When I first got into one stock agency, they had an office near me so I used to take the photos in myself - no fear of losing them then :) While I was there, the head of the NY office showed me some of the boring shots that were bought by clients over others that were far more artistic and interesting. Sometimes things I wouldn't have had the guts to show anyone. We were both tsktsking over them.
As to the National Geo stuff that might be subpar - remember the photogs that work for them - at least those that were working for them shooting film, just turned in the unprocessed stuff - whereupon they lost all control of what was selected. So when you see subpar stuff in any magazine, remember how little say a photographer has in the final piece when they are shooting on assignment or sell something for commercial use. I over shoot like crazy if something strikes me or I need to make sure I can pull stuff out. But I don't show my disasters to anyone, unless it is to figure out what went wrong technically. But then, I've never shot large format and the only stuff I shoot under a truly controlled environment is boring product work or , heaven forfend, actor's headshots :) ann Bob W wrote: >this is why it's so fascinating and useful to look at other >photographers' contact sheets. I'm thinking particularly here of >photojournalists. You can see when they've spotted what may become a >good photograph, and you can see that they are shooting a lot of good >pictures waiting for the real one to happen, and making sure they have >a choice later when they review and edit at leisure. > >For commercial photographers it's also important to give the client a >choice. A few years ago I helped out on a brochure with a friend who >shot outdoor gear. When we were reviewing the work there was one >particular shot which leaped off the lightbox, and which we both >agreed was the outstanding picture of the day, sure to meet the >client's approval. But it didn't. Instead he chose a run-of-the-mill >shot which happened to show the product better, but was quite >unremarkable (although entirely professional and competent) as a >photo. > >-- > Bob > > > > >>-----Original Message----- >>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On >>Behalf Of graywolf >>Sent: 26 January 2007 22:14 >>To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >>Subject: Re: OT - Taking Your Photography To The Next Level. >> >>You miss my point, Tom. The proof sheet is to pick the best >>of a bunch >>of good photos, not to sort the crap from the mediocre, or at >>least that >>was the way we thought of it in the old days. >> >> >> >[...] > > > > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
