So you think the news rags will publish the worst photographs just because they come from someone with a known name?
True once known it is easier to get seen. If a photographer has a reputation it's for the work s/he produces, good or bad. But when they rifle though a stack of proofs, the editors are looking for the story, not a pj's name they recognize.
Peace! Sidney
Qkano wrote:
Again, they were published not because of his name but because of
their
quality.
Sidney
How can you ever be sure?
It's an almost undeniable fact that once someone has made the break into the big time virtually all successive breaks become easier.
Lets imagine: 1) Hockney turns up for a major photo shoot with a Lomu. 2) An first year staff photographer ... with a Lomu. Which one's photographs will get run, or even noticed, by the media?
The fact that one has earned a reputation can influence perception. Are they a jerk or an artist <G> ?
Bob
