Photographers & Books

[Patrick]

[coupekid]

Re: Photographers & Books

Well, I have to say that I am not really into buying photography books.

I do like to buy photography magazines as I have mentioned before, but to be honest, Some of the books you mention are probably quite expensive, and the images almost certainly can be found on the web any way.

I personally would sooner spend the money on kit, for all 30 volumes you have bought, you could probably have purchased rather a nice digital slr!

[paul.r.w]

Re: Photographers & Books

I'm with you 'kid!

Anyway I'd ruin them reading in the bath.

[Patrick]

Re: Photographers & Books

Well, I have to say that I am not really into buying photography books.

I do like to buy photography magazines as I have mentioned before, but to be honest, Some of the books you mention are probably quite expensive, and the images almost certainly can be found on the web any way.

I personally would sooner spend the money on kit, for all 30 volumes you have bought, you could probably have purchased rather a nice digital slr!

[DTD]

[Patrick]

Re: Photographers & Books

I'd also really urge people to have a look at some exhibition standard prints in a gallery. Even the best printed books don't compare. I'm sure a lot of people don't realise the kind of craft and quality that can be achieved .

Very good point I wholeheartedly agree.

Patrick

[DTD]

Re: Photographers & Books

Don't mention it. BTW I've sent you a Private Message.

[Stephen]

Re: Photographers & Books

I'd agee about seeing photos in galleries. I've not been for a long time but have seen many in the past at the Photographic museum in Bradford. I can remember seeing an exhibition of Karshes work, I can assure you it was awe inspiring

[paul.r.w]

Re: Photographers & Books

I checked out Edward Weston, John Swannell, and Man Ray on the net and liked John Swannell very much. His nudes look stunning photographically and are also very erotic. Can't say fairer than that.

[Andrew Thatcher]

[coupekid]

Re: Photographers & Books

I'd go as far as saying I don't think you can be a good photographer without an appreciation of what other photographers have done.

haha!

I gues that makes me a bad photographer then, as I could name 'famous' photographers I know on one hand!

Out of the list, I only recognised David Baily!

Personally, I dont agree at all, I know a good photograph when I see one, in a gallery, in a magazine, or on my VDU.

I dont need to have an appreciation of the works of John Smith from 1921 to 1956 or whatever. Yes it may help me become a better photographer, but it certainly isnt needed.


Some would argue that without influences of passed phoographers, would make you more innovative, as you are not striving to recreate what has already been done.

[DTD]

Re: Photographers & Books

Having seen your photographs you're a good photographer! Which I suppose puts a dint in my argument!

I do think one of the appealing things about photography as a hobby is people can enjoy it at different levels, but I can't ever see an argument for not having an appreciation of history and (especially) current practice being anything but a bad thing.

I suppose what I'm saying is that there is a difference between an interest in photography as an 'art' or medium (let's not go there) and photography as cameras/hobby/science/way of recording events.

Most of the acknowleded 'great' photographers (including Bailey) seem to also have incredible awareness of art history. I'm a bit dubious about some of the stars of contempory art photography who perhaps don't.

[Patrick]

Re: Photographers & Books

haha!

I gues that makes me a bad photographer then, as I could name 'famous' photographers I know on one hand!

Out of the list, I only recognised David Baily!

Personally, I dont agree at all, I know a good photograph when I see one, in a gallery, in a magazine, or on my VDU.

I dont need to have an appreciation of the works of John Smith from 1921 to 1956 or whatever. Yes it may help me become a better photographer, but it certainly isnt needed.


Some would argue that without influences of passed phoographers, would make you more innovative, as you are not striving to recreate what has already been done.