OP
- Messages
- 1,413
- Name
- Mike
- Edit My Images
- No
First off it is well worth saying that I personally like 2, 3, 4 and 6 of the ones posted to this thread. I acknowledge the challenging composition of (1) - but it doesn't work for me and (5) could do with a crop to lose the top right corner of sky - again my personal taste but even then it is a weaker image IMHO than the others.
I'm not classically trained either in History of Art, or Photography but I have shot and sold commercial architectural images of both interiors and exteriors, as well as having a commercial and social photography business for over 10 years. So you'll have to forgive me for this as it is entirely a commercial assessment of the comments you have made and the images posted. Whilst I personally like some of them they are what I would describe as "typically student photographer" in style - they are appear to me to be the buildings equivalent of Taylor Wessing entries - moody, flat, thought provoking. They are very much more social documentary and editorial than they are commercial photography - and whilst there is absolutely nothing wrong with this it absolutely places you in the niche you describe.
I have to say that current and even historical architectural photography suggests that you need to sell the product, as has been mentioned. You'll either be working for an architect, estate agent, corporation or magazine or even a country/district to promote that product and I'm afraid that you images don't achieve that. Nor I'd suggest will the industry migrate towards your stated unmovable position with regards to your style in architectural photography.
I don't know how much fashion/commercial work you have done in industry or whether it was all as part of your studies (and you have just dropped modules) but you really do have one of two choices to make if you are going to continue as professional photographer in the future:
- Shoot to sell, and whilst you may have a style that is your unique viewpoint and motivation it needs to be something that a client will pay money for which may well mean conforming in at least part to expected norms - using your personal work to drive differentiation and potentially shift the market towards you. That way you get to pay the bills, and still keep your soul.
- Become a fine art or social documentary photographer and shoot entirely for yourself as your only motivation - and then build a base of clients who will buy the work you have produced because they get it. Harder, much harder - but it may fit more with your stated position.
Given the way the industry is going neither of those two options are going to be an easy path to a full-time career as a photographer but I suspect that more would achieve it through the first route.
I'm not classically trained either in History of Art, or Photography but I have shot and sold commercial architectural images of both interiors and exteriors, as well as having a commercial and social photography business for over 10 years. So you'll have to forgive me for this as it is entirely a commercial assessment of the comments you have made and the images posted. Whilst I personally like some of them they are what I would describe as "typically student photographer" in style - they are appear to me to be the buildings equivalent of Taylor Wessing entries - moody, flat, thought provoking. They are very much more social documentary and editorial than they are commercial photography - and whilst there is absolutely nothing wrong with this it absolutely places you in the niche you describe.
I have to say that current and even historical architectural photography suggests that you need to sell the product, as has been mentioned. You'll either be working for an architect, estate agent, corporation or magazine or even a country/district to promote that product and I'm afraid that you images don't achieve that. Nor I'd suggest will the industry migrate towards your stated unmovable position with regards to your style in architectural photography.
I don't know how much fashion/commercial work you have done in industry or whether it was all as part of your studies (and you have just dropped modules) but you really do have one of two choices to make if you are going to continue as professional photographer in the future:
- Shoot to sell, and whilst you may have a style that is your unique viewpoint and motivation it needs to be something that a client will pay money for which may well mean conforming in at least part to expected norms - using your personal work to drive differentiation and potentially shift the market towards you. That way you get to pay the bills, and still keep your soul.
- Become a fine art or social documentary photographer and shoot entirely for yourself as your only motivation - and then build a base of clients who will buy the work you have produced because they get it. Harder, much harder - but it may fit more with your stated position.
Given the way the industry is going neither of those two options are going to be an easy path to a full-time career as a photographer but I suspect that more would achieve it through the first route.
- Messages
- 29,988
- Name
- George.
- Edit My Images
- No
OP
Deleted member 67219
Guest
No, I *was* a full time commercial fashion photographer and now I've decided to go back to university because I wasn't happy being a photographer. Photography was my career and now I make my living writing for the photography magazines instead (as well as studying).
I don't actually want to be a full time photographer again, but I want to be a full time photography/art researcher and writer. However I believe it is important to find a niche where I can be well paid for smaller volumes of work so that I don't put all my eggs in one basket, so to speak.
- Messages
- 1,413
- Name
- Mike
- Edit My Images
- No
Ok thanks for the additional information. It certainly explains.
Good luck with it, although I would have thought that social/fine-art photography is a much more viable (switch-on/switch-ff) side-line than a niche architectural style - especially your male studies which are different, marketable, and not an over-saturated market.
Good luck with it, although I would have thought that social/fine-art photography is a much more viable (switch-on/switch-ff) side-line than a niche architectural style - especially your male studies which are different, marketable, and not an over-saturated market.
- Messages
- 3,355
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Sorry to go against the grain, but IMVHO, they all lack one thing.......Life, they are all flat dull pictures.
Perhaps a touch of PP would fix that.
Perhaps a touch of PP would fix that.
OP
Deleted member 67219
Guest
Yeah and that is one of the baskets, so to speak. Although to be honest, no one really 'gets' my fine art work so I don't know. I just create it for me.
Certainly there is no market, as a woman, for the trashy glamour I shoot of men. I went to several portfolio interviews with some large agencies and magazines and I was turned down for work in the gay market because I was a woman. I got interviews under slight false pretense - I used the name Charlie instead of Charlotte. Maybe things will change in the future and it's an avenue I can pursue, however to be honest, I'm not sure I want to support an industry that thrives on the objectification and hyper-sexualisation of young people (not to mention the rape culture, of course).
OP
Deleted member 67219
Guest
It's a perfectly reasonable opinion. They are meant to be bleak and they are deliberately flat. Like I said, I wanted to reflect the bleak 60's Brutalist architecture. I don't really like lots of hard shadows and so forth and personally feel that this expresses what the style feels like to me.
If I was interviewing someone who was present under a false pretense I would send them packing, no matter how slight the false pretense. It would not fill me with confidence.
Were you actually told that you did not get the work because you are a woman?
Last edited:
OP
Deleted member 67219
Guest
If I was interviewing someone who was present under a false pretense I would send them packing, no matter how slight the false pretense. It would not fill me with confidence.
Were you actually told that you did not get the work because you are a woman?
I was told that they feel gay male photographers better understand the audience. I question the judgement - as Page 3 has had a couple of notable photographers who are female and not (to my knowledge) lesbians.
They felt my work was good enough to interview me, and Charlie is what all my family call me. But I knew, sadly, I wouldn't get my work in front of them if I was a woman.
I only ask because often when people are not successful they sometimes look for all sorts of reasons other than quite often the interview panel simply not thinking that the interviewee was not quite the perfect part.
I get a sense that you expect everything to go your way. Almost like a right? Having looked at your "cv" on linkedin I think your experience has mostly been working as a shipping clerk? Maybe the employer thought you needed to gain more experience in order to deliver to their requirements?
I get a sense that you expect everything to go your way. Almost like a right? Having looked at your "cv" on linkedin I think your experience has mostly been working as a shipping clerk? Maybe the employer thought you needed to gain more experience in order to deliver to their requirements?
Last edited:
OP
Deleted member 67219
Guest
These are very personal points to make you know and entirely NOT relevant to this thread which has now gone off at a bit of a tangent.
For the record, I was told my portfolio was outstanding (because you know, that's the important bit when you're going for a portfolio interview) and that they felt my experience as a photographer (quite a considerable amount of time both full time employed AND freelance) was of great advantage. However they felt that they did not feel a female photographer would bring the same qualities to the table as a gay male photographer.
And yes, I've worked in logistics on and off over the years. I actually prefer it to photography. However my LinkedIn CV doesn't detail my photographic career history in any detail since at the time it was last overhauled I was looking for work in the logistics industry because I wasn't enjoying the long hours and dreadful pay of working as a photographer. In addition it doesn't have all my clients on or all my experience as some are sensitive for various reasons.
I'm happy to take this to PM if you would like to further speculate on my personal circumstances.
No need to pm. I was just responding to comments that you raised I guess. I must admit to thinking what has a portfolio for the gay market got to do with 60's brutalist architecture. I was just curious about the comments that you have raised. I will end my part in the discussion. My apologies.
My apologies.
OP
Deleted member 67219
Guest
No need to pm. I was just responding to comments that you raised I guess. I must admit to thinking what has a portfolio for the gay market got to do with 60's brutalist architecture. I was just curious about the comments that you have raised. I will end my part in the discussion.
Someone commented that perhaps I could look into selling my glamour work. That was how it came about. I responded to that comment.