MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: ElenaVizerskaya  (Read 11850 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: June 14, 2011, 01:04 »
0
ElenaVizerskaya is a cutting edge photographer with a unique style unlike most at iStockPhoto.

http://www.istockphoto.com/search/portfolio/5767540/?facets={%2230%22%3A%22100%22}#617a488

Share your thoughts on this artist.


lagereek

« Reply #1 on: June 14, 2011, 01:09 »
0
ElenaVizerskaya is a cutting edge photographer with a unique style unlike most at iStockPhoto.

http://www.istockphoto.com/search/portfolio/5767540/?facets={%2230%22%3A%22100%22}#617a488

Share your thoughts on this artist.


Weird stuff!!  whatever shes smoking I want some.

« Reply #2 on: June 14, 2011, 02:08 »
0
She's a top-notch art photographer. She ought to be selling through galleries rather than through microstock. I doubt if much of her work has ended up in adverts rather than on walls.

The curious thing is that when she gets away from the surreal into ordinary stock she doesn't seem to have much of a clue. If you search by age, the first page is pretty mundane.

I just saw Ithn's remarks. He seems to have a very narrow idea of what art is allowed to be. I'm not sure why he counts Avedon's tedious studio mugshots as high art. Maybe he read somewhere that this guy is officially sanctioned as a great artist.

There. That should put the cat among the pigeons.
« Last Edit: June 14, 2011, 02:26 by BaldricksTrousers »

lagereek

« Reply #3 on: June 14, 2011, 03:20 »
0
She's a top-notch art photographer. She ought to be selling through galleries rather than through microstock. I doubt if much of her work has ended up in adverts rather than on walls.

The curious thing is that when she gets away from the surreal into ordinary stock she doesn't seem to have much of a clue. If you search by age, the first page is pretty mundane.

I just saw Ithn's remarks. He seems to have a very narrow idea of what art is allowed to be. I'm not sure why he counts Avedon's tedious studio mugshots as high art. Maybe he read somewhere that this guy is officially sanctioned as a great artist.

There. That should put the cat among the pigeons.

Well, Avedon, Penn, etc, were trend setters, inovators, own creations, etc. Rmemeber,  there were no computer trickery in them days, retouching by hand, etc, was the only way.

Personally speaking:  no photography should ever be called art, too young a media for that,  consequently when I see pics from people like this woman? well its pretty and pretencious, thats it.

Your right, she could never climb down and just shoot commercially, not geared that way. For these sort of people, money doesnt even come into it,  recognition and fame is the end goal.

« Reply #4 on: June 14, 2011, 03:24 »
0
to me its a very strange portfolio. Heaps of vetta high art type images in the first few pages and then at the end of the portfolio there are some walk around holiday snap type photos,brickwall background shot etc.

A bit of a weird mix

Slovenian

« Reply #5 on: June 14, 2011, 03:34 »
0
ElenaVizerskaya is a cutting edge photographer with a unique style unlike most at iStockPhoto.

http://www.istockphoto.com/search/portfolio/5767540/?facets={%2230%22%3A%22100%22}#617a488

Share your thoughts on this artist.


Top knotch!

rubyroo

« Reply #6 on: June 14, 2011, 03:40 »
0
Well I think her more artistic pieces are very creative, interesting and well-executed.  I'm sure she put a lot of hours into producing them (on top of all the hours it will have taken to learn the skills to produce them).  Looking at the download numbers, I'm guessing that the amount of work she put in just hasn't paid off (via microstock, at least), and that this is why her more recent work is aiming towards more of a stock-style.

I would think this has been very frustrating for her, as her first works were launched with such a fanfare.  I'm sure many of us remember discussing her work when it had just arrived, appeared on the front page and seemed to take off like a rocket with respect to downloads.

I'm sure we all reach a point where we weigh up the amount of effort invested vs the return, and adjust our effort accordingly.  I certainly have, and I'm guessing it's the same for her.

I think she's worked really hard and tried to be original.  I can't see anything to be negative about in that. 
« Last Edit: June 14, 2011, 03:50 by rubyroo »

Slovenian

« Reply #7 on: June 14, 2011, 04:00 »
0
I agree that she's devaluating her work by putting it on IS I think this is macro material, Id put all the creative stuff in RM (is it still selling in RM, I'm really not sure). But OTOH, if you look at her port by DLs, you can see that all of her best sellers are Vettas, you can really find just a handful of e+ files among the first 200 files. So the 5300+ DLs are really more like 50k+ for someone who has just a handful of Vettas. Which is an incredible achievement in such a short time period. And I also did notice her slipping ;) . But I really don't think this is only due to "low sales", she probably put out all the work she's done in the last few years and is now just trying to make some easy money on here name (with stocky shots). Nothing wrong with that, she really deserves it. But yeah looking by newest first and boring cityscapes, bread crumbs etc sure doesn't give you the right experience and ruins a bit the overall perception of her work. I bet she'll come back with incredible work as soon as she gets inspired again and perhaps she just needs a short break and shot something that we, normal and not creative people do :)

« Reply #8 on: June 14, 2011, 04:21 »
0

Personally speaking:  no photography should ever be called art, too young a media for that,  consequently when I see pics from people like this woman? well its pretty and pretencious, thats it.


Well, if art is a hand-made creation then something created by mechanical means doesn't qualify. ElenaVizerskaya seems to be creating things through a fusion of drawing and photography which much is closer to the idea of art than straightforward photography. I can imagine this stuff hanging on the wall in a girl student's bedsit.  It's not something I would want but I do admire her technical proficiency and her somewhat Daliesque imagination.

I don't know enough about their work to know what claims to originality Avedon, Penn et al have. The stuff from them I've seen doesn't seem to me to be much different from studio work Felix Nadar and others were doing in the 19th Century. Of course, studio portraiture is a somewhat limiting genre.

I suspect that being a trend-setter owes more to landing a job on Vogue than to having a style that is innately original or superior to any alternatives. Which makes the Vogue picture editor the arbiter of photographic fashion.

« Reply #9 on: June 14, 2011, 04:24 »
0
her best sellers are Vettas, you can really find just a handful of e+ files among the first 200 files. So the 5300+ DLs are really more like 50k+ for someone who has just a handful of Vettas.

Have they always been Vettas, or does that include a heap of downloads from pre-Vetta times?

grp_photo

« Reply #10 on: June 14, 2011, 04:30 »
0
Vetta is certainly better than SS or FT but still doesn't fit in a Microstock- or even Stock- scheme. Personally I think it's more PS than photography and from a photography-point-of-view I'm not impressed at all, despite that nice.

Slovenian

« Reply #11 on: June 14, 2011, 04:35 »
0
her best sellers are Vettas, you can really find just a handful of e+ files among the first 200 files. So the 5300+ DLs are really more like 50k+ for someone who has just a handful of Vettas.

Have they always been Vettas, or does that include a heap of downloads from pre-Vetta times?

It's been like that since I came across her port (perhaps not as many, but all of the best sellers), I think it was when one of her photos (the one with the orange MU) was featured on the first page for Vetta lightbox. I'm sure 9 months or so passed since then. I think her RPI is not something of an average gold canistered exclusive, say 2-3$, but more like 20$ or so;)

lagereek

« Reply #12 on: June 14, 2011, 05:53 »
0
Personally as I said, any kind of photography is IMO, too young a media to even come close to real art. However if you can create a stunner in-camera, using just the camera, composition, lighting, etc and without any help from retouching in any form,  well, then its impressive.

Many years back I photographed David-Hockney at work, gigantic studio in the Highlands of Scotland, his paintings were already then selling for millions of bucks.

When asked about his art, he said, Oh this balloney is not art, I just create and paint the stuff, then some lunatic will come along and buy it.

Slovenian

« Reply #13 on: June 14, 2011, 06:00 »
0
When asked about his art, he said, Oh this balloney is not art, I just create and paint the stuff, then some lunatic will come along and buy it.

Indeed! :D (generally I mean)

« Reply #14 on: June 14, 2011, 06:37 »
0
99% of "art" is bought to impress.   It doesnt matter what it is.   

« Reply #15 on: June 14, 2011, 06:57 »
0
Personally as I said, any kind of photography is IMO, too young a media to even come close to real art. However if you can create a stunner in-camera, using just the camera, composition, lighting, etc and without any help from retouching in any form,  well, then its impressive.



I found this impressive, as an example of in-camera work:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/23209605@N00/5612080013/#in/photostream

It's interesting that much of her best work is large format.

Carl

  • Carl Stewart, CS Productions
« Reply #16 on: June 14, 2011, 07:13 »
0
I think she's utterly amazing.  Mastery of the technical aspects, and a true artist with unmatched vision and imagination.  I'm fascinated with her ability to combine hand-drawn material with photographs, and I wish I had that much creativity and technical prowess.  Say what you will, but I'm now a fan.

« Reply #17 on: June 14, 2011, 07:56 »
0
I like her work, it is awesome.  I agree with others selling such work on Microstock does not do justice to her talent. A coffee table book or two (if she does not already do so) will give her the much deserved publicity and visibility. Now if she would come to MSG and share with us her thoughts, that would be nice.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #18 on: June 14, 2011, 07:58 »
0
She's a top-notch art photographer. She ought to be selling through galleries rather than through microstock. I doubt if much of her work has ended up in adverts rather than on walls.

The curious thing is that when she gets away from the surreal into ordinary stock she doesn't seem to have much of a clue. If you search by age, the first page is pretty mundane.

I just saw Ithn's remarks. He seems to have a very narrow idea of what art is allowed to be. I'm not sure why he counts Avedon's tedious studio mugshots as high art. Maybe he read somewhere that this guy is officially sanctioned as a great artist.

There. That should put the cat among the pigeons.
Agree on all three points.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #19 on: June 14, 2011, 08:05 »
0
her best sellers are Vettas, you can really find just a handful of e+ files among the first 200 files. So the 5300+ DLs are really more like 50k+ for someone who has just a handful of Vettas.
Have they always been Vettas, or does that include a heap of downloads from pre-Vetta times?
I get the impression (pure surmise) she was headhunted from social media. She was then hothoused (immediate image of the week) and got her 250dls to become exclusive extremely quickly (actually, while the same images were still available for free download from at least one 'image-sharing' site) so her pics became Vetta within a very short time of her arriving at iStock.

« Reply #20 on: June 14, 2011, 08:35 »
0
I like her work, it is awesome.  I agree with others selling such work on Microstock does not do justice to her talent. A coffee table book or two (if she does not already do so) will give her the much deserved publicity and visibility. Now if she would come to MSG and share with us her thoughts, that would be nice.


You can get her thoughts here: http://www.istockphoto.com/article_view.php?ID=975

Some of it is quite ... esoteric, and seems like an over attempt to be very "artsy".  I like her concept work - I wish I were as good at compositing and merging bit and pieces.

lagereek

« Reply #21 on: June 14, 2011, 08:38 »
0
Personally as I said, any kind of photography is IMO, too young a media to even come close to real art. However if you can create a stunner in-camera, using just the camera, composition, lighting, etc and without any help from retouching in any form,  well, then its impressive.



I found this impressive, as an example of in-camera work:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/23209605@N00/5612080013/#in/photostream

It's interesting that much of her best work is large format.


Yes that is impressive, large-format, etc and perfect exposure, composition, etc. Anybody who has used an LF, 4x5 or 8x10, will know how difficult it is. She has probabaly done some bracketting though.

Joel-Myerowitz, is another photographer who carts around his giant 8x10, into the wilderness, up mountains, down valleys, he almost sleeps with his Deardorff.

« Reply #22 on: June 14, 2011, 09:10 »
0
Her work is beautiful. Some very thought provoking. She has an eye for concepts. I would consider her work art, which is very subjective. I am surprised to see it on micro stock tho.
Thanks for posting.

« Reply #23 on: June 14, 2011, 09:24 »
0
I find her creativity fascinating. Interesting interview.

« Reply #24 on: June 14, 2011, 09:44 »
0
Personally as I said, any kind of photography is IMO, too young a media to even come close to real art. However if you can create a stunner in-camera, using just the camera, composition, lighting, etc and without any help from retouching in any form,  well, then its impressive.

Many years back I photographed David-Hockney at work, gigantic studio in the Highlands of Scotland, his paintings were already then selling for millions of bucks.

When asked about his art, he said, Oh this balloney is not art, I just create and paint the stuff, then some lunatic will come along and buy it.
So would you say his photos weren't art but his paintings are?  I prefer his photos.  Never understood why people think photography is a lower form of art than painting.  Many of the great paintings from hundreds of years ago were made using a lens to project the image on to a canvas, then they just painted the image.  I don't really see any difference between doing that and using a camera.  Anyone can take photos but anyone can splash paint on a canvas as well.


 

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors