Emeritus wrote:

La Zona Imagery wrote:

Just because a model would pose for, what you consider a boring/rubbish image, doesn't mean the model views the image in the same manner.

In general, I think that is correct.  Models are frequently wrong.  In fact, if you look at the garbage all too many of them have on their profile (and think are wonderful pictures) you get a disconcerting feeling that not only models, but a lot of other people can'ty tell good pictures from bad.

Again, a hell of a lot of people buy pictures from schlock photographers and cheap photo studios.  That is in no way a statement of the "not boring, not rubbish" quality of the images.

La Zona Imagery wrote:

Likewise, just because a client would purchase, what you consider a boring/rubbish image, doesn't mean the client views the image in the same manner.  It doesn't make business sense for models/clients to continually pose/pay for and market "boring" images.

You need to go back again and read Rick Gordon's post again.  Try to understand what he is saying.

Clients buy what sells.  Boring rubbish sells in many markets.  You really need to learn that.

La Zona Imagery wrote:

Obviously, the target market does not find it boring or they would not pay for it. Like I said before, once one recognizes that fact, it is no longer a mystery why models pose like that.

No, it's not a mystery at all.  Many, even most beginning models have no damned idea what a good, artistic picture looks like.  They get crap from some "professional" photographer and think it is good, in large part because he says it is good.  If you don't know that, it's because you have spent very little time looking at all the crappy pictures in models' portfolios that they think are good.  If you really have spent that time and agree with them, there is no hope for you.  You can't see it either.

La Zona Imagery wrote:

BTW,  if you view an image to be boring/rubbish, yet the model/client enjoys the image, do you consider that person ignorant who does not know any better?

I don't claim perfect knowledge of what makes for a good image, but I've seen enough crap in my time to know for a certainty what that looks like. And yes, if someone likes a crap image, I don consider them ignorant.  Mostly that kind of ignorance can be dispelled with a little learning, but some people never seem capable of getting it.  Those are the photographers who say they have "40 years experience", but it may as well have been one year's experience 40 times.  Them, and their clients.

Well that's the entire issue I was addressing in the first place, when Kevlar Vest Girl pondered "most of the work displayed in here is repetitive, predictable, derivative and boring. That observation has caused me to wonder why women keep posing for pictures that I equate with rubbish."

Such a statement assumes that other people hold the same aesthetic values as the speaker...otherwise, why is it such a mystery that women keep posing for such images?

And finally I guess I just don't expect others to have the same views as I do, as I would never consider someone else ignorant just because they enjoy an image that I might consider crap.

Rick Gordon Photography wrote:

Bob and Roger have spent a lifetime working for mainstream commercial clients, agencies etc. and their creds and reps are immaculate. I have not, and mine is not. At least not as a mainstream shooter. I don't shoot weddings. I refuse to have a retail studio where I shoot portraits or school pictures. That, for me, would be boooooooring and hell on earth. Those formulas and the content shot is pretty damn mundane as well for me and rarely very original in creativity also, for the most part. Not shooting any of that or dealing with those clients, I've found a niche that pays me handsomely. At least I'm not trying to make someone's Na Na look good in a family pic, ya know?

My backround is the adult and fetish genres, though my portfolio here, or anywhere, barely reflects this. Why? I'm not ashamed of what I shoot for a paycheck, but it's hardly quality work. I have more than 2 TB's of adult content on my hard drives shot in gallery style. Maybe 500 gigs of artistic work. That which I place in my portfolio I'd like to think is of a higher artistic level. But, guess what? There's no commercial market for me shooting it, so I do it in my spare time only, or after we're done with the paid work. What you and I shoot is exactly what the standard GWC ascribes to. The difference is that we do it far better, and I'd have to assume not knowing you, that our conduct is that of pros. When people use the term GWC, they really mean weekend warrior, amateur shooter,  who wants to shoot open vaginas, penetration, bodily fluids, and anything else that satisfies their purient interests. None of it will ever be sold or published anywheres, as it's for their private spank banks. They have the $$ to be able to afford equiptment that is far better'n what I can afford. Or you, I suspect. Problem is, they haven't a clue how to use that pricey equipment. They might as well still be using polaroids. BUT, they have also been known to step over the line when it comes to trying to interact with their models, or asking for POV shoots with themselves as the male "model". That's why I actively try to avoid being classified as one.

I look at the images within your portfolio and can see immediately that you have skills. You know lighting. Your framing is good. The models you've shot are waaaaay up there in the looks department. The clients I work for would love your work, though some would ask that you make the final results look more amateurish.  lol  I'd suggest for you to look closely into Met Art, Fem Joy, or X Art for a paycheck, as IMO they'd accept your submittals. So would many of the leading men's mags or their webites. Your work is publishable for these genres....no doubt about it in my mind. You could provide the monkey spankers the goods that will get the job done at higher quality levels than me. But don't think the content itself is anything but what it is.....they're masturbatory, purient, images that aren't high on the artistic scale. And original in their creativity they're not. Period. We have our place within the industry shooting what we do. Especially now in the day of the Internet and websites. Lord knows, you and I will never be without clients, as there will always be horny guys looking for something to get off to.

I guess it comes down to the simple fact that aesthetically, nothing is universally boring/rubbish/mundane if it can be successfully marketed....which is basically what I was trying to say before.  Somewhere down the commercial line, someone finds an allegedly boring image to be a non-boring image....be it the model, client, or consumer.  Otherwise, the business of marketing such images would fail. 

I also think it is quiet arrogant to label people ignorant simply because they enjoy an image that an established photographer might view as rubbish.

Emeritus wrote:

La Zona Imagery wrote:

I also think it is quiet [sic] arrogant to label people ignorant simply because they enjoy an image that an established photographer might view as rubbish.

I don't think anyone has said that.  Lots of people enjoy rubbish.  That doesn't change the fact that they are ignorant, or that their enjoyment has nothing to do with the fact that the image is rubbish.  It's perfectly possible to know full well that something is rubbish and still enjoy it for what it is.

But simply because one might view an image as "rubbish" does not necessarily mean other people must also view that same image as "rubbish".  It's entirely possible that other viewers do not view a certain image as "rubbish" regardless of how many established photographers argue otherwise.  And IMHO, labeling those people ignorant simply because they do not view an image as rubbish is quite arrogant.

La Zona Imagery wrote:

But simply because one might view an image as "rubbish" does not necessarily mean other people must also view that same image as "rubbish".  It's entirely possible that other viewers do not view a certain image as "rubbish" regardless of how many established photographers argue otherwise.

Emeritus wrote:

Of course.  See my comments re: ignorant above.

People also don't believe in evolution.  Lots of people, in fact.  They, too, are ignorant.  The world is full of ignorance.

To ignore science is ignorant.
To expect uniform opinions on aesthetics is arrogant.

Emeritus wrote:

Let's try a little thought experiment, shall we?

There are only two logical possibilities:

(a) there is such a thing as rubbish, or

(b) there is no such thing as rubbish.

Now, I suppose there are those who might think possibility (b) to be true.  But most people, it seems to me, would agree with (a):  rubbish does, in fact, exist.

Those who believe it does not exist, it seems to me, fall into one of two categories:  (1) people who are utterly ignorant of what rubbish is, and so cannot recognize it, or (2) people who produce rubbish and don't want other people to think so. 

Me, I side with the majority, which believes that there really is such a thing as rubbish.  Moreover, I believe it is possible, with a reasonable degree of accuracy, to recognize it at least a substantial part of the time. 

Is it really true that rubbish exists, but nobody can recognize it?  Or true that rubbish exists, but only arrogant people can recognize it?

Strange world we live in.

I think you might be confusing the literal meaning of rubbish (waste material) versus the colloquial or figurative meaning of rubbish (material that is considered unimportant or valueless).

The literal meaning of rubbish speaks to an actual fact.  The figurative meaning of rubbish speaks to one's opinion.  To ignore actual facts is ignorant.  To expect others to hold similar opinions on aesthetics is arrogant.

La Zona Imagery wrote:

I think you might be confusing the literal meaning of rubbish (waste material) versus the colloquial or figurative meaning of rubbish (material that is considered unimportant or valueless).

Emeritus wrote:

You think wrong.  No confusion here.

The domain of this conversation is aesthetics.

Ok then like I said before, to expect uniform opinions on aesthetic quality is quite arrogant.

But that's just my opinion, so I don't expect anyone else to feel the same, though I suspect many do.

La Zona Imagery wrote:

I guess it comes down to the simple fact that aesthetically, nothing is universally boring/rubbish/mundane if it can be successfully marketed.

Oh? Then please explain corn flakes. 

Emeritus wrote:

La Zona Imagery wrote:

Ok then like I said before, to expect uniform opinions on aesthetic quality is quite arrogant.

Ah, the straw man makes his appearance.

I don't recall ever saying there would be "uniform opinions on aesthetic quality".  That is a very expansive misreading of what I have said.

La Zona Imagery wrote:

But that's just my opinion, so I don't expect anyone else to feel the same, though I suspect many do.

Yup.  Butt-hurt.

I never claimed or argued that you ever said there should be "uniform opinions on aesthetic quality".  I am just making a statement that to expect uniform opinions on aesthetic quality is quite arrogant.