Randyworks Photography

In your bio, you write --

"As I’m not generally enamored of ‘post-production’ -- too much tweaking brings one into the realm of graphic design and out of photography altogether -- only the bare minimum of adjustments are made to my photographs. Despite having to bathe in environmentally unsound darkroom chemicals, to me the darkroom was more interesting than sitting in front of a computer monitor – the idea should be to get it right ‘in-camera’ at the time of exposure anyway."

I have a hunch that most buyers don't care how we get our images. They just want a pretty picture to hang on the wall. But I also have to ask what kind of camera you use, because my camera does not see the world the way I see it and the pictures, especially when I edit the RAW image, needs some processing. It always strikes me as odd when someone from the darkroom days putsdown the "digital darkroom" process. I have to admitt that I prefer processing at a computer rather than in a dark, smelly room. On the other hand, I get why some like the dark room, especially if they had been doing it for a while before digital came along.

The inclusion of the bio information you referenced isn't so much included strictly for buyers per se, as for those interested in the methodology, as some who are interested in photography as an art form like to have the background on. I agree with you that most buyers don't know or care how any given image is created, nor does the average American consumer likely know all that much about art for that matter(!) Again, it was only included for 'those who may be interested'.

The camera I use is a Pentax K-x, a more basic model than something like a medium or large format camera, but I don't like nor require a lot of proverbial bells and whistles.

I was not in any way 'putting down' the so-called 'digital darkroom' process. It's cleaner -- thus my reference to environmentally unsound darkroom chemicals -- requires less space and equipment (enlargers, etc.), and costs less money overall. But I just don't find sitting in front of a computer monitor to achieve similar effects all that interesting, as I'm simply not greatly enamored of computers. (I don't have a cell phone, download music, use Facebook, or watch much television either.) With film, I enjoyed both the shooting process and the developing process; with digital I enjoy the shooting and tolerate the 'developing'. If you're shooting digital, then processing with a computer is what one has to do. I will say on the camera end, I much prefer digital to film, so there are no hard-and-fast rules about it all with me.

Each approach is entirely valid -- and those who manipulate images to excess are valid as well -- but again, I personally am less interested in image manipulation than in refining an image whose strongest attributes are already inherently contained in the exposure without lots of additional adjustments. All pictures (whether film or digitally based) generally need some adjustments -- the entire purpose of shooting in RAW, with its full range of options -- but I simply keep it to a minimum (getting it as close to 'right' in-camera, instead of 'fixing it later'). It's somewhat of a purist aesthetic, but to each their own.

In the end, it's all really irrelevant, for as Ansel Adams once said, 'There are no rules for good photographs, there are only good photographs'.

Thanks for your perspective-

R

You say you aren't on Facebook or other social media. I certainly respect that. I'm a techie by day and I avoided a lot of that crap for a long time myself. However, something you'll find here that is critical to selling is marketing yourself. FAA does not market for you. You can certainly do it by printed business card, but more effective ways are by using things like Facebook, Twitter, Pinterest, etc. Do a forum search on marketing. There are some really good threads on the subject.

yeah but other artists don't care either. and the bio is for the buyer.

in the end this isn't an artist site, but a store. so images should stand out well, and editing them, is usually needed. straitening things and giving more punch is the norm.

and if your not on social media, you will need to be a good salesman of your work.


---Mike Savad
MikeSavad.com

In the end, it's all really irrelevant, for as Ansel Adams once said, 'There are no rules for good photographs, there are only good photographs'

True dat!

"in the end this isn't an artist site, but a store."

It is both. Artists can and should say anything they think is important to them, other artists and buyers in their profile.


Dan Turner
Dan Turner's Seven Keys to Selling Art Online

"As I’m not generally enamored of ‘post-production’ -- too much tweaking brings one into the realm of graphic design and out of photography altogether" - I gather you are not a fan of Ansel Adams - who set things up very well - but did quite a bit of 'post production'.

I wish I could find it - but just a few weeks back there was a thread that showed how much work went into some post production - there was a photograph of a man walking in a City - and how whole areas were lined for 'adjustment'.

Just to say - I never worked with film in a darkroom - I had an uncle that did - I found it fascinating - but it wasn't something that 'drew me in' to do it as well. I'd prefer not to have to tweak my photo's today on the computer - but guess what - if you want them to 'shine' - you may find yourself sometimes doing a bit more 'post production' work than just some minor tweaking.

My Photo Account

Just so no one gets the wrong impression, I did not infer that 'no post production' should be done, or that I don't do any; I simply try to employ as little as necessary to make a high-quality print (which is relative; everyone's estimation of a 'high quality print' will be different). Some feel black & white photos in particular should have very dark blacks and be very contrasty, others no. These are the choices everyone makes as a photographer.

What this site 'is' relates to how one views it and uses it -- to some extent -- as well as one's own personal artistic aesthetic (if they have any such thing defined in the first place). Each person's approach to business and selling their work is their own. (I for example don't wish to sell prints of my work that are any smaller than 9 x 14, nor do I want them to appear on cell phone cases or greeting cards. I'm just not interested in them appearing or being sold in that way.)

Lastly, I do view post-production in relation to film differently than post-production in digital. Film did have some limitations with what you could do in terms of post-production, which I always viewed as a good thing. With digital, you can -- almost -- get away with not knowing how to use a camera (save for major compositional issues, but even then, there are variables) and still 'create' something with whatever degree of visual intent and appeal. For some people, it's all about taking everything to the limit, and others it's working within limitations or personal parameters. These are all artistic choices, and they are equally valid. Both Ansel Adams and Bill Brandt -- to cite two of many examples -- did substantial 'post-production' on their photographs, and that was not meant to be deemed as unacceptable by me on any level. But with digital, there are simply some things that I view differently, again, if they are more graphic-design-oriented than photographic. The location of that line can be very varied.

While some of you have made some good points, in the end, I wasn't intending to start a discussion about post-production aesthetics, marketing, art versus commerce, or what-have-you. It was really only about making those here aware of some photographs that might move them, or move others.

R


“This is what I take Modernism and photography to be about: it’s that every picture that belongs in the tradition, the canon, up on a wall, is itself there because it’s teaching you something about photography. And something, if the photographer’s really good -- Robert Frank -- you didn’t even know was possible until you saw those photographs. That’s dead. I believe that’s what’s over (in regard to photography).” – Joel Snyder

Roy, I think this one of James Dean might be the photograph you're talking about: http://theliteratelens.com/2012/02/17/magnum-and-the-dying-art-of-darkroom-printing/