Although some may feel like I'm some sort of rockstar photographer that is so busy he has to turn down work he doesn't want, the truth of the matter is right now I am just a guy sitting on a rock typing out a letter to people he has never met with the hopes that it helps just one person keep their head up.
With the recent polemics surrounding a certain image that won a photography competition this week, I feel like we need to talk about travel photography. About people photography, in our case. And to set up boundaries as to what’s acceptable in both cases. Honestly, in my opinion, it’s a matter of common sense – but it seems that’s not enough. We still witness some shocking scenes in the world of travel photography these days.
Actress Jennifer Lawrence may be fine with excessive Photoshopping, but advertising regulatory authorities in the United States aren't of the same opinion. We reported back in 2011 that the UK had banned certain advertisements for excessive Photoshop work, and that the US was moving in the same direction.
A couple were visiting a vista point near the Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco this past Valentine's Day when they came across a black camera bag that had apparently been misplaced. After the owner didn't turn up to recover it, they looked inside and found a wallet with Chinese currency, credit cards, an "expensive-looking" camera and lens... and $11,000 in cash.
A photographer's worst nightmare happened to YouTube filmmaker Casey Neistat recently. After taking a taxi after a long 18-hour work day and flight, Neistat accidentally forgot all of his luggage -- and $13,238.86 worth of camera gear -- in the back of a New York City taxi cab. Among the equipment lost was a Canon 5D Mark III kit ($4300), a 24-70mm lens ($1600), and about $550 worth of memory cards -- equipment necessary for Neistat to make a living.
The debate regarding what makes a photograph "truthful" or not is probably as old as the art of photography itself. By sheer coincidence, there were a couple interesting articles published today on this issue, and written from two different points-of-view.