I remember quite a long time ago when a Make up artist was telling me about this "incredible" photographer she worked with in California. As she spoke, her eyes took on a distant look as she dreamily recalled how he moved about with such ENERGY -- snapping pictures from ALL angles of the studio. Crawling on the ground -- standing on chairs -- shouting from across the room -- commanding the scene before him! As I listened, I began to envision how fun that shoot must of been to witness! It was everything Hollywood makes a fashion photographer out to be!
During our first break, I went to the photographer's web site to verify what I had already suspected. 90% of all his images were blurry -- obviously from camera shake. Several of his pictures also had impossible camera tilts that served no purpose in the frame's composition. I also noticed that the models were overexposed in certain instances -- and quickly converted to B&W for that "artistic look".
Now, I am NOT knocking another photographer's technique. Photography, like art, is subjective to the viewer. However, working with long-lenses for an hour WILL compromise an arm's stability. That being said, let me continue.
When working in West Hollywood about 9 years ago, I was invited to watch a fashion shoot for Vogue and another for Harper's Bazaar. I was dazzled by all of the high-end equipment and the sheer number of artists involved to produce a simple cover shoot. As the art directors and wardrobe were finishing their final touches, I expected the photographer to come out and dazzle me with their technique. When he finally did, I was VERY surprised at how "focussed" he was -- bad, but fitting pun. With his Hasselblad camera firmly affixed to his tripod he began methodically snapping images -- and each frame he captured looked like a winner. What I recalled the most that day is that the ENERGY came from in FRONT of the camera as he and the art directors called forth the energetic talents of the model. Shots were not wasted -- and the models energy was not wasted. Performance wise, I give the photographer a B- or C+ -- but what about his images? What do you think? The cover of Vogue...... nuff said, case-closed. The next day's shoot for Harper's Bazaar was quite the same, except this time, I paid attention to HOW the photographer captured all the splendid details, while maintaining the stability of his shots.
Fast-forward to today. My camera sits affixed to a carbon-fiber tripod with a ball head for maximum mobility. I chose to style my technique from the professional commercial photographers I have witnessed personally rather than the breed you see in the movies. Only if I see an opportunity for a composed angle do release my camera from the tripod. At the end of the shoot and my CF card is downloaded, I choose the images that are the best composed rather than from which ones are in focus or not. I don't worry if the perception of the artists I work with deem me to be "not edgy enough". The proof is the is the pudding -- the final product. Clients, Editors, Agency heads choose their photographers on their final products, not the motion reel of their performance. I can live with a C+ shooting performance, if it one day lands me a cover-shoot for a major label.
