are crap.

[CauseISaidSo]

I agree that they’re crap, ennui. I think some people just like things specifically because the majority doesn’t – art hipsters, if you will.

Take the “artist” who did all the splatter paintings (Jackson Pollock, is it? I’m not really an art guy.). If he can con others into believing it’s valuable art and make money off it, then more power to him. I think art, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder, and like they say about pornography, while I can’t define art, I know it when I see it and IMO that ain’t it.

But if the pretentious hipster crowd thinks it is and wants to throw their money at him, eh, what do I care, it’s not like they were gonna throw it at me instead.

[Kestrana]

I think I’m honestly more bothered by the terrible spelling, grammar and punctuation on his website than the photography. It’s trashy – just like his subject matter.

[zincprincess]

Looks like someone studied at the Terry Richardson school of bad lighting, harsh white backgrounds, and thinly veiled misogyny. I would post a link to his site but it appears to be in transition.

[olavf]

Wow. That’s freaking horrible. I think Mischa should come over to our house tomorrow so I can take better pics with my amateur rig 😛

[aspidites]

I agree that they’re crap, ennui. I think some people just like things specifically because the majority doesn’t – art hipsters, if you will.

Take the “artist” who did all the splatter paintings (Jackson Pollock, is it? I’m not really an art guy.). If he can con others into believing it’s valuable art and make money off it, then more power to him. I think art, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder, and like they say about pornography, while I can’t define art, I know it when I see it and IMO that ain’t it.

But if the pretentious hipster crowd thinks it is and wants to throw their money at him, eh, what do I care, it’s not like they were gonna throw it at me instead.

I would have to say you hit it right on the head. A lot of times it isn’t about the quality of the photography that turns someone into a pro, it is the ability to market the pictures to the public.

[Author]

Posts