Comments on: New Rules for Photography

By: Terry King

Terry King — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 15:35:40 +0000

As I see it; your premise is correct, but I challenge you that it is not simply true in photography and design. With the adoption of technology and WEB 2.0 the public has moved into once elite professional fields. The irony is that the same tools to make life easy for professionals make it easier for anyone to participate. We are seeing the same thing in the education and networking fields. Today’s web makes it easier for anyone to convene a group to share and to network. A few years ago this was the domain of professional organizations with carefully guarded mailing lists. Now that the barriers to entry are lower it’s the role of the professional to demonstrate quality. I find myself reaching, stretching and adapting in order to differentiate our company’s quality and value in a world that has changed my craft into a massive social commodity. Good design and effective networking and communication are valuable, even if masked by countless examples mediocrity.

By: Rick Ferns

Rick Ferns — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 00:15:21 +0000

I agree with you…on most point. And I am not, will not, and don’t want to be a photographer. But I’d rather see a brick wall behind someone than a flag pole or bar sticking out of their head. I’d rather see a properly lit background than a glowing ray of sunlight over 35% of someone’s face. These are the real blows to photography.

By: Mel (lj shutterbug)

Mel (lj shutterbug) — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 22:25:27 +0000

Amen to your two points, sir! I can’t stand looking at these things either, especially those cited in Rule 2. In Schindler’s List it was supposedly an awesome idea that made sense. Now, as you say, it’s played out.