Comments on: Timothy Greenfield-Sanders, Old Cameras New Attitude

By: joe

joe — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 17:55:05 +0000

@JMG,

Timothy Greenfield-Sanders is way overrated! The End.

By: Bob D

Bob D — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 19:46:49 +0000

On the final episode of ‘Make Me a Supermodel,’ the three finalists had their portrait taken by TGS. I’d seen a profile on him in a special on photographers on Ovation TV, and there he came across as a bit pretentious — almost like Frasier Crane. But watching him work during ‘MMAS’ was truly enlightening — he has a great air of relaxation that puts the model completely at ease, and he knows exactly how to pose them and what calm direction to give them to get the one shot — and one shot only! – - that he’s looking for. The results were beautiful. It was quite a contrast to the usual fashion photographers they have on that show who shoot approximately 8 gazillion frames trying in vain to get THE one.

By: Stan B.

Stan B. — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 02:05:27 +0000

Thank you, Timothy. for your work- and your observation. Had the latter come from that group not called- who would have believed?

By: Tim

Tim — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 23:11:07 +0000

@john mcd., In today’s world of over processed images, Greenfield’s work stands out even more. While a lot of photographers are following the latest trends, TGS continues to keep his work ‘real.’ I’m not crazy about all of his images. Honestly, the HuffPost image of Bernhard doesn’t do too much for me.

But, before you criticize him too much, I’d encourage you to check out his series of injured Iraqi War veterans. http://www.dissentmagazine.org/online.php?id=40
The simple lighting works to bring more attention to the subject. And, in the words of my icon, Gordon Parks, “The subject matter is so much more important than the photographer.”

By: A Photo Editor

A Photo Editor — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 00:12:51 +0000

@john mcd.,
he makes very large prints and the subjects are very important to the pictures. that’s an idiotic argument.

By: Jean-Marie

Jean-Marie — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 21:03:33 +0000

“No one values high quality photography online because no one is producing it.”

That’s an uninformed statement- or at the very least a convenient oversimplification for the sake of making your point. Richard Bangs was producing online expeditions with beautiful, commissioned photography in the late 90s. Russell Sparkman and the folks at FusionSpark Media were commissioning photographs from the likes of Natalie Fobes, Pat O’Hara, Brandon Cole and Jack Dykinga for online productions since 2000. Clayton Cubitt and others like him were commissioned by Nerve.com since the late 90s for online subscribers. There are many other examples.

The fact is: high-quality photography has been online for years- many years. Just because the major media outlets can’t or won’t get their collective act together, or that the Old Guard of editorial photography are in denial about their sinking ship doesn’t mean good examples don’t exist, or that quality photography hasn’t been online for a long time.

By: Debra Weiss

Debra Weiss — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 20:56:28 +0000

@A Photo Editor,

Yes Rob, that will be the trend because it will have to be. There will be no other way to stay in business. But this will be a total uphill battle. And HBO worked because of the lack of commercials and the prospect of better programming. TV was not what it is today.

By: RAEchel Running

RAEchel Running — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 18:35:37 +0000

I was inspired by the post and the vision and consistency of TGS portraiture. simple.clean, straight up; I am also inspired by how he has taken interest in the people projects- in light of the PDN jury dialogue recently my hat goes off to his BlackList project-a portraits collection with so much to offer; the XXX book gives a window into another way of SEEIng people in a world very much colored by our preconceived ideas of who these people are. What does it say about What is a portrait ? portraiture? Our subjects only ? a reflection of us as the shooter and how our eyes and hearts SEE the world??? or a bit of both….what’ makes portraiture different in Disfarmer’s work, or portraits of the Killing Fields; A Mark Hauser, Avedon or Penn, Annie Leibowitz or Jim Marshall ?
How could just using a simple background, or white and be so diverse in the emotive portraiture they’ve made. not to mention all the portraits over the generations from the good ol photo booth??

I am the kind of photographer who plays and experiments a lot. It is difficult to define what I do; what my style is, or 10 or 20 of a kind; people and portraiture- some people say you need to have consistency and others say you need diversity- so when I see this kind of consistency of TGS portraits over the years it is an amazing feat for me to comprehend and what he is aspiring to bring to light.

Remember people “whining is anger being forced through a small hole”……I am startled at how biting people’s comments seem to be in the forums these days…..Would people actually talk to one another like this person to person? I would like to support a more thoughtful delivery -remember we could all someday be sitting next to each other on a train or on a plane going down- wouldn’t it be better to learn how to conjure up some kindness and alternative delivery and get back to a healthier way to communicate our feelings,ideas, responses with some integrity and respect for our fellow ‘humans’ in these online discussions- it seems there’s lots of angst these days so why don’t we play a little nicer in the sandbox and get back to what we were suppose to learn when we were in kindergarden…which I’m posting just in case you’ve forgotten.

All I Really Need To Know
I Learned In Kindergarten
by Robert Fulghum

- an excerpt from the book, All I Really Need To Know I Learned in Kindergarten

All I really need to know I learned in kindergarten.
ALL I REALLY NEED TO KNOW about how to live and what to do
and how to be I learned in kindergarten. Wisdom was not
at the top of the graduate-school mountain, but there in the
sandpile at Sunday School. These are the things I learned:

Share everything.

Play fair.

Don’t hit people.

Put things back where you found them.

Clean up your own mess.

Don’t take things that aren’t yours.

Say you’re sorry when you hurt somebody.

Wash your hands before you eat.

Flush.

Warm cookies and cold milk are good for you.

Live a balanced life – learn some and think some
and draw and paint and sing and dance and play
and work every day some.

Take a nap every afternoon.

When you go out into the world, watch out for traffic,
hold hands, and stick together.

Be aware of wonder.
Remember the little seed in the styrofoam cup:
The roots go down and the plant goes up and nobody
really knows how or why, but we are all like that.

Goldfish and hamsters and white mice and even
the little seed in the Styrofoam cup – they all die.
So do we.

And then remember the Dick-and-Jane books
and the first word you learned – the biggest
word of all – LOOK.

Everything you need to know is in there somewhere.
The Golden Rule and love and basic sanitation.
Ecology and politics and equality and sane living.

Take any of those items and extrapolate it into
sophisticated adult terms and apply it to your
family life or your work or your government or
your world and it holds true and clear and firm.
Think what a better world it would be if
all – the whole world – had cookies and milk about
three o’clock every afternoon and then lay down with
our blankies for a nap. Or if all governments
had a basic policy to always put thing back where
they found them and to clean up their own mess.

And it is still true, no matter how old you
are – when you go out into the world, it is best
to hold hands and stick together.

By: john mcd.

john mcd. — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 17:21:52 +0000

@JMG, I’m with you. A series of nicely-lit pictures of people staring at the photographer. Nothing special about their having been done with a large format camera, unless you’re looking at a very large print. And if they weren’t well known subjects what would we think about these pictures?

By: A Photo Editor

A Photo Editor — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 16:17:20 +0000

@Debra Weiss,
I don’t agree. The trend will be to pay for things. ESPN just put premium content behind a wall with 350,000 paying customers at $40/year. Flickr charges you for a premium account, youtube will eventually do it too. Nobody thought HBO would work because TV is free.

There’s a lot of stuff that should be free that magazines used to pass off to readers but I’m willing to bet most people will pay for something original and good.

I have yet to see a magazine besides the NYTimes reproduce photography online at an acceptable size.

By: JMG

JMG — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 16:08:50 +0000

I’m sorry. I know that I’ll catch heat for this and prob lose jobs, my rep will drop me and I’ll get flamed, but I don’t see the attraction of TGS. It’s just straight up portraits of famous people. It’s Irving Penn without the ink. That fashion show book was a letdown and the Porn thing was WAY overrated.
I dig that he’s now all about going on-line and all but ss shooting straight up 8×10 portraiture “forging a path to the future?” I concede that we could all use a little less photoshop and a little more real talent, but is this the way?

By: Debra Weiss

Debra Weiss — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 15:59:48 +0000

@Debra Weiss,

should read:

“It is not that high quality photography isn’t being produced…”

By: Debra Weiss

Debra Weiss — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 15:58:49 +0000

@A Photo Editor,

“No one values high quality photography online because no one is producing it. ”

The reason photography is not valued online is due to the total lack of business model when the web was established. The model was “let’s give it away for free and we’ll make it up on the back end”. Unfortunately, there was no back end and we have created a culture of “free” whereby if it’s on the web, it’s mine for the taking. It is not that high quality photography is being produced – it is the total lack of respect for intellectual property that is the problem.

By: Jeff Singer

Jeff Singer — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 15:44:06 +0000

“No one values high quality photography online because no one is producing it”

Hmm. Well there is high quality photography being produced for print and much of that is being used online (often illegally) and that quality photography isn’t being valued online. Quality is quality regardless of the medium it was created for. Just because an image wasn’t originally produced for online use doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be valued for online use.

The bottom line is, most things have no value online. Quality or not. And this is because of the “free” mindset of internet content users and providers.

There is a lot of quality content for the web.

By: A Photo Editor

A Photo Editor — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 15:27:30 +0000

I’m aware that HuffPost doesn’t pay but this attitude of not experimenting or doing things online unless you are getting paid is shared by magazines, newspapers, television networks and has meant that bloggers, youtubers, googlers and a whole host of “we’ll do it for free until we can discover a way to get paid” to pioneer the online space. No one values high quality photography online because no one is producing it. It will likely stay that way until someone with the money and time can prove otherwise.

By: susana

susana — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 15:12:39 +0000

This is all well and good but the fact of the matter is is that as far as I am aware the HuffPost does not pay – and perhaps I am misreading and you are just saying in terms of getting your work out there what a great platform for viewership. Going viral is good. Certainly a photographer of TGS’ stature doesn’t need another paltry slideshow fee and the mass of viewership he gets is enough for him. But as you say, high quality content will bring in the ad dollar so best to compensate the creatives who bring you that content especially us shlubs whose content may be high quality but whose other job does not involve contributions to vanity fair nor the creation of pictures that are readable in the thumbnail to 40×50″ size ranges. ; )

Upshot: I’m not sure I’m with you on if it’s revolutionary for TGS to contribute to Huff Post – especially if he’s not getting compensated.