500px.Katerina Plotnikova

[JAS_Photo]

From 500px. This photographer is crazy good and the models are very brave!
500px / Katerina Plotnikova / Photos

[theantiquetiger]

I have a small problem with these images. They are great and all but I feel like the hair/makeup artist and/or set designer have a larger impact on the image than the photographer. Unless the photographer was also these other people, I think they need more credit than than the photographer.

[Iguanasan]

She is definitely doing an awesome job of expressing her art but even though it's "out there" I still kind feel like it's been done. There seems to be a lot of people doing these young girl in the wild fantasy type photos with the crazy dresses and the blur with nature. The addition of the animals is a little different and I suspect she's putting her models at risk. There's a fine line between brave and stupid.

As for your comment, AT. Ultimately, it's the photographer's vision in creating these images. Whether they get someone to do makeup or the get someone to hold a reflector in the right place, it's the photographer who makes the decisions about how this image looks. I also suspect that there is a fair bit of Photoshop going on in many of those images so it may be digital manipulation rather than real-world manipulation which likely means the photographer did that part as well.

What about my recent photos of the Halifax Pride Parade? Are you suggesting that more credit goes to the participants because I didn't do their makeup and clothes? I understand what you are saying, AT, but at the end of the day, it's the photographer who frames the shot and pushes the shutter.

[Marko]

Very strong and striking work!

I agree with AT here on a certain level....and in magazines when this happens the stylist and hair/makeup people also get credit. In films the director usually gets first billing but other people also get credit. The styling and hair make-up in these images look professionally done...but harder to credit people in individual photos....hmmmm.

[JAS_Photo]

I think quite a few of these have the models photoshopped into place.

500px / Untitled by Katerina Plotnikova

500px / Untitled by Katerina Plotnikova

Maybe even this one.
500px / Untitled by Katerina Plotnikova

I think they are all well done. Whether composites or not. It is the photographer's ideas and concepts here so the location, costuming, hair and make-up are all part of that. I do not know what the photographer's background is but she(?) obviously has access to models, sets and stylists. The images are stunning.

[theantiquetiger]

What about my recent photos of the Halifax Pride Parade? Are you suggesting that more credit goes to the participants because I didn't do their makeup and clothes? I understand what you are saying, AT, but at the end of the day, it's the photographer who frames the shot and pushes the shutter.

Staged and free lance photography are two completely different animals. In your free lance images, it was your eye that grabbed the scene, you made it happen by yourself. We see you vision that you created by yourself. Basically, you went out and found the art you wanted to shoot.

These staged images probably had a crew of a dozen people making sure everything was perfect, and in the end, everyone simply gives credit only to the photographer.

This reminds me of my college B/W photography professor. She thought Ansel Adams was nothing but a hack. All he could do is shoot landscapes. He was nothing but a decent photographer with a tripod and a burn tool in the darkroom. He couldn't go out in the real world and capture anything else (these were her words). She was basically saying his landscapes were staged and no real photography skills were needed other than a good eye.

[JAS_Photo]

And you agree with that? Or was that satire? Does a photographer have to be able to photograph everything to be a "photographer"? Some photographers specialize in landscapes, others portraits, others product photography. Does that make them hacks? If a photographer has a concept and hires the models and stylists for the shoots, does that make him any the less the photographer? Setting up the lighting for these shots, alone takes some great degree of skill and knowledge.

Gosh here is another hack. psshah.

[theantiquetiger]

And you agree with that? Or was that satire? Does a photographer have to be able to photograph everything to be a "photographer"? Some photographers specialize in landscapes, others portraits, others product photography. Does that make them hacks? If a photographer has a concept and hires the models and stylists for the shoots, does that make him any the less the photographer? Setting up the lighting for these shots, alone takes some great degree of skill and knowledge.

Gosh here is another hack. psshah.

I don't agree with her statement but I understand what she was trying to say. She basically was saying Adams had no eye other than landscapes. Annie Leibovitz basically does one type of photography and is probably one of the best in the world in portraits, but if she sucks at candid or landscape(not saying she is, never seen her other work), does it make her a hack? No, just her skill level differs from genre to genre.

The video you posted, there is the photographer and light man. I don't consider these "staged" images. Hair, make up, & outfit are nothing special. Most of what you see in the images at the end of the video are from the photographer, not a photographer, make up artist, set designer, etc

We have gotten off the topic I brought up, staged vs free lance (an entire crew vs lone photographer).

I said in my first post in this thread, I felt the designers of the sets, hair and make up artist, costume designer had a greater impact on the images than the photographer. The video you posted, the photographer had nearly all impact on the images.