Peaceful times (Tamron 11-18mm @ 11mm)
If you’ve not read David duChemin’s blog, I highly recommend it. There are lots of good nuggets of wisdom about being a professional photographer and following one’s passion. There are two articles of interest that I read: One yesterday. One today. They are: Know your place: A Sermon in two parts and Know your place, part two. They offer a good amount of food for thought.
Though I’m not in the market, just yet, to be a professional photographer, it’s great ground work for what lies ahead. In the second part he talks about your big red X. That is, the photographer that you are. Your brand, your unmistakable style. He says that there is room for everyone. You may not be Moose Peterson, but you can still be a professional wildlife photographer. You just have to hone your skills and direct yourself to be the best ‘you’ that you can be. You need to be the biggest, brightest X that you can be. He also talks about dilution. Are you the go-to guy for destination weddings, or are you the guy who does weddings, and macros, a landscapes, and … If so, how will your customer find you? How will they see your particular style? How will they choose you.
Zack Aria mentioned something similar to this about choosing pictures to go in your online galleries and especially your portfolio. Choose those that suit your style and are examples of your best work, etc. I wonder, periodically, what it is that I would do as a professional photographer? What am I good at? I point my camera at all types of things, but could see myself photographing the desert southwest, like Alain Briot. Or, closer to home, making a living photographing the Blue Ridge Parkway, of which I miss dearly at this time. By far, I think, most of better pictures are of those subjects. Subjects that I seem to relate to. Also, most anything with water in it, especially rivers and streams.
Food for thought: Where is your big red X? What are you good at? If you are, or were to become a professional photographer, what would be your area of focus? Where is your passion?
Related posts:
8 Responses to “Where is your big red X?”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Paul, Do you find that for landscapes you go for the widest focal length?
@Bob: Not always, but I do like the dimensions that it gives the photo. I find that, landscape wise, I like to portray wide-open spaces.
For most of my landscapes, I tend to use fairly long lenses (up to 720mm on the 4×5, equivalent to approximately 270mm on 35mm, non-crop).
I’m always excited when I find an opportunity for a spectacular wide-angle shot, but I find that in most places, there’s always a pleasing detail that’s worth photographing with the right light
Hey nice shot. That curving flower bed really lends itself to the ultra wide angle lens.
I’ve found it a little tricky getting just the right depth-of-field in this situation (curving continuous subject) using an ultra-wide due to often being within inches of the nearest part of the subject. How do you approach what part of an image like this you want the sharpest?
Hello Paul,
Haven’t been here for a while, due to all kind of circumstances. But kept following from a distance
Your question intrigues me. Recently someone said that I didn’t have a personal style yet.
I think I’m developing towards macro-subjects and I’m experimenting turning nature-subjects into black and white pictures. What (nature)subjects do look good in black and white?
I have always been interested in things not easy visible and less interested in what everyone sees. (don’t the right expression for it)
Maybe that’s why I became a teacher year’s ago
@Earl: Regarding sharpness, I try to make sure that the subject, in this case, the statue of the girl, is very sharp. I focused on her, then tilted the lens down to include the flowers, etc. On this particular day, I was being lazy. I could have used my tripod, which I had with me, to get additional depth of field by using f/11, or so, but as I said, I was lazy.
What I’ve also done, tripod required, was to shoot two frames, focused slightly differently. One for the foreground, the other for the background. Then, combine them in Photoshop. It works really well … but I need to do the upgrade to CS4 for Mac, which I’ve not done yet. I’m finding that I’m missing PS. I didn’t think that I would.
Hey there,
Great post! I work for Peachpit Press and I wanted to let you know that a sample chapter from David DuChemin’s forthcoming book, “Within the Frame: A Journey in Photographic Vision,” is now available to download for free. Enjoy!
http://bit.ly/17d3Fw
Best,
Kara
@Kara: Thanks so much for the link!