'Wet look' or shiny leggings?

[FastFreddy2 282]

5 hours ago, Shyheels said:

Alas, I am always behind the camera, never in front of it....

As a photo-journalist I have a great face for radio and the perfect voice for print... 

Well unless your head sits on your knees, I'm not expecting to see your face.  

I understand your modesty, and your need for privacy .... But unless you've got enough legs to wear 2 pairs of leggings at the same time, (which would likely make you unique), I think your anonymity should be okay?  Maybe give it some more thought when your waistline is 'match-fit'?  

 

P.S.

Which reminds me, I wonder where the photo's are of me wearing the 'medium' Zara PU trousers? ...... 

Edited March 21, 2016 by FastFreddy2

[Shyheels 183]

Maybe you've become someone's pin-up!

 

[FastFreddy2 282]

I have a 'self portrait' as my phone desktop image.... It's caught the eye of one or two, and got a flattering remark from one. (I didn't reveal anything, they just assumed it was from the internet.) But no fan club .... 

The pictures were where they should have been. I'll post them as soon as I can find the time to edit them. 

 

[Shyheels 183]

My mug, complete with cheesy grin, was once on the cover of a large circulation international magazine. It was really weird for a while being recognised by strangers. 

 

[FastFreddy2 282]

8 hours ago, Shyheels said:

My mug, complete with cheesy grin, was once on the cover of a large circulation international magazine. It was really weird for a while being recognised by strangers. 

 

One assumes .... Without heels? (How disappointing.   )

 

Little story ....

(More than 25 years ago....) In the course of her business, my girlfriend provided me with an opportunity to meet a "fellow photographer". Nice man, successful, wealthy. One of his children had recently (to our meeting at his home) had a school photo taken. I was shown the photo. Spotty 15/16 year old kid in school uniform, looked ghastly. Temperature of the photo was way too cool which made the spots look even angrier. His father (photographer) hadn't done anything to improve on it at all. He showed me his "kit". I don't remember more than one camera (I always used two - one loaded with XP1), but he had more lenses than I could count at a glance.... I've never owned more than 3 prime lenses, and generally use one.

The upshot to this meeting was, I would return with some strobes, and take some piccies. All arranged, and I arrived....

Now you would think with a photographer coming around, I'd be given some space? Nope. I was at one end of the upstairs landing, the subject was practically kneeling in his bedroom doorway, and his mother held the (any port in a storm) black velvet background behind him. While I was disappointed with the props and space given to me (mindful of who I was doing this for) the image worked. In fact it worked better than I could have imagined given the circumstance. Remember, this would have been film, so I would have to wait until the negs were processed before finding out what the final image was going to look like (exactly). Anyway, I was pleased, as was the family.  

The kicker ...

So maybe a year later, possibly two, my mate who has seen my portfolio bumps into my junior subject while out with people in Brighton. He asks this young fella if his mate (me) had taken juniors photo a year or two previously. "Yes" was the reply, and the conversation just about ended there.... So my mate tells me about this, and says, "If someone you didn't know, recognised you a 100 miles from where you live, wouldn't you want to know how they knew you?" My reply, "Yes of course." Not this young man, evidently. 

 

I suppose when you are famous, you have to limit your contact with the public?    

[Shyheels 183]

Yes, the cover shot of me was very much without heels. In those days - 15 years ago - my interest in wearing heels was very much in the distant, almost subconscious background, and indeed I was never really interested in heels as such but in tall, elegant boots, knee or otk height. I liked them and thought it was unfair that women could wear them and guys could not. It was not an obsession or anything, just a bit of seasonal wistfulness that would come over me when the autumn fashions would come out, tall boots would once again hit the shelves, and the footpaths, and I would once again wish I could wear such boots too.  Heels to me were just sort of an accent to the look. I liked them on some tall boot styles, preferred flats on others. It has only been in the past two years that I at last acted on this vague wistfulness and now have four pair - all suede, two with heels, two without. Anyway, at the time the cover shot of me was taken there were no heels in the picture...literally or metaphorically.

Your story of the kid's photo rings true. People are just like that - and weird that the photographer himself was so inept that he could provide, or apparently see the need to provide, better props and backdrops, and that he couldn't have done a decent job himself. There are an awful lot of hacks out there. I was flown someplace exotic not long ago, and paid a decent sum of money, to shoot some stuff that was really dead easy to do. It pleased me to get such a commission but I was surprised the people couldn't get someone nearer, and cheaper to do such a simple commission. But then I saw the stuff the others had taken...yipes! There are some very ordinary photographers out there...

I suspect weddings and school photography is really where you find these guys (and gals) in large numbers. 

 

 

[Puffer 258]

5 hours ago, Shyheels said:

...

There are some very ordinary photographers out there...

I suspect weddings and school photography is really where you find these guys (and gals) in large numbers. 

Yes, before they end up in the Small Claims Court!   Like most people, I have a few photos of family members to prove the point both ways over the years.   At both of my weddings, I was fortunate enough to have the services of a talented amateur family-friend; good results - and in lieu of a wedding present so no charge.   I am no photographer - too many other fish to fry and I couldn't face carting all those glass plates around either.

[FastFreddy2 282]

5 hours ago, Shyheels said:

I suspect weddings and school photography is really where you find these guys (and gals) in large numbers. 

At our wedding, the photo's were done by what would otherwise be known as a (minor) 'celebrity photographer', back in the days when I had some money. (He'd done a TV show, sort of fly-on-the-wall gig, and had some well-known clients.)  He was very personable, and made everyone comfortable, including the bride. Sadly the pictures were a bit pedestrian. Beautiful day, perfect little country church, which I think we had for the whole afternoon. Lovely.

I suppose things might have been a bit livelier if we had been younger. This was my first (and only ~ as I'll never do it again) rather unexpected marriage that happened in my middle years. There weren't many youthful looking people around. Even my cousins had (their) children with them.... It was first time for the bride too. At the time we were both pleased with our match, though I suspect Mrs Freddy is less pleased than she was, sadly. The coffers are not as full as they were, and she lives in a building site, rather than a pleasant home. Her disappointment is justified, though I try to make it up with my charm and charisma. I think she's rather have carpets ...  

[Shyheels 183]

Some of those photographers do end up in small claims court, but the majority slip by on the strength of a reluctance by their clients to follow through and do something about their dissatisfaction. Most grimace and bear it. 

My wife attended a wedding last August at which the professional photographer forbade anyone else present to have a camera or even use their mobile phones. He was to have exclusive photographic rights as 'the pro'. 

I saw some of his stuff later - my wife showed me some images her friend had shared. At best, at the very best, you coukd say the compositions were idiosyncratic, but there was no excuse for the poor lightng, exposure and white balance. God knows what the guy charged, and would gave been paid. Sometimes I think I am in the wrong field of photography, although I know I would hate shooting weddings...

 

[FastFreddy2 282]

7 hours ago, Shyheels said:

Your story of the kid's photo rings true. People are just like that - and weird that the photographer himself was so inept that he could provide, or apparently see the need to provide, better props and backdrops, and that he couldn't have done a decent job himself. There are an awful lot of hacks out there.

Just as a point of clarity, and in hindsight ....

This fella wasn't a full-time photographer, but a keen (and well invested) amateur. His income was banking or something like it. He had plenty of free time and a lovely home as I recall. So, plenty of opportunity (and equipment) to do better than the school photo, which was un-purchasable - IMO. 

The difference between a 'snapper' there to record an image, and in my view 'an artist', is that the artist will attempt to provide a story or detail for the image. I have suggested it's an 'artist' who attempts to convey some of the sitters character in a portrait? Taken to a ridiculous degree (for the benefit of the explanation); A sitter/subject with a great sense of humour, might be photographed wearing a clowns outfit, while doing the gardening perhaps. The immediate effect suggesting humour in the sitter/subject. The 'nouveau' approach (care of Instagram or FB) would have the subject/sitter falling off something (boat - dock) while on holiday perhaps? 

 

In the example I provided above, the sitter had a small interest in weights, to build upper body strength I suspect. It meant I immediately associated him with dumbells, which he had, and one of which we used as a prop. The image wouldn't be out of place sitting on a wall at Arnold Schwarzenegger's home, but this was a 15/16 year old school kid.... Lighting was dramatic, and I even sprayed him with water to infer sweat while 'working out'. It couldn't have been further from the school photo in the portrayal of the lad. The image was obvious to me .... Why wasn't something similar done by his dad who didn't have to make anything like the effort I did to get that image, or maybe one even better?

With that in mind, it's perhaps easier to understand why you get the work that might have been cheaper done by someone local, but who typically provides an inferior product (image). You have an eye for a pleasing image. 

 

 

 

[Shyheels 183]

You are quite correct - a picture can indeed be worth a thousand words, or indeed many thousands, in its ability to tell a story. Your use of props for the photo of the school boy is telling. You saw a story, where school photos see only something that might resemble a target silhouette or mug shot. I am afraid that a lot of people shooting these days do not possess that visual story telling gift (and fair enough, I suppose, it is rather rare) but they go off and bill themselves as photographers because, I think, they see it as easier than working for a living.  

Yet shooting to tell a story is damn hard work, and requires plenty of commitment and often much stress. If you are doing it well it is as stressful and demanding as any other job.

[Puffer 258]

4 hours ago, Shyheels said:

Some of those photographers do end up in small claims court, but the majority slip by on the strength of a reluctance by their clients to follow through and do something about their dissatisfaction. Most grimace and bear it. 

My wife attended a wedding last August at which the professional photographer forbade anyone else present to have a camera or even use their mobile phones. He was to have exclusive photographic rights as 'the pro'. 

I saw some of his stuff later - my wife showed me some images her friend had shared. At best, at the very best, you coukd say the compositions were idiosyncratic, but there was no excuse for the poor lightng, exposure and white balance. God knows what the guy charged, and would gave been paid. Sometimes I think I am in the wrong field of photography, although I know I would hate shooting weddings...

 

1.   Judge Rinder is an alternative; I think he has considered at least two such cases!

2.   I find that restriction both unusual and of concern.   I also have my doubts that it would be both reasonable (in law) and enforceable, although possibly a very tight contract for services could attempt to make it so.   I can understand one pro requiring exclusive rights vis-à-vis another (to prevent competing commercial use) but surely not in the context of a wedding when guests would wish to take their own personal mementos?   Or was the ploy to require anyone wanting a memento to buy a photo from him alone?   Is this normal/common in your experience?

[Shyheels 183]

I have heard of this kind of thing before with weddng photographers. I suspect they don't want the competition or to be shown up. It is controlling and strokes their ego too. They like to be 'the pro'. 

I suppose since weddngs are private, and guests can be informed in advance of the ground rules, this sort if stricture is reasonably enforceable. I would never agree to such a thing were it my wedding. But then I woukd not be hiring a photographer either, but would ask friends to shoot.

[FastFreddy2 282]

10 hours ago, Shyheels said:

Yet shooting to tell a story is damn hard work, and requires plenty of commitment and often much stress. If you are doing it well it is as stressful and demanding as any other job.

I can say with some authority, 'photography' was never something I could ever consider "easy". Having spent years mastering the craft (in the technology of the day) there was often as much 'post' work as preparation. While I'm happy to 'snap' people in a heel or wearing interesting clothing with a digital camera, reportage is a matter of being in the right place at the right time, though I would think Ansel Adams (and his followers) might say being in the "right place at the right time", can take months.  As I've said before, I'm significantly happier in a studio anyway, where I can get what I'm after without waiting for the sun/wind/rain/temperature to let me capture an image.  

 

As for the matter of wedding photographers and contractual 'rights', I might offer: I can easily understand a set of circumstances no other photography was "allowed" at a booked wedding. Back in the day (30+ years ago) wedding photographers would have been employed under at least two auspices. 'Employed' for the afternoon/evening at a fixed rate, and £500-£800 wouldn't have been unusual. Sales from photo purchases, would have gone on top. Wedding albums would have earned an extra £300, plus anything for the in-laws at £10/£20 a pop. Good money, but maybe only working 4 months of the year?

A second scenario, which I deplore, was the use of sub-contracted photographers. These would be people brought in at no cost save an 'appearance fee' with sales of pictures producing the vast bulk of any income. The chances were, you had no idea of the probable quality of the images, nor how well you would enjoy the photographer at your wedding. Stress and tension can have an unpleasant effect on some body types which isn't always possible to keep discreet. (B.O.) When someone turns up 'as ordered' and unpaid, you can see why the Agreement might include the absence of any competition for sales? In this situation, as long as someone turned up with a camera, there'd be no "breach of contract" either.

 

A solution I read about that seemed quite novel, was the returnable 'gift' to each guest, of a disposable film camera. The idea being, 50 guests, 50 snappers. One good photo from everyone, would produce enough images for a large album, at a fraction of the usual price.

 

 

 

Ain't nostalgia wonderful? 

 

 

 

 

[Shyheels 183]

Ah, nostalgia. It ain't what it used to be.

In terms of street photography the best advice I ever heard came from Arthur Fellig - 'Weegee' - who worked the mean streets of New York City back in the bad old mobster days of the 30s and 40s. His advice: f/8 and be there.

Ansel Adams shot his most famous image Moonrise Over Hernandez in great haste, seeing the composition out of his car window as he was driving through rural New Mexico one fine evening. Screeched over to the side of the road and hastened to set up the 8x10.

Photographers have their own styles. Henri Cartier-Bresson pretty much used just three prime lenses on his Leicas - a 35mm, a 50mm and a 90mm. The overwhelming number of his images were taken with the 50mm. And he never cropped. 

Some friends of my wife did the cheap gift camera routine and it worked rather well for them. Between that and guests using their mobile phones you can get pretty good coverage.  Better still if you've a friend with a silent DSLR who can get the shots in (usually dim) church of the vows. That is the part where it really would help to have somebody who knows what they are doing and with equipment that can function well and silently in such situations. Theoretically that should be The Pro, but he/she often hasn't a clue, especially with white balance.

 

 

[Shyheels 183]

I was going to mention, back on the topic of PVC and wet look jeans/leggngs, I was surprised to see so many wonen wearing them diwn in Australia where I gave been these past few weeks. And while it was coming into autumn down there, it was a very, very warm autumn with temperatures well over 30C nearly every day and on a few occasions over 40C. But in the cosmopolitan streets of Sydney and Melbourne it was not unusual to see shiny trousers/leggings. 

[Puffer 258]

3 hours ago, Shyheels said:

...

But in the cosmopolitan streets of Sydney and Melbourne it was not unusual to see shiny trousers/leggings. 

What about heels, and footwear styles generally?   (I was briefly in Sydney and Brisbane in January 2000 and recall that stiletto sandals and slingback courts were everyday 'business' wear, with much more casual footwear such as flip-flops the norm for leisure activities.)

[Shyheels 183]

A surprising amount of tall and heeled boots - again, odd given the temperatures even if the calendar did read 'autumn'. Over the knee boots were not uncommon in the business districts of both cities. 

[FastFreddy2 282]

Given the height of Australia's two famous siblings, both well known for wearing high heels, would you say the ladies were generally shorter over there?

And were the boots closed or open toe? I ask because the open toe variant has been surprisingly popular here, despite it being winter and usually wet.

[Shyheels 183]

Australians are generally pretty tall.

I did not see a single pair of open-toed boots.

I can never understand why anyone would want open-toed boots. They make no sense... Not to me, anyway...

[Puffer 258]

4 hours ago, FastFreddy2 said:

Given the height of Australia's two famous siblings, both well known for wearing high heels, would you say the ladies were generally shorter over there?

And were the boots closed or open toe? I ask because the open toe variant has been surprisingly popular here, despite it being winter and usually wet.

Who they?   Are you including Elizabeth Debicki, who is more than 6' tall (just right for me!) but known to wear medium heels (although seemingly in flat sandals throughout The Night Manager)?  

3 hours ago, Shyheels said:

Australians are generally pretty tall.

I did not see a single pair of open-toed boots.

I can never understand why anyone would want open-toed boots. They make no sense... Not to me, anyway...

Likewise, and sandals should have a minimum of thin straps, not a multiplicity of wide bands, laces etc.

[Shyheels 183]

I wonder if he was thinking of the diminutive Minogue sisters?

Australians are fairly tall as a rule, although nothing like Serbians. I had an assignment there not long ago and there are some seriously tall people there, and plenty of six-foot-plus women who are not the least bit hesitant to put on towering heels. I felt like a child there...

Edited March 23, 2016 by Shyheels

[Puffer 258]

17 minutes ago, Shyheels said:

...

Australians are fairly tall as a rule, although nothing like Serbians. I had an assignment there not long ago and there are some seriously tall people there, and plenty of six-foot-plus women who are not the least bit hesitant to put on towering heels. I felt like a child there...

If the Serbian women also have big feet, I wonder if it is a good place for male heel-wearers to shop?   What about Norway - or is it just tall men there?

[Shyheels 183]

I have been to Norway many times and although I know Norwegians are meant to be tall, I never really noticed it let alone felt as though I were in the land of the giants the way I did walking the streets of Belgrade. Those very tall Serbian women, and their even taller menfolk, must buy there boots and shoes somewhere, and they must be in large sizes so...

 

[FastFreddy2 282]

54 minutes ago, Shyheels said:

I wonder if he was thinking of the diminutive Minogue sisters?

And the prize goes to .....  

Kylie, every "heel-man's" dream girl. 

 

34 minutes ago, Puffer said:

If the Serbian women also have big feet, I wonder if it is a good place for male heel-wearers to shop?   

I have access to a bunch of Serbian's with dual nationality. I have mentioned working in a landlords house for some time? I am there again tomorrow (Thursday). These chaps are Serbian, but because they can speak Hungarian, they can get Hungarian passports, which allows them here. They are a nice bunch, and I get on particularly well with two of them. (The more mature two as it happens.)

I could ask? One of the chaps is really tall, the others, not so tall. The tall fella has a girlfriend I have met, and she's not so tall either. Not short but she's 5'7" maybe 5'8" tops.

One of my pairs of Covergirl shoes went to Norway..... One of what used to be a regular contributor here, comes from there too. 

Edited March 23, 2016 by FastFreddy2