Photographer's brief?

minimangler · 16 Oct 2007, 13:44 (Ref:2041749)

Recently, I have come up against some criticism of the style of photos i take, what with far to many angles and odd shots etc.

So what kind of thing would i be better off taking?
What is "the photographer's brief"?
What can i do to impress potential employers?

Any help would be greatly appreciated, and you guys (and gals) are always useful!
Thanks

Jake.

zac510 · 16 Oct 2007, 13:52 (Ref:2041755)

I don't see how it is any different to applying for a normal job; your portfolio/CV must be changed to demonstrate that you are experienced and capable of producing what the employer wants.

minimangler · 16 Oct 2007, 13:54 (Ref:2041759)

Well that's what i'm asking; what sort of shots should be in the portfolio?
Should i stick to the slightly more dull, standard issue ones? Or go arty farty (just without so much angle)?

Rockmunky · 16 Oct 2007, 14:00 (Ref:2041768)

I don't know.. but I'd guess that it would be best to have some variety? Showing that you can adapt, and perhaps bring something different to the table.

zac510 · 16 Oct 2007, 14:05 (Ref:2041775)

I'll leave the real answer to the pros here (or yourself) because I'm not a paid snapper, but I know if I look at a good motorsport book and a motorsport newspaper I see two different types of photos.

Tim the Grey · 16 Oct 2007, 14:13 (Ref:2041782)

I think the first requirement is sharp and correctly exposed.
Most pictures used are 'record' shots, with the odd one being 'arty'.

Just look through any website gallery, or magazine, or programme at a meeting.

I thought I had some pretty boring stuff from Tour Britannia, but I also wanted to ensure I got EVERY car that passed, sharp, and well exposed.
THEN I could throw caution out, and get clever!
So there are chunks of the TB gallery that are just the same shot, with different cars, and a few different shots to try and add a little spice to things.

But I could be completely wrong, and barking up the wrong tree entirely???

minimangler · 16 Oct 2007, 14:18 (Ref:2041790)

Does seem to be about right.

But how many of your images were used?

(i actually don't know)

MikeHoyer · 16 Oct 2007, 14:27 (Ref:2041798)

I would say the photographers brief is whatever the individual client or employer wants - rather than a set of hard or fast rules. The trick is being able to adapt your style to what they want, which means being a good all-rounder.

minimangler · 16 Oct 2007, 14:49 (Ref:2041806)

Cool. I reckon i could do that...

photohsr · 16 Oct 2007, 15:16 (Ref:2041845)

I'm the staff photographer for the Sports Vintage Racing Association, one of the biggest organizers in the US, Canadian Editor for Victory Lane Magazine, and Photographer for Classic MotorSports Magazine, Vintage RaceCar Journal, the Canadian Motorsport Hall of Fame and the Vintage Automobile Racing Association of Canada. In all cases they have approached me for my services. I can't say exactly what employer's are looking for but perhaps if you looked at my work it might give you a feel, at least what the North American market wants.
My own site is http://www.harringtonphoto.ca/

the SVRA site is http://www.svra.com/SVRA/photogal.nsf

Bob H.

minimangler · 16 Oct 2007, 15:28 (Ref:2041859)

Thanks Bob, they're all good there.

good stuff, and kinda what i was expecting.

Davhut · 23 Oct 2007, 18:45 (Ref:2049474)

First of all, a wide variety of shots and "styles" of images. Blurs, pans, dead sharp action, well composed portraits ... I was once criticized for showing two (completely different) remote control pictures at the same time. I would say put your portfolio into a journalistic critique with "tell the story" type photos: scene setters, portraits, details, audiences, cars of course, and human interaction plus a definitive end (next day clean-up, garbage under bleachers, great trophy pic etc).
I've found that a majority of art directors/picture editors must find something to be critical about. The good ones offer instruction about what they want or their publication needs, the others, I believe, just want to justify their position probably to themselves as much as you.
That said, portfolios should be developed with the prospective client/viewer in mind and therefore there is no one correct answer. What Autosport might like to see would be completely different from Autocourse, Sports Illustrated, a circuit program, or a big daily newspaper. Some picture editors want the "defining moment" (e.g. Hamilton's spin into the gravel in China) others want to present photos that tell the story independent of what is written in words.
I have CDs which can self play a slide show, printed and bound pieces and a few "leave behinds." Go to LAT's site and get an idea of what their shooters archive.
It never hurts to ask what they want and it always helps to follow up with a direct mail piece to say thanks. They are, after all, trusting you to do the job and paying for it as well.
Good luck. I don't miss the days of knocking on doors. You never know what's on the other side. It has been great as well as awful, we artists are sensitive types!

DH

minimangler · 24 Oct 2007, 20:57 (Ref:2050611)

Thanks Davhut; probably the most useful bit of advice ive had for a while, and one i'll try to keep in mind.

thanks again.

Snapperjack · 24 Oct 2007, 21:49 (Ref:2050664)

Quote:

Originally Posted by minimangler

Thanks Davhut; probably the most useful bit of advice ive had for a while, and one i'll try to keep in mind.

thanks again.

I dont know, I thought - Phone your Mother, she worries - was quite good

Tim the Grey · 24 Oct 2007, 22:08 (Ref:2050679)

Yes, but he doesn't keep THAT one in mind!!!

minimangler · 25 Oct 2007, 01:20 (Ref:2050771)

oooh, below the belt!

Davhut · 25 Oct 2007, 23:51 (Ref:2051598)

Yeah, I thought that was a little insensitive as well. Especially for those of us who may have lost our mothers recently.

ss_collins · 28 Oct 2007, 20:00 (Ref:2053575)

As a buyer and commissioner its a tough balance - I tend to find myself drawn to snappers with a good eye and a strong selection of arty. I'm always trying to walk the line between high quality arty and informative engineering. I have a well known hankering for moody shots too!

But different mags have different requirements - Autosport for example tends to stick with fairly conservative but informative snaps, F1 racing however goes for more arty shots.

I've just finished a big piece on the Ferrari F2007 and I needed both a cover and a lead shot. For the cover I needed something tht was very strong as an image and was eye catching. I hope I suceeded but went the full arty route(will put the cover up here at some point so you can see) for the lead shot I used an LAT pic of Raikkonen coming over a crest in china in the rain. So its pretty much all grey apart from the red car. Excellent shot - but quite conventional.

Arty is better as a gaffer dazzler

minimangler · 28 Oct 2007, 22:04 (Ref:2053639)

What on earth is a gaffer dazzler?

And thanks also.

Davhut · 29 Oct 2007, 02:24 (Ref:2053738)

Gaffers here in the States are folks that move stuff around a movie set (see GRUNT). Better to be a "Grip" or even better a "Key Grip."
They are also rolls of very sticky tape.
And where the hell is St. Nipples?
Thought I was there once, but there were no signs.

minimangler · 29 Oct 2007, 09:54 (Ref:2053874)

As far as i know, gaffer often means boss over here; especially in london and in football. Clueless then as to what a gaffer dazzler is

Tim the Grey · 29 Oct 2007, 13:15 (Ref:2054033)

Baffle the Boss with Bull**** kind of thing.
I certainly got what he was saying!

minimangler · 29 Oct 2007, 15:51 (Ref:2054141)

aaaah, gaffer dazzler. I get it.