Author Topic: Which iStock photographers do you admire the most? (Read 11155 times)

oxman · « **on:** June 13, 2011, 17:55 »

Based on quality execution, art direction, technical skills and concept creativity, which photographers impress you the most?

My list in random order:
- DNY59
- skodonnell
- kasiam
- pixhook
- blackred
- nikada
- yuri arcurs
- lisegagne
- hidsey
- peepo
- Floortje

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #1 on:** June 13, 2011, 17:58 »

Me.

oxman · « **Reply #2 on:** June 13, 2011, 17:59 »

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on June 13, 2011, 17:58

Me.

LOL good answer!

luissantos84 · « **Reply #3 on:** June 13, 2011, 18:01 »

what a great topic

Slovenian · « **Reply #4 on:** June 13, 2011, 18:26 »

Quote from: oxman on June 13, 2011, 17:55

Based on quality execution, art direction, technical skills and concept creativity, which photographers impress you the most?

My list in random order:
- DNY59
- skodonnell
- kasiam
- pixhook
- blackred
- nikada
- yuri arcurs
- lisegagne
- hidsey
- peepo
- Floortje

I really like Casarsa, he's Slovenian like me, great, creative stuff, nice postprocessing. Out of those you mention I like peepo (a bit too artificial postprocessing in some cases, yeah I know some of the images are illustrations/3Ds or however they're called). Lise is awesome, creative and has great concepts, crazy too at times. Nikada is pretty good too (great photos, just not as different as from the 2 I mentioned, not that different from main stream). Others are just boring, artificial, stereotypical stock photographers. Awesome in every way of course, great photographers, but you can see they're slaves to the industry since everything they shoot, they just do it to maximize sales. No joy whatsoever in it. They're like top businessmen, ultra successful, loaded, but not really happy and without any free time. Usually, I hope most of them don't fall into that category.

It's interesting to go through the macro libraries sometimes, you see so much more natural looking photos, real life stuff, often simple and yet so incredible at the same time. Micro is just so fake with all the super saturated photos, cheesy smiles (usually with those horrible fake white teeth), so American. You can find great concepts, but they're more rare than on macros and often just copies.

Suljo · « **Reply #5 on:** June 13, 2011, 19:25 »

Quote from: Slovenian on June 13, 2011, 18:26

Quote from: oxman on June 13, 2011, 17:55
Based on quality execution, art direction, technical skills and concept creativity, which photographers impress you the most?

My list in random order:
- DNY59
- skodonnell
- kasiam
- pixhook
- blackred
- nikada
- yuri arcurs
- lisegagne
- hidsey
- peepo
- Floortje

I really like Casarsa, he's Slovenian like me, great, creative stuff, nice postprocessing. Out of those you mention I like peepo (a bit too artificial postprocessing in some cases, yeah I know some of the images are illustrations/3Ds or however they're called). Lise is awesome, creative and has great concepts, crazy too at times. Nikada is pretty good too (great photos, just not as different as from the 2 I mentioned, not that different from main stream). Others are just boring, artificial, stereotypical stock photographers. Awesome in every way of course, great photographers, but you can see they're slaves to the industry since everything they shoot, they just do it to maximize sales. No joy whatsoever in it. They're like top businessmen, ultra successful, loaded, but not really happy and without any free time. Usually, I hope most of them don't fall into that category.

It's interesting to go through the macro libraries sometimes, you see so much more natural looking photos, real life stuff, often simple and yet so incredible at the same time. Micro is just so fake with all the super saturated photos, cheesy smiles (usually with those horrible fake white teeth), so American. You can find great concepts, but they're more rare than on macros and often just copies.

You even forget that this kind of processing is forbidden for most non iStock exclusives.
eg (This image appears to be over-filtered/over-processed which has affected the image quality. This may include Photoshop filters & effects (over-sharpening, excessive adjustments to levels, curves, contrast, hues, gaussian blurs, saturation, added textures, noise reduction...) or other manipulations. We feel the image would have more value to designers with minimal or no post processing effects so that the designers could add their own post-processing effects. Some images can benefit from minor touch-ups to grab the viewer?s attention and there is no definitive line to what editing makes or breaks a great image but the end result should be a single image that can still be molded into a design. Inspectors judge images based on quality, composition and usability. If you require further explanation regarding this rejection, please submit a ticket to Scout blah BLAH) or other lunatic delusion explanations...

http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-4578501-graduation.php?st=7e358f5

Very realistic blue flag noise.
It was just Im there

WarrenPrice · « **Reply #6 on:** June 13, 2011, 19:52 »

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on June 13, 2011, 17:58

Me.

Dang! You beat me to it. LOL

fritz · « **Reply #7 on:** June 13, 2011, 20:08 »

Olena Chernenko alias Elena Vizerskaya admire me the most.
Like someone said she has the most artistic imagery that a human eye could possibly find on Istockphoto.
I've seen many outstanding photos but this is really something ............
Curious, take a look
http://www.istockphoto.com/user_view.php?id=5767540
or
http://www.photodom.com/member/kassandra&page=0

suemack · « **Reply #8 on:** June 13, 2011, 20:19 »

Quote from: alexmk on June 13, 2011, 20:08

Olena Chernenko alias Elena Vizerskaya admire me the most.
Like someone said she has the most artistic imagery that a human eye could possibly find on Istockphoto.
I've seen many outstanding photos but this is really something ............
Curious, take a look
http://www.istockphoto.com/user_view.php?id=5767540
or
http://www.photodom.com/member/kassandra&page=0

Incredible portfolio!

Suljo · « **Reply #9 on:** June 13, 2011, 21:27 »

If you are shooting with crappy camera it seams the magic word for avoiding noise and other problems with revievers is to write in description field:

The grain and texture added.

!!!!!!!!!!!!??!!?

??!??!??!!!!!
what?!??!???!

http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-13309681-smoken-women.php?st=379e824

and after that you can go to veta class!?
Grain is NOT added it just noise from crappy camera with lobotomy filter. This is one example for they non popular image.

what?

Conclusion:
1. You must be exclusive
2. Must have cheapest camera + filter forge crappy fake filters
3. Shoot things when you are in * age and woilaaa
4. Lobotomy revievers will make u a star because they approved you images on market

WooYaajjj

Conclusion after conjclusion:

best part only for youre ears:
You must be exclusive for "small-time cattle"
eg iStock

and thats way to lets say success.

lthn · « **Reply #10 on:** June 13, 2011, 23:19 »

Quote from: alexmk on June 13, 2011, 20:08

Olena Chernenko alias Elena Vizerskaya admire me the most.
Like someone said she has the most artistic imagery that a human eye could possibly find on Istockphoto.
I've seen many outstanding photos but this is really something ............
Curious, take a look
http://www.istockphoto.com/user_view.php?id=5767540
or
http://www.photodom.com/member/kassandra&page=0

There are some rare nice ones but mostly just kitschy crap execution of painfully banal concepts. This really is the pleb's idea of art... if this has become widely accepted as the move towards art, this culture is going down the drain....

SNP · « **Reply #11 on:** June 13, 2011, 23:48 »

^ "the pleb's idea of art"....that's one of the more bold art snobbery statements I've come across. I thought it wasn't cool to be so bourgeois in art circles?

lthn · « **Reply #12 on:** June 14, 2011, 00:28 »

I don't care, I'm honestly pretty fed up with somewhat above average photoshop ads being called art. There's hardly any real art left in our culture there should be some ppl speaking out.

SNP · « **Reply #13 on:** June 14, 2011, 00:43 »

I guess your post begs the question; what do you consider art? a link or example of something you feel is worthy? to be honest, I agree with you about heavily photoshopped images....but that's a personal preference. I don't extend that preference as a devaluation of the artistic merit of photoshopped images. I just don't care for them personally.

lagereek · « **Reply #14 on:** June 14, 2011, 01:05 »

Avedon, Penn, Newton, Webber and Daguerre, are all great IS photographers. BTW, he still uploads wet-plates from the 18th centuary.

oxman · « **Reply #15 on:** June 14, 2011, 01:07 »

Folks, ElenaVizerskaya deserves her own thread and is worthy of your comments. So I started one for you to post in if you want.

Please don't hijack this thread discussing her.

Thanks
OX

lthn · « **Reply #16 on:** June 14, 2011, 01:09 »

well, Goya's Water Carrier is one of my favorite paintings f.e., but most ppl will say I'm wondering off topic... but I strongly deny that, I see all the time how most ppl think stuff cited here and the like are the new version of that (or act as a replacement when it comes to appreciation, since most hardly know anything about classic art at all) and I see an abyss between the two.

But even if you put all that aside, that tatooed women acting as Boticelli's venus, or a woman standing on a paper ship, that (as if wasn't overtly descriptive already) even has 'eternity' written on it, I guess for the extremely weak minded, that's just not good taste at all.

SNP · « **Reply #17 on:** June 14, 2011, 10:47 »

so what you're saying rather emphatically is you need to be narrow minded and narcissistic to appreciate art? art is subjective. it combines the vision of an artist with WHATEVER interpretation the audience brings to it. Goya was an incredible painter no doubt, but to suggest nothing new can be art is ludicrous. especially since much 'art' from those days was commissioned portraiture created simply for money...just as novels of those times were written to include as many words as possible since authors were paid by the word. not exactly artistic expression.

I'm amazed at your dismissive attitude towards art but you're just dropping bait in here and you're clearly not interested in a discussion about art. so...

lthn · « **Reply #18 on:** June 14, 2011, 11:27 »

"so what you're saying rather emphatically is you need to be narrow minded and narcissistic to appreciate art?"

Where is exactly did I say that? Feel free to explain : )

"but to suggest nothing new can be art is ludicrous."

khhm again, where did I say that?

" much 'art' from those days was commissioned portraiture created simply for money...just as novels of those times were written to include as many words as possible since authors were paid by the word. not exactly artistic expression."

So... why exactly does that (being commissioned) exlude it from being art? (hmm.. and I have narrow understind of art?) Once again, feel free to explain.

"I'm amazed at your dismissive attitude towards art but you're just dropping bait in here and you're clearly not interested in a discussion about art. so..."

Your idea of discussion seems to be something like this:

- the sun is green!
- no dear SNP, it's light contains most vawelenghts so it's white seen with yellow shade here
- but u didn't take out thrash either!

you are right, that is not a conversation : )

helix7 · « **Reply #19 on:** June 14, 2011, 11:29 »

Quote from: lthn on June 14, 2011, 00:28

I don't care, I'm honestly pretty fed up with somewhat above average photoshop ads being called art. There's hardly any real art left in our culture there should be some ppl speaking out.

If you're looking to advertising for art, then sure you're going to come up feeling underwhelmed.

I think there's a ton of real art out there today, and access to it in ways that weren't possible before. There's also a whole new breed of digital artists, illustrators, and painters out there producing some amazing stuff. Not to mention some unbelievable photographers. To say there's hardly any real art left in our culture is sort of shortsighted, especially in the age of the Internet when it's so much easier to be exposed to tons of great art online.

lthn · « **Reply #20 on:** June 14, 2011, 11:36 »

Quote from: helix7 on June 14, 2011, 11:29

Quote from: lthn on June 14, 2011, 00:28
I don't care, I'm honestly pretty fed up with somewhat above average photoshop ads being called art. There's hardly any real art left in our culture there should be some ppl speaking out.

If you're looking to advertising for art, then sure you're going to come up feeling underwhelmed.

I think there's a ton of real art out there today, and access to it in ways that weren't possible before. There's also a whole new breed of digital artists, illustrators, and painters out there producing some amazing stuff. Not to mention some unbelievable photographers. To say there's hardly any real art left in our culture is sort of shortsighted, especially in the age of the Internet when it's so much easier to be exposed to tons of great art online.

I mostly agree, maybe not a ton, but there's plenty of real artists, the problem is that they aren't part of our culture since hardly anyone knows about them. I hope they will be someday, but it doesn't seem to be going that way. f.e. I know a few real artits, young painters, their paintings have been seen by about a dozen ppl at best, including me. Gallery owners are totally disinterested in them because they don't produce 40-50 paintings in month, rather 1 or 0.5, and/or they don't follow any 'recent trend' : )

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #21 on:** June 14, 2011, 12:07 »

Being "part of our culture" as an artist means having the right friends and/or doing a good job of self-promotion. The quality of the artwork is a secondary factor because it's all subjective, anyway.

Slovenian · « **Reply #22 on:** June 14, 2011, 12:32 »

^^Indeed.

SNP · « **Reply #23 on:** June 14, 2011, 12:49 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on June 14, 2011, 12:07

Being "part of our culture" as an artist means having the right friends and/or doing a good job of self-promotion. The quality of the artwork is a secondary factor because it's all subjective, anyway.

exactly.

loop · « **Reply #24 on:** June 14, 2011, 12:54 »

Quote from: SNP on June 14, 2011, 12:49

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on June 14, 2011, 12:07
Being "part of our culture" as an artist means having the right friends and/or doing a good job of self-promotion. The quality of the artwork is a secondary factor because it's all subjective, anyway.

exactly.

And having the talent as well. Don't forget that part.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #25 on:** June 14, 2011, 12:56 »

Quote from: loop on June 14, 2011, 12:54

Quote from: SNP on June 14, 2011, 12:49
Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on June 14, 2011, 12:07
Being "part of our culture" as an artist means having the right friends and/or doing a good job of self-promotion. The quality of the artwork is a secondary factor because it's all subjective, anyway.

exactly.

And having the talent as well. Don't forget that part.

No, that's secondary.

lthn · « **Reply #26 on:** June 14, 2011, 14:13 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on June 14, 2011, 12:07

Being "part of our culture" as an artist means having the right friends and/or doing a good job of self-promotion. The quality of the artwork is a secondary factor because it's all subjective, anyway.

true, but I disagree about quality of art being subjective. Imho, that's a misconcept, as is with beauty (especially human beauty), it's not even remotely as subjective as most ppl think. Actually this 'art and beauty in art is subjective' started spreading after Warhol imho... so they can say that anything can be art, which very is comfortable for such talentless freak showman as Warhol and the like, and the pple who sell "art". Just as fat ugly women and the ppl who want them to buy somethng or vote for somethgn like to say that beauty is subjective. Yep, I'm anti-pc.

bunhill · « **Reply #27 on:** June 14, 2011, 14:22 »

Quote from: lthn on June 14, 2011, 14:13

I disagree about quality of art being subjective. Imho, that's a misconcept, as is with beauty (especially human beauty), it's not even remotely as subjective as most ppl think. Actually this 'art and beauty in art is subjective' started spreading after Warhol imho... so they can say that anything can be art, which very is comfortable for such talentless freak showman as Warhol and the like, and the pple who sell "art". Just as fat ugly women and the ppl who want them to buy somethng or vote for somethgn like to say that beauty is subjective. Yep, I'm anti-pc.

What-is-art conversations are pointless. All educated adults know this. However the "anything can be art" argument (which I am personally broadly sympathetic to but would not argue) long predates Andy Warhol. Eg Marcel Duchamp. At least get your history right.

lthn · « **Reply #28 on:** June 14, 2011, 14:52 »

Quote from: bunhill on June 14, 2011, 14:22

Quote from: lthn on June 14, 2011, 14:13
I disagree about quality of art being subjective. Imho, that's a misconcept, as is with beauty (especially human beauty), it's not even remotely as subjective as most ppl think. Actually this 'art and beauty in art is subjective' started spreading after Warhol imho... so they can say that anything can be art, which very is comfortable for such talentless freak showman as Warhol and the like, and the pple who sell "art". Just as fat ugly women and the ppl who want them to buy somethng or vote for somethgn like to say that beauty is subjective. Yep, I'm anti-pc.

What-is-art conversations are pointless. All educated adults know this. However the "anything can be art" argument (which I am personally broadly sympathetic to but would not argue) long predates Andy Warhol. Eg Marcel Duchamp. At least get your history right.

'Anything is art' is for the uneducated and the naiv, who are as usual mislead by all who just want to entitle themselves artist instead of living up to the title. It's mostly a money grab: why wait for years for an artist to grow skills, and finish a painting with great care, when you can just sell used tin cans to the clueless? : ) There are rules for compositon, color, proportion and tones, they are nice, they work, and they can be combined in amazing complexity which all comes naturally and effortlesly to the talented and properly trained : )

jbarber873 · « **Reply #29 on:** June 14, 2011, 15:08 »

Quote from: WarrenPrice on June 13, 2011, 19:52

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on June 13, 2011, 17:58
Me.

Dang! You beat me to it. LOL

I'm with you Warren. I also admire PaulieWalnuts!

loop · « **Reply #30 on:** June 14, 2011, 15:30 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on June 14, 2011, 12:56

Quote from: loop on June 14, 2011, 12:54
Quote from: SNP on June 14, 2011, 12:49
Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on June 14, 2011, 12:07
Being "part of our culture" as an artist means having the right friends and/or doing a good job of self-promotion. The quality of the artwork is a secondary factor because it's all subjective, anyway.

exactly.

And having the talent as well. Don't forget that part.

No, that's secondary.

Hum, all this reminds me a comic artist (I mean a cartoonist) I knew. He wasn't very gifted, but he used to say that should he had the contacts of Moebius an should he got paid like Moebous, he would dran like him, or even better,

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #31 on:** June 14, 2011, 23:41 »

Quote from: loop on June 14, 2011, 15:30

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on June 14, 2011, 12:56
Quote from: loop on June 14, 2011, 12:54
Quote from: SNP on June 14, 2011, 12:49
Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on June 14, 2011, 12:07
Being "part of our culture" as an artist means having the right friends and/or doing a good job of self-promotion. The quality of the artwork is a secondary factor because it's all subjective, anyway.

exactly.

And having the talent as well. Don't forget that part.

No, that's secondary.

Hum, all this reminds me a comic artist (I mean a cartoonist) I knew. He wasn't very gifted, but he used to say that should he had the contacts of Moebius an should he got paid like Moebous, he would dran like him, or even better,

Yeah, well, if only I had the contacts and the gallery access not only could I produce glass tanks full of the decomposing corpses of animals, I could up the ante by using endangered animals and have you crunching over a floor carpeted in fake animal feed and going past an unmade bed to reach them. Or something like that.

SNP · « **Reply #32 on:** June 15, 2011, 00:16 »

don't forget about the meat dress...(no, not talking about Lady Gaga...we had one in Canada well before her)

http://rebeccasfashionmagazines.blogspot.com/2009/08/jana-sterback-vanitas-1987-seen-at.html

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Which iStock photographers do you admire the most? (Read 11155 times)

oxman

PaulieWalnuts

oxman

luissantos84

Slovenian

Suljo

WarrenPrice

fritz

suemack

Suljo

lthn

SNP

lthn

SNP

lagereek

oxman

lthn

SNP

lthn

helix7

lthn

BaldricksTrousers

Slovenian

SNP

loop

BaldricksTrousers

lthn

bunhill

lthn

jbarber873

loop

BaldricksTrousers

SNP

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors