Tired of Hero Shots

One of the most talented (and crazy) photographers I ever worked with taught me to "learn the rules first and then break them". Double exposures are considered a mistake. He made a fortune doing them. Keeping the camera still is a "rule" he would often break, shaking the camera like crazy as he snapped away, he even would hold a chainsaw next to his camera for vibration. Using tungsten film outdoors is also breaking the "rules". He would take a perfectly printed image, take it outside and run over it a few times with his car (and sell it). Snapshots are great and will likely be the first thing you run for if your house is on fire, proving the fact that they are probably one of your most valuable (and interesting) possessions.
 

dld

Active Member
One of the most talented (and crazy) photographers I ever worked with taught me to "learn the rules first and then break them". Double exposures are considered a mistake. He made a fortune doing them. Keeping the camera still is a "rule" he would often break, shaking the camera like crazy as he snapped away, he even would hold a chainsaw next to his camera for vibration. Using tungsten film outdoors is also breaking the "rules". He would take a perfectly printed image, take it outside and run over it a few times with his car (and sell it). Snapshots are great and will likely be the first thing you run for if your house is on fire, proving the fact that they are probably one of your most valuable (and interesting) possessions.
Truth. Most of the impressionist artists were very capable technical and classical painters. Frank Lloyd Wright knew the rules of architecture, then pushed the boundaries, forcing the industry to change what was 'possible'. History doesn't remember the people who did what was popular, it remembers those who changed their medium.
 
I am confused. Is it only a “hero shot” if the hero is fully visible in the shot? Or, are pics of only the fish or ones which in which you only see the fish and the hero’s hands/ arms like the one @Darthmonkey posted also hero shots? Please edumacate me.
YES (or if I get extremely envious that it is not me in the picture or even if I did not or could not make or afford the trip.)
 
Last edited:

Jojo

Active Member
Darthmonkey, are you by chance a professional photographer? your comments about the horizon being crooked and filling the frame etc. sounds like what i’ve learned from my husband who had a second job teaching PhotoShop and Digital Photography at the local college years ago. Also your landscape flyfishing shot with the ominous clouds is really nice.
 
Dude, bro, come on... Boring and interesting are not things that are set in stone or defined by you. Hero shots typically display a beautiful fish, emotion from the angler, maybe a cool landscape, etc. I find that 100x more interesting than most of the content on IG. You aren't the authority on what people can find interesting.
No, I am not the authority. The response from the general public does give a good indication as to what is found to be interesting. Just google iconic photos, let me know how many fishing or hunting hero shots show up. I'll give you a hint, they don't. Why is that I wonder?

What flies over your head is the concepts of fact versus opinion. Throwing out numbered points with statements of opinion do not validate your arguments....
Irafly: Just give up now Darth, you are on the wrong side of this.
Everything I have said to support my position is actually fact, google it. No art galleries feature hero shots, stock photography pages don't accept hero shots, and the most popular sports publications and websites never feature them. Why is this? Sport fishing is a multi billion dollar industry that employs hundreds of thousands of people around the globe. So it is profitable, wide spread, and as a result of grassroots advocacy, even affects global policy changes. So why don't hero shots get the kind of exposure anglers believe they deserve? Oh yeah. That's right. The photo is not captivating, IE boring.
Why give up? Nobody has been able to refute a single point I've made or show an error in my reasoning.

For a photo to be interesting to has to have mass appeal? Wrong. For a photo to be interesting the individual looking at said photo has to find it interesting. Fact.
The photo is interesting to that person. Cool. It may even be interesting to the community of anglers as well as your circle of friends/family. However unless someone knows you, or is an angler, the strongest reaction you may get is a nice fish comment, because they don't find it interesting. This is why mass appeal matters, to say otherwise is nothing more than an homage to your vanity.

You seem to find a lot of confusion regarding the words "fact" and "opinion". Your knowledge of hero shots is obviously quite vast. Your knowledge of simple English words and concepts seems to be lacking.
No, I've got a pretty good grasp of the concept. No art galleries feature hero shots. Fact. Stock Photography pages don't accept hero shots. Fact. There has not been a single photography contest category won with a hero shot. Fact. Google it, and prove me wrong. Tell me why a type of photograph connected to a multi-billion dollar a year industry that millions of people around the globe partake in, doesn't show up in these sorts of broad reaching sports and entertainment media platforms.

Most things with 'mass appeal' are pretty much lowest-common-denominator, and not interesting at all. Things with mass appeal are safe and easy, they aren't challenging. The reason Art Wolfe is popular is because he hit the formula and creates many images from the same basic parameters...he does it well.

The reason Van Gogh wasn't popular is because he challenged the very idea of what art could be. Were it not for the impressionists, Picasso wouldn't have been the success in his time that he was.
Now we have a discussion!
Here's the thing in mass appeal, because we are able to reach untold amounts of information in a very short time, the timeline from revolutionary to popular has shortened drastically. Van Gogh was revolutionary in his time but most critics thought of his art as weird. Only after his death and subsequent copycats did people realize it to be revolutionary. Now that the timeline from weird to revolutionary has been shortened from decades to months, is it so strange to think that artistic revolution and mass appeal can happen simultaneously and we don't recognize it?

Best part of this thread is someone actually thinks keeping score on the internet means something. Must have graduated from one of those kindergartens where everyone gets a ribbon for finger painting.
The point of keeping score was to get under people's skin. How does it feel?
Darthmonkey - 13
All comers - 0
Thanks for playing guys!
 

The T.O. Show

Buenos Hatches Ese
No art galleries feature hero shots, stock photography pages don't accept hero shots, and the most popular sports publications and websites never feature them. Why is this?
I don't think sport fishing in general is a very popular genre for most art galleries, hero shots or otherwise... Google image search "Fly Fishing Magazine Cover". Nearly every single image that pops up is a hero shot. Someone in the industry must think they are compelling...
 

Jakob B

Active Member
I mean Darthmonkey has good points about photo composition and clearly knows his stuff. I recently completed my photography class in school and agree with many of his technical points of what actually makes a photo appealing to the eye. That being said he is kind of being a dick and I don't get the score keeping... to each their own when it comes to pictures.
 
The photo is interesting to that person. Cool. It may even be interesting to the community of anglers as well as your circle of friends/family.
Which is all the "mass exposure" that the vast majority of the people who take these photos give a shit about. And guess what? Those friends family members mostly don't find them boring for the same reason that they don't find looking at photos of people posing for vacation photos with their kids boring. It's about sharing their life experiences with people they know and care about, not getting invited to show in an art gallery.
 

KerryS

Ignored Member
No, I am not the authority. The response from the general public does give a good indication as to what is found to be interesting. Just google iconic photos, let me know how many fishing or hunting hero shots show up. I'll give you a hint, they don't. Why is that I wonder?


Everything I have said to support my position is actually fact, google it. No art galleries feature hero shots, stock photography pages don't accept hero shots, and the most popular sports publications and websites never feature them. Why is this? Sport fishing is a multi billion dollar industry that employs hundreds of thousands of people around the globe. So it is profitable, wide spread, and as a result of grassroots advocacy, even affects global policy changes. So why don't hero shots get the kind of exposure anglers believe they deserve? Oh yeah. That's right. The photo is not captivating, IE boring.
Why give up? Nobody has been able to refute a single point I've made or show an error in my reasoning.


The photo is interesting to that person. Cool. It may even be interesting to the community of anglers as well as your circle of friends/family. However unless someone knows you, or is an angler, the strongest reaction you may get is a nice fish comment, because they don't find it interesting. This is why mass appeal matters, to say otherwise is nothing more than an homage to your vanity.


No, I've got a pretty good grasp of the concept. No art galleries feature hero shots. Fact. Stock Photography pages don't accept hero shots. Fact. There has not been a single photography contest category won with a hero shot. Fact. Google it, and prove me wrong. Tell me why a type of photograph connected to a multi-billion dollar a year industry that millions of people around the globe partake in, doesn't show up in these sorts of broad reaching sports and entertainment media platforms.


Now we have a discussion!
Here's the thing in mass appeal, because we are able to reach untold amounts of information in a very short time, the timeline from revolutionary to popular has shortened drastically. Van Gogh was revolutionary in his time but most critics thought of his art as weird. Only after his death and subsequent copycats did people realize it to be revolutionary. Now that the timeline from weird to revolutionary has been shortened from decades to months, is it so strange to think that artistic revolution and mass appeal can happen simultaneously and we don't recognize it?


The point of keeping score was to get under people's skin. How does it feel?
Darthmonkey - 13
All comers - 0
Thanks for playing guys!
What color ribbon did you get?
 
Yeah sort of Paul Rubenesque but not Philip Pearlstein... as obtuse as i wanna be...
While a technically excellent artist, IMO, Rubens took it too far. He was more about lumps than curves, but to each his own. Of course in modern culture, I think we've swung too far the other way when the emaciated, stick-figure look is touted as the ideal, and truly normal is considered "plus size". In reality, this warped "ideal" should be referred to as "minus-size". For that matter, why does there even have to be an "ideal"?

Sorry, just kind of a hot-button topic for me having seen too many women and girls I care about get sucked into the vortex of skinny worship, and end up wrecking their health trying to look like a 2X6.

OK, back to our regularly scheduled debate :)