Photographers on Dirty
 

several people had mentioned being photographers on the thread asking hyde about his work. was wondering if any of you out there have a site of your work up. always love to check out new stuff. posting a link to mine as well though i feel a bit foolish since i am in the middle of remaking it and theres very little up on it other than one section.

click

Re: Photographers on Dirty
 

Some of my pics, from the city by the lake.

For about a six month period, I carried my digital camera with me every single day where ever I went. I literally have a folder of pictures and video for every single day for six months.

Re: Photographers on Dirty
 

i dont have a site, i just post photography along with everything else on a livejournal.

tr2a

though two recent sets are
http://tr2a.livejournal.com/214839.html

and

http://tr2a.livejournal.com/208999.html

Re: Photographers on Dirty
 

My definition of pro photographer and who i am means i derive more than half my income from photography.

is that what you are referring to?

c.rank

Re: Photographers on Dirty
 

i have some work up here:

http://fac13.org/~ryan
(click the arrows to navigate pix)

it's mainly videos right now, though..

Re: Photographers on Dirty
 

Dubman, I LOVE the second set. AWESOME.

Duckie, I like that video with shots of the TV screen. Neato.

Re: Photographers on Dirty
 

I've just started taking photographs to practise making images of terrestrial surroundings sure but here are a couple of extraterrestrial astroshots taken locally:

http://stemsalford.org/imagegallery.aspx

Re: Photographers on Dirty
 

i really dont have a dedicated page for photos on my site (there is an art / photo / design section where most stuff is thrown in (plus i'm more of a casual shooter/hobby kinda thing)

so i just put some pages together with photos HERE

the blurry looking images with saturated colors were taken with a Lomo camera. the pics with text/etc on them are being used somewhere else on the site. theres a few photos that look like a series (the red/green decaying walls) but i havent gotten around to making a project out of it yet.

Re: Photographers on Dirty
 

with all the people who are on dirty working in different media (web, music, photo, im sure others as well) im a little suprised no ones ever tried to organize a dirty online web project combining work of all sorts onto a site. a sort of online installation. i know theres been dirty music competitions before. i think it would be a rather interesting idea to try.

Re: Photographers on Dirty
 

[COLOR=Indigo]Hi MikeyC, there has been an artproject for many years, i can't think of the name of it right now but there is!

and guys (girls?) i'm blown away by your photographs, totally awsome!
[/COLOR]

Re: Photographers on Dirty
 

More awesomeness. Are you sure you're not Karl Hyde?

Re: Photographers on Dirty
 

[COLOR=Indigo]a look-photos-alike at least :D[/COLOR]

Re: Photographers on Dirty
 

http://jamesruff.deviantart.com/

i havnt taken photos in aaaaaaaaaages.
thinkin about gettin a new camera..

Re: Photographers on Dirty
 

me neither .. i might take my Mamiya to Italy next week, but i'll probably just want to eat sausages the whole time. i bought a Contax point+shoot that i was really excited about but haven't really gotten into, maybe this will be the time.

Re: Photographers on Dirty
 

I have some pix here:
http://crazysugarboy.deviantart.com/

Re: Photographers on Dirty
 

Re: Photographers on Dirty
 

That is a great site Sean. I love the way you can make those layouts! I had been looking for something like that for awhile.

Re: Photographers on Dirty
 

Yeah, one of my wife's old high school friends helped build it, although I'd still be a fan even if that wasn't the case.

Enjoy!

Re: Photographers on Dirty
 

i like those shots of the wine bottles. i actually thought they were the sides of buildings shot at night until i read beneath. my safari kept crashing when i was checking out your site. had to get to with ie. dont know if youre a mac user but was wondering if anyone else had that problem?

Re: Photographers on Dirty
 

viddy,
a lot of these are really nice. enjoyed looking through your stuff. loved all the skylines. 1814 and 2483 are favorites for sure.

Re: Photographers on Dirty
 

c.rank,
dont know if you were directing the question at me, but ill open my mouth since im in a hyper chatty mood. i think its partially about making money that would give you the title of a "professional photographer," but even more so i think it is the initial intent or motivation. more of a "who are you shooting for?" a client or yourself. i have read many articles from incredibly famous photographers who consider themselves to be amateur photographers. i think both classes are equally important, you just have to ask different questions when looking at the work from the two. then of course you have to ask when does one even begin to consider themselves a "photographer." a good portion of the population on earth are taking pictures, so who gets the title. its fun to watch the "professionals" squirm when they see something that some 11 year old kid shot. the technologies so advanced these days that it has become almost too easy to get incredibly good, clean, sharp, properly exposed shots. but i will stop because im moving into nerd mode. i just love to see work from anyone who picks up a camera, professional or amateur, "photographer" or not. its always inspiring.

p.s. sorry about the multiple posts. just been picking through the posts. feeling somewhat bad since i started the thread and then only got around to just looking at it in any real depth now.

Re: Photographers on Dirty
 

That's strange. I'm on a Mac at work, PC at home, and neither have given me any trouble. Sorry 'bout that. And as far as the pictures go, all of the ones on that Nevada Desert page were shot with my cel phone. I love the way some pictures come out on that little thing.

Re: Photographers on Dirty
 

sean,
are the photos from the plane photomerges or simply crops?

Re: Photographers on Dirty
 

i think you have to really care about the photographic medium, understand deeply what it can do, have a very personal relationship to it. i don't know if i can call myself a "photographer" on those terms. the photographers i know shoot every day, are willing to take thousands of pictures (on film!) in certain circumstances, which isn't so unusual, but they all seem to be working things out specifically through that medium. they still have something particular they want to get across in photographs; they aren't just using photographs because they happen to have a camera, and they can't draw, or whatever. and on some level, i think you have to love the photograph in and of itself, as opposed to just using it as a jumping-off point for some other project.

Re: Photographers on Dirty
 

i agree somewhat to having to have the care and understanding and relationship with photographs. but that still doesn't do it. if you had all that and dont pick up the camera then you are more of a critic than a photographer. but what you said is certainly part of it i think. though it may sound silly and sentimental, photography cant be viewed as much less than a lover for many people. you have all the same problems with it. and it can very quickly become all encompassing and even destructive (i believe photography is darker and more depressing than any other medium due to inherent nature of pictures themselves.)

and i am going to contradict myself in this paragraph but it is a problem that i try to figure out almost every day. perhaps i never will. i think technically a photographer is a person who just picks up a camera and shoots. you dont even have to ever have your film developed, ever look at it, never work photographs in a dark room or the computer(which technically is moving into print-making.) however, ive known people who put down their camera for months and even years, even working other jobs during the period, and yet i can not consider them as anything but a photographer.

there is certainly an acknowledged difference between a "photographer" and an "artist" who happens to use photography. if you go to an art school or even a normal university in an art program, you can often notice that "photographer" is almost a dirty word. if you have crits with students across several mediums you will have discussions about concept and philosophy. when it comes time to looking at photographs the pointless questions begin. "what camera was it shot on?" "what sort of lens?" "how did you print it?" it becomes all about technical issues. i like to ask the painters what size brushes they use when that happens. but it is often looked down upon by a large percentage of the art world. though some certainly do praise the "photographer." its a different world.

nobuyoshi araki had an interesting idea on the subject. i think i read it in this book. (which is amazing. i highly recommend araki to anyone who is a photographer and hasnt checked into him. even if you hate his actual work his ideas will always stir some thought). but basically he was working out what sets someone apart as a photographer since almost everyone in the world is taking pictures it seems. basically he came to the conclusion that he would play and dress the part of the ultimate photographer. think david bailey on lots of steroids. so its that idea of dress the part and eventually youll become the part.

i dont mean any of this as a "no youre wrong." its something i know i dont know the answer to. but i like throwing the idea around. the points you made certainly fit into the equation, but its how they fit together that is difficult.

Re: Photographers on Dirty
 

this wasn't my experience in the art school where i took classes -- there, the photography students were the stars of the program, got most of the attention, and benefited/suffered from the most in-depth critiques. i feel like photography (along with video) is the trendiest medium in the art world now, at least in America.

the technical talk annoys me too--a lot of it just seems like a way to make up for a lack of ideas or talent, especially when it's so easy to make a self-contained picture that works somehow.

i skimmed through that enormous book maybe last year ... i really like him in writing, and a lot of his work. i like a lot of japanese photographers though, i think because there, photography seems totally distinct from the other arts, especially in book form. there doesn't seem to be as huge a difference between "art" and "amateur" photography there.

Re: Photographers on Dirty
 

I think that when you get to a certain level of professionalism, then the questions about brushes and paints are legit in the artfield. I went to art school since I was 5, first privately, then for college. Then I worked for 6 years as a personal studio assistant to a fairly recognized artist. (I don't mean to sound like I am boasting or anything)

I can tell you that once you hit the level where your 'art' is selling and you are really living off that, and not like starving artist, but living a good nice life, the topics of conversation move towards things like what kind of tools do you use to make your art.

I think this comes from a persons level of knowledge and understanding of the artform itself, this includes all the tools that go into producing that artform.

For example, if you take a picture that I think is great, and I happen to have twenty years of shooting experience under my belt, then after talking about the picture itself, I ask you about the camera and lens etc that you used. Then you tell me that you used X camera, with X lens etc. Then I, who has in depth knowledge of that camera and those lens, can gain an even greater appriciation of your work because I know the limitations of the equipment that you used to produce it.

It is the same thing with paints. Paints from different companies have different properties. Different painters exploit these different qualities in their paintings. This is a very big deal in the art world. If you follow things, then you may be aware that some pieces that were label as Jackson Pollack experiments were found. Recently they tested pigment samples off them to see if the paint was the paint that he used. Here it was found that the paint on the paintings wasn't patented until shortly after Pollacks death, but he knew the maker of the paints and it is believed that he could have been painting with the test batches.

And the same with music. Why do we care what gear Underworld uses? But for those of us who know the gear, can see and understand how they use it creatively. etc

I hope that makes some sense.

Re: Photographers on Dirty
 

where did you go to school? the school i attended and many ive seen around here while shopping for a grad program are all pushing conceptual art. so if youre dedicated to a specific medium youre looked at as a bit foolish. especially so as a photographer.


if you like his thoughts on things, check out "arakimentari." its a dvd with him giving his views on photography and life. theyre all over ebay, though prices on it seem to be continually rising (got it for ten dollars about 2 months ago. now they seem to be at about 30.)

postwar japanese photography is just incredible. although a lot of was born out of american work, they took it and ran with it. much of it is years ahead of the work being done in other places. its funny to see some of the foremost critics give some "new" philosophy on photographs, and some japanese photographer had said the same thing 15 years earlier in some little magazine. but the world of japanese photography was not that familiar to many outside of japan for some time so it's understandable.

japan just is apparently a culture that is a perfect environment for photography. it seems so bipolar. you have the traditional japanese customs and values and how they work next to the westernization that has been creeping in. the major cities in such close proximity to the small little towns that seem to have not changed for such a long time. the level of dedication to work and the absolutely insane ways of partying and stress release. and of course as with any culture you have class struggles.

Re: Photographers on Dirty
 

Crops. You can click on the image to see the full picture.

Re: Photographers on Dirty
 

i wasn't enrolled there, but i did some classes at Yale--it's an ultra traditional program, especially wrt photography (Friedlander, diCorcia, and Crewdson are regular critics there), so it made sense that they'd be hardcore with the photo kids. i've heard what you're saying about conceptual programs, in California mainly, where people look down on you if you actually want to make paintings as opposed to locative art, or whatever. it's dumb :rolleyes:

yeah, it's been on my Netflix queue for time now! thanks for reminding me, i'll bump it up.

who do you like besides Araki? i'm really into Daido Moriyama and (more recently) Rinko Kawauchi and that guy who photographs the Tokyo underground tunnels.

how do you see this as being good for photography? i'd love to live there .... :(

Re: Photographers on Dirty
 

moriyama is without question THE photographer i respect most. he and leonard cohen are the only two famous artists that i have ever wanted to meet and just have a talk with. his work in both style as well as content hit so close to my own feeling on many things. i had always been attracted to work that dealt with this sort of helplessly futile view on life ("100 years of solitude" and "on the road" for instance. "on the road" of course being a major source of influence for moriyama himself.) and so seeing moriyamas photographs for the first time (stumbled upon while looking through the japanese work from william klein, who is also a favorite), they just felt instantly familiar to me. sort of "this is what it looks like in my head."

aside from moriyama im a bit all over the place. and it also depends as very few photographers consistantly do work i like. so it is pick and choose.

takuma nakahira is amazing. was in the provoke group with moriyama. was working in the same bure boke style as moriyama was at the time, but eventually began shooting much more color and "regular" pictures. though i really enjoy that work from him as well.

anton corbijn is a big inspiration for me. ive always hoped that hed somehow end up shooting underworld. he would be my personal fav commercial photographer. his lith prints and blue prints are gorgeous.

william klein as earlier stated. the man who sort of kicked off the whole notion of not trying to get sharper clearer images but instead going for the feel of the scene and the energy in it. his new york book is fantastic.

i like a lot of robert franks later work where he began working in film and doing collages of photos and others materials. the book "storylines" is really beautiful if you havent seen it. i think its much more interesting than "the americans."

the native american photos from edward curtis. they have a similar feel to the work of corbijn. he was working with his own methods of printing and the results are really nice.

and then of course "the ballad of sexual dependency" from nan goldin was THE book that made me go from liking photo to becoming obsessed with it. her later works gets a bit blah.

but aside from moriyama i actually think that the writings of leonard cohen inspire me more than photographers do. occasionally they make me want to kill myself too.


i suppose id boil it down to the place has a huge energy to it. and i think a good deal of that energy comes from the push and pull in the culture. and then simply that theres such a large number of people in the cities. any time you have something like that, for me at least, you cant even put the camera down for more than a few minutes. new york is the same way. every time i go there i come back with a good bit of work.

ive gotten carpel tunnel and no work done today from all the typing on here.

Re: Photographers on Dirty
 

I love that i asked a simple question and got pages of responses!

You can't really have a discussion or review work, portfolios, or just browse snapshots if you don't know the rules of the engagement can you? :)

Your photographer, the one who said he wasn't a photographer and yet IS/ WAS(?) is just being modest probably.

I don't have much time right now (i have too many projects that need to get out the door) but I wanted to throw a couple of pennies into the ring.

crAnk.
PS Karl prob. wouldn't refer to himself as a photographer either. but he IS.
anyone is a potential photographer. but here's a thought: how often can you do it well? a 10 year old can have one amazing picture and then not take his next great picture until he's 20. does that define him as a photographer?

Just because i pick up a brush and put paint on it, and put paint on a wall doesnt make me a 'painter' anymore than one who shoots pix casually is a 'photographer'

definitions are critical and crucial because the playing field isn't the same

:)

Re: Photographers on Dirty
 

he did not say he wasnt a photographer. he said he considered himself to be an amateur photographer. if you are doing work out of personal reasons rather than finance, even if money does come from it in some way, then you are by definition an amateur.

doing it well does not come into it at all. we could both look at the work of one "photographer" with you thinking it is amazing and me calling it trash. so if by my saying that the person does not have a single decent photograph, are we to simply say that the person who took the images is not a photographer? if you shoot pictures, again by definition, you are a photographer.

i am going to sound like a prick saying it, but i dont mean this in a rude way. the people who come to your house and put paint on the walls are called painters. they paint. you do however have to judge them with a different set of criteria as it is painting in a different realm. the same is true in looking at the work between a professional and amateur photographer. both are working with very different goals and that has to be taken into account.

i think a major problem is that people often take "professional" to mean good... and "amateur" to mean someone not as skilled and learning.

Re: Photographers on Dirty
 

nope, doesn't sound rude at all.
you made my point for me (although i skimmed)

but a painter who paints portraits: artist
painter who paints walls: craftsman.

are there terms?
Does it matter?
photographer who photographs for a living: prof. photog?
photographer who's an amateur: amateur photog?

are there any rules? sounds like you are basically saying everyone is everthing all the time. no?

Re: Photographers on Dirty
 

New pictures up of some pellicans and sea lions the wife and I saw on our bike ride this morning.

http://www.tabblo.com/studio/stories/view/326028/

Re: Photographers on Dirty
 

I'm rather fond of this one. Taken with a 35/135 3.5/4.5 nikon on the D70s
http://www.flickr.com/photos/70641975@N00/1347621983/

It's the Belgium Singer Arno, he used to be in TC Matic (of olalala an underground cult anthem) but has gone solo for years already. Sings in french and english. Best song? Les Yeux de ma Mere.

Re: Photographers on Dirty
 

i'm not a prof and even don't have an expensive camera... but anyway you can check this out www.chicane.kiev.ua

Re: Photographers on Dirty
 

...Wondering how I missed this thread. Some great stuff here.

I've been doing landscapes for the past 7 years.

Linky: http://www.southwesthorizons.net

&

http://www.flickr.com/photos/benparker/

Re: Photographers on Dirty
 

Damn dude....

Re: Photographers on Dirty
 

These photos are simply magnificent.