GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum - View Single Post

UnseenWorld · 03-20-2002, 02:13 AM

Depth of field. Who cares? Does the photo look okay? That's the question. Is there a law that a photo has to be this way or that, with everything in focus or with focus used to draw attention to something.

You both make some good points.

Planet, I think what pissed people off at you and got people on your case was that your post was an out and out spam. There are plenty of opportunities on this board to put up a shot, as we all know. I myself seldom miss a chance to show off my own material.

I find that photographers who have learned the esotericisms of shooting studio and magazine styles frequently fail to understand that we are in a market that is a bit broader than that. Not everybody wants to see photos shot in that style because when the Internet first got going (and even before that in the BBS era) magazine scans were just about all that was available, and people got sick of that style. I don't know if Charly has figured that out yet, but it's true.

This is why guys like Aaron and me can make a living. Shit, all my lighting is on my camera (combo of fill and bounce), and it keeps a lot of people happy. Many of my own (and Aaron's) customers wouldn't buy anything with an obviously studio or "slick" look on a dare.

The trouble with a lot of the guys who do the studio or magazine style is that they assume that anyone shooting any other style is either incompetent or aesthetically challenged. This is an egotistical and arrogant attitude, and quite ignorant as well. You and Aaron and I are doing commercial photography, and our sole goal is to please our customers with out content, not get into some museum of photography. We have different customer lists, that's all.

Before anyone makes a sweeping statement about photography, he should ask himself "is there a law that says this?" (and this includes Aaron's thoughts about depth of field, which I don't necessarily agree with 100%). Is there a law that says photos should have lots of depth of field? Is there a law saying the opposite? The answer is no in both cases.

On my artsy-fartsy photo site, I have a whole page devoted to "The Myths of Photography," and this sort of thing is discussed there. The site is at http://www.afterglow-photo.com (and this isn't a spam, because there is nothing for sale there which is likely to be purchased by webmasters).

03-20-2002, 02:13 AM
UnseenWorld Confirmed User Join Date: May 2001 Location: Portland, OR, USA Posts: 5,279	Depth of field. Who cares? Does the photo look okay? That's the question. Is there a law that a photo has to be this way or that, with everything in focus or with focus used to draw attention to something. You both make some good points. Planet, I think what pissed people off at you and got people on your case was that your post was an out and out spam. There are plenty of opportunities on this board to put up a shot, as we all know. I myself seldom miss a chance to show off my own material. I find that photographers who have learned the esotericisms of shooting studio and magazine styles frequently fail to understand that we are in a market that is a bit broader than that. Not everybody wants to see photos shot in that style because when the Internet first got going (and even before that in the BBS era) magazine scans were just about all that was available, and people got sick of that style. I don't know if Charly has figured that out yet, but it's true. This is why guys like Aaron and me can make a living. Shit, all my lighting is on my camera (combo of fill and bounce), and it keeps a lot of people happy. Many of my own (and Aaron's) customers wouldn't buy anything with an obviously studio or "slick" look on a dare. The trouble with a lot of the guys who do the studio or magazine style is that they assume that anyone shooting any other style is either incompetent or aesthetically challenged. This is an egotistical and arrogant attitude, and quite ignorant as well. You and Aaron and I are doing commercial photography, and our sole goal is to please our customers with out content, not get into some museum of photography. We have different customer lists, that's all. Before anyone makes a sweeping statement about photography, he should ask himself "is there a law that says this?" (and this includes Aaron's thoughts about depth of field, which I don't necessarily agree with 100%). Is there a law that says photos should have lots of depth of field? Is there a law saying the opposite? The answer is no in both cases. On my artsy-fartsy photo site, I have a whole page devoted to "The Myths of Photography," and this sort of thing is discussed there. The site is at http://www.afterglow-photo.com (and this isn't a spam, because there is nothing for sale there which is likely to be purchased by webmasters). __________________ SIG TOO BIG! Maximum 120x60 button and no more than 3 text lines of DEFAULT SIZE and COLOR. Unless your sig is for a GFY top banner sponsor, then you may use a 624x80 instead of a 120x60.