Let's face it, the things that make a great photo are the attractive model, the amazing wardrobe, the expensive lighting gear and the cool locations. If you're not rich enough to afford any of these things on a regular basis, you're going to end up being a shit photographer doing "street photography" or some other unoriginal talentless garbage, shooting the same shit everyone has seen a million times before over and over again. The people who still don't realize this and think "it's all about the photographer" are the same people who keep posting b/w snapshits of a dumpster. I think you can still be creative in photography, but without hot models, fashion designers, makeup artists, etc. you can't really do shit. So how can you make it as a poorfag? Is it possible?
buy garbage bin clothes and get extraordinarily ugly people to shoot with your bathroom lighting and get famous on tumblr and then sell t shirts or something idk man the world is your oyster
>>2698396
I'll shoot what I want to shoot. Its my hobby and I use it for photojournalistic projects that provide social commentary more than anything. I don't make money but I speak my mind through the pictures I present.
You are retard, for sure.
>>2698396
OP failed at photography and now hurr durr i dont have gear and if you dont have gear you suck too
Similar applies to landscape or architecture photography. You can't take photographs of amazing landscapes if you live somewhere where there are none and can't afford to travel. You will run out of subjects very quickly if you do architecture photography and can't travel. A lot faster if you don't live in a big city. Also there are many amazing places you can't even go to without special permission that only already estabilshed photographers can get. Street photography is also very hard anywhere but a very dynamic city. For studio photography you need space and money for lighting gear.
If you don't have a lot of money you are better of learning how to draw or paint.
>>2698396
Its the story, you nerd.
>>2698445
>muh photo stories
>>2698396
You are right about photography being a collaboration art, just like film. More often than not, only the photographer is credited for a photograph, when in fact there was a model, a make-up artist, hair stylist, assistant, etc for the shoot. Why aren't they credited as well? On the front cover of a movie poster, it will have all the main actor's names, the director, producer, etc.
We are moving in the direction that most everyone who worked on the shoot, will be credited. Most editorials will have the model(s) and make-up artist as well as the photographer credited nowadays.
Look at Gregory Crewdson, he uses a huge crew of people on his shoots. He doesn't even press the shutter himself, he has someone else do it for him so he can focus on directing the scene. Just like a real movie director. Yet, he is still credited as the photographer.
>>2698546
The photographer is like the singer of the band in that sense. The difference being the photographer doesn't really do much. He just presses a few buttons and captures the work of the true artists (fashion designers, architects, etc.), unless he's also somewhat of a director who's involved with the creation of what's happening in front of him.
>>2698396
No, bollocks. I like hot babes as much as the next red blooded man but taking pictures of them in their frillies - or out of them - bores me to tears. I know, I've done it. And so can anyone else if they're prepared to drag a shit ton of lights around.
The skill is not taking the pictures the skill is selling them to the arrogant self-obsessed art and creative directors in the vanity industries.
If that's what you consider being "creative in photography" and "making it" then I feel sorry for you.
But yeah, earning a living in any of the arts fields has always been hard, and it's getting harder because cunts expect you to work for free.
Forensics and surveillance are growing industries try there
>>2698396
it looks like you equate making it with financial success. yes, like any business it takes money to get started. why are you surprised?
>>2699119
>it looks like you equate making it with financial success
No, it looks like he's never tried to shoot a model and put together a concept, and therefore, thinks it's easy, and simple. Like most people on /p/, he thinks that photography is the ability to operate a camera, which it very much isn't.
>>2699124
I find it amazing how you came to that conclusion. That's exactly the opposite of what I said.
