photo pleb here outside of jeff wall and andreas gursky who

Terry Richardson

>>3063654
only if you like raping you girls

>>3063656
hey now, he also raped Obama

Polly Braden
Thomas Struth
Alec Sloth
Saul Leiter
Zhan Xiao - The Strand Series or what ever it's called
Larry Sultan
Martin Parr

Get a book which has a collection of street photographers, that's a good way to discover quality photos from people around the world.

I wish Martin Parr was as good as people think he is.

Can someone explain Jeff Wall to me? His photos look like snapshots yet they are staged so they are made with intent and effort. It just confuses me.

>>3063797
This is half the point. Most also reference famous art, further challenging perception. It uses the verisimilitude of photography to destroy belief in truthful photography, demonstrating its inherent art value by throwing itself on the burning pyre of sacred cows.

>>3063639
Get a copy of American Photographs by Walker Evans. It's as good as everyone says it is. Also get a copy of Guide by William Eggleston. Pay your respects to Minor White, Ansel Adams, and Edward Weston, but don't stay long. Move on to Lee Friedlander and Robert Frank. Spend some time with the New Topographics peeps and the Japanese tradition. If you want to get conceptual, go to Ed Ruscha. Some personal favorites are Uta Barth and Robert Smithson.

>>3063819

>a bunch of szarkowski pawns

Lmao

>>3063822
Oh, yeah, you're so right. You should ignore one of the most important curators of photography in Art History. Ignore the reality of the art world, and disrespect one of the few people who managed to make photography acceptable to art markets. Good call. You're better then all of them. We should just wait until you get discovered.

>>3063639
Edward Burtnsky if you want to see industrial stuff shot on glorious 8x10. Although the point of his work is to shed light on environmental destruction or human worker exploitation in Asia, rather than glorify the built environment. If you want the latter, look at Stephen Shore or Lewis Baltz.

>>3063639
If you like Gursky, you should probably check out all the whole Dusseldorf School

>>3063654
Richardson is a pervy hollywood hack

>>3063827
Shore and Baltz are not glorifying the built environment buddy

>>3063824

git gud scrub no re

Stephen Shore.
American surfaces and uncommon places.
Its basically a book form of Paris, Texas.
Also Moriyama if your into that and Araki if you enjoy seeing snap shots of japanese hairy bushes.

>>3063639
>outside of jeff wall and andreas gursky who else is worth knowing about?
That's a totally backwards way to think.

>>3063657
It was consensual.

File: images (4).jpg (5KB, 310x163px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 310x163px

wow did not expect this many/any real answers

taanks so much guuuiZ

>>3063913
no u

File: f8a4d2587a1e37a8014d4ce5116a920b.jpg (269KB, 1000x650px) Image search: [Google]

269KB, 1000x650px

Gregory Crewdson
Vivian Maier

>>3064294
You don't need to know about vivian maier. A historical curiosity and nothing more. It's a young millenial dude who came up with a romantic story to rake in millions off the work of a dead woman who can't defend herself. The worst of historical revisionism and art fraud.

>>3064295
>vivian maier
some of her stuff is good. Who cares if someone is profiting off of it, people profit off of dead people all the damn time

>>3064412
Because it's a marketing scam that damages the photography market. Some jackass stumbled on some alright negatives, framed the story in a way that got a lot of traction in today's media environment, and rakes in the dough that he did no work to receive. Worse, it completely deranges the history of photography and the recognition of quality. Vivian Maier never made any attempt to get her work published. Her photos are nowhere near as strong as then contemporary photographers who are now well established. They have no real collector value. That's bad for all photographers. It's parasitic.

>>3064426
sounds like you're jelly

they're nice pictures, relax and enjoy them

>>3064426
Holy fuck, who cares. We just like looking at the pictures anon, stop being so uptight.

>>3064433
Everyone who takes photos should care. The man selling those photos is a con artist, and he's peddling a story that challenges the very concept of photographer as artist vs. just pointing and clicking.

>>3064431
They're mediocre pictures. They're just "old" so most people find them mildly interesting. If you went out and took 30 photos every day for your whole life you would also have quite a few decent photographs. Most Photography is not an act of creation like painting or sculpting. It is an act of curation.

File: VM1978K04528-20-MC.jpg (311KB, 1400x953px) Image search: [Google]

311KB, 1400x953px

>>3064295
The pictures from that time we have are either taken by professional photographers or family photographs. So I think it's interesting to see photographs from that time from someone who was a dedicated amateur photographer. I think it gives a better image of how everyday life was back then compared to professional photographers who only photographed the most unusual.

>>3064295
>>3064426
>>3064459
>>3064462
Holy shit. I had a feeling Maier might trigger some screeching, but I didn't expect this level of autism. Sure, she might not have changed the course of photography, but she's worth knowing about.

>>3064466
Like I said, a historical curiosity. And frankly, it doesn't tell you more about daily life in that time. It only tells you about her daily life. A subject such as "daily life for all people of a time period" is far too broad for anyone to capture in a purely documentary sense. You're reading of other street photographers of the time is absolutely wrong. Just look at Walker Evans: https://www.artsy.net/artist/walker-evans

>>3064474
Why?

>>3064475
Who said an art degree is useless? You can use it to seem smart on the internet!

>>3064480
You think art degrees teach art history and critical analysis. Sad.

>>3064269

Seriously, though. Was Szarkowski good because he found all these great photographers? Or were these photographers selected for the pantheon because they were friends with John? Don't underestimate the power of personal politics, especially with an infant art form like photography.

>>3064294

You've got shit taste my man.

>>3064496
Given that they're all good, you don't really have a point. It'd be one thing if I said there were no other photographers worth considering but I'm not. Whether they were the most deserving or not doesn't matter. They're the ones who were there. They've shaped the medium regardless of whether you like them or not. Art has always rested on close personal connections, and yet most of the great works are still really great. If you demand the world conform to your ideals, you're either going to kill yourself or everybody else.

>>3064500
Crewdson is pretty damn good.

>>3064548

He's actually terrible.

>>3064548
I like the lighting in his photographs but I wish they had more than just people standing around.

>>3064545

Just because they're famous doesn't mean they're good my man. A lot of your reasoning for this is tautological.

I study at a uni that has one of the best photography programs in the world. The following list is taken directly from the photography elective I took once. I can provide much more info and artists that I learned about. Theyre divided by the arbitrary groups/concepts they were introduced at.

**Fundamentals of Photography
*Space
- Paul Strand
- Andre Kertesz
- Richard Misrach
*Value
- Edward Weston
- Philip-Lorca diCorcia
- Jason Lazarus
*Balance
- Hiroshi Sugimoto
- Bertien van Manen
*Movement
- Henri Cartier-Bresson
- Bertien van Manen
*Emphasis
- Martin Parr
- Nan Goldin
*Pattern
- Daido Moriyama
- Christian Patterson
*Repetition
- Josef Koudelka
- Martin Kollar
*Rhythm
- Roy DeCarava
- Garry Winogrand
- Henri Cartier-Bresson
- Joel Sternfeld
*Rule of Thirds
- Larry Sultan
*Rules are dumb
- Lee Friedlander
- William Eggleston

**Color
- Paul Outerbridge
- Anthony Hernandez
- Paul Graham
- Kazuyoshi Usui
- Rachel Woolf
- Farah Al Qasimi

**Light
*Direct light
- Viviane Sassen
- Fan Ho
- Diane Arbus
*Directional/diffused light
- Dawoud Bey
- Vanessa Winship
- Donovan Wylie
*Others
- Jessica odd Harper
- Brian Ulrich

**B&W
- Harry Callahan
- Frederick Sommer
- Minor White
- Lewis Baltz
- Marten Lange
- Collier Schorr
- Alec Soth

**Candid/Staged/Added/Removed
- Robert Frank
- Carrie Mae Weems
- John Baldessari
- Barbara Kasten
- Shirana Shahbazi
- Jeff Wall
- Osamu James Nakagawa
- Hank Willis Thomas
- Kelli Connell
- Matt Siber

There are a shit ton more I can talk about but I gotta go right now. These are just from the first few classes of a very intense photography course I took.

>>3063639
Cartier Bresson
Capa
Robert Frank
Vivian Mayer
Edward Weston
Robert Adams

>>3063639
Outside of receiving inspiration or learning about the history of photography, is knowing x y and z photographer supposed to improve your images somehow?

I know there's more to photography than being da best eva, but I feel like the underlying tone of "photographers worth knowing" is that by knowing a certain famous person, it makes you better or more qualified somehow, when in reality, it's just a bunch of happenstance and personal politics that put them on the map. Popular or well-regarded does not mean we must love them or their work, yet it feels implied that we really should. I won't even get into people who criticize you for stealing somebody's work or theme just because you had the same idea.

>>3064608

Nah that's stupid my man. It's important to know that the big figures of your art form, even if you don't like their work.

It's like saying you wanna be a master chef but you don't want to know anything about chefs because their food doesn't matter or inform your cooking anyway. Or it's like saying you want to invent a car but without looking at anything by an actual car manufacturer.

Really, though, this whole post is just an insecure cover on your part for "I haven't heard of any of these people but fuck you that don't matter nothing anyway." Do your homework. Whether you realize it or not, the entire reason you want to take photos in the first place is shaped by these people. You're stuck in their massive gravitational well, but you still think the earth is flat and you don't want to walk too far lest you fall off the edge.

>>3064621
>I haven't heard of any of these people
You are completely wrong. I have heard of pretty much every single person posted in this thread. I've looked at books, images and galleries from many of them as well.

>The entire reason you want to take photos in the first place is shaped by these people
Not really, I got into photography as a hobby to dick around in for fun. I've always liked drawing based on things I saw in the real world, so I decided to just start taking pictures of things I found interesting.

Granted, it's not a terrible idea to look at the "big" people and see what's out there, what I'm against is putting them on a pedestal. And lol at this whole concept of "shaping the art/photography world". Not everyone feels as affected by famous people with cameras as you are, and not everyone needed somebody else to have used a camera well for them to even consider wanting to do it themselves.

>>3064650

Sure thing, pal.

>>3064653
>I know you better than you know yourself
>there's no way I could possibly be wrong in any of my completely arbitrary assertions

Classic 4chan.

>>3064555
You should really try reading. I find it very helpful in life. I didn't say they're good because they're famous. I said they're good because their photos are good. You want to dismiss them because you're bitter. But if you want to do photography, you can't simply dismiss them, because they had a major impact on the photographic conversation. You don't have to like them. You don't even have to think they're good. But do you not see how you're doing the same thing you're complaining about by dismissing them simply because they are well known? If someone is famous for their work, it's worth considering that they earned it, even if they also engaged in practices you don't like. The reason it's worth considering is because it will at least show you what everyone around you is thinking, even if they're hopelessly wrong. It's true photography could have gone many other directions, but it didn't. Wishing the past was different won't change the future.

>>3064608
Could you be a good painter if you never looked at good paintings? Could you be a great hockey player if you never watched tape? Could you be a great mathematician if you never studied the important equations? It's possible, sure, but highly unlikely. Pretty much your best outcome of ignorance is covering the same ground that's already been covered. And if you keep blaming your failure on other people being in the right place at the right time, you will be sad and lonely the rest of your life. Millions of people are in the right place at the right time. But only a couple get through. Is it fair? No. But it's the way things are. You'r not going to change it from your couch. If you don't like the game, your only options are not to play or to be clearly better. Not just better, clearly better.

>>3064650
It doesn't matter whether or not you think or feel you are affected. You don't have to believe in gravity to be effected by it. $20,000 for a photo, AN EASILY REPRODUCABLE PRINT--That's a helluvalotta money, and you better believe that affects you. All the photographs other people take affect you. The fact that everyone around you can take a picture every second, that selfies are a meaningful social currency, that Snapchat is/was a major focus of financial news, that Instagram was bought for $1 billion--you are affected. This is the world you live in. There is nothing wrong with taking pictures just for yourself. But that's not what this thread is about. This thread was posted by an anon wanting to learn more about influential artists. So in the context of this thread, the only pretentious wanker here is you, Mrs. Dunning-Kruger.

>>3064910
You don't seem to understand what "self taught" means. Quite a number of people, while they learned, also had to figure quite a bit out on their own. And honestly, do YOU think just being able to name-drop famous photographers on 4chan or looking at their work makes you a better photographer? Do you have a solid reason that it's necessary? Have we yet properly clarified what makes a photographer "worth knowing about"?

>>3064915
>the only pretentious wanker here is you
Please, tell me where I accused anyone here of being pretentious.

I want you to answer seriously now, how do you know what photographers are "worth knowing about"? And how exactly will knowing about them effect your own photography in any meaningful way? By your photography, I mean your own personal output. Your own "vision". Is knowing that William Eggleston pioneered color photographs and New Topographics, or that Andreas Gursky sold a print of a river and some grass for millions of dollars, going to make you a better photographer in terms of your own unique images? Especially if you're more interested in doing portraits or something otherwise completely unrelated to them?

It would help if we even knew what OP's goals are or what he's looking for so it doesn't turn into a circlejerk where everyone just lists off their favorite famous photographers and calls it a day, because at the moment that's what this thread is turning into.

File: images (3).jpg (10KB, 337x385px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 337x385px

>>3064574
woah this is too kind thank you so much

>>3064910
>>3064915
>>3064919
OP here i hope i didn't cause too much confusion with the way i asked. the point of the thread was to get a better grasp on photography and its history. for me learning about the greats (in any field) is the quickest way to do that

i agree that the best way to learn properly is do it yourself but like everything in life it's a careful balance. the subject indifferent to objective influence is incomprehensible at best and irrelevant at worst, and losing yourself to the object bring triteness and vacuity

Thanks in any case i have so much to go from now <3

>>3065246
thanks, like I said, this is just a bit of the entirety of stuff the class went over (altho I dont want to make it seem like all we did was learn about other photographers).

and pitching in my two cents for the other conversation thats going on, I believe that while knowing all these names isnt going to directly make you a better photographer, acknowledging and seeing their body of work and in particular, why specific projects/sequences by most of them are popular or seen as noteworthy can only help you. My own opinion is that photography is made up of different factors with the two most important being (1) the artistic eye of the photographer and (2) the process for which the photos were taken. So understanding and being exposed to all these works and profiles can certainly help one with their being able to visualize and improve their "artistic eye" in a sense.

>>3064574
>I study at a uni that has one of the best photography programs in the world.
>tripfag

thanks for the info but christ, cool it with the ego

>>3065363

If it makes you feel any better, his trip is cringe incarnate.

File: madonna 1980.jpg (123KB, 1000x1012px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 1000x1012px

>>3065371
ha, I didnt even notice.

bryan schutmaat and mark brautigam are two contemporary photographers whose work is better than anyone who visits this board

>>3063639
Drew Nikonowicz

>>3063972>>3064431
>>3064480
>>3064548

ALL THESE FUCKING PLEBS

File: 1490656349659.jpg (86KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 640x480px

>>3063654
>puts celebrity in front of blank wall
>turns flash on

File: 5800429_orig[1].jpg (111KB, 900x600px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 900x600px

I'm an Israeli macro shooter so I'm kind of biased, but you should check out Nadav Bagim, particularly his work called "wonderland". He does some absolutely incredible stuff in it, with next to no retouching. Really inspiring.

This picture, for example, was taken in his house, the "earth" in the background is just a supermarket bag, and the lighting in the background is water sprinkled from a water sprinkler. He grows mantises at home.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

>>3065857
So this is who nature guy is ripping off while trying to pretend he's experimental
Huh

>>3065930
>this guy invented macro landscapes
>nobody else is allowed to do it now!!

Some people, I swear.

>>3065857
(((bagim)))

>>3065938
you do realize natureguy talks a high game about the stuff he does now and acts like a judgemental prick towards people shooting less pretentious subject matter