# Famous Photographers



## Morpheuss

Hey I was sitting at work today and was listening to my co-workers going on and on about their favorite football player/basketball player/baseball player and I was just thinking since I'm such a dork and don't really watch much of eaither to have favorite players I started thinking about my love for photography and was wondering what is some of your guys favorite photographers


----------



## c.cloudwalker

Too many to list but most are artists although some did manage to cross boundaries and mixed their art with commercial work and had success. One such person would be Helmut Newton.


----------



## gsgary

HCB,Robert Capa,Robert Franks,Lartigue,Philip Jones Griffith,Bruno Barby


----------



## photosbybritni

Inspired by many...But here is my top 5!

Ansel Adams
Alfred Stieglitz
Dorothea Lange
James Nachtwey
Annie Leibovitz


----------



## Overread

No idea if any of them are famous or not but many who inspire me can be found in this list:
Flickr: Contacts

flickr is so useful at times  
That said I respect the fact that I don't have much study nor idea of older established photographers and that many of my inspirations are very new to the world of photography (comparativly speaking)


----------



## CWyatt

My opinion:

HCB - compositional, moment genius.
Robert Capa - 'Patron Saint' of war photographers.
James Nachtwey - greatest living photojournalist.
Steve McCurry - one of the best colour photographers of the last 30 years.
Robert Doisneau - beautiful Paris street photographer.
Larry Burrows - amazing, tough Vietnam photographer.
W. Eugene Smith - flawed genius, beautiful, wrenching photographs.

Others: Dorothea Lange, Margaret Bourke-White, Horst Faas, Henri Huet, Don McCullin, Ansel Adams...


----------



## gsgary

CWyatt said:


> My opinion:
> 
> HCB - compositional, moment genius.
> Robert Capa - 'Patron Saint' of war photographers.
> James Nachtwey - greatest living photojournalist.
> Steve McCurry - one of the best colour photographers of the last 30 years.
> Robert Doisneau - beautiful Paris street photographer.
> Larry Burrows - amazing, tough Vietnam photographer.
> W. Eugene Smith - flawed genius, beautiful, wrenching photographs.
> 
> Others: Dorothea Lange, Margaret Bourke-White, Horst Faas, Henri Huet, Don McCullin, Ansel Adams...



Bloody hell i missed Robert Capa off my list, going to update it


----------



## Josh66

I've always really liked Steve McCurry...
Steve McCurry Photography

OOO - and Robert Capa too.  I think all of my favorites have already been mentioned...


----------



## Josh66

Overread said:


> No idea if any of them are famous or not but many who inspire me can be found in this list:
> Flickr: Contacts


Now I'm offended.  

I'm not on there, lol.  You're on mine.  :er:

:mrgreen:


You do have to dig through a lot of snapshots on my flickr though.  Most of the good stuff is in the 'Miscellaneous' collection.


----------



## white

Irving Penn, Duane Michals.


----------



## Derrel

Edward Weston, Ralph Gibson, Robert Frank, August Sander, Joel Meyerowitz, Sheila Metzner, Gary Friedlander, Ernst Haas, those people are some of my favorites.


----------



## CWyatt

Steve McCurry has a great blog too:
Steve McCurry&#039;s Blog


----------



## white

Also like David Bradford's Drive-by Shootings.


----------



## carvinrocks2

I could get beat up for this but I haven't looked up many photographers work because I didn't know where to start. 

I do have some maybe not-so-famous favorites like Roger Hogan Wildlife & Other Photos and a great train photographer John West Narrow Gauge Memories .

I'm looking up every ones favorites, here..


----------



## carvinrocks2

O|||||||O said:


> I've always really liked Steve McCurry...
> Steve McCurry Photography
> 
> OOO - and Robert Capa too.  I think all of my favorites have already been mentioned...


After looking him up, I love his work. His contrast in colors is amazing, and such a "simple" picture makes a thousand words


----------



## carvinrocks2

James Nachtwey.  His pictures speak to me, especially the torns of war and the starvation of children! Not even those commercials could speak the words that one of his photographs does! Here I am hoping something goods for dinner, when the kid in the picture didn't get dinner! Wow.


----------



## Petraio Prime

Morpheuss said:


> Hey I was sitting at work today and was listening to my co-workers going on and on about their favorite football player/basketball player/baseball player and I was just thinking since I'm such a dork and don't really watch much of eaither to have favorite players I started thinking about my love for photography and was wondering what is some of your guys favorite photographers



Lebron James.


----------



## bushpig

Petraio Prime said:


> Morpheuss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey I was sitting at work today and was listening to my co-workers going on and on about their favorite football player/basketball player/baseball player and I was just thinking since I'm such a dork and don't really watch much of eaither to have favorite players I started thinking about my love for photography and was wondering what is some of your guys favorite photographers
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lebron James.
Click to expand...


I laughed my ass off.

Also, how can nobody here have mentioned Weegee? 

I love Weegee!


----------



## Morpheuss

wow awesome thanks guys I have lots of names to look up now


----------



## Storky1980

I don't really know of that many "famous" photographers, i was mostly inspired by blogs and such, and seeing photographs in magazines and books and thought "hey, i think i could do that".

The only famous one i would say would be Kevin Carter


----------



## bentcountershaft

Ross Halfin for me.  He's famous for being one of the giants of rock concert photography which is how I discovered him, but it's his travel work and street candids that really appeal to me.

van_halen-bw48

led-zeppelin-colour487

http://www.rosshalfin.com/travel/travel-colour2740.jpg

travel-bw95


----------



## CWyatt

Storky1980 said:


> The only famous one i would say would be Kevin Carter


 
Now he was a character. Have just read 'The Bang Bang Club' by a couple of his colleagues - very well recommended book. Very unstable and into his drugs - though he was hardly alone in that by the sound of it. That Pulitzer shot is really something.


----------



## CWyatt

On another note, I think this thread is a good idea. How can people who've never really looked at HCB or Capa or Adams or Frank etc etc really know what photography can do, or what compositional options are available? Not saying you have to copy people - but get a grounding or widen your horizons.

Amazing how many people will spend big money on gear, thinking it will make them better, when they barely really look at some of the greatest photographers' work.


----------



## Petraio Prime

bentcountershaft said:


> Ross Halfin for me.  He's famous for being one of the giants of rock concert photography which is how I discovered him, but it's his travel work and street candids that really appeal to me.
> 
> van_halen-bw48
> 
> led-zeppelin-colour487
> 
> http://www.rosshalfin.com/travel/travel-colour2740.jpg
> 
> travel-bw95








If Minnie Driver married Eddie Van Halen she would be Minnie Van....Halen...


----------



## gsgary

Another one i forgot Garry Winogrand


----------



## Alpha

bushpig said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Morpheuss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey I was sitting at work today and was listening to my co-workers going on and on about their favorite football player/basketball player/baseball player and I was just thinking since I'm such a dork and don't really watch much of eaither to have favorite players I started thinking about my love for photography and was wondering what is some of your guys favorite photographers
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lebron James.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I laughed my ass off.
> 
> Also, how can nobody here have mentioned Weegee?
> 
> I love Weegee!
Click to expand...


Forum member RowmyF is a distant relative of WeeGee.


----------



## fwellers

CWyatt said:


> On another note, I think this thread is a good idea. How can people who've never really looked at HCB or Capa or Adams or Frank etc etc really know what photography can do, or what compositional options are available? Not saying you have to copy people - but get a grounding or widen your horizons.
> 
> Amazing how many people will spend big money on gear, thinking it will make them better, when they barely really look at some of the greatest photographers' work.



After reading your high faluting opinion, I had to check out your photo page. I just say you have some good stuff !! Cocky though you may be, you do have talent.


----------



## Petraio Prime

fwellers said:


> CWyatt said:
> 
> 
> 
> On another note, I think this thread is a good idea. How can people who've never really looked at HCB or Capa or Adams or Frank etc etc really know what photography can do, or what compositional options are available? Not saying you have to copy people - but get a grounding or widen your horizons.
> 
> Amazing how many people will spend big money on gear, thinking it will make them better, when they barely really look at some of the greatest photographers' work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> After reading your high faluting opinion, I had to check out your photo page. I just say you have some good stuff !! Cocky though you may be, you do have talent.
Click to expand...


I agree in principle but too few other photographers get noticed. And a lot of people just copy the _styles _of other photographers, rather than get inspired by the _content_. My opinion is that you reach a point where you should completely ignore what others do and have done.


----------



## Derrel

For those who would like to have a peek at a bunch of GREAT photographers and mini-portfolios all in one place, this link is a good one. It can point you in the direction of many photographers, and if you find one whose work you like, well, then a Google search will put you into the books,shows,catalogues,and exhibits they have done.

Photography-now.net - The International Photography Index.


----------



## jake337

I'm new to photography, not sure who anyone you guys are speaking of is.  I bought my camera to capture images of my son, famiy and friends. I've never looked at an exposure and had it really effect me emotionally. (besides photo's of my son that create uncontrolable smiles and laughter inside)

Today was the first time I saw Kevin Carter"s pulitzer photo. Never felt emotions from a photograph like that before. My heart sank.

I now have a new outlook on photography and also have much reading to do.

But first and foremost I can't wait to get off work and hug my son and wife.


----------



## farhanzx

There are many best photographer....

But I still looking for my favourite one.....


----------



## white

fwellers said:


> CWyatt said:
> 
> 
> 
> On another note, I think this thread is a good idea. How can people who've never really looked at HCB or Capa or Adams or Frank etc etc really know what photography can do, or what compositional options are available? Not saying you have to copy people - but get a grounding or widen your horizons.
> 
> Amazing how many people will spend big money on gear, thinking it will make them better, when they barely really look at some of the greatest photographers' work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> After reading your high faluting opinion, I had to check out your photo page. I just say you have some good stuff !! Cocky though you may be, you do have talent.
Click to expand...

His comment wasn't arrogance, it's just plain fact. The photography of the past is a wellspring of inspiration. Any photographer who doesn't take the time to learn about the masters is doing himself and history a disservice.


----------



## Dominantly

I have been trying to find a photographer who's work I saw a while back. The photos in his portfolio were athletes and bands/artists. He had a very dramatic, edgy style with some awesome lighting. The photos were dark and almost surreal. He has to be a famous Hollywood Pro, I just can't find his site. All I can find are **** photographers, and photo websites. I have never had such a hard time locating something on the net.


----------



## fwellers

white said:


> fwellers said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CWyatt said:
> 
> 
> 
> On another note, I think this thread is a good idea. How can people who've never really looked at HCB or Capa or Adams or Frank etc etc really know what photography can do, or what compositional options are available? Not saying you have to copy people - but get a grounding or widen your horizons.
> 
> Amazing how many people will spend big money on gear, thinking it will make them better, when they barely really look at some of the greatest photographers' work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> After reading your high faluting opinion, I had to check out your photo page. I just say you have some good stuff !! Cocky though you may be, you do have talent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> His comment wasn't arrogance, it's just plain fact. The photography of the past is a wellspring of inspiration. Any photographer who doesn't take the time to learn about the masters is doing himself and history a disservice.
Click to expand...



Taking your point a little further, what kind of disservice is it that so many people dare to shoot without having an art degree and understanding compositional theory on every level.

Yea sure, it's probably smart, and for me it's a good thing to look at lots of photographs, but I would bet you can be a fabulous photographer without even knowing who HCB is. 

Or maybe they should give a person a quiz on the "Masters" before selling anything more serious than a cellphone camera.


----------



## white

fwellers said:


> white said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fwellers said:
> 
> 
> 
> After reading your high faluting opinion, I had to check out your photo page. I just say you have some good stuff !! Cocky though you may be, you do have talent.
> 
> 
> 
> His comment wasn't arrogance, it's just plain fact. The photography of the past is a wellspring of inspiration. Any photographer who doesn't take the time to learn about the masters is doing himself and history a disservice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Or maybe they should give a person a quiz on the "Masters" before selling anything more serious than a cellphone camera.
Click to expand...

Not such a bad idea, actually. Great art should be displayed everywhere.


----------



## c.cloudwalker

fwellers said:


> white said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fwellers said:
> 
> 
> 
> After reading your high faluting opinion, I had to check out your photo page. I just say you have some good stuff !! Cocky though you may be, you do have talent.
> 
> 
> 
> His comment wasn't arrogance, it's just plain fact. The photography of the past is a wellspring of inspiration. Any photographer who doesn't take the time to learn about the masters is doing himself and history a disservice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Taking your point a little further, what kind of disservice is it that so many people dare to shoot without having an art degree and understanding compositional theory on every level.
> 
> Yea sure, it's probably smart, and for me it's a good thing to look at lots of photographs, but I would bet you can be a fabulous photographer without even knowing who HCB is.
> 
> Or maybe they should give a person a quiz on the "Masters" before selling anything more serious than a cellphone camera.
Click to expand...


I think I'll vote for a parenting license first :lmao:

You are absolutely right. Especially since I believe that an artistic vision can be had from looking at other media. I have, after all, always told my students to look at paintings and illustrations, etc because they can learn as much there as they can from photos. But I do tell them to look.

And the reason is simple. Why re-invent the wheel?

You could learn proper technique without ever opening a book about exposure but why spend a year figuring it out on your own when you could do it in a few weeks with the help of a book.

Looking at other photogs is the same thing. It gives you an idea of what's been done, what is being done, etc. And it may make you realize that you may not want to pay too much attention to the artsy side of C&C.

I just recommended a book to another member and one of my arguments for it was that most photos in the book would get killed in C&C here on the forum. As Manaheim said in this thread http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...hoto-gallery/192755-giving-receiving-c-c.html
forums can be great for some things but they can kill you where the artistic side is concerned.

So, if looking at well known photogs can help save you from going so mainstream that you become boring, I'm all for it.

And btw, I don't have a degree in photo. I have a degree in life from the free university of sitting on a street corner and watching...


----------



## fwellers

You won't get any argument from me about looking at photos for inspiration and education. I do it all the time.
Even more important is actually taking pictures, editing them, obtaining feedback on them, and trying again. 

I don't see a reason though that it should be considered as some sort of badge of entry into the photographer club to have studied the supposed masters. And I dislike the  sentiment that you shouldn't buy good gear in order to help your pictures look better, before paying some sort of educational dues. It reminds me of snobbery.


----------



## maddenvallis

Annie Leibovitz 		is deff up there but ansel adams and richard avadon are also some of my favs.

Halifax Wedding Photography


----------



## c.cloudwalker

fwellers said:


> I don't see a reason though that it should be considered as some sort of badge of entry into the photographer club to have studied the supposed masters. And I dislike the  sentiment that you shouldn't buy good gear in order to help your pictures look better, before paying some sort of educational dues. It reminds me of snobbery.



As was said before, I don't believe this is what was meant. I can't help if you are feeling a personal attack in his post, but I really don't see it.

Same with you're gear argument. Buy whatever you want, it's your money, but if you're spending $10,000 on a camera and a couple lenses to take snapshots... you're probably more of a show off than a photog. The camera does not make the photo. Period. Those responses are not a way to belittle the person asking, it is a way to save them money. Now if the person just wants to spend, hey, its their life. Whatever.

I've been at the game for over 30 years. For a good chunk of those years I worked with gear that was not "pro" but, guess what... I sold.

I've also mentioned a couple times here on the forums that one of my best selling art photo was shot with a Brownie with a bad lens.

All those posts mean is that you are never going to replace a $10 camera and an artistic eye with $10,000 worth of gear and nothing else.


----------



## fwellers

c.cloudwalker said:


> fwellers said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see a reason though that it should be considered as some sort of badge of entry into the photographer club to have studied the supposed masters. And I dislike the  sentiment that you shouldn't buy good gear in order to help your pictures look better, before paying some sort of educational dues. It reminds me of snobbery.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As was said before, I don't believe this is what was meant. I can't help if you are feeling a personal attack in his post, but I really don't see it.
> 
> Same with you're gear argument. Buy whatever you want, it's your money, but if you're spending $10,000 on a camera and a couple lenses to take snapshots... you're probably more of a show off than a photog. The camera does not make the photo. Period. Those responses are not a way to belittle the person asking, it is a way to save them money. Now if the person just wants to spend, hey, its their life. Whatever.
> 
> I've been at the game for over 30 years. For a good chunk of those years I worked with gear that was not "pro" but, guess what... I sold.
> 
> I've also mentioned a couple times here on the forums that one of my best selling art photo was shot with a Brownie with a bad lens.
> 
> All those posts mean is that you are never going to replace a $10 camera and an artistic eye with $10,000 worth of gear and nothing else.
Click to expand...


I don't take it personally. The statement bothered me, but I am not feeling attacked by it. Your statement bothers me too. 
I actually get you that you can take great pictures with lower end cameras. But you go too far when you say "if you're spending $10,000 on a camera and a couple lenses to take snapshots... you're probably more of a show off than a photog."

If you don't see the snobbish conotation in a statement like that, then there's nothing much left to say. NO biggy you're entitled to your opinion. I'm entitled to thing it's stuck up.


----------



## c.cloudwalker

No, I don't see any snobbish anything. Didn't I say that your are entitled to spend your money however you want? My thoughts come from the fact that I am cheap. I will not spend a $100 where I can do with $5. Once again, it is your money and you spend it as you wish.

Because I don't know you, if I see snapshots and you're talking about spending $10,000 on a camera, I will tell you that you can do the same with a $500 one.

If trying to save someone money is being a snob, then I am. Amen.


----------



## fwellers

And here I was considering upgrading my d90 for a d700 so I can have more latitude for clean pictures in low light and get more DOF abilities. Instead I should sell it and use my cell phone. Or get rid of that fast lens I have and put the old kit lens back on there. 
Just wondering though, at what exact level does someone's image taking stop being snapshots and become worthy of being called photography ? 
I'd post a picture of mine for your review but since I shot it with a $1000 camera and a $1800 lens, I would be afraid you'd just call me a showoff.

But aren't we all a little bit of a showoff ? Isn't that usually the nature of ( at least non-pro ) photography, to show it off ?

You don't have to answer this Cloudwalker, I'm just in rare sour mood. :meh:


----------



## c.cloudwalker

Yes, you are in a sour mood. And maybe you need to learn some english. The modern YOU can be understood as two things. A very personal one or the very general one. I get tired of typing "one" instead of "you" but my post wasn't about you. It was about the "you-one" person. Get over it.

Next, I haven't seen your photos but this "here I was considering upgrading my d90 for a d700 so I can have more latitude for clean pictures in low light and get more DOF abilities" says you are not the kind of person I was talking about so why are taking it son personally?

The kind of person I was talking about would never even know how to say that. This is not about you. Get over yourself, buddy.

And enjoy whichever camera you get next. Over and out.


----------



## CWyatt

Interesting to read the feedback on that post. To clarify, I'm not saying you _need_ to study the 'greats', whoever you think they may be. What I'm trying to say is that looking at others' work is natural and a way of learning (even non-photographic imagery). Not to copy (as Petraio Prime pointed out is a problem), but just to gain a better understanding of what can be achieved with the photographic medium. Even looking at photographers that are acclaimed but which you don't like, makes you think. And as was pointed out earlier, there is no substitute for going out and taking your own photographs, and working on improving them.

I have no problem with someone who hasn't 'learned' composition. I don't go in for rules. But I personally think it'd be cockier for someone to think that they're so talented they can become a great photographer without worrying about really looking at the work of the great photographers of the last 150 or so years.


----------



## Petraio Prime

maddenvallis said:


> Annie Leibovitz         is deff up there but ansel adams and richard avadon are also some of my favs.
> 
> Halifax Wedding Photography



No, no, and no.


----------



## bentcountershaft

Petraio Prime said:


> maddenvallis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Annie Leibovitz         is deff up there but ansel adams and richard avadon are also some of my favs.
> 
> Halifax Wedding Photography
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, no, and no.
Click to expand...


No what?


----------



## fwellers

c.cloudwalker said:


> Yes, you are in a sour mood. And maybe you need to learn some english. The modern YOU can be understood as two things. A very personal one or the very general one. I get tired of typing "one" instead of "you" but my post wasn't about you. It was about the "you-one" person. Get over it.
> 
> Next, I haven't seen your photos but this "here I was considering upgrading my d90 for a d700 so I can have more latitude for clean pictures in low light and get more DOF abilities" says you are not the kind of person I was talking about so why are taking it son personally?
> 
> The kind of person I was talking about would never even know how to say that. This is not about you. Get over yourself, buddy.
> 
> And enjoy whichever camera you get next. Over and out.



Maybe you should understand english. I know you aren't talking about me PERSONALLY. It doesn't matter whom is the object of your judgement. I was commenting on the general snobbish judgement itself. 
Have a nice day.


----------



## Morpheuss

fwellers I think you need to just relax and go cool off. He wasn't trying to be snobbish and if you took it that way get over it. I think what he was saying is that people in general don't need really expensive stuff to shoot good photo's and that somebody that has a really good artistic eye can take a good photo with a point and shoot camera. The thing a SLR does is help them to expand on their potential to being a really great photographer and that the gear doesn't make the photographer the photographer makes the gear. It seems to me that he is also saying that it doesn't hurt to study some of the famous photographers to learn from them and that sometimes its smart to take some classes to expand on your photography potential. 

You also can't take every single thing said on these threads to heart or you will have everybody thinking you are an anoying opinionated little kid


----------



## fwellers

very helpful morpheus. 
not.


----------



## Petraio Prime

bentcountershaft said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> maddenvallis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Annie Leibovitz         is deff up there but ansel adams and richard avadon are also some of my favs.
> 
> Halifax Wedding Photography
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, no, and no.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No what?
Click to expand...


I don't look at them, I don't care about them, I don't think much of them.


----------



## Morpheuss

man you all are turning into negative nacy's ****....


----------



## Petraio Prime

Morpheuss said:


> man you all are turning into negative nacy's ****....



I think that most "great photographers" don't pay much attention to one another. They go their own way...


----------



## bentcountershaft

Petraio Prime said:


> bentcountershaft said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, no, and no.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't look at them, I don't care about them, I don't think much of them.
Click to expand...


That's fine but this thread is supposed to be about photographers we admire, not whether or not you approve of someone's favorites.



Petraio Prime said:


> I think that most "great photographers" don't pay much attention to one another. They go their own way...



This I can mostly agree with.  They either do that or they look at what others do as an example of what they don't want to do.


----------



## Petraio Prime

bentcountershaft said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bentcountershaft said:
> 
> 
> 
> No what?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't look at them, I don't care about them, I don't think much of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's fine but this thread is supposed to be about photographers we admire, not whether or not you approve of someone's favorites.
> 
> 
> 
> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think that most "great photographers" don't pay much attention to one another. They go their own way...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This I can mostly agree with.  They either do that or they look at what others do as an example of what they don't want to do.
Click to expand...


Salgado is good. He's almost too good. 

For the most part, people should _not _look at other photographers' work. Speaking for myself, I learned from watching old B&W movies from the 30s, _not _from looking at any still photographers' work. Tight compositions, dramatic angles, these were from the European cinematographers and lighting people who came from Europe in the 20s and early 30s.

Anyone who studies my photos will note how these characteristics have influenced my approach. 

Hitchcock's B&W films are a good place to start. _Rebecca _is excellent.

http://www.google.com/images?um=1&hl=en&safe=off&tbs=isch%3A1&sa=1&q=Rebecca+Hitchcock&aq=f&aqi=g1&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=


----------



## bentcountershaft

That interesting about being influenced by films and I think that's  where the majority of my influence must come from.  I've watched a lot  more films with interesting cinematography than I have looked at art, be  it photos or paintings.  I'm pretty sure it was my film fandom that  inspired this shot:


----------



## Petraio Prime

bentcountershaft said:


> That interesting about being influenced by films and I think that's  where the majority of my influence must come from.  I've watched a lot  more films with interesting cinematography than I have looked at art, be  it photos or paintings.  I'm pretty sure it was my film fandom that  inspired this shot:



Maybe, not sure.

I can say this, that most so-called 'salon' photography bores me to tears. Give me a Hitchcock film any day. Rebecca.  Every frame is better than any "he who shall not be named" photo.


Hitchcock's 1940s films:

*Rebecca* (1940)
*Starring:* Laurence Olivier and Joan Fontaine
Adaptation of Daphne Du Maurier's famous novel of a couple tormented by  the presence of the husband's dead wife.
*Foreign Correspondent* (1940)
*Starring:* Joel McCrea and Laraine Day
An unsuspecting crime reporter gets swept up in an international espionage conspiracy in this fast-paced adventure. 
*Mr. & Mrs. Smith* (1941)
*Starring:* Carole Lombard and Robert Montgomery
Hilarious screwball comedy about the merry mishaps that befall a couple after they discover they weren't legally married. 
*Suspicion* (1941)
*Starring:* Cary Grant and Joan Fontaine
Subtle suspense and fine-drawn tension in this mystery of a wealthy woman who suspects her playboy husband wants to murder her.
*Saboteur* (1942)
*Starring:* Priscilla Lane and Robert Cummings
False accusations of murder and sabotage leads to some surprising consequences in this chilling film.
Shadow of a Doubt (1943)
*Starring:* Joseph Cotten and Teresa Wright
Woman suspects her loving uncle of murder. Hitchcock's own personal favorite.
*Bon Voyage & Aventure Malgache* (1944)
*Starring:* John Blythe
Directed by Hitchcock for the war effort in Britain during WWII, this pair of short films details a British pilot behind enemy lines.
*Lifeboat* (1944)
*Starring:* Tallulah Bankhead and William Bendix
Psychological thriller about survivors trapped on a lifeboat with limited supplies. Features nail biting suspense and fine performances.
*Spellbound* (1945)
*Starring:* Ingrid Bergman and Gregory Peck
An amnesiac impersonating a famous psychologist. The doctor who wants to save him-- even if he is guilty of murder.
*Notorious* (1946)
*Starring:* Cary Grant and Ingrid Bergman
A classic tale of love and betrayal-- an FBI agent must send the woman he
loves to seduce a Nazi conspirator.
*The Paradine Case* (1947)
*Starring:* Gregory Peck and Alida Valli
Courtroom melodrama about a lawyer who falls for his client.
*Rope* (1948)
*Starring:* James Stewart and Farley Granger
Compelling tale of murder between friends, famed for its basis on Leopold & Loeb case and experimental cinematography.
*Under Capricorn* (1949)
*Starring:* Ingrid Bergman and Joseph Cotten
Period drama details saga of an English lady who falls in love with her cousin.
*Stage Fright* (1950)
*Starring:* Jane Wyman and Marlene Dietrich
A young man whom a drama student admired accused of murder must battle to prove his own innocence.
Strangers on a Train (1951)


----------



## Village Idiot

Last Year at Marienbad - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Last Year at Marienbard was visually amazing from what I watched of it. Watched it with some album playing along with it. 

I really like Annie Leibowitz's work. I read her latest book and though a lot of her portraiture is down for commercial work, it's really good.

Platon is another photographer who's work I really like. platon


----------



## bentcountershaft

I haven't seen most of those films excepting Notorious and Strangers on a Train.


----------



## c.cloudwalker

I'm also finding inspiration in movies but if you think about it, it makes perfect sense. What is a movie (or a motion picture)? Nothing more than a series of stills moving at a certain speed to create the illusion of motion.


----------



## white

c.cloudwalker said:


> I'm also finding inspiration in movies but if you think about it, it makes perfect sense. What is a movie (or a motion picture)? Nothing more than a series of stills moving at a certain speed to create the illusion of motion.


Agreed, which is why I find this comment pretty funny:



Petraio Prime said:


> For the most part, people should _not _look at other photographers' work. Speaking for myself, I learned from watching old B&W movies from the 30s, _not _from looking at any still photographers' work.


----------



## Petraio Prime

white said:


> c.cloudwalker said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm also finding inspiration in movies but if you think about it, it makes perfect sense. What is a movie (or a motion picture)? Nothing more than a series of stills moving at a certain speed to create the illusion of motion.
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed, which is why I find this comment pretty funny:
> 
> 
> 
> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> For the most part, people should _not _look at other photographers' work. Speaking for myself, I learned from watching old B&W movies from the 30s, _not _from looking at any still photographers' work.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


I said 'still' photographers specifically and meant it. Cinematography is different in that you have big budgets, a story, costumes, lighting crews and everything else...you can learn a lot from looking at films of this era.

Yes, cinema films are a succession of stills, but that's beside the point. Still photographers do different sorts of work, generally.


----------



## white

Petraio Prime said:


> Yes, cinema films are a succession of stills, but that's beside the point.


No I'm pretty sure that was the entire point. :lmao:

Anyway, I was just poking fun at your comment that people should generally not look at other photographer's work. I find that viewpoint interesting. Stupid, but also interesting. 

What good reason is there to be blind to history? Artists will produce derivative works of art whether they realize it or not. So isn't it better to be informed and use what others have done in the past as a leaping off point?


----------



## bentcountershaft

I can see both sides of the argument.  Not having much knowledge of other people's work or the common rules of composition could lead to either highly inventive shots or really crappy shots.  Studying the masters could lead to a solid foundation in principals that allows one to exceed the works of the past or it could have a limiting, boxed in type of mentality that limits imagination and goes no where new.  I don't see either as wrong or right.  Everyone is different in what works for them.


----------



## Petraio Prime

white said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, cinema films are a succession of stills, but that's beside the point.
> 
> 
> 
> No I'm pretty sure that was the entire point. :lmao:
> 
> Anyway, I was just poking fun at your comment that people should generally not look at other photographer's work. I find that viewpoint interesting. Stupid, but also interesting.
> 
> What good reason is there to be blind to history? Artists will produce derivative works of art whether they realize it or not. So isn't it better to be informed and use what others have done in the past as a leaping off point?
Click to expand...


The reason is that they end up just copying one another. I learned more about composition, use of angles, influence of light, etc., from watching old B&W movies than from any "great" still photographer.

When I was a kid B&W movies were the norm, and I have seen many projected in theatres. Watch _Rebecca_. It's stunning.

Another one of interest photographically is _Blonde Venus_.


----------



## white

Sorry, irony overload. I can't think straight. Give me a minute. 

:meh:


----------



## c.cloudwalker

white said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, cinema films are a succession of stills, but that's beside the point.
> 
> 
> 
> No I'm pretty sure that was the entire point. :lmao:
Click to expand...


Not to mention that without photography there would have been no movies. What where the first moving pictures but a series of prints in a machine that allowed the user to view them successively ...

And the comment about big budgets, etc is also kind of ridiculous. Even if overall true, there are still movies that are done on the cheap. Mine for example. I shot a couple of documentaries with much smaller budgets then some of my photo shoots. Also had a lighting crew (they're called assistants) and sometimes had a hair person, a make up person, a set decorator, a costume designer/wardrobe person, and a producer (although we usually call them editors.)

Of course, those shoots are usually handled by the dreaded pros. Then again I doubt that the amateur film makers get the big budgets either.


----------



## Petraio Prime

c.cloudwalker said:


> white said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, cinema films are a succession of stills, but that's beside the point.
> 
> 
> 
> No I'm pretty sure that was the entire point. :lmao:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not to mention that without photography there would have been no movies. What where the first moving pictures but a series of prints in a machine that allowed the user to view them successively ...
> 
> And the comment about big budgets, etc is also kind of ridiculous. Even if overall true, there are still movies that are done on the cheap. Mine for example. I shot a couple of documentaries with much smaller budgets then some of my photo shoots. Also had a lighting crew (they're called assistants) and sometimes had a hair person, a make up person, a set decorator, a costume designer/wardrobe person, and a producer (although we usually call them editors.)
> 
> Of course, those shoots are usually handled by the dreaded pros. Then again I doubt that the amateur film makers get the big budgets either.
Click to expand...


I said "cinema of the 30s and 40s", and mentioned Hitchcock, and singled out_ B__londe Venus_ as well. What part of that was unclear? These were more influential on me than "great" still photographers were, by far. I was talking about _*me*....and I explained why.

_If you want an entire course on composition and lighting, watch_ Blonde Venus._ You won't have anything more to learn, I assure you. Why mention cheap films? Utterly irrelevant.

I would go so far as to say if you want to know _everything _about photography, watch _Blonde Venus_...

Those old German directors knew more about composition and lighting than a hundred "great" still photographers you can name. 











Ever see _Greed_?


----------



## c.cloudwalker

I get it. Cheap = bad. Must be why you shoot Leica :lmao:

Wait, now I'm confused because movies in the 30s 40s were made for a lot less money (ie cheap) than today's, yet there were better?


----------



## Petraio Prime

c.cloudwalker said:


> I get it. Cheap = bad. Must be why you shoot Leica :lmao:
> 
> Wait, now I'm confused because movies in the 30s 40s were made for a lot less money (ie cheap) than today's, yet there were better?



You're being silly. They had big budgets and could afford to do what they needed photographically. I'm not making comparisons between older films and today's (though I could). I was saying, if you want to learn composition, dramatic angles, lighting, etc., watch _Blonde Venus_, _Greed_, and _Rebecca_. Films like these have had more influence on me than any "great" still photographers have. If you'll note, I use extreme close up far more than most 'photographers' do.


----------



## c.cloudwalker

Petraio Prime said:


> You're being silly.



Wow, you're sharp.

Of course I'm being silly. Is there any other way to respond to your mostly inane posts?

Actually, you may well get the honor of being the first person I officially complain about if you don't stop 1/ hijacking other members' threads for your own perverse pleasure as pointed out by someone recently (and I'll be happy to give the mods a sample of your driving away a new member), and 2/ keep posting images you have not right to which is breaking the rules of this place.

Any questions, refer to the FAQ.


----------



## white

I'll take the blame for stirring the pot. Sometimes I just can't resist.


----------



## c.cloudwalker

white said:


> I'll take the blame for stirring the pot. Sometimes I just can't resist.



Why the hell would you take the blame? You may have responded in a stupid (silly) manner but that is exactly what this guy is after and it is hard not too. Stirring the pot is what PP is here for. I imagine he is very bored with his life but I really couldn't care less. Not since, anyway, he ran off a new member, I believe, with a thread that was/could have been interesting to many more members.

Next time I see him do the same crap, I complain. Period.

And I sure wish others will too.

If he wants to shower us with his godlike knowledge and philosophy (would that be a golden shower considering he's always pissing on everybody here?), he can start his own thread...


----------



## Petraio Prime

c.cloudwalker said:


> white said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll take the blame for stirring the pot. Sometimes I just can't resist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why the hell would you take the blame? You may have responded in a stupid (silly) manner but that is exactly what this guy is after and it is hard not too. Stirring the pot is what PP is here for. I imagine he is very bored with his life but I really couldn't care less. Not since, anyway, he ran off a new member, I believe, with a thread that was/could have been interesting to many more members.
> 
> Next time I see him do the same crap, I complain. Period.
> 
> And I sure wish others will too.
> 
> If he wants to shower us with his godlike knowledge and philosophy (would that be a golden shower considering he's always pissing on everybody here?), he can start his own thread...
Click to expand...


My point:

You can learn more from these sorts of films than from "famous photographers".

That was all.


----------



## usayit

Petraio Prime said:


> The reason is that they end up just copying one another. I learned more about composition, use of angles, influence of light, etc., from watching old B&W movies than from any "great" still photographer.



Well then.. now you are just copying the cinematographers.  Its no different.... your logic doesn't follow no matter how much you wrapped it around a fake shroud of intelligence.   

The whole point is to learn for whatever or whoever and add your own "twist"... make it yours.

"Nothing is original. Steal from anywhere that resonates with inspiration or fuels your imagination. Devour old films, new films, music, books, paintings, photographs, poems, dreams, random conversations, architecture, bridges, street signs, trees, clouds, bodies of water, light and shadows. Select only things to steal from that speak directly to your soul. If you do this, your work (and theft) will be authentic. Authenticity is invaluable; originality is non-existent. And don't bother concealing your thievery - celebrate it if you feel like it. In any case, always remember what Jean-Luc Godard said: "It's not where you take things from - it's where you take them to." - Jim Jarmusch



oh btw..  I think c.cloudwalker's point was that cinema and photography borrowed and copied each other... photography existed prior to movie.


----------



## Overread

And time to put things back on the sane (well mostly sane) track!
My computer is dead so my nice links are all missing at present; but One photographer is missing of my list that I posted earlier (ok that I linked to)

Juza Nature Photography
Well worth looking into for any nature/wildlife/landscape photographers!


----------



## Petraio Prime

usayit said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> The reason is that they end up just copying one another. I learned more about composition, use of angles, influence of light, etc., from watching old B&W movies than from any "great" still photographer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well then.. now you are just copying the cinematographers.  Its no different.... your logic doesn't follow no matter how much you wrapped it around a fake shroud of intelligence.
> 
> The whole point is to learn for whatever or whoever and add your own "twist"... make it yours.
> 
> "Nothing is original. Steal from anywhere that resonates with inspiration or fuels your imagination. Devour old films, new films, music, books, paintings, photographs, poems, dreams, random conversations, architecture, bridges, street signs, trees, clouds, bodies of water, light and shadows. Select only things to steal from that speak directly to your soul. If you do this, your work (and theft) will be authentic. Authenticity is invaluable; originality is non-existent. And don't bother concealing your thievery - celebrate it if you feel like it. In any case, always remember what Jean-Luc Godard said: "It's not where you take things from - it's where you take them to." - Jim Jarmusch
> 
> 
> 
> oh btw..  I think c.cloudwalker's point was that cinema and photography borrowed and copied each other... photography existed prior to movie.
Click to expand...


Oh I don't think you've quite grasped my point though. Most so-called "great photography" leaves me very cold, even though many of the techniques overlap those of the motion picture.  

I fid it puzzling how people go on and on about HCB or AA but never mention Hitchcock or other great directors.


----------



## usayit

Petraio Prime said:


> usayit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> The reason is that they end up just copying one another. I learned more about composition, use of angles, influence of light, etc., from watching old B&W movies than from any "great" still photographer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well then.. now you are just copying the cinematographers.  Its no different.... your logic doesn't follow no matter how much you wrapped it around a fake shroud of intelligence.
> 
> The whole point is to learn for whatever or whoever and add your own "twist"... make it yours.
> 
> "Nothing is original. Steal from anywhere that resonates with inspiration or fuels your imagination. Devour old films, new films, music, books, paintings, photographs, poems, dreams, random conversations, architecture, bridges, street signs, trees, clouds, bodies of water, light and shadows. Select only things to steal from that speak directly to your soul. If you do this, your work (and theft) will be authentic. Authenticity is invaluable; originality is non-existent. And don't bother concealing your thievery - celebrate it if you feel like it. In any case, always remember what Jean-Luc Godard said: "It's not where you take things from - it's where you take them to." - Jim Jarmusch
> 
> 
> 
> oh btw..  I think c.cloudwalker's point was that cinema and photography borrowed and copied each other... photography existed prior to movie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh I don't think you've quite grasped my point though. Most so-called "great photography" leaves me very cold, even though many of the techniques overlap those of the motion picture.
> 
> I fid it puzzling how people go on and on about HCB or AA but never mention Hitchcock or other great directors.
Click to expand...


Yes I do get your point.  I totally disagree with your posts...  its simply awful advice and self centered.  You can pull inspiration and motivation from anywhere from anyone including other photographers such as HCB (i like) and AA.   People should be allowed to study and mimic others' work they admire... be it painting, movies, even photos.  The criticism you so happily to dish out is completely off base considering you yourself are doing the same thing... but with movies.

The thread is titled "famous photographers" on a photography forum populated by photographers to share thoughts about.. yup.. you guessed it... photography.    I don't think posters ignore great directors but simply are intelligent enough recognize the topic of the thread.

The whole thread went down hill when you joined it...




Petraio Prime said:


> bentcountershaft said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, no, and no.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't look at them, I don't care about them, I don't think much of them.
Click to expand...



The irony is that the quote came from an independent film maker...


----------



## usayit

On topic:

Andre Kertesz sadly doesn't get much mention here...
Henri Cartier Bresson

Current White House Photographer, Pete Souza, has had a few photos that caught my attention.


----------



## Petraio Prime

usayit said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> usayit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well then.. now you are just copying the cinematographers.  Its no different.... your logic doesn't follow no matter how much you wrapped it around a fake shroud of intelligence.
> 
> The whole point is to learn for whatever or whoever and add your own "twist"... make it yours.
> 
> "Nothing is original. Steal from anywhere that resonates with inspiration or fuels your imagination. Devour old films, new films, music, books, paintings, photographs, poems, dreams, random conversations, architecture, bridges, street signs, trees, clouds, bodies of water, light and shadows. Select only things to steal from that speak directly to your soul. If you do this, your work (and theft) will be authentic. Authenticity is invaluable; originality is non-existent. And don't bother concealing your thievery - celebrate it if you feel like it. In any case, always remember what Jean-Luc Godard said: "It's not where you take things from - it's where you take them to." - Jim Jarmusch
> 
> 
> 
> oh btw..  I think c.cloudwalker's point was that cinema and photography borrowed and copied each other... photography existed prior to movie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh I don't think you've quite grasped my point though. Most so-called "great photography" leaves me very cold, even though many of the techniques overlap those of the motion picture.
> 
> I fid it puzzling how people go on and on about HCB or AA but never mention Hitchcock or other great directors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes I do get your point.  I totally disagree with your posts...  its simply awful advice and self centered.  You can pull inspiration and motivation from anywhere from anyone including other photographers such as HCB (i like) and AA.   People should be allowed to study and mimic others' work they admire... be it painting, movies, even photos.  The criticism you so happily to dish out is completely off base considering you yourself are doing the same thing... but with movies.
> 
> The thread is titled "famous photographers" on a photography forum populated by photographers to share thoughts about.. yup.. you guessed it... photography.    I don't think posters ignore great directors but simply are intelligent enough recognize the topic of the thread.
> 
> The whole thread went down hill when you joined it...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bentcountershaft said:
> 
> 
> 
> No what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't look at them, I don't care about them, I don't think much of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The irony is that the quote came from an independent film maker...
Click to expand...


I made it up, if someone else said it fine.

I was trying to say how I learned about lighting and composition (watching old movies, rather than looking at famous still photographers' work). I never said I copied anything. I was encouraging others to look at some classic films to have the same opportunity. How could you possibly object?


----------



## Derrel

Why all this blathering on about Hitchcock??? He was a director. He never won an Academy Award for his directing. P-P, why are you giving Hitchcock so much credit?? He didn't do most of the work...his DP's did, and so did the actual cameramen who worked for the various DP's.

The career of "Hitchcock" as a photographer or cinematographer never really existed...what you are crediting to Alfred Hitchcock was REALLY the work of his various Directors of Photography...Jack Cox, George Barnes, Harry Stradling, Joseph Valentine, Glen MacWillliams, Lee Garmes, and Ted Tatzlaff. And of course, for the end of his career, Hitchcock's work was made incredibly good-looking by the masterful DP work of Robert Burks. Burks was the DP for around a dozen of Hitchcock's films, and over his career, Burks made 55 feature films. He won an Academy Award for To Catch a Thief. 

Hitchock NEVER won an Academy Award for his directing...interesting,no?


----------



## Petraio Prime

Derrel said:


> Why all this blathering on about Hitchcock??? He was a director. He never won an Academy Award for his directing. P-P, why are you giving Hitchcock so much credit?? He didn't do most of the work...his DP's did, and so did the actual cameramen who worked for the various DP's.
> 
> The career of "Hitchcock" as a photographer or cinematographer never really existed...what you are crediting to Alfred Hitchcock was REALLY the work of his various Directors of Photography...Jack Cox, George Barnes, Harry Stradling, Joseph Valentine, Glen MacWillliams, Lee Garmes, and Ted Tatzlaff. And of course, for the end of his career, Hitchcock's work was made incredibly good-looking by the masterful DP work of Robert Burks. Burks was the DP for around a dozen of Hitchcock's films, and over his career, Burks made 55 feature films. He won an Academy Award for To Catch a Thief.
> 
> Hitchock NEVER won an Academy Award for his directing...interesting,no?



Quite. You may perhaps fail to realize Hitchcock meticulously planned every shot. His DPs followed his instructions.


----------



## usayit

Petraio Prime said:


> I made it up, if someone else said it fine.
> 
> I was trying to say how I learned about lighting and composition (watching old movies, rather than looking at famous still photographers' work). I never said I copied anything. I was encouraging others to look at some classic films to have the same opportunity. How could you possibly object?



Stop redirecting...  Being negative is not encouraging.


If you made it up.. then go away.


----------



## usayit

erose86 said:


> IGNORE!  IGNORE!  IT'S THE ONLY WAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  I BEG OF YOU ALL!!!!



  I know I should.. but man.. I am having too much fun.


----------



## Petraio Prime

Morpheuss said:


> Hey I was sitting at work today and was listening to my co-workers going on and on about their favorite football player/basketball player/baseball player and I was just thinking since I'm such a dork and don't really watch much of eaither to have favorite players I started thinking about my love for photography and was wondering what is some of your guys favorite photographers



Salgado.


----------



## Village Idiot

erose86 said:


> IGNORE! IGNORE! IT'S THE ONLY WAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I BEG OF YOU ALL!!!!


 
I once heard this famous quote, "The Ignore feature is for assholes." Who said that? Oh yeah, me... :er:


----------



## bushpig

Alpha said:


> Forum member RowmyF is a distant relative of WeeGee.



No way! Really? I'm jealous. I don't normally suffer from celebrity worship, but it's friggin' Weegee! I'm not obsessing over someone who everyone thinks is talented, but really isn't (Johnny Depp?), I'm obsessing over someone who had a darkroom in the trunk of his damn car!

Name ANYTHING cooler than that? 

Also, as a postscript, I realize I do obsess over celebrities. Just not the same ones as everyone else. Most people don't consider Buster Keaton to be their favorite actor of all time.


----------



## gsgary

Petraio Prime said:


> Morpheuss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey I was sitting at work today and was listening to my co-workers going on and on about their favorite football player/basketball player/baseball player and I was just thinking since I'm such a dork and don't really watch much of eaither to have favorite players I started thinking about my love for photography and was wondering what is some of your guys favorite photographers
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Salgado.
Click to expand...



:thumbup: You have actually come up with a good photographer we studied him at college


----------



## Petraio Prime

gsgary said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Morpheuss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey I was sitting at work today and was listening to my co-workers going on and on about their favorite football player/basketball player/baseball player and I was just thinking since I'm such a dork and don't really watch much of eaither to have favorite players I started thinking about my love for photography and was wondering what is some of your guys favorite photographers
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Salgado.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> :thumbup: You have actually come up with a good photographer we studied him at college
Click to expand...


I don't think _he _studied any photographers at college, for what that's worth.


----------



## c.cloudwalker

Petraio Prime said:


> I don't think _he _studied any photographers at college, for what that's worth.



Neither did I. So what? If I ever think that makes me great, anybody can shoot me. Except you, of course.




bushpig said:


> No way! Really? I'm jealous. I don't normally suffer from celebrity worship, but it's friggin' Weegee! I'm not obsessing over someone who everyone thinks is talented, but really isn't (Johnny Depp?), I'm obsessing over someone who had a darkroom in the trunk of his damn car!
> 
> Name ANYTHING cooler than that?



How about all the PJs, including me, who travelled the world with a darkroom in a suitcase?


----------



## Overread

c.cloudwalker said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think _he _studied any photographers at college, for what that's worth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neither did I. So what? If I ever think that makes me great, anybody can shoot me. Except you, of course.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bushpig said:
> 
> 
> 
> No way! Really? I'm jealous. I don't normally suffer from celebrity worship, but it's friggin' Weegee! I'm not obsessing over someone who everyone thinks is talented, but really isn't (Johnny Depp?), I'm obsessing over someone who had a darkroom in the trunk of his damn car!
> 
> Name ANYTHING cooler than that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How about all the PJs, including me, who travelled the world with a darkroom in a suitcase?
Click to expand...

 
Pfft how about a camera the size of  a truck!
The Cameratruck Project

I've also seen someone doing the same with a trailer as well


----------



## Idahophoto

What a great idea! I really don't know to many but here is 5 photographer who's work  I really enjoy. This is in no favorite order just as I happen to put them down. I also put down some reasons. I am sure there are tons I could add and SHOULD add but for off hand right now this is it based solely on me lol.

1)Helmut Newton 
A master. I love how simple and without thought his photos look then when you look more you notice so much more about them.

2)Jim Zuckerman
Most photographers focus on one thing, Jim is like me loves it all. I love his stuff and own a few of his How to DVD's. I have learned so much from him.

3)Tony Sweet
His nature photography I find nothing short of amazing. I have a few of his DVD's aswell and would see him photograph something and think " How utterly boring, what are you doing? Move on man!" Then he will show the result and it's like wow, I want to do that!

4)Ansel Adams
You know, its amazing when you think of all the gear we buy and use and fight over brands. Nikon vs Canon and the higher MP cameras and what is needed to get great photo's. Did this guy use them? Nope, his glass, and the rest of his gear was really weak to what we focus on today (Pun intended =) ) yet I think you would be hard pressed to find anyone better.

5)Joe McNally
This guy does awesome work with flashes. He did a DVD for Nikon Speedlights that I still watch even though I switched to Canon (I Would recommend this video to anyone)and his book Hot Shoe Diaries is outstanding!


----------



## TJ K

Chase Jarvis
Ansel
Mcnally


----------



## bushpig

c.cloudwalker said:


> How about all the PJs, including me, who travelled the world with a darkroom in a suitcase?



You're not famous yet. At least, not famous enough for me to have heard of you. I haven't seen any of your photos unless they were printed in a major publication. If they have been, point me in their direction.

Also, you best not be hatin' on Weegee.


----------

