Arkady001
2 likes
• 2016-02-17T09:04:00+00:00 •
Another thread put me in mind of this again... I guess I'm just as guilty as I put 30+ years experience in my profile to indicate the amount of time I've been seriously taking images, but what relevance does that experience actually have with regard model shoots?
If I break it down it goes like this:
1st camera aged 9 = 45 years experience.
1st serious camera aged 12 = 41 years experience.
1st paid shoot aged 17 = 36 years experience.
Regular professional work from around 22 = 31 years experience.
1st nude shoot (with friend) around 25 = 28 years experience.
1st nude shoot with professional model around 29 = 24 years experience.
Full-time employment as photographer around 35 = 18 years experience.
Regular shoots with professional models booked through sites like this = 7 years experience.
So which is correct... Or relevant? While a decent technical photographer should be able to turn their hand to any genre with a bit of practice there are several factors which mean that just because you're a good landscape photographer it doesn't follow that you'll be any good in a studio with a naked model. Or vice-versa.
Most of my early experience was what we now grandly call 'urban/street photography' - utterly irrelevant to being able to relate to a model or pose her artistically. After that I worked as an assistant to a National Trust photographer shooting interiors in stately homes. After that it was reportage for local papers and theatre work: environmental portraits mostly. Finally it was as a full-on combat photographer leavened with PR that I was being paid for.
While there may be elements from some of those genres that might cross-over, it's not a given.
Very often we see people claiming long periods of 'experience' yet a casual glance at their portfolio reveals either a woeful lack of talent, poor technical ability, an inability to choose a model suitable for the images taken, very few actual examples of the work they're hoping to achieve or a combination of the above.
Maybe it's time to change the way we describe our experience levels. Maybe adding 'relevant' would make things clearer. We can always pad our profile with our other photographic achievements if anyone's interested...
Or we can just look at the photos and decide if extensive 'experience' is of any relevance at all when it comes to photography...
If I break it down it goes like this:
1st camera aged 9 = 45 years experience.
1st serious camera aged 12 = 41 years experience.
1st paid shoot aged 17 = 36 years experience.
Regular professional work from around 22 = 31 years experience.
1st nude shoot (with friend) around 25 = 28 years experience.
1st nude shoot with professional model around 29 = 24 years experience.
Full-time employment as photographer around 35 = 18 years experience.
Regular shoots with professional models booked through sites like this = 7 years experience.
So which is correct... Or relevant? While a decent technical photographer should be able to turn their hand to any genre with a bit of practice there are several factors which mean that just because you're a good landscape photographer it doesn't follow that you'll be any good in a studio with a naked model. Or vice-versa.
Most of my early experience was what we now grandly call 'urban/street photography' - utterly irrelevant to being able to relate to a model or pose her artistically. After that I worked as an assistant to a National Trust photographer shooting interiors in stately homes. After that it was reportage for local papers and theatre work: environmental portraits mostly. Finally it was as a full-on combat photographer leavened with PR that I was being paid for.
While there may be elements from some of those genres that might cross-over, it's not a given.
Very often we see people claiming long periods of 'experience' yet a casual glance at their portfolio reveals either a woeful lack of talent, poor technical ability, an inability to choose a model suitable for the images taken, very few actual examples of the work they're hoping to achieve or a combination of the above.
Maybe it's time to change the way we describe our experience levels. Maybe adding 'relevant' would make things clearer. We can always pad our profile with our other photographic achievements if anyone's interested...
Or we can just look at the photos and decide if extensive 'experience' is of any relevance at all when it comes to photography...
Opinions expressed within this thread are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of ModelFolio, nor its associates.
ModelFolio accepts no responsibility legal or otherwise for the content or accuracy of authors comments.
ModelFolio accepts no responsibility legal or otherwise for the content or accuracy of authors comments.
